Journal of Interpretation Volume 19 | Issue 1 Article 4 2012 Fingerspelling in a Word Mary Thumann M.A., CSC Gallaudet University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi Suggested Citation Thumann, Mary M.A., CSC (2012) "Fingerspelling in a Word," Journal of Interpretation: Vol. 19 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unf.edu/joi/vol19/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UNF Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Interpretation by an authorized editor of the JOI, on behalf of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID). For more information, please contact [email protected]. © All Rights Reserved Thumann 104 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation Fingerspelling in a Word Mary Thumann, M.A., CSC; Gallaudet University Abstract Fingerspelling has long been a concern for second language learners of ASL, particularly those who are interpreters. In an effort to gain a better understanding of what occurs in fingerspelling, I conducted an analysis of one word that was fingerspelled twenty-three times in a conversation between two Deaf women. In this fingerspelled word, there is a reduction in the number of frames of the fingerspelled word in the video from the first instance of the word to later instances. It appears that the reduction in the number of frames is due to compression, or overlap, of signs that make up the word. In this paper, I discuss issues related to the fingerspelling of the word M-O-B-I-L-E. In American Sign Language (ASL) conversations, many fingerspelled words do not have clearly identifiable letters. Akamatsu (1985) reports that although the fingerspelling may seem unintelligible when looking at individual letters, a fingerspelled word is intelligible when viewed as a whole word. According to Zakia and Haber (1971), skilled signers do not attend to individual letters in a fingerspelled word, but to the pattern of the “finger configuration”. Patrie and Johnson (in press) also report that participants of a conversation perceive fingerspelled words as complete words even if signs are missing1. The variation in these fingerspelled words appears to depend on where in the text, or discourse, the fingerspelled word occurs. According to Patrie and Johnson, the first instance of a fingerspelled word is typically carefully spelled (careful fingerspelling) and in later instances are rapidly spelled (rapid fingerspelling), resulting in different forms. They explain that careful fingerspelling is “characterized by a sequence of signs, each representing one of the letters in the written version of a word … the fingerspelled signs are produced fully and completely...” (Patrie and Johnson, in press, p.16). Rapid 1Patrie and Johnson note that there is form and meaning in each token of fingerspelling; “each fingerspelled token is composed of a combination of handshape, location, orientation, and movement, which are also the basic components of signs in ASL” (p. 10). Patrie and Johnson identify each finger- spelled “letter” as a sign, and I have adopted this practice as well. Published by Journal of Interpretation 1 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 105 fingerspelling differs from careful fingerspelling in that the signs are not complete and the words are not composed of a sequence of individual signs. The signs that do exist often contain remnants of other signs in the word (Patrie & Johnson, in press). In addition to changes from the first instance to the last instance of a fingerspelled word, some fingerspelled words go through changes over time and become lexicalized. These changes may include deletion of letters, changes in handshape or orientation, changes in movement, and changes in location. Lexicalized signs are fingerspelled words that have been restructured and assume the same formational patterns as many ASL signs (Battison 2003). Lexicalization is a gradual process that occurs over time, with some fingerspelled words becoming more lexicalized than others, and with certain rules that they follow (Valli, Lucas & Mulrooney 2005). The rules for lexicalized signs include that these signs generally have no more than two handshapes and, like any ASL sign, they are made with the same movement, location, and handshapes each time. This does not appear to be the same process that occurs with the changes from the first instance to later instances of fingerspelled words in discourse. In an attempt to better understand the differences that occur from careful fingerspelling to rapid fingerspelling, I examined a fingerspelled word, M-O-B-I-L-E, from an ASL conversation with two native ASL users. Although in this data M-O-B-I-L-E is not lexicalized2, there was a significant difference between the first instance of the fingerspelled word and later instances. In this paper, I discuss the differences between rapid fingerspelling and careful fingerspelling of M-O- B-I-L-E in a forty-two minute conversation between two Deaf women (discussed in more detail in the Data section). M-O- B-I-L-E was fingerspelled twenty-three times by two signers; the first instance of the word by each signer was carefully fingerspelled and later instances were rapidly fingerspelled. Before reviewing the data and analysis, it is useful to mention several issues identified in spoken language phonology such as repetition, compression, and discreteness, and to talk about parts of Liddell and Johnson’s (2005) transcription system 2Evidence that M-O-B-I-L-E is not lexicalized is discussed in a later section of this paper. Published by Journal of Interpretation 2 Thumann 106 2008 - 2009 Journal of Interpretation for sign language phonology. Each of these issues is discussed below. Repetition and Compression Bybee (2001) states that, especially in the case of repetition in a text, changes in form occur as a natural result of the production of speech. This supports research by Fowler and Housum (1987) which states that the length of the first occurrence of a word is longer than in later occurrences. The more often motor skills are used for any type of physical activity, including speech and fingerspelling, the more likely it is that the movements are “compressed and efficient…” (Bybee 2001, p.58). Fowler and Housum (1987) found that the second instance of a word in a text was shorter than the first word, and they also found that “old” words in a text can be reduced, or compressed, without reducing their identifiability in context. Compression is a means of increasing the efficiency of a language; as words are used more often in a context, the form changes due to naturally occurring phonetic processes. Bybee likens motor patterns of phonology to playing a piano and states “with practice, the transitions between the notes become more fluent, and the speed of execution automatically increases” (Bybee 2001, p.15). This appears to be a significant factor affecting the structure of rapidly fingerspelled words; the more frequently the word is fingerspelled, the more automated the word becomes resulting in compression or reduction in form. Other factors that affect the structure of rapidly fingerspelled words are related to discreteness and categorization of signs. These issues are discussed in the next section. Discreteness and Categorization Port and Leary (2005) discuss problems with formal phonology including the difficulty of identifying discrete sounds in spoken words. They state “…discrete phonetic and phonological symbols must be replaced with categories and parameters that are rich in detail” (Port & Leary, 2005, p.952). The same is true for fingerspelling. A close look at fingerspelled words that have been repeated several times in one setting provides evidence that compression has occurred, making it more difficult to identify discrete signs. Rather than being discrete, the signs in rapidly fingerspelled words show evidence of overlap. In addition, there is variation in the type of overlap Published by Journal of Interpretation 3 Thumann Fingerspelling in a Word 107 that occurs in rapidly fingerspelled words such as M-O-B-I- L-E. Variation in the production of signs in words, as well as in the words themselves, is natural in language use and does not cause problems for interlocutors; as Port and Leary (2005, p.936) state “…every utterance is likely to be different from every other utterance.” This lack of discreteness in words (and signs) appears to be related to the ability of language users to categorize; categorization in language use is discussed below. There are several theories about how information is stored for language use, one of which deals with units of storage as categorized tokens of use. Bybee (2001) explains that many issues studied in phonology can be approached in terms of categorization. She discusses studies that “…show that the way human beings categorize both nonlinguistic and linguistic entities is not by discrete assignments to categories based on the presence or absence of features, but rather by comparison of features shared with a central member…” (Bybee 2001, p.3). The ability to categorize allows language users to produce and comprehend words that change in form with frequency of use, resulting in increased fluency. These concepts in spoken language phonology provide insight and understanding into fingerspelling phonology. A discussion about compression and discreteness, in particular, aids in understanding what happens with the fingerspelling phonology of rapid fingerspelling of a word. I will review these issues in fingerspelling after presenting information about the data and analysis of M-O-B-I-L-E. Data The data for this study was collected from a videotaped interview with one camera focused on the interviewer and a second camera focused on the interviewee. The conversation, which lasted approximately forty-two minutes, began as an interview but became an informal conversation between a woman in her 70s and a woman in her 40s.