NHS-YES: A Brief Look at Discourse Markers in ASL (2004)

This paper was first published on my old blog back in 2004. I am bringing it here in order to have everything in one place. This series of squibs were written between 2002 and 2004. They can be read for CEUs at CEUs on the Go!

A Brief Discussion of Discourse Analysis and Discourse Markers

Discourse analysis is a holistic way of looking at language.  As a science, discourse analysis pulls from many different fields including, linguistics (how discourse is structured), sociology (how discourse is used between parties), and psychology (how discourse is perceived)[i].  Both Metzger and Bahan (2000), and Lakoff (2001) describe discourse analysis as being “interdisciplinary”.  While some areas of discourse analysis reside within traditional linguistic fields, discourse analysis as a whole, “refers to the study of language beyond the level of the grammatical sentence.[ii]”  Rather than examine language in a vacuum discourse analysis looks at language “as it naturally flows in a situation.”[iii]

Discourse markers are words or short “lexicalized phrases[iv]” that organize texts.  This organization is achieved by showing “how the speaker intends the basic message that follows to relate to the prior discourse.[v]”   Discourse markers help to create cohesion[vi] and coherence[vii] in a given text by establishing a relationship between the various ideas that are expressed within the text.  Some of the relationships noted by Schiffrin (2001) are: causal (Therefore), conditional (If X, then Y) temporal (then he...), adversative (However) and additive (55).  Discourse markers also occur when “speakers shift their orientation to information.[viii]”  In this case the marker alerts the listener that something within the speaker has changed.  Schiffrin (1999) uses “oh” as an example of this type of discourse marker.

            Discourse markers are found in various grammatical categories including, conjunctions, interjections and adverbs[ix].  Schiffrin (2001) also shows that discourse markers can “connect utterances on either a single plane or across different planes” (57).  This means that a single marker can connect various units of dynamic meaning (coherence) as well as the surface structure of the text (cohesion).  In the above list of discourse markers “then” is used in two different examples.  This shows that a single form can be used to demonstrate various kinds of relationships between clauses[x].

Impetus for This Paper

            Roy (1989) provides a list of features that are present in a “good lecture[xi]” according to subjects questioned for her study.  Among these are, that the content of the lecture is interesting, of high quality, and is well organized.  Roy also notes that “good” lecturers allow the audience to follow the course of the lecture and maintain a high level of interest in the lecture.  The last three features, organization, topic flow, and interest level are intertwined.  It stands to reason that an audience will be more engaged if they are able to understand the lecture.  Understanding is enhanced by organization and cohesion within the text.  Roy discusses two discourse markers (NOW, NOW-THAT) in an ASL lecture that demonstrate how these features are incorporated into a presentation.  Roy notes that these discourse markers, “are not part of the content of the lecture, per se, but do guide the listeners in how to interpret the information that they are hearing.  These words or phrases are cohesive, structural devices that contribute to the listener’s ability to distinguish between major and minor points, old versus new information, and turns or shifts in the flow of topics.[xii]”  In this paper I will discuss another possible discourse marker used to show mark transitions in an ASL lecture. 

            ASL uses both manual signs (those produced by the hands) and non-manual/ non-handed signs (not produced by the hands) to produce meaning.  There appears to be less research on the non-manual aspects of ASL; particularly those that do not perform a grammatical function (i.e. raised eyebrows accompanying a “wh” question).  Though I have not found published research on the topic, I have had anecdotal reports of non-handed signs and other non-manual behavior functioning as discourse markers in ASL.  In this paper I will examine the non-handed sign (NHS) that may be coded as either, “NHS-YES” or “nod”, and its role as a possible discourse marker in ASL.  In a class discussion on discourse markers, Divley (2002) acknowledged the code “(head nod)” found in Metzger and Bahan (2000) as a discourse marker in a transcribed ASL narrative.

The Data

            The data for this project is pulled from the first minute of an ASL lecture given by a Deaf woman.  The minute of text was transcribed and then, following Roy’s lead, divided into “episodes” using Cook’s (1975) framework.  The text used includes four episodes, the “obligatory focal episode,” two “optional focal episodes,” and the beginning of the (first) “obligatory developmental episode.[xiii]”  The transcription developed for this paper has two additions to the usual transcription conventions.  The first is the notation   lean(h/b), which indicates that the signer leaned their head (h), body (b) or both (h/b) backwards at the time they expressed the over-lined signs.  The (h) portion of this notation has either a     (chin down) or a ^ (chin up) above it to differentiate what may be two different non-manual behaviors.  The other notation is   nod, which indicates that the signer nodded their head in a manner that is commonly thought of as a signal of affirmation in North America.  There are two different forms of this notation,   nod l which indicates that the signer moved their head in this manner once and then returned to a neutral position, and   nod ll, which indicates that the signer moved their head in this manner more than once, though the exact number of times is not specified.  While all of these non-manual behaviors help to guide the audience through the lecture and often appear to mark slight topic shifts I will focus on the instances of   nod l.

Analysis

            Before discussing NHS-YES as a possible discourse marker I would like to discuss its general function in ASL.  NHS-YES can generally be used in three ways in ASL.  First, it can be used as a substitute for the manual sign YES, meaning either affirmation or agreement.  In this form the nodding action is usually reduplicated.  If the motion is not reduplicated the meaning seems to shift to “Yes that’s the one.”  NHS-YES can also be used as a back channeling device to indicate that the audience is following the signer’s message.  It appears that this meaning can be produced with or without reduplication.

            There are five instances of   nod l in the data.  Three of these come as the final sign in an episode.  One of these accompanies the discourse marker “FINE*[xiv]”.  Of the two instances of   nod l that do not come in an episode final place one appears to be linguistically linked to the manual simultaneously produced sign “THATc” meaning “that one” appears to be a non-manual component of that sign, not be a discourse marker.  The other non-episode final instance of   nod l is in the sentence, “THAT POSS.1 GOAL NHS-YES” is followed by what appears to be a repetition by the signer.  That is, in the next segment, she proceeds to deliver the same information that she had given in the preceding two sentences.  This leads to the conclusion that “THAT POSS.1 GOAL NHS-YES” could have served as the end of the episode had the signer not reiterated the information.

            Another aspect of   nod l that points to it being a discourse marker is that it often stands alone at the end of an episode.  This assessment is enhanced by the fact that the one time   nod l is produced in conjunction with a manual sign, “FINE*”, the sign itself is a discourse marker.  The consistency of this placement serves to build cohesion and signals the audience that a shift in focus or topic (the initiation of a new episode) is about to begin.  That the signer uses the same marker to end each episode is not an accident, though it may not be a conscious decision either.  Metzger and Bahan (2000) cite Tannen (1989), and Winston (1991, 1993, 1994,1998), when explaining how rhythm and repetition help build cohesion in discourse. 

Conclusion

            Understanding discourse markers allows us as interpreters to better understand the languages we work with.  Many signers may watch a text and understand it.  These signers may be able to report that the text was enjoyable, or well organized, but how many will be able to discern why they have these impressions?  Being able to identify cohesive aspects of a text is a powerful diagnostic tool for interpreters.  It allows us to examine our work in a manner that goes beyond judging it as effective or not effective.  With these tools we can see exactly why an interpretation was successful, because it included discrete and identifiable units of ASL discourse including proper use lexical, grammatical, and cohesive features.  These tools also allow us to see exactly why an interpretation was not successful, while at the same time identifying areas for growth in our command of our languages.  If an interpreter can identify which discourse level broke down they can devise precise strategies to deal with their weaknesses and avoid unnecessary self-doubt.

While I believe that NHS-YES can be used as an utterance final discourse marker I must admit that I am an amateur linguist.  More precisely I am an interpreting student with some linguistic training.  More research is needed in the area of ASL discourse markers in general, non-manual discourse markers in particular, and, NHS-YES specifically.

---

[i] Metzger and Bahan, 2000, pg. 1

[ii] Attributed to Stubbs 1983, as found in Metzger and Bahan, 2000, pg. 2

[iii] Agar 1994, Language Shock, pg. 160

[iv] Schiffrin, 2001, The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, pg. 57 

[v] Fraser, 1990 pg. 387, as noted in Schiffrin 2001, pg. 59

[vi] Concept attributed to Halliday and Hasan, 1976 by Schiffrin, 2001, pg.55

[vii] Schiffrin, 2001, pg. 58

[viii] Schiffrin, 1999, The Discourse Reader, pg. 276

[ix] Schiffrin, 2001, pg. 57

[x] Schiffrin, 2001, pg. 55

[xi] Roy, 1989, The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community, pg. 232

[xii] Roy, pg. 232

[xiii] Terms attributed to Cook (1975) in Roy (1989)

[xiv] FINE is discussed as a discourse marker in Metzger and Bahan (2000)

Transcription Data

Transcribed ASL source text

Episode One                                                            nod11 -TRUE PRO.1+ HERE 2h-INTERESTING EXPERIENCE+ cl-S-1-(satellite beam)++ PROCESS                                         nod1 -2h-HOPE PROCESS FINE* Episode Two -NOW [wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-IX-(run down list)                                                                                                   nod11                af -[wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-hs-B-(indicate break between each item on the list)] NHS-YES -PRO.1 GOAL [wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-IX-(first on list)] FOCUS THEORY TOPIC LINGUISTIC (wh perseveration-S) THEORY CULTURE (wh perseveration-1) THEORY                                                                                                                                            -PROCESS ANALYZE++ IDENTITY++ [sh-UNDERSTAND wh-hs-1-(place holder)]                 nod11                                                                                                               2h-POSS.3++ KNOW-THAT [wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-hs-B-(indicate break)] [wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-                                                                                        topic hs-B-(second on list)] [wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-IX-(second on list)]                         nod1                                                                           af -THATc NHS-YES FOCUS DEAF HEARING PEOPLE COMPARE -THAT rt-CONNECT-lft [wh-IX-(theory)/ sh-THEORY] lft-APPLY-rt PRO.2-lft-rt [wh-                                                                                                                              nod11 hs-1-(place holder)/ sh-IX-(that idea-refers to wh-hs-1)] [wh-hs-1-(that idea)/ sh-OIC] PROCESS                                                                                                                     nod11  af nod1 - [wh-cl-3-(list)/ sh-IX-(third on list)] 2h-PRO.2-QUESTION-PRO.1++++ [NHS-YES] Episode Three                                                                                                                                                 -WELL NATURAL 3-HOURS DEAF PEOPLE EXPERIENCE CULTURE ANALYZE                                                             rh                         neg ALL-TOGETHER INCLUDE 3-HOUR IMPOSSIBLE++                                                                                                    rh -BUT POSS.1+ (wh perseveration/ antcipation-1) GOAL WHAT                                                                                                                                     nod11 -PRO.1 LICK-TOUCH PRO.2-lft-arc-rt DROOL(want) MORE+ LEARN++ PROCESS                           nod11          nod1 -THAT POSS.1 GOAL NHS-YES                                                              nod11                            nod11 -HOPE AFTER IX-dn(this) CONFERENCE PRO.2-rt-arc-lft WILL ENJOY WANT                                           nod11                                                      nod1 af nod1 MOTIVATE LEARN+ MORE+ ABOUT DEAF PEOPLE POSS.3 CULTURE Episode Four               nod -#OK NOW (wh perseveration-Y-po:up) sh-hs-B-PRO.1 OPEN

Bibliography

Resources

--Agar, M.1994. Language Shock, William Morrow, NY

--Dively, V. L. 2001. Signs Without Hands: Nonhanded Signs in American Sign Language in Dively, Metzger, Taub, and Baer (eds.) Signed Languages: Discoveries from International Research.  Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press

--Metzger, M. and Bahan, B. 2000. Discourse Analysis in Sign Languages.  In C. Lucas (ed) The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages, Cambridge University Press.

--Roy, C. B. 1989. Features of Discourse in an American Sign Language Lecture. In C. Lucas (ed.) The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community, Academic Press Inc., San Diego, New York etc.

--Schiffrin, D. 1999. Oh As a Marker of Information Management. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (eds.) The Discourse Reader, Routledge, NY, NY.

--Schiffrin, D. 2001. Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning, and Context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H.E. Hamilton (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA.