A slightly revised version of this paper has been published in: Sign Language Studies 11(4):

Transcription

1 A slightly revised version of this paper has been published in: Sign Language Studies 11(4):

2 The LIS corpus project. A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon Carlo Geraci * Katia Battaglia + Anna Cardinaletti + Carlo Cecchetto * Caterina Donati Serena Giudice * Emiliano Mereghetti * ( * University of Milano-Bicocca + University of Venice Sapienza University of Rome) Corresponding author Carlo Geraci Via Nazionale, Carema (To), Italy carlo.geraci76@gmail.com 1. Introduction Following a well-established tradition going back to the two last decades of last century (cf. Volterra, 1987), we call Lingua dei Segni Italiana (Italian Sign Language, LIS) the language used by Italian Deafs (and by Swiss Deafs living in the area of Cantone Ticino). LIS is becoming more and more visible and its status as a minority language in the general Italian community is getting stronger, due to various reasons. On the one hand, the research has shown that LIS, as other sign languages, exhibits all the fundamental linguistic properties of natural languages, it can convey the same range of meanings, and has a natural history as spoken languages do. In particular, its phonology, morphology and syntax are as complex as those of spoken languages like Italian 1. These facts about LIS are becoming established outside the community of sign language users, partly due to the fact that a LIS program is offered by one University (Ca Foscari Venice), and courses of LIS are taught in different University across the country 1 The history of the research on LIS in modern times can be traced back to the late Seventies, when Virginia Volterra and a group of scholars at the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche and at the Mason Perkins Deaf Fund (including Elena Pizzuto and Elena Radutzky) started pioneering work on LIS, in collaboration with a group of Deaf informants and researchers like Emanuela Cameracanna, Serena Corazza, Anna Folchi, Paola Pinna, Paolo Rossini and Benedetto Santarelli. This is now known as the Rome Group. The importance of the Rome Group for the recognition of LIS as the language of the Deaf community cannot be underestimated. In the late Nineties, Sandro Zucchi started a second line of research on LIS more focused on formal aspects of the language with the precious collaboration of two Deaf students, Pino Amorini and Giammarco Eletto. This line of research was later developed by other researchers working in the generative framework, including the three principal investigators of PRIN 2007 project Dimensions of Variation in Italian Sign Language (Cardinaletti, Cecchetto and Donati). They did this with the essential contribution of Deaf informants, including Graziella Anselmo, Corrado D Aversa, Anna Folchi, Emiliano Mereghetti, Chiara di Monte, Mirko Pasquotto, Fabio Poletti and Mirko Santoro. 2

3 Another fact that is strengthening the status of LIS is that national television channels are now required to broadcast some news programs with LIS interpreting, making LIS visible to the large population. Still, LIS has not yet received a formal recognition by the Italian authorities, although various bills sit in the Italian parliament for the recognition of LIS as a minority language. This lack of formal recognition has serious consequences, for example in the educational system. A deaf child is now generally inserted in mainstream schools, and there is no guarantee that LIS be used in his/her education. Interpreting, not too mention bilingual/bimodal education, is still the exception rather than the rule. In general, LIS is still rarely used in institutional settings and is mostly used in private exchanges and informal gathering. Given this scenario, it is no surprise that existing research on LIS has observed an impressive degree of variation. Still, a comprehensive sociolinguistic research on LIS varieties used across the country has not been systematically carried out until recent years. This paper describes an extensive data collection from 10 cities with 165 signers, which at the time of writing was just concluded, and reports some data emerging from the LIS corpus resulting from this collection. Initial plans to build a systematic corpus for LIS were made in 2006 thanks to the input of Ceil Lucas, whose contribution was essential for the collection of the ASL corpus (cf. Lucas, Bayley and Valli 2001). She approached some of the Italian researchers working on LIS and discussed with them the guidelines of a research project that would reproduce with some important differences the methodology of data collection used for ASL. Adam Schembri, who worked on a corpus for AUSLAN and BSL, and Robert Bayley were consulted too in this preliminary phase. Three universities (Venice, Milan-Bicocca and Rome-La Sapienza) joined their efforts and applied for a grant to the Italian Ministry of University. The grant proposal (PRIN 2007 project Dimensions of variation in Italian Sign Language ) was approved with some delay in September 2008, so the actual data collection started in February, Data collection in most cities took place in 2009 with data from two cities (Catanzaro and Milan) being collected in This paper is organized as follows: in section 2, we describe the general methodological issues we had to face when planning the data collection and motivate the choice of the cities and of the participiants. In section 3, we describe the the specific elicitation methods we adopted. In section 4, we describe in great detail the part of data collection concerning lexical variations and in section 5 we describe the results of statistical analyses carried out on this part of the corpus. Section 6 concludes the paper. 2. Building the LIS corpus: choosing cities and participants When we initially planned to build a LIS corpus over which we (and other researchers) could run statistical analyses to explore the sociolinguistics of LIS, we faced two problems. The first one was how to recruit an ample and heterogynous group of signers that could be representative as much as possible of LIS signers across the country. The second problem was what type of linguistic material we could elicit from the selected group of signers. In this section we explain how we dealt with the first problem, leaving the second problem to the next section. 2.1 The cities involved A first important choice was the selection of the cities where data were collected. We tried to cover the national territory as much as possible. Italy is geographically composed by four macro-regions: Northern Italy, Central Italy, Southern Italy, and major islands (Sicily and Sardinia). Accordingly, the ten cities that were chosen are distributed as follows: Bologna, Brescia, Milan and Turin (North), 3

4 Florence and Rome (Center), Bari, Catanzaro and Salerno (South), and Ragusa in Sicily. However, our selection of cities reflected other aspects of the culture and the language of the Italian Deaf community. For instance, the presence in the past of two separate residential schools for Deafs motivate the presence of two cities that are geographically close, namely Brescia and Milan. 2 In order to see how the National territory is covered by our data collection, the cities involved in the project are plotted in the map of the Country, as shown in Figure 1: Figure 1: Map of Italy with the indication about the collection sites. 2.2 The selection of participants in each city The initial plan was that in each city 18 Deaf participants would take part in the data collection for a total of 180 participants across the country (in fact, not in all cities it was possible to recruit 18 subjects, so the total number of participants was 165). The selection of the participants considered all factors known as responsible for sociolinguistic variation: geographic origin, age, gender, type of education (special school for the deaf, public schools with or without the aid of interpreters or signing educators), school qualification (elementary school, middle school, high school, college), family situation (presence of deaf parents or siblings), and social status. We now discuss how we defined some of these factors. As for geographic origin, only Deafs who had lived 10 years or more in any given city took part to our study. Age group was controlled as follows. Participants in each city were divided in three age groups including at most 6 subjects each. The distribution of the population according the age groups is shown in Figure 2: --- Insert figure 2 about here --- Figure 2: Distribution of the population across the three age groups. Such partition is due to the historical evolution in the educational policies for the deaf in Italy. Up to 1977, Italian deaf people attended residential schools where they often came in contact with Italian Sign Language (LIS) through informal interaction with deaf peers. In 1977, a new law allowed deaf students, together with disabled individuals, to attend ordinary schools and, in so doing, it determined migration of deaf people toward mainstream education and the closing of most residential schools. Accordingly, our youngest signers (30% of the total population recruited), ranging from 18 to 30 years, attended mainstream education; signers in the intermediate group, from 31 to 54 (36% of the total population recruited), attended school during the transition period between residential schools and mainstream education, while the last age group, from 55 on, are signers who exclusively attended residential schools for the deaf (34% of the total population recruited). We now turn to the social status variable: it turns out that the overwhelming majority of Italian Deafs do not have a college degree, so they are not employed in top level jobs. However, an Italian law (68/1999) forces medium size and big size companies as well as state agencies to hire a certain 2 Our initial plan included data collection in Sardinia and two other cities in North Eastern Italy, namely Padua and Trieste. Padua would have been important as it hosted one of the most important residential schools for the Deafs. Trieste was originally included because the local LIS variety is reported to be quite different from other LIS varieties (cf. REM), possibly due to historical reasons (Trieste became integral part of the Italian territory only in 1954). Unfortunately, we could not collect data in these areas within the time frame of the project for practical problems (it was not possible to gather a sufficient number of signers to obey to the criteria we describe below). 4

5 percentage of disabled people, and deafs enter the category of disabled people as defined in this law. So, many deafs have a safe permanent job. This situation makes the Deaf community not much diversified for social status, if this is analyzed in traditional terms. Having known this, we have defined social status in an innovative way. In our analyses, high social status refers to the position of the single participant within the Deaf community. In particular, high social status is attained by participants who have played a representative role in the local Deaf club or other institutions in the Deaf community. Each participant filled in a form collecting information on these social variables (the questionnaire was filled after data collection took place). While age group was decided as described above, we strived to have the local pool of participants to be as diverse as possible for other factors, like gender, family origin, school qualification and social status. The distribution of the population by gender is illustrated in Figure Insert figure 3 about here --- Figure 3: Distribution of the population by gender. 2.3 The setting of data collection An active member of the Deaf community ( the local contact, Milroy 1980) helped us pre-selecting and contacting participants in each city (he/she was paid for this work). The employment of a local contact during data collection represents a standard procedure in sociolinguistic research in order to guarantee a coherent elicitation of the data. In our research, it also helped reducing to the minimum the interference of Italian. The data collection took place in a quiet room inside the local Deaf clubs or another environment familiar to the signers (for example in hotels and restaurants traditionally used by the Deafs for informal gathering). Besides selecting and contacting participants, the local contact carried out other functions in the various phases of data collection, as described below. The local contact was helped by Emiliano Mereghetti, the Deaf coordinator of data collection for the entire project, and by Serena Giudice, a hearing person who is a fluent LIS signer. However, Serena Giudice was never present in the room while data collection took place (she helped setting up the video apparatus and, if explicitly asked, she helped participants to fill the written questionnaire by providing translation in LIS). Emiliano Mereghetti minimized his presence as well. He explained the goal of the project and its importance for the purpose of documenting the different varieties of LIS and assisted the local contact in case some clarification on the procedure of data collection was needed. Emiliano Mereghetti was never present during data collection, but for the initial stages of free conversation in some cities, in which he helped breaking the ice. However, even when he was initially present, he left the room after a few minutes, and data that enter the statistical analyses include no stage in which he was present. This procedure was meant to minimize a possible interference of the variety of LIS signed by Mereghetti. Each participant received a reimbursement of 25 euros. 3. Building the LIS corpus: elicitation of the data The second problem we faced was how to elicit the linguistic material we were interested in. Of course, 5

6 free conversation is the most naturalistic environment for data collection and can be a rich source of linguistic material, so an important part of the corpus derives from free conversation. However, we were interested in getting a sufficient amount of data to cover some specific aspects of LIS that a finite corpus based uniquely on free conversation could hardly provide. For example, free conversation on average contains relatively few instances of questions. However, we were particularly interested in questions because members of the research team, who had studied questions in LIS with a completely different perspective (cf. Cecchetto, Geraci and Zucchi 2009, who elicited grammaticality judgments from native signers), had reached conclusions on the structure of questions that we wanted to test against a larger and more diversified population of signers. This example allows us to make a general point. Our project aims at testing the dimension of sociolinguistic variation of various types of linguistic variables, including those pointed out in formal approaches to LIS, in particular in the generative tradition. We believe that a full integration of formal and quantitative approaches, although it is not an easy enterprise, might help to shed light to several intricate and still poorly understood issues in both domains. Be that as it may, we included a specific task to elicit questions. A third type of data comes from the individual narration session. The last task was elicitation of single signs by using pictures. We now describe all these steps of data gathering in more details. 3.1 Free conversation During the free conversation, groups of three signers belonging to the same age group and sharing the same geographic origin freely interacted. In the ideal case (when all 18 pre-selected subjects were present for data gathering), we could record six free conversations in each city. The local contact briefly introduced the participants to each other and started the conversation before leaving the room (in a few cities, this initial role was played by the Deaf coordinator of data collection). The employment of small groups enabled each participant to easily interact and it allowed us to use three video cameras to record each subject during the whole conversation. We deliberately chose to form groups homogenous for age to facilitate the emerging of age-specific LIS varieties. Participants were told to sign about whatever they wanted for about 40 minutes, although for some groups the free conversation session was shorter than this (no member of the research team was present to monitor the exact timing). 3.2 Individual narration This session included an individual narration (of about five minutes) in which participants were individually encouraged to tell an event connected to personal experiences or any other topic. To minimize the weird sensation of signing to the video camera, the local contact was asked to play the addressee during narration. 3.3 Question elicitation session This session was the most structured one. We strived to find a balance between our need to elicit the target linguistic constructions (polar and wh-questions) through the use of materials specifically designed for this scope and the need to keep the exchange as natural as possible. We tried to reconcile these two needs as follows. All participants performed the task in pairs: a scene was presented on a picture to one member of the pair. The other member could not see the picture but had to fill a form and recover the information needed by asking the partner. To illustrate, Figure 4 depicts a car accident scene, while --- insert figure 5 about here --- 6

7 Figure 5 shows the form to be filled out, which is very similar to the one Italian drivers use in case of small car accidents. By selecting a type of material that is mostly visual and a form that is familiar to signers, we kept the exchange as natural as possible, even during a semi-structured elicitation procedure. The material was intended to elicit various types of wh-questions and polar questions and corresponding answers ( Where? In Paris or At the corner, When? At 9,30 p.m., How many cars?, Anyone injured? etc.). --- insert figure 4 about here --- Figure 4: Car accident scene --- insert figure 5 about here --- Figure 5: Insurance form Since we wanted each signer to act once as the interviewer and once as the interviewee, we used another story in which the same two signers switched role. In this second story, the interviewee pretended to be a patient reporting to the emergency room at the hospital, while the interviewer pretended to be a doctor admitting the patient. The patient was given the series of pictures in Figure 6 describing the events that led to hospitalization, while the doctor was given a form to fill with information about the patient (cf. Figure 7). --- insert figure 6 about here --- Figure 6: The patient story --- insert figure 7 about here --- Figure 7: The doctor form Although at this stage we cannot report data on wh-questions elicitation in this paper (cf. Geraci et al for some initial results), we would like to comment on the different outcomes of the two stories we used to elicit questions. While the car accident stories was fully successful, since it elicited many question-answer pairs with a sizeable number of polar and wh-questions, the emergency room story elicited a reduced number of questions, since the patient typically took Figure 6 as a plot over which to elaborate a more complete narration (of course, we did not intervene in the exchange to correct this trend). So, ultimately Figure 6 elicited interesting linguistic material although not of the type we were intending to elicit. We speculate that the source of the difference between the two elicitation strategies is that Figure 4 describes the result of one instantaneous event, while Figure 6 describes the essentials of an event while it unfolds in time, so suggesting an individual elaboration by the signer. 3.4 Picture naming task The material we recorded in the three tasks described so far will be analyzed to study variation at the syntactic and phonological level. However, we wanted to study also geographic and diachronic variation in the LIS lexicon and, for doing so, elicitation of single signs may be an adequate procedure. Therefore, lexical items have been elicited through the aid of pictures that the local contact showed to each participant asking him/her to provide any signing variant he/she knew for the same lexical item. We used 42 pictures according to the following criteria. We chose some semantic fields in which strong lexical variation is often reported. These are: 7

8 - signs for colors (we used pictures meant to elicit LIS signs for brown, black, green and white ) - signs for family components (we used pictures meant to elicit signs for grandmother, brother, father and mother ) - signs for months (we used pictures meant to elicit signs for August, February, September and December ) Although they do not constitute a specific semantic field, the following signs were also included because of their reported variability - bank, goat, color, chocolate A second group of pictures referred to concepts or objects that for various reasons do not correspond to a lexical entry in the core LIS lexicon: - objects referred to by using a classifier handshape (we used pictures meant to elicit bottle, jar, pot and handbag ) - objects for which no known form exists in LIS (we used pictures of basil, flamingo, microwave and monocycle ) A third group of pictures was meant to elicit initialized signs or signs developing out of an initialized version (we used pictures for top score, and Sunday ), and fingerspelled signs (we used pictures for zoo and LIS ). A fourth group of pictures includes compounds. We used pictures for vending machine, street policeman, blackboard and computer. Interestingly, the latter two are not compounds in Italian (i.e. lavagna and computer ). A fifth group of pictures were included because signs belonging to this group are especially prone to phonological variation and/or diachronic change. These are pictures meant to elicit signs for coffee, to see, birthday, cheese intelligent, week, house, good, understood, woman. Since we will report statistical analyses of these signs, we will describe them in much detail in the next section. The picture-naming task was individually administered and was the last task that each age group performed. Each age group (typically 6 participants) took at least 3 hours to perform all the tasks (however, for most of this time, each signer was free to wander around the Deaf Club, since no task was simultaneous for all members of the age group). The typical format of data gathering engaged one age group on Saturday morning, a second age group on Saturday afternoon and the third age group on Sunday morning. 4. Phonological variation in the lexicon of LIS As mentioned in the previous section, the lexicon of LIS is one part of the language where variation is particularly rich. Signers recognize signs as belonging to specific Deaf communities, and in many cases they are also able to trace their origin back to some Deaf institutes. A few studies on lexical variation pointed out some phonological processes related to diachronic changes (for some recent studies see Radutzky 1989, 2009 and Geraci and Toffali, 2008), and a good number of regional variants are reported in the most important LIS dictionaries (Radutzky, 1992 and DIZLIS, while Bertone (2007) illustrates some register variations in the use of pronominal forms. We were mainly interested in analyzing specific predictions that emerged from important works by Elena Radutzky. Extending the pioneering work on the ASL lexicon by Frishberg (1975), Radutzky (1989) and (2009) proposed that processes of articulatory simplification mainly drive the phonological 8

9 change in the lexicon of LIS. These processes basically involved the neutralization of contrastive forces of some sort, as in the case of the [±contact] feature or second-hand assimilation (or even dropping) in the case of two-handed signs. As mentioned, the items selected to investigate phonological variation and/or diachronic change were signs corresponding to coffee, to see, birthday, cheese intelligent, week, house, good, understood, woman (the process of items selection has been done with the fundamental contribution of Elena Radutzky). These stimuli were selected in order to investigate three main processes of articulatory simplification: Neutralization of the [± contact] feature: signs articulated with some contact with some body part may be articulated without contact (i.e. a change goes from [+contact] to [-contact]). Neutralization of the [± neutral space]: 3 signs articulated on the body (not necessarily involving contact) may be located in the neutral space (i.e. change goes from [-neutral space] to [+neutral space]). Handshape assimilation, operating in two distinct domains: (a) the non-dominant hand of two-handed signs assimilates the handshape of the dominant hand; (b) in compounds, the handshape of one stem partially or totally assimilates the handshape of the other stem. It is worth mentioning that the processes of [± contact] and [± neutral space] neutralization might be somehow related. In particular, they might reflect different stages of a general simplification process, according to which the signers body tends to be substituted by the neutral space as the place of articulation. Under this view, the neutralization of the [± contact] feature is a preliminary stage that can further develop into the neutralization of the [± neutral space] feature. This might be true in particular for a sign like BIRTHDAY, that originally involved handling both earlobes (mimicking the typical Italian gesture of pulling the earlobes of someone having birthday). In addition to this, we should mention that this general simplification process might be affected and/or have consequences on the organization of other features or phonological parameters. This is particularly relevant for those features that have a hybrid status such as the contact feature, which can share properties both of place of articulation and of movement (see Wilbur 1985, Brentari 1998 and Geraci, 2010). This holds also for the process of handshape assimilation, which can be integrated under a broader view as a step toward simpler forms. This is the case of two-handed signs in which the non-dominant hand is used as a place of articulation. The simplification process of assimilation may further develop in hand dropping. This last step end up producing a result similar to that of neutralization of the [± neutral space] contrast, because signs formerly articulated on the non-dominant hand end up being articulated in the neutral space after second-hand dropping. The emerging picture shows that phonological change cannot be viewed as a process targeting single features or phonological parameters, and that various dimensions may be significantly involved in the same process. In order to keep track of all the co-occurring variations we elaborated a detailed annotation procedure for each of the 10 items. This procedure is described in the next section. 3 The phonological status of the [± neutral space] feature (and its counterpart [± body] feature) can be somehow misleading, especially after works by Brentari (1998). By referring to this feature, however, we simply identify a process according to which signs that are located on some body part can be re-located in the area in front of the signer, without further specifying which plane of articulation is used. 9

10 4.1 Coding the data The picture-naming task was the last part of the elicitation protocol and was assessed individually by each participant. In some cases, the pictures were complemented with the corresponding word in written Italian, especially when the target signs corresponded to abstract concepts. In the part of the stimuli relevant to study phonological change, this was done for the pictures corresponding to good, see, intelligent and understood. Figure 8 shows the picture represented in the card we used to elicit the sign for see. The corresponding Italian word, vedere (the verb is in the infinitival form), complemented the picture (all the stimuli pictures used in this part of the task are reported in the Appendix). The task was administered by the local contact, who showed the cards from a ring binder, as shown in Figure 9. Signers answers were recorded with a digital camera and the video files were annotated with the ELAN software (Johnston and Crasborn, 2006). Since the dimensions of variation might vary from sign to sign, a specific coding schema was prepared for each item and potential variations were coded on separate tiers. In order to speed up the annotation process, a controlled vocabulary was created for each tier (Chesi and Geraci, 2009). This coding procedure allowed us to identify a primitive form 4 for each item and all potential forms derived through phonological changes. A separate code has been used to identify lexical variants, namely independent lexical entries that are not derived through phonological changes. The annotation schemas are briefly illustrated sign by sign. --- Insert figure 8 about here --- Figure 8: The image used to elicit the sign for see is complemented with the corresponding word in written Italian, i.e. the verb vedere in its infinitival form. --- Insert figure 9 about here --- Figure 9: Picture-naming elicitation set. The local contact on the right shows the cards from a ring binder. The signer (on the left) is producing the corresponding sign for see. 1. GOOD GOOD is a one-handed sign with a 3 handshape (Z) articulated on the cheek and with contact (the tip of the thumb touches the cheek). In the primitive form, the movement is a direction movement toward neutral space with a straight or a slightly upward trajectory, as in Figure Insert figure 10 about here --- Figure 10: Primitive form of GOOD: [+contact]. Derived forms differ in that there is no contact between the tip of the thumb and the cheek, as in Figure 11. A code for potential further re-location in neutral space is included in this tier of the ELAN file. 4 We decided to use the neutral term primitive form instead of citation form because the latter might be misleading. Indeed, at this stage it not totally clear for each item which variant is to be considered as the citation form. This is so because many LIS vocabularies report two or more phonological variants as separate entries, without specifying which of them is the citation form. 5 Capturing images from video clips often produces dark pictures. For this reason, the picture examples reported in this paper are taken from a Deaf actor, who performed the signs in their initial, intermediate and final stages. Many thanks are due to Fabio Poletti. 10

11 --- Insert figure 11 about here --- Figure 11: Derived form of GOOD: [-contact]. A lowering of the movement trajectory represents another source of variation, which has been systematically coded. 2. HOUSE HOUSE is a symmetrical two-handed sign with a B handshape and an optionally extended thumb (w/x). The primitive form involves a sequential directional movement, iconically describing the roof and the walls of a house. The initial point of the sign involves contact of the tips of the extended fingers of the two hands, as in Figure 12. However, in this case we decided not to classify derived forms according to presence/absence of contact, since contact was always present. Indeed, we considered derived forms as involving variation in the movement component: either the second movement is dropped (i.e. the sign consisted only on the iconic representation of the roof), as in or it consisted of a repeated local movement, as in Figure 13 and Figure Insert figure 12 about here --- Figure 12: Primitive form of HOUSE: two sequential movements. --- Insert figure 13 about here --- Figure 13: Derived form of HOUSE: dropping of the second movement. --- Insert figure 14 about here --- Figure 14: Derived form of HOUSE: two repeated movements. 3. SEE The LIS sign for to-see is a single-handed sign with a V handshape (Y), whose primitive form involves a repeated local movement with contact with the cheekbone, as in Figure 15. Derived forms involve only a repeated movement without contact, as in Figure Insert figure 15 about here --- Figure 15: Primitive form of TO-SEE: [+contact]. --- Insert figure 16 about here --- Figure 16: Derived form of TO-SEE: [-contact]. Another source of variation is due to handshape change from V to K handshape (Y d) as in Figure Insert figure 17 about here

12 Figure 17: Derived form of TO-SEE: K handshape [+stacked]. 4. WOMAN The primitive form for the sign for WOMAN is a single-handed sign articulated on the cheek with either 5 or 3 handshape (>/Z), involving contact with the tip of the thumb. The movement consists of a wrist rotation, as in Figure 18. Derived forms are articulated without contact with the cheek, as in Figure Insert figure 18 about here --- Figure 18: Primitive form of WOMAN: [+contact]. --- Insert figure 19 about here --- Figure 19: Derived form of WOMAN: [-contact]. Other main sources of variation are represented by the (>/Z) handshape alternation, the contrast produced by the [± repeated] movement the presence of a classifier for human being as a second sign. 5. BIRTHDAY BIRTHDAY is a symmetrical two-handed sign with an S handshape and a non-extended thumb (1). This sign can be articulated close to the ears (primitive form, as in Figure 20) or in the neutral space (derived form, as in Figure 21). The possibility of contact with the earlobes is included in the coding scheme. --- Insert figure 20 about here --- Figure 20: Primitive form of WOMAN: [+contact]. --- Insert figure 21 about here --- Figure 21: Derived form of HOUSE: TO-SEE: [-contact]. Another source of variation might involve hand dropping (option included in the coding schema). However, this process is not lexically coded since hand dropping has never emerged in this part of the corpus. 6. COFFEE COFFEE is a single-handed sign, whose primitive form is articulated with an F handshape (O) located on the mouth and with contact of the tips of index and thumb, as in Figure 22. Derived forms are either articulated without contact or in neutral space, as in Figure 23 and Figure Insert figure 22 about here --- Figure 22: Primitive form of COFFE: [+contact]. --- Insert figure 23 about here --- Figure 23: Derived form of COFFEE: [-contact]. 12

13 --- Insert figure 24 about here --- Figure 24: Derived form of COFFEE: [+neutral space]. Another source of variation is found in the movement component: movement can be either single or repeated and can be located either at the elbow or at the wrist joints. 7. UNDERSTOOD UNDERSTOOD is a single-handed sign, whose primitive form is articulated with a local and a tracing movement: the local movement is a handshape change (> 1) and the tracing movement is articulated at the level of the forehead, as in Figure 25. Derived forms are articulated in neutral space, as in Figure Insert figure 25 about here --- Figure 25: Primitive form of UNDERSTOOD: [-neutral space]. --- Insert figure 26 about here --- Figure 26: Derived form of UNDERSTOOD: [+neutral space]. Another source of variation which is however non-phonological is the optional presence of the aspectual marker DONE. The presence of this second sign is probably due to the picture stimulus, which included the written Italian word of the verb in the past participle form ( capito ). Since one way to convey past-participle meaning in LIS is by using the aspectual marker DONE (see Zucchi 2009 and Zucchi et al. 2010), it is natural that this marker showed up in this context. 8. WEEK In its primitive form, the sign WEEK is a two-handed sign with different hanshapes: (C) for the dominant hand, and (>) for the non-dominant hand, as in Figure 27. Derived forms involve total assimilation of the non-dominant handshape (> C) or dropping of the non-dominant hand, as in Figure 28 and Figure 29, respectively. --- Insert figure 27 about here --- Figure 27: Primitive form of WEEK: non-assimilated form. --- Insert figure 28 about here --- Figure 28: Derived form of WEEK: total assimilation in the non-dominant hand. --- Insert figure 29 about here --- Figure 29: Derived form of WEEK: dropping of the non-dominant hand. 9. CHEESE The LIS sign for cheese is a two-handed sign, in which the non-dominant hand is used as place of articulation. In the primitive form, the dominant hand has an S handshape with a non-extended thumb (1), while the non-dominant hand has a B handshape ( ) with the thumb either extended or non-extended, as shown in Figure Insert figure 30 about here

14 Figure 30: Primitive form of CHEESE: non-assimilated form. Total assimilation results in an S (1) handshape for the non-dominant hand, as in Figure 31. The coding for the non-dominant hand also includes the possibility of marking hand dropping, as in Figure Insert figure 31 about here --- Figure 31: Derived form of CHEESE: total assimilation in the non-dominant hand. --- Insert figure 32 about here --- Figure 32: Derived form of CHEESE: dropping of the non-dominant hand. Other sources of variation might involve contact between the two hands and the presence of a second sign (e.g. the sign for cut ). The presence of a second sign might be due to the picture representing a piece of cheese cut out of a round (see appendix). 10. INTELLIGENT The LIS sign INTELLIGENT is a compound sign made of the sign for HEAD and the sign for POUND (see Geraci, 2009). In the primitive form, the first stem has a G/1 handshape (H), while the second stem has a Y handshape (&) as shown in Figure Insert figure 33 about here --- Figure 33: Primitive form of INTELLIGENT: non-assimilated form. Anticipatory assimilation may copy thumb extension, or thumb and pinky extensions resulting in the following possible handshapes for the first stem: (C), or (h). These options are illustrated in Figure 34, and Figure Insert figure 34 about here --- Figure 34: Derived form of INTELLIGENT: partial assimilation in the first stem [+thumb]. --- Insert figure 35 about here --- Figure 35: Derived form of INTELLIGENT: assimilation of [+thumb] and [+pinky] in the first stem. Other sources of variation might involve the first stem these involve the [±contact] feature, and lowering of the place of articulation (from the forehead to the cheekbone or cheek). 5. The Lexicon : Results and discussion In this section we report some analyses concerning the ten items we just described. These items were not expected to generate a great amount of lexical variation. In fact, they are all represented in the most important LIS dictionaries both on paper (Radutzky, 1992) and on-line ( but only for a few of them lexical variation is reported (e.g. for the sign for coffee and the sign for to understand/understood ). These dictionaries report instead many phonological variants (e.g. see the phonological variants of house and those of cheese ). Thus, it was a surprising for us to discover that a certain number of lexical variants were preserved for these signs, as well. Accordingly, before studying what sociolinguistic factors influence phonological variation (see next section), we decided 14

15 to study what factors influence lexical variation. This is what we do in this section. 5.1 Local and National Variants: Results We decided to classify each token as a local variant, i.e. a sign that emerged in a small number of cities (generally two cities), or as a national variant, i.e. a sign produced in every city (whether in its primitive or derived form). The data reported here come from 128 signers from eight (out of ten) cities: three from the North (Bologna, Brescia and Torino), two from the Center (Firenze and Roma) and three from the South (Bari, Ragusa and Salerno). Data from the two remaining cities have not been analyzed yet, since data collection concluded just before the time of writing. According to the rationale just described, local variants represent the 14,64% (172 tokens) of the total production for these signs (1175 tokens), while national variants are the 85,36%, (1003 tokens). The general distribution reported in Figure 36 is based on nine signs: coffee, to see, birthday, cheese intelligent, house, good, understood, woman. Data from a tenth sign ( week ) could not be used because the picture did not elicit the intended sign Insert figure 36 about here --- Figure 36: Distribution of lexical variants and signs used across the country. The distribution of national and local variants has been further analyzed by considering all the social information coded in the questionnaire. Several multivariate analyses with VARBRUL (Rand and Sankoff, 1990, Young and Bayley, 1996) have been carried out. Among the social factors, age and region were selected as significant in the final VARBRUL analysis. The region factor group is the result of collapsing the city factor group into a new three-factor factor group. Cities have been collapsed into broader geographical areas: North (Bologna, Brescia and Torino), Center (Firenze and Roma) and South (Bari, Ragusa and Salerno). Numbers and percentages of occurrence for each factor that had a statistically significant effect on the choice between local and national variants are shown in Table insert table 1 about here --- Table 1: Distribution of local and national variants according to the two factor groups that were significant in the VARBRUL analysis. For each factor percentages and token numbers are reported. Looking at the distribution of the age factor group, we see that the percentage of local variants regularly decreases across the three factors. Overall, old signers use more local variants (25,42%) than middle age signers (12,44%), which in turns use more local variants than young signers (4,07%). That is, even judging from the percentages, there is evidence of a progressive change in the lexical choice of signers toward signs that are shared across the National community. The distribution of the region factor group points out that cities from the Center of the country (i.e. Firenze and Roma) tend to use National variants (90,76%) more than Northern or Southern cities (83,51% and 83,25%, respectively). 7 Once data collection from the first two cities was completed and data coding started, we realized that the picture intended to elicit the sign for week was not effective. We decided not to alter the presentation schema by changing it with a more effective one. 15

16 Multivariate analysis with VARBRUL confirmed our impressions of the effects of the factors suggested by the percentages of occurrence shown in Table 1. Results for the age factor group are reported in Table 2, while results for the region factor group are reported in Table 3. We have also included the input value, an overall measure of the tendency of signers to choose the application value, the total Chi-square and the Chi-square per cell (measures of the goodness of fit) and the Log likelihood as produced by the VARBRUL output file. ---insert table 2 about here--- Table 2: Factor weight for the age factor group (range = 0.476). Note about the regression model: Input value: Total Chi-square = (Chi-square/cell = ). Log likelihood = insert table 3 about here--- Table 3: Factor weight for the region factor group (range = 0.175). Note about the regression model: Input value: Total Chi-square = (Chi-square/cell = ). Log likelihood = The strongest effect on the distribution of local and national variants is played by age (range = 0.476). As Table 2 shows, being in the group of older signers favors the application value (p =.714), i.e. being older favors local variants, while being in the group of younger signers strongly disfavors these forms (p =.238), favoring the use of national variants. Being in the group of the middle age group neither favors nor disfavors this choice (p =.510). Also the region factor group has a significant effect on the distribution of local and national variants, although with a smaller strength (range = 0.175). In this case, however, the analysis shows that being a signer from Northern and Southern regions slightly favors the application value (p =.536 and.555, respectively) hence local variants, while being a signer from the Central region disfavors the use of local variants (p =.380). This second result indicates that peripheral regions are somehow more conservative than the central region. 5.2 Local and National Variants: Discussion While it is certainly true that lexical variation might affect specific lexical fields more than others in both spoken and sign languages (e.g. the domains of color or month names are typical semantic domains that are anecdotally reported to show an impressive degree of lexical variation in LIS), it seems that, even when a sign is well established as a national variant, signers have a rich number of local variants at their disposal. However, the way in which signers use local and national variants is not random. Two social factors are crucial to capture their distribution: the age of signers and their geographical region. The statistical analysis we carried out showed a strong diachronic pattern influencing the use of local and national variants. A possible interpretation of this fact is to say that we are observing an ongoing standardization process in the lexicon of LIS, from variants regionally marked toward variants shared across the country. This process is at an advanced stage, at least for the items considered in this study, in that overall even old signers produced a larger number of national variants. However, the consequences of the standardization process are stronger among young signers. Furthermore, the use of local variants is influenced by the geographical origins of signers. In this case, it seems that the central regions, specifically the cities of Firenze and Roma, favor the use of national variants. This situation nicely integrates with the process of standardization suggested by the diachronic pattern. In particular, the observed pattern suggests that the variety of LIS used in Roma, the capital of the country, is considered as a prestige variant (at least for the lexicon) and that signers from 16

17 other regions tend to conform to this variety as the standard LIS. This process might be somehow enhanced by the fact that in official situations interpreters prefer to use the signs of the Deaf community of the capital. Notice moreover that most interpreters were formed in Rome until recently. Of course, a more comprehensive approach to lexical variation in LIS might reveal that there are domains of the lexicon that are more resistant than others to this standardization process. This is what we expect to find once the full range of lexical fields used in the picture naming study will be analyzed. 5.3 Phonological variation within the lexicon: Results Moving on to the issue of phonological change, we observed a good amount of variation for each item considered in this study. This is precisely what we expected to find, since we selected these items precisely to evaluate the trends of phonological change in the lexicon of LIS (Radutzky 1989; 2009). However, the type of phonological variation depends on the specific item considered, affecting features like [± contact] (this is the case of the signs for good, to see and woman ), [± neutral space] (this is the case of birthday, coffee and understood ), and the process of non-dominant-hand assimilation (like in the case of cheese, house, intelligent ). Given the task we asked to perform (a picture-naming task), we cannot invoke general phonological processes driving the distribution of primitive and derived forms in actual speech, such as assimilations, co-articulations etc. The analysis we carried out should rather refer to the lexical forms as they are probably stored in the mental lexicon of the signers. However, just as for the distribution of local and national variants, it is possible to classify each token in two classes: the class of primitive signs, and the class of derived signs (i.e. forms derived by phonological change). For all ten signs we are talking about, we have motivated the choice of a variant as the primitive one in section 4. The data reported here come from the performance of the same 128 signers used for the study on lexical variation. However, differently from the previous study, we could not use the tokens relative to the sign for birthday and understood (nor week, for the reason mentioned in footnote 7). This is so because of the difficulties in correctly identifying the location of the sign according to the [± neutral space] feature. However, even excluding these three signs, we have been able to code for a considerable number of entries. Primitive variants represent the 38,40% (283 tokens) of the total production for these signs (737 tokens), while derived variants are the 61,60%, (454 tokens) as shown in Figure 37. Of course, the data illustrated in the figure and used in the VARBRUL analysis do not include lexical variants. In other words, from the analysis on phonological change in the lexicon of LIS we are not considering lexical entries that are phonologically unrelated with the primitive form. --- Insert figure 37 about here --- Figure 37: Distribution of primitive and derived variants. The distribution of primitive and derived variants has been further analyzed by considering all the social information coded in the questionnaire. Several multivariate analyses with VARBRUL have been carried out. Among the social factors, age and gender were selected as significant in the final VARBRUL analysis. However, differently from the previous study on lexical variation, the age factors group has been obtained by collapsing the middle age signers with the group of young signers. The resulting age factor group is thus structured in two factors: old signers and non-old signers. Numbers and percentages of occurrence for each factor that had a statistically significant effect on the choice 17

18 between primitive and derived variants are shown in Table Insert table 4 about here--- Table 4: Distribution of primitive and derived forms according to the two factor groups that were significant in the VARBRUL analysis. For each factor percentages and token numbers are reported. Looking at the distribution of age factor group, we see that primitive and derived forms are almost equally balanced in old signers (48,36% vs, 51,64%), while non-old signers clearly prefer derived forms (33,47% vs. 66,53%). In this case as well, judging from the percentages, we see evidence of a change in the choice of signers toward signs that are non-primitive forms. Interestingly, an asymmetry also emerges once we look at the distribution of primitive and derived forms across gender. In this case, both male and female signers show a higher percentage of derived forms; still female signers have a higher percentage of derived forms (67,08%) than male signers (57,28%). Multivariate analysis with VARBRUL confirmed our impressions of the effects of the factors suggested by the percentages of occurrence shown in Table 4. Results for the age factor group are reported in Table 5, while results for the gender factor group are reported in Table 6. We have also included the input value, an overall measure of the tendency of signers to choose the application value, the total Chi-square and the Chi-square per cell (measures of the goodness of fit) and the Log likelihood as produced by the VARBRUL output file. ---insert table 5 about here --- Table 5: Factor weight for the age factor group (range = 0.140). Note about the regression model: Input value: Total Chi-square = (Chi-square/cell = ). Log likelihood = insert table 6 about here --- Table 6: Factor weight for the age factor group (range = 0.081). Note about the regression model: Input value: Total Chi-square = (Chi-square/cell = ). Log likelihood = The strongest effect on the distribution of primitive and derived forms is played by age (range = 0.140). As Table 5 shows, being an older signer favors the application value (p =.593), i.e. favors primitive forms, while being a younger signer slightly disfavors these forms (p =.453), favoring the use of derived forms. Also gender has a significant effect on the distribution of primitive and derived forms, although with a small strength (range = 0.081), so being a male signer slightly favors primitive forms (p =.536) while being a female signer disfavors them (p =.455). 5.4 Phonological variation within the lexicon: Discussion Pioneering studies conducted by Frishberg (1975) and Radutzky (1989; 2009) on the phonological change of ASL and LIS lexicon, respectively, identified a series of articulatory simplification processes that in the long run might have a structured impact on the surface form of signs. This study confirms an overall diachronic effect in driving the phonological change in the lexicon of LIS. Old signers use more primitive forms than younger signers. This result goes in the same direction of the 18

19 lexical study we discussed above. More generally, there is a clearly identifiable trend in the lexicon of LIS, where younger generations play an active role as innovators both at the lexical and at the phonological levels. This fact emerged in a quite structured task, like the picture-naming task, indicating that the variants resulting from phonological change can be considered as incorporated in the lexicon of signers. However, current discussion on phonological changes in the lexicon of LIS cannot omit an important effect of gender: male signers tend to use more primitive forms than female signers. This finding is particularly interesting since, at least prima facie, it shows an opposite trend with respect to what is generally observed in the sociolinguistic literature on spoken languages: women are often said to be more linguistically conservative than men of the same social class (cf. Eckert 1989; Labov 1990; Trudgill 1974; Wolfram 1969). A similar result is reported in the literature on ASL (Lucas, Bayley and Valli, 2001) where deviation from primitive forms (i.e. lowering of location in signs articulated on the face) is favored in male signers and disfavored in female signers. Although this specific finding clearly needs further elaboration, we speculate that in absence of a clear standard variety in the lexicon of LIS, the phonologically derived variants are perceived as more prestigious, ore even as belonging to a new standard, than strict primitive forms. These findings open further research questions about the lexicon of LIS: we claimed that there is a standardization process, already in an advanced stage, with national variants winning over local variants. However, we also showed that there are ongoing processes affecting the form of national variants. Given this flexibility, questions about the very nature of primitive forms immediately arise. Interestingly enough, the statistical analysis also showed that these processes are not linked to specific geographical areas, possibly indicating that they are sufficiently widespread across the country. Finally, this study paves the way to a more systematic investigation on the lexicon of LIS. Specifically, we are ready to address the issue of how these signs behave in natural signing environments The phonological changes described here might interact in still unknown ways with the phonological processes that are at work when these signs are used in complex utterances. 6. Conclusion In this paper, we discussed the process that led to the creation of the first systematic corpus of LIS and reported the analyses on a small fragment of that corpus. More specifically, we focused on a picture-naming task by reporting the analyses on signs elicited by using 10 pictures (out of a set of 42). We discussed different lexical variants elicited by each of these picture and, for the main variant, we discussed phonological variation. Although the portion of the corpus under scrutiny is still pretty limited, some interesting results already emerged. In particular, a process of standardization seems to be taking place, with younger signers leading this process. An effect of gender and a leading role of the LIS variety signed in Rome are also attested. We believe that many more interesting results will emerge when the remaining parts of the corpus will be analyzed, although we are aware that this process will take years and will be possible only if further funding will be found. We can report that, at the time of writing, we are transcribing representative stretches of the question-answer part of the corpus and of the free conversation part. The sociolinguistic dimension of three phenomena is being searched, namely the position of the wh-sign with respect to the predicate in questions, the position of the direct object with respect to the verb in declarative sentences and the handshape value of those signs that have a G handshape in their citation form. So, the study of variation in the lexicon will be soon integrated by the study of syntactic variation 19

20 and of phonological variation in the discourse. References Bertone, L. (2007). La struttura del sintagma determinante nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). PhD. Dissertation, University Ca Foscari at Venice. Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., and Zucchi, S. (2009). Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: The case for right peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language, 85(2): Chesi, C. and Geraci, C. (2009). Segni al computer. Manuale di documentazione della lingua italiana dei segni e alcune applicazioni computazionali. Siena, Cantagalli. Eckert, P. (1989). The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation. Language Variation and Change 1: Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51: Geraci, C., Bayley, R., Branchini, C., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., Donati, C., Giudice, S., Mereghetti, E., Poletti, F., Santoro, M., and Zucchi, S. (2010). Building a corpus for Italian Sign Language: Methodological issues and some preliminary results. In Proceedings of LREC 2010, 4 th Workshop on Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpora and Sign Language Technologies, La Valletta, Malta, Maggio Geraci, C. (2010). Tracing direction to contact. Commentary on Wiblur (1985). Sign Language and Linguistics, 13(2): Geraci, C., Toffali, L. (2008). Tendenze conservatrici e innovative nell'uso delle lingue: la variabile dell'età nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana. In La qualità della vita nella società dell'informazione,eds. G. Bella and D. Diamantini, Milano: Guerini e associati. Johnston, T., Crasborn, O. (2006). The use of ELAN annotation software in the creation of signed language corpora. In Proceedings of the EMELD 06 Workshop on Digital Language Documentation: Tools and Standards: The State of the Art. Lansing, MI. Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2: Lucas, C., Bayley, R., and Valli, C. (2001). Sociolinguistic variation in American Sign Language. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks, Baltimore, University Park Press. 20

21 Rand, D., and Sankoff, D. (1990). Goldvarb 2.1: a variable rule application for the Macintosh. Montreal: Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, University of Montreal. Version 2. Radutzky, E. (1989). La Lingua dei Segni Italiana: historical change in the sign language of deaf people in Italy. Ph.D. thesis, University Microfilms, New York University. Radutzky, E. (Ed.). (1992). Dizionario bilingue elementare della Lingua dei Segni Italiana LIS. Roma: Edizioni Kappa. Radutzky, E. (2009). Il cambiamento fonologico storico della lingua dei segni italiana. In Alcuni capitoli della grammatica della LIS. Atti dell Incontro di studio La grammatica della Lingua dei segni italiana, eds. C. Bertone and A. Cardinaletti, Venezia: Cafoscarina. Trudgill, P The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Volterra, V. (Ed.). (1987/2004). La lingua dei segni italiana. La comunicazione visivo-gestuale dei sordi. Bologna: Il Mulino. Wilbur, R. B. (1985/2010). The role of contact in the phonology of ASL. Sign Language and Linguistics 13(1): Wolfram, W. (1969). A sociolinguistic description of Detroit Negro speech. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. Young, R., and Bayley, R. (1996). Varbrul analysis for second language acquisition research. In Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, eds. R. Bayley and D. R. Preston, Amsterdam, John Benjamins. Zucchi, A. (2009). Along the time line: Tense and time adverbs in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language Semantics, 17: Zucchi, S., Neidle, C., Geraci, C., Duffy, Q. and Cecchetto, C. (2010). Functional Markers in sign languages: The case of FATTO and FINISH. In Sign Languages, ed D. Brentari, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Web reference DIZLIS, 21

22 Appendix We report in this appendix the pictures that we used for the picture-naming task for the ten items discussed in this paper: 1. BIRTHDAY --- put picture about here COFFEE --- put picture about here CHEESE --- put picture about here GOOD --- put picture about here HOUSE --- put picture about here INELLIGENT --- put picture about here TO-SEE --- put picture about here UNDERSTOOD --- put picture about here WEEK --- put picture about here WOMAN --- put picture about here

23 Figures of graphs (non in TIFF) and Tables Figure 2: Distribution of the population across the three age groups. Figure 3: Distribution of the population by gender. 23

24 Figure 36: Distribution of lexical variants and signs used across the country. Factor Group Factor Local variants National variants Total % n % n n Age Old 25,42% ,58% Middle 12,44% 51 87,56% Young 4,07% 14 95,93% Region North 16,49% 79 83,51% Centre 9,24% 29 90,76% South 16,75% 64 83,25% Table 1: Distribution of local and national variants according to the two factor groups that were significant in the VARBRUL analysis. For each factor percentages and token numbers are reported. Factor Group Factor Application value Local variants Weight % Age Old ,42% Middle ,44% Young ,07% Table 2: Factor weight for the age factor group (range = 0.476). Note about the regression model: Input value: Total Chi-square = (Chi-square/cell = ). Log likelihood = Factor Group Factor Application value Local variants Weight % Region North ,49% Centre ,24% South ,75% Table 3: Factor weight for the region factor group (range = 0.175). Note about the regression model: Input value: Total Chi-square = (Chi-square/cell = ). Log likelihood = 24

25 Figure 37: Distribution of primitive and derived variants. Factor Group Factor Primitive forms Derived forms Total % n % n n Age Old 48,36% ,64% Non-old 33,47% ,53% Gender Male 42,72% ,28% Female 32,92% ,08% Table 4: Distribution of primitive and derived forms according to the two factor groups that were significant in the VARBRUL analysis. For each factor percentages and token numbers are reported. Factor Group Factor Application value Local variants Weight % Age Old ,36% Non-old ,47% Table 5: Factor weight for the age factor group (range = 0.140). Note about the regression model: Input value: Total Chi-square = (Chi-square/cell = ). Log likelihood = Factor Group Factor Application value Local variants Weight % Gender Male ,72% Female ,92% Table 6: Factor weight for the age factor group (range = 0.081). Note about the regression model: Input value: Total Chi-square = (Chi-square/cell = ). Log likelihood =