In linguistics, variation is the term used to refer to the appearance of lexical units in different forms and is a phenomenon that exists in all languages, both oral and signed.
There are four different types of variation:
diatopic variation, which is variation according to place or geographical variation, for example, the Taipei school vs. the Tainan school.
diachronic variation, or variation through time, also called historic variation. In other words, how a language changes in time.
diastratic variation, or variation according to social class or to the social group to which a speaker feels they belong. In diglossic situations 11, diastratic variation often appears in the transition from the formal or higher level, to the socially more informal levels, like in the case of creoles.
finally, diaphasic or ‘stylistic’ variation, or even individual variation (idiolect).
This is more difficult to characterize clearly especially for those creoles that lack sharp description. Once again though, it would be necessary to carry out surveys in these cases to confirm that geographical or sociological factors are
11 In linguistics the term diglossia refers to a situation in which two dialects or usually closely related languages are used by a single language community. In addition to the community's everyday or vernacular language variety (labeled "L" or "low" variety), a second, highly codified variety (labeled
"H" or "high") is used in certain situations such as literature, formal education, or other specific settings, but not used for ordinary conversation. In other words, DIGLOSSIA is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any section of the community for ordinary conversation (Ferguson 1959).
23
not contributing to one or other of these choices; this is known as variation analysis.
Obviously, this internal variation in a language or dialect, sometimes called intralinguistic variation, should not be confused with interlinguistic variation. In the present paragraph, we are going to closely examine the diatopic and diachronic variation within TSL.
TSL can be divided into two main varieties, one centered on the Tainan school, which we could call the southern variety, and one centered on the Taipei school, which we are going to call the northern variety. As previously mentioned, the first school for the Deaf in Taiwan was established in 1915, in Tainan, and the second school in Taipei, two years later, in 1917 (Smith 2005).
In the years of the Japanese rule, namely 1895-1945, there was not much communication going on between the two schools, which increased the crystallization of the two varieties. Later, after World War II, they both came under the jurisdiction of the provincial government of Taiwan. In this period, the two varieties started to enter in contact with each other.
There is actually also a third variety which can be distinguished within TSL, which is the one centered on the Taichung school, however the sign language used by this school was essentially the same as the one used in the Tainan school (Fischer 2010).
As for the diachronic variation, it is the variation through time, also called historic variation. In other words, how TSL has changed over time. To try to answer the question of how TSL individual use has been changing over time, we have carried out a behavorial study-experiment. We have recruited six deaf people and divided them into two different groups according to their age range. The elderly
group is made up of people whose ages range from 70 to 80 years. The younger group of people had an age which is up to 35 years of age, to ensure two completely different generations of signers. In recruiting these signers, we have been very careful in eliminating any independent variable which might influence the results, so we tried to control the variables related to diatopic, diastratic and diaphasic variation, by choosing people coming from the same socio-geographical background and with the same level of education. We asked our participants, who were all duly paid for their availability, to start signing to each other, as if we were not there. After about thirty minutes, which is a reasonable amount of time to eliminate all differences due to the signers’ idiolects, we proceeded with our interviews aimed at inquiring on the perceived differences in sign language use that signers have perceived in their counterpart. According to the results, most differences were at the semantic level and at the words choice. Although the gist of communication was not ruined, jeopardized or compromised, it was interesting to see how the elderly had more problems understanding some of the signs used by the younger generation, probably because of a lack of exposure. The elderly generation has been living in a linguistic shell compared to the younger generation, which directly or indirectly has entered in contact with a plethora of variety of signs. It was interesting to see that, in line with oral language, inter-generational changes regard not so much syntax, which takes longer periods of time to change, but lexemes, which are influenced by TV, the new media and by a form of hybridization. The most interesting aspect which emerged was the fact that the younger generation is used to chatting with foreign Deaf people by using Skype, via a webcam. Foreign Deaf people can’t obviously use TSL and Taiwanese Deaf people can’t necessarily use the sign language used in the country of their friends. So, usually what they do is they recur to the so-called International Sign Language (ISL) to communicate. Some ISL signs have already permeated
25
Taiwanese young deaf people’s slang, whilst they are still perceived as foreign signs by the elderly.
After analyzing some of the differences due to the generation gap, we tried to investigate how sign language interpreters cope with lexical variety. Different people may sign the same lexeme differently according to different factors, namely their age, their education, the social and geographical extraction.
A sign language interpreter, just like oral interpreters, is a professional and trained figure who knows most of the varieties of the same sign. It is inevitable, though, that on the spot some signs may either be forgotten or never previously encountered.
For this reason, we interviewed three different interpreters to inquire on the different strategies used on the field to cope with lexical variety. In other words, how professional interpreters, like the ones we interviewed, deal with the lexical items with different signings when they are doing the interpretation.
The results of all three interviews with professional interpreters can be summed up as follows.
Q: When you are carrying out the sign interpreting task, it is inevitable to
encounter people who are used to signing with different signs compared to the ones used by the interpreter. This may be due to geographical reasons (northern variety vs. southern variety), generation gap (younger people vs. the elderly), etc. Generally speaking, how do you handle these lexical differences?
(It goes without saying that if the interpreter knows the variant used by the signer, then no problem will arise. What we are interested in is to find out what strategies interpreters actually use when they have never encountered that variant before.)
Interpreter A: Well, things are much easier if the interpreter actually knows
what a given sign means. If that is not the case, the interpreter should always accommodate the Deaf interlocutor, meaning s/he should always use the sign the Deaf interlocutor is more inclined to recognize or more accustomed to using, use the one he is used to signing. However, if the Deaf person uses a sign the interpreter has never seen before, the most ideal strategy would be to interact directly with your interlocutor and ask him or her to repeat or what that given sign means. After making sure there’s no lexical discrepancy, the interpreter should keep on using the sign the Deaf person is accustomed to using. If it is a context where it is basically impossible to interact with the Deaf signer, for example an international conference where the Deaf participant is signing on stage, then things might be a little more complicated.
It can be summed up by saying that if the Deaf interlocutor does not understand, the interpreter should use the sign/s the Deaf participant is accustomed to, if it is the interpreter who doesn’t understand, the best thing is to ask directly and if it is not possible to ask the meaning should be inferred by the context.
Usually, when Deaf people are onstage and sign to an audience of equally Deaf participants, they sign at a supersonic speed, so it is inevitable for the interpreter to miss out on something. Most of the times, the signer would take a look at the interpreter and see if s/he needs to slow down or not. If it is a lecture, it is mandatory for the interpreter to require the script of the lecture before the beginning of it, or if it is not available, the interpreter should at least communicate a bit with the Deaf signer to get used to his or her way of signing. Otherwise, it is a very risky situation, most sign interpreters would
27
never dare translate at a conference where they have to interpret a signer they have never seen or met before, because sign to oral interpreting is a very arduous task, and the diatopic differences of TSL are many, which means that it is very normal to encounter lexical varieties interpreters do not know how to sign. The important thing is to understand the gist, the core of the message. If that goes lost, the best thing is not to translate. Interpreters can always ask Deaf signers to sign more slowly, to repeat or honestly saying that they do not understand, which means that usually in sign interpreting there is more interaction amongst the participants then in oral interpreting. What Deaf people are mostly scared of is to find interpreters who translate according to their own mind because they do not have the courage to say that they have missed out on something. There is not a single interpreter who would have the courage to say that s/he perfectly understands each and every sign the Deaf participant signs on stage for all the factors listed so far. The main point is not to digress or to make up the whole speech, in a holistic-pragmatic approach.
Interpreters should practice their interpreting skills, but also their guts. In this respect, it does not differ from oral interpreting and especially interpreters shouldn’t think that no one is ever going to find out about their mistakes, because this kind of behavior is not permitted by the deontological code of interpreters.