The influence of the metalinguistic function on register variation in LSFB
Depending on the contexts of enunciation, a speaker uses different varieties of
language. This sociolinguistic phenomenon called "register variation" is the subject of
few studies in signed languages (Zimmer, 1995; Quinto-Pozos et al., 2010). A
challenge in studying registers is that a lot of factors influence the choice of a
language variety used in a particular situation. The more natural the context of
recording, the more difficult it is for the researcher to isolate these factors of variation
and study their respective influence. This poster presents a test constructed to study
a factor of variation, the metalinguistic function, and the way it affects phonological
variation in different registers.
As in Zimmer's research, this study of registers is mainly based on the system
of Halliday (1978), who defines the characteristics of a speech situation according to
three axes: the field, the mode and the tenor of discourse. One of the main factors of
variation of the field, defined by Zimmer as "the degree of emphasis placed on the
language itself", is the subject of the present research. This factor draws a continuum
along which the language is subordinate or, on the contrary, dominates the
interaction. Going one step further, we formulate the hypothesis that attention to
language is at its peak when a speaker uses the metalinguistic function as defined by
Jakobson (1960), which might result in more careful speech productions. Following
this statement, we aim to test the influence of the metalinguistic function on the
phonological plan and in contexts with different degrees of formality.
To meet this goal, the production of two signers in four different situations will
be analyzed. The data include productions of the signers while using the
metalinguistic function (situation A) or not (situation B) in two formal contexts. These
data will be compared with two less formal situations, taking the form of a dialogue
between speakers: the use of the metalinguistic function will appear in A’ but will not
be present in B’. The aim of comparing these four situations is to control as many
factors of variation as possible and thus reduce the difficulty mentioned above. At the
conference, the following questions will be answered: does the use of the
metalinguistic function influence the phonological level of speech? If so, does the
resulting variation occur in a patterned fashion? The suitability of the designed study
will also be discussed.
-Halliday, Michael. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning. London : Edward Arnold.
-Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing Statements : Linguistics and Poetics. In T.A.
Sebeok. Style in Langage. Cambridge : MIT Press, 350-377.
-Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
-Quinto-Pozos, David & Sarika Mehta. 2010. Register Variation in Mimetic Gestural
Complements to Signed Language. Journal of pragmatics 42, 557-584.
-Zimmer, June. 1995. Toward a Description of Register Variation in American Sign
Language. In C. Lucas. The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community. Washington,
D.C. : Gallaudet University Press, 253-272.