The research questions for this investigation (section 1.6) require the use of multiple perspectives, and this thesis is located at the intersection of two academic sub-fields of linguistics – typology and sociolinguistics. This theoretical orientation is motivated by the need to adopt a holistic view of language: as one of the most complex phenomena known to humankind, language cannot be best described solely within the confines of any one field (Shuy, 1981; Searle, 2007). While it is true that all approaches have shortcomings, and that there is little benefit in using an overwhelming number of different approaches, it is a central contention of this thesis that reference to notions from several disciplines can offer useful insights into the sign language varieties of urban sub-communities across Indonesia.
Just as linguistic perspectives alone cannot shed light upon the social meaning of language, nor can sociolinguistics function without reference to linguistics, and sociolinguists must rely upon a rigorous knowledge of linguistic theory in order to uncover the ways in which a language is being used (Tagliamonte, 2012). The overlap that exists between linguistics and sociolinguistics is exploited in this investigation to understand how signers use language. Since the varieties of Solo and Makassar have hitherto been undocumented, chapters 5 and 6 begin with analysis of constructions in two grammatical domains according to a corpus-assisted, typological approach. Once the range of lexical and grammatical expressions has been analysed, and linguistic variables identified, I turn to consider sociolinguistic factors that motivate the realisation of variables.
57
The research design for this investigation can be characterised in three ways: it is empirical, inductive, and exemplifies the use of mixed methods (that is, both qualitative and quantitative methods). For reasons induced by the research questions (1.6), an empirical approach is taken, since this allows linguists
to make statements which are objective and based on language as it really is rather than statements which are subjective and based upon the individual’s own internalised cognitive perception of the language (McEnery & Wilson, 2001:103).
That some subjectivity remains is not in doubt – see 3.1.2 on interpretative frameworks – but analytical practices that are rooted in real language data offer a degree of objectivity not afforded to analyses that rest upon introspection alone. Specifically, McEnery and Wilson (2001:103) note that empirical data allow for the study of varieties of language such as dialects, ‘for which it may not be possible to use a rationalist approach’. Such empirical approaches are clearly well-suited for an analysis that is focused on documenting and explaining sociolinguistic variation.
This analysis is primarily inductive, using a data-driven approach that starts from observations of patterns in the data and moves on to the formulation of hypotheses, ultimately arriving at broader generalisations and theories (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991). For example, the analyses presented in chapters 5 and 6 begin with observations made during the process of transcribing the data, on how completion and negation are expressed grammatically in the corpus data. This leads to the identification of variables, and the testing of different hypotheses concerning the linguistic and social factors that affect the realisation of these variables. By the end of this process it is possible to draw conclusions not only about the target domains, but also about sign language variation in Indonesia more generally – yet this process began with the data, and was underpinned throughout by qualitative and quantitative analysis.
Mixed methods are employed in many areas of social research (Sandelowski, 2000a; Bryman, 2006; Angouri, 2010), and the analysis of sociolinguistic variation in the literature often draws upon qualitative and quantitative methods, although the particular mix may depend upon which research practices are used. For example, using Eckert’s classification to categorise the analytical practices that have been used by sociolinguists (see 2.4), the first wave is primarily concerned with quantitative methods, exemplified by Labov (1963) and Trudgill (1974). On the other hand, qualitative methods also have considerable value (Sandelowski, 2000b), and second and third wave practices employ qualitative methods such as ethnographic description and text-based analysis (e.g. Eckert, 2000; Finnis, 2013). From a sociolinguistic perspective, therefore, this investigation is not unusual in incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods.
Quantitative methods that are used to answer RQ1 and RQ2 include the distribution of the variable – highlighting the frequency of the variants by which a variable is expressed – and the cross- tabulation of dependent variables with possible independent variables. Through the use of these techniques, patterns in the data become apparent (Tagliamonte, 2012:121). Multivariate analysis
58
enables the detection of imperceptible patterns, and establishes the influence that different factor groups have on the realisation of the variable by applying a standard cross-disciplinary measure of statistical significance (see 3.6 for further details of the multivariate techniques that have been used).
Qualitative methods are used both to document the target domains and in a complementary fashion at several stages of quantitative analysis for RQ1 and RQ2. This includes the identification, interpretation, and coding of variable contexts; and the substantiation of the arguments that accompany the discussion of quantitative findings – in 5.4 and 5.5.3, for example. In addition, RQ3 can be answered only by making qualitative links between the sociohistorical evidence presented in chapter 4, and the findings presented in chapters 5 and 6.
The use of language reflects both the social situation and the period of time in which it is used (Tagliamonte, 2012:6), and this particular epistemological view of language in social context is one of the essential precepts for this investigation. In particular, these differences can be observed at different levels of social organisation. As a starting point, the phonological, lexical and morphosyntactic realisation of certain variables of one and the same individual may shift, for example, according to social situation (Tagliamonte, 2012:34). Then there are differences between individuals. Zgusta (1971:164) notes that
if we observe language very minutely, we shall see that no two persons, even if they are speakers of the same language, speak it in an absolutely identical way.
Many studies show that variants may differ according to social groups, as discussed in section 2.3.1. Finally, typologists identify variation between languages, where different notions are expressed variably at the lexical or grammatical level (2.3.2).
Accordingly, sociolinguists may investigate variation at different levels of social organisation – from idiolectal differences to cross-linguistic ones. In a paper on ‘dialectal flexibility’ in African sign languages, Serpell and Mbewe offer the following thoughts on the division between idiolect and dialect:
The notion of an ‘idiolect’ recognizes that the linguistic usage of each individual speaker (or signer) has unique characteristics that are tolerated by his or her audience and indeed used by them as a basis for discriminating his or her utterances from those of others. A ‘dialect’, on the other hand, specifies a distinctive subset of usage features shared by speakers who also share some other social characteristics such as geographical residence (a local dialect), ethnicity (a tribal dialect), class membership, etc. (Serpell & Mbewe, 1990:276).
The neo-Kantian philosopher Wilhelm Windelband marked a distinction between two different kinds of methodological tendencies: nomothetic approaches seek to generalise and identify patterns, and idiographic approaches seek to specify and consider the world in terms of individual perspectives (Thomae, 1999). The social sciences, including linguistics, have been influenced by both, and theories and analytical frameworks used by the many branches of linguistics exist on a
59
continuum between the two. To adopt a metaphor used by Szmrecsanyi (2014:89), it is possible to look at forests, or at individual trees, or both.
The tension between idiographic and nomothetic perspectives can be seen by comparing the methods used in chapter 5 to analyse variation in the grammatical domain of completion. Idiolectal differences are recognised in the way that signers may express completion in different ways during the same stretch of data, while macro-social categories such as ‘region’ and ‘gender’ are used to draw conclusions that inform a contrastive analysis of two entire urban sign language varieties. Far from being problematic, this creative tension allows for variation at the level of the individual to be acknowledged, while reaching conclusions at the level of the urban sign language variety that have a general application.