Narrative Analysis

The research on narratives has helped to frame this human practice and make sense of content that is often unwieldy (Gee, 1985; 1996). The analysis of narratives for this study must take into account several factors which will be described below.

2.3.1. Calculating Accessibility

In order to create a common frame of reference for comparisons of referring expressions researchers have proposed scales for generating numerical values for accessibility (i.e. Fox, 1987; Toole, 1996). Toole’s (1996) model among the research on referring expressions is the most widely used. In this system, it is possible to earn a maximum value of 6 (most accessible referent) and a minimum value of -2 (least accessible

referent). REs with limited informational value would be preferred for referents with high accessibility values. Additionally, REs with a more substantial informational load would

be preferred for referents with lower values (i.e. those that are relatively inaccessible). For each RE, Toole (ibid.) proposes three factors in assigning an accessibility value: (1) number of propositions back to previous mention, (2) topicality, and (3) competition. Working definitions and numerical values are explained below. The term proposition is defined as “a semantic unit composed of a predicate plus its arguments” (Toole, 1996, p.461). Propositions are similar to what Chafe (1980) describes as idea units. As Toole (1996) makes clear, “it is not claimed that the weightings assigned to the various contributing factors have cognitive reality” (p. 217), these values are merely useful approximations of perceived accessibility status.

Competition is an important consideration in narrative structure as speakers tend to choose expressions that are the least ambiguous. As a result, the process of referring is made more challenging if there are multiple referents competing for attention in the discourse (Arnold & Griffin, 2007; Arnold, Tanenhaus, Altmann, & Fagnano, 2004)

Additionally, research has shown that that as more entities are added to the

discourse, speakers must actively deploy various referring strategies that send appropriate signals about intended referents (Arnold & Griffin, 2007; Slobin, 1996). An important consideration in eliciting complex narratives is related to stimuli that create conditions where multiple and sometimes ambiguous characters need to be distinguished from one another by virtue of strategically deployed referring expressions. As such several stimuli have been developed (Renfrew, 1991; Slobin, 2004) however, the Balloon Story first developed Karmiloff-Smith (1985) has been a consistent option for researchers collecting narratives. The present study will use a stimulus adapted from Karmiloff-Smith’s (1985)

original Balloon Story in order to elicit key features in ASL narratives (Hoffmeister, Bahan, Greenwald & Cole, 1999). Designed as part of a comprehensive ASL test battery, the Adapted Balloon Story has been used to elicit narratives from Deaf children since 1990.

2.3.2. Transcription Systems

There has been a general lack of consistency among transcription systems for signed languages (Morgan, 2005). One widely-used approach to sign glossing conventions was established by Baker-Shenk and Cokely (1980). This system was

adapted for simple narrative coding by Hoffmeister, et al. (1999) as part of the expressive battery of the ASL Assessment Inventory. This system was informed by work from Bahan & Supalla (1995) and will be the transcription method used in the present study.

2.3.3. Episode Boundaries

The strategies that we use for narrative practices are often unconscious, some researchers have characterized them as part of what they refer to as discourse identities (i.e. natural ways of interacting that are inaccessible to explicit consideration) (Gee & Grosjean,1984; Gee,1985; 1992). Discourse identities, and the social practices to which we are

enculturated, can support an organization for narratives that is characterized by flexible and general principles (Heath, 1982; Scollon & Scollon, 1981; Gee,1985). Across cultures, our narrative structures can be organized into “episodes” or “parts” that are grouped together by reference and elaboration about a single event (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1983; Gee, 1985). Gee describes how with thoughtful approaches narratives can be

distilled into episodes which can also be parsed into stanzas (i.e. organized clusters of lines or propositions providing individual details about an episode), and, finally, the smallest unit, lines or propositions. This work, despite using novel labels, is in line with much of the well-established research on the structure of oral narratives (Labov,1972; Hymes,1981; Mandler, 1981; Schieffelin, & Ochs, 1986). In the present study, we adapt these considerations to episode boundaries in ASL. A similar approach was applied by Bahan & Supalla (1992) in their development of materials used to analyze original ASL narratives.

2.3.4. Pragmatic Competencies

Finally, considerations of referring expressions in ASL is intimately linked to pragmatic competencies. It is well-established that narratives can be used as a tool to assess pragmatic competencies in both spoken and signed languages (Botting, 2002; Bamberg & Damrad-Frye, 1991; De Villiers, 2004; Thagard, Hilsmier, & Easterbrooks, 2011; Rathmann, Mann, & Morgan, 2007). However, there has been limited study on how to effectively evaluate narrative productions in ASL apart from cursory attempts to code spontaneously generated checklists that have questionable reliability.

Research has also shown that narrative analysis can reveal the sophisticated level of coordination work that effective communication requires. The fundamental premise underlying this notion is that interlocutors engage in joint- action working together (in implicit and explicit ways) to construct meaning in discourse (Grice, 1975; Clark, 1996; Clark & Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986). Because we know that the coordination that sharing narratives requires becomes more and more complex as the discourse is extended,

(especially if we have to manage expanded discourse statuses as well as increasing

numbers of competing entities) more complex narratives can better inform a sophisticated analysis (Ariel, 1988, 1990; Arnold, 2010; Almor & Nair, 2007).

It is the goal of the present study to leverage the extensive research that has been done and documented here to expand our current knowledge base as it relates to referring expressions in ASL and to use that information to support more effective approaches to teaching, evaluation, material development, and future research.

CHAPTER THREE