Keywords

Introduction

Narrative is generally the first type of discourse speakers learn upon acquiring a language. Narrative is closely related to the expressive function of language. Like discourse in oral language, the structure of narrative in sign language is based on the arrangement of the scene, the development of the plot, the complication, and the resolution (Bahan & Supalla, 1995; Gee & Kegl, 1983). However, Rayman’s research (1999) on comparing narratives in both sign and oral language finds that, in general, visual gestures are the main structural elements for organizing narrative in sign language. In addition, visual gestures also contain devices that can be used to connect different elements in a sign language narrative. Visual gestures are used for describing characters, space, and motion and are more readily available for signers than speakers because of the visual–spatial nature of sign language. Therefore, in general, visual gestures are the main structural elements for organizing narrative in sign language.

An analysis of oral narratives by Labov and Waletzky (1967) shows that conjunctions are often used as cohesive devices in spoken/oral narrative discourse. As is found in every language in the world, sign movements for conjunctions also exist in Jakarta Sign Language (JakSL) and are used for connecting words, phrases, and clauses. However, from our brief observation of Deaf people using this sign language, our researchers found that conjunctions were interestingly absent when signers produced narrative. This raises a question as to why they are not used in JakSL. If conjunctions are not used in a sign language narrative, what connectors shape its cohesiveness so that all parts of the narrative structure form a coherent and cohesive whole?

Based on this question, this study seeks to understand how signers of JakSL produce a cohesive narrative by focusing on the production of a genre of fictional narrative, namely fables. More specifically, the paper seeks to answer the following research questions: How does the narrative structure of fables appear in JSL? Which elements in JSL are used as a resource to create narrative cohesiveness for Deaf people?

Sign Language Narrative

In research conducted on narrative about everyday life and human experience, and based on data from English speakers in New York, Labov and Waletzky (1967) have identified five structural parts that constitute a narrative: orientation, complication, resolution, evaluation, and coda (Renkema, 2004, p. 194). Orientation describes the setting, characters, and other background information that should be understood in a narrative. The second part, complication, describes the basic details of a focus event. Following complication, resolution is the part of narrative in which the event’s result is conveyed. Next, evaluation is concerned with the lesson that should be learned from the story or the reason an event happened. Finally, the coda closes the story and connects all the events in the narrative. Labov and Waletzky adopted a sociolinguistic approach to discover the social correlation between storytellers’ characteristics and the structure of stories delivered in spoken oral language.

Slobin (1996) argues that different languages provide a different range of resources for every language user, as he supports Whorf’s (2012) claims on how vast every language is, and how different it is from others. These claims are also supported by Rayman (1999), who provides some evidence in terms of sign language and oral language narratives. Compared to oral language, sign language contains strong visual and gestural elements for describing characters, space, and motion because of the visual–spatial nature of sign language.

Based on Eisenberg, Hudson & Shapiro (1991), McCabe & Peterson (1990), and Rathmann (2007) summarizes that there are three cognitive domains of concern in narrative production and comprehension: (1) linguistic devices within and across sentences and bigger discourse units including episodes and settings, (2) pragmatic abilities, and (3) general cognitive abilities, such as working memory and information processing for the sequencing of information. These three domains are not only involved in the production of spoken and written text, but also in signed texts. In this chapter, we only limit the discussion to the first domain.

Sutton-Spence (2010) has conducted research on the importance of narrative for Deaf people. Her paper describes the role of sign language narrative in the development of Deaf identity in children. Interviews with British Deaf teachers and other Deaf adults as well as “The Owl Interpreter” story told to children using British Sign Language show that there are elements of language that adults believe should be passed on to the next generation of Deaf people. Sutton-Spence argues that storytelling in schools by Deaf teachers plays an essential role in Deaf children’s development of identity. She finds that in Deaf narratives, adult signers value and wish to pass on narrative knowledge to the next generation of Deaf signers. They, as gifted signers, believe that they will be able to build valuable visual information about their knowledge of the Deaf world and Deaf experiences into their stories. Sutton-Spence finds that signed stories are structured in a similar way to English stories, from the introduction to the climax and denouement. The storytelling she describes uses a threefold pattern, namely vertical symmetry, which involves placing signs at head height, shoulder height, and waist height, and/or horizontal symmetry, which involves placing signs in the left, right, and center space. This allows the narrator to use the pattern of three to build a narrative. Sutton-Spence believes that this linguistic pattern should be introduced to Deaf children.

Like spoken language, sign language has developed devices for constructing a cohesive narrative. Deaf signers can generate layers of information about events, places, and characters. Similar to what Indonesian speakers do in oral narrative, signers first establish reference in the form of noun phrases, for instance, kelinci (hare) and kura-kura (tortoise), by using fingerspelling. They also establish a location for spatial reference, such as di sana (there), by pointing to the positions of the characters. Sign language also employs certain strategies to organize sequential actions by sorting verbs that represent actions. In general, a range of linguistic strategies is used to produce connectives in narrative.

Sign language discourse, including narrative, also uses referential cohesion, ellipsis and substitution, conjunctions, and lexical organization. Table 1 shows the categories of cohesive devices from Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) theory on cohesion, elaborated by Johnston and Schembri (2007, pp. 270–277) in their study of Australian Sign Language (Auslan).

Table 1 Comparison of discourse cohesion theories
Full size table

Johnston and Schembri (2007) identify several categories as the most important constituent elements of sign language narrative, the first being referential cohesive resources, which include full noun phrase, pronoun and determiner, verb modification, classifier, role shifting, and list buoys.

A full noun phrase can be a combination of noun signals or signing by spelling letters or fingerspelling. In sign language narrative, the full noun phrase functions as an opening of chain reference in a text (Martin, 1992). Subsequent cohesion is thereafter indicated also with the full noun phrase, forming continuity of meaning.

Pronouns and determiners are used to indicate location in the text that is signed in the scope of the signing space. Pronouns and determiners are produced by means of noun signs followed by indexing (pointing) that functions as a determiner. Indexing is a device commonly used in signed languages, whereby the signer points to a location in the signing space to refer to a person or object; this location then becomes associated with that person or object and remains so until the end of the narrative or until the signer explicitly changes that association (Earis & Cormier, 2013, p. 315).

In addition to nouns that can change their meaning depending on location and indexing, verbs can be used in sign language to adjust locations to strengthen meaning in narrative. This is referred to as verb modification or verb agreement. There are five major forms in verb modification: (1) spatial and directional modification for showing what the subject is doing with the object and the location of an action; (2) modification for indicating the number of references or participants involved; (3) movement modification for showing how the action referred to by the verb is revealed in the time aspect(s); (4) modification for showing how actions occur; and (5) modification for showing intensification of action (Johnston & Schembri, 2007, p. 141). Regarding signing location, when a signer suggests a verb that points in a different direction, it indicates a statement that has a different meaning.

A classifier is a hand form whose signal represents an object, such as humans, animals, and other objects, combined with the unity of motion and location. The unity of gesture carries out an important grammatical role in sign language. Johnston and Schembri (2007, p. 168) divide classifiers into three categories: entities, treatments, and determiners of shape and size (SASS: size and shape specifier handshapes). The first category, “classifier entities,” represents a category of objects represented by the shape of a hand that approximates the shape of the object (object in the form of a living thing).

A “handling classifier” is a gesture that mimics the interaction of the hand with an object. The imitation is a sign that raises a verb that focuses on humans or animals holding an object or objects. Handling classifiers are divided into three categories. The first category is the holding hand-shape, which conveys the meaning of verbs by forming the hand into shapes that represent the carrying or holding of an object, such as a doorknob. The second category is the touching hand-shape, which includes the shape of a hand that mimics the touching of an object. Examples of this category are squeezing balls, stroking animals, and so on. The third category is the instrumental hand-shape, which refers to the shape of the hand that mimics the object itself. The objects referred to in this topic are objects commonly used by humans in everyday life. Examples of handshapes in this category are the “scissors for cutting” verbs or the shape of the letter Y that represents the shape of the “phone for calling” verbs.

The third classifier is size and shape handshapes’ specifier (SASS), which is used to describe a reference object by describing the shape and size, such as a signal to imitate a thin object (paper), or a box and other large objects, such as cardboard.

The shape of the hand is then used to bring up verbs (modified verbs) to indicate the movement and/or location of the subject characters in the gesture space. Signers can use one hand, or two hands at a time, to indicate a classifier. The use of two hands describes the location and movement of two or more separate referents (Johnston & Schembri, 2007, p. 169).

The next form of cohesion is role shift. Role shift can be understood as referential shift. A role shift is used to signify an entity in a part of the discourse that is presented from one perspective, by certain participants. The entities referred to can be the speakers themselves or others. Role shifts are indicated in three ways: shifted expressive elements (shifts in expressive elements), shifted gaze and/or postures (shifts in views and/or postures), and shifted references (shifts of reference) (Engberg-Pedersen, 1993). Liddel and Metzger (1998) explain that in shifting expressive elements there is a constructed action. Constructed actions refer to gestures that mimic the actions of the participants or characters involved in a discourse narration.

The next referential cohesion device is list buoys. Liddell and Metzger (1998) and Liddell (2003) explain that referential cohesion uses buoys or so-called signs. In this reference, the native signer uses subordinate hands which are maintained in the space of gesture, while the dominant hand is used to produce other signals that explain and refer to subordinate hand signals. Its use in sign language is referred to as list buoys, which explains a list of sign movements. Usually, the list is signed by the subordinate hand by mentioning the sequence of numbers—usually one to five—and the dominant hand explaining anything on the list. In a discourse, list buoys is used to refer back to the subordinate hand as a means of keeping track of referents in the discourse.

Another aspect of the unity of sign language narrative is lexical cohesion, which consists of reiteration and collocation. In sign language, reiteration is a lexical form that is indicated by reading the same words in different sentences. The purpose of repeating the words is to draw attention to a character or group that is considered important in the story. In addition to repetition, reiteration can be indicated with a signal that has the same meaning or concept as the signal that was previously produced. Meanwhile, collocation refers to sign inter-relationships that are in the same environment or fields as certain patterns and are continuous, so that references to one another can have an overall meaning.

In addition to referential and lexical cohesion, other categories of cohesive devices include ellipsis, marker substitution, and discourse conjunction. Ellipsis is an ellipse of a word or sentence. The word or sentence is not mentioned because the signer and interlocutor share an understanding of the context. In the sign language discourse, ellipsis appears most in role shift (shifting roles) and when the reference used is the same as that used in the previous sentence. Substitution is the substitution of words or elements in sentences with certain words at the lexicogrammatical level. For example, one could replace noun cues with the signal OTHER to refer to other nouns within the same meaning range. Discourse markers indicate the direction or purpose of a discourse, including conjunctions and fillers (Schiffrin, 1987). In JakSL there is a form of conjunction, e.g., tapi (but), kalau (if), etc., which functions as a cohesion device, connecting one clause with another in a complex sentence. In short, the categorization proposed by Johnston and Schembri (2007) can explain the cohesive sign narrative structure in sign language, including the data used in this research.

“The Hare and the Tortoise” as the Data

Narrative in sign language has been studied in relation to British Sign Language (BSL), American Sign Language (ASL), and also signs in other countries. One of the most recent studies of sign language narrative was conducted by Earis (2013). Earis’s study focuses on perspective-taking (POV) in the narrative produced by BSL speakers and oral language speakers, using “The Tortoise and the Hare” story as the data prompt. Earis found that there are differences between the two groups, in terms of the point of view used to tell the story. Speakers of English use the narrator’s perspective, while BSL users adopt the character’s perspective in telling the story. The main cohesive markers used in the spoken English narrative are nouns and pronouns, while BSL signers use eye view as their mental markers. This difference is to be expected considering oral English and BSL which are two languages with different modalities.

Our research was conducted using video data recorded from two Deaf participants, who, in April and May 2016, narrated the tale of “The Hare and the Tortoise” using JakSL. The story of “The Hare and the Tortoise” is used since JakSL signers can sign it and both participants are aware of and have sufficient knowledge of the story. Prior to the data collection, the two Deaf participants were not provided with the written story material. They were only told the stories from memory. By doing this, we maximized the potential that the two participants could come up with different versions of the story in terms of plot, character, and so on. The difference in this story is not important unless it affects the continuity of the narrative discourse. To ensure that the narrative elicitation was spontaneous and delivered in its entirety, researchers were not fully involved in the location of the data collection at the time of recording. The researcher was in the same room with the participants solely to give brief instructions. Once the recording started, the researcher left the room until the participants finished telling their stories. The two informants were recorded using a digital video camera aimed at the upper body, namely the waist to the head. For analysis of the structure and connecting elements in their narrative, videos were transcribed using Johnston and Schembri’s (2007) transcription method and the eLan program (eLan 4.9.3) to focus on manual and nonmanual movements. Manual signs are made with only the hands. These signs are formed from the basic components: hand-shape, orientation, location, and movement. Meanwhile, nonmanual signs occur in the parts of the body other than the hands. Nonmanual signs may involve facial expressions, mouth gestures, mouthing, gaze, and head/body movements.

To explain examples of sentences in the analysis, the sentences produced by Participant 1 are numbered 1.1, 1.2, and so on, while examples from Participant 2 are numbered 2.1, 2.2, and so on. We limited the participants to only JakSL users and disregarded distinctions based on gender. Based on the age limit and the indicator of sign language originality, this research engaged two male participants of different ages: one participant was 25 years old and the other was 55 years old. Both participants lived in Jakarta and were alumni of Sekolah Luar Biasa (SLB) B Don Bosco, Wonosobo. (SLB B is a special school for Deaf students located in the province of Central Java.)

Narrative discourse’s Superstructure in Jakarta Sign Language

From the transcription, which was based on sentences and then translated, the story’s plot was delivered by Participant 1, and the narrative structure conformed to Labov and Waletzky’s (1967) structural order: orientation, complication, resolution, evaluation, and coda. Table 2 compares the two informants’ narrative structures.

Table 2 Comparison of participants’ narratives
Full size table

Participant 1 constructed the orientation part by illustrating the fable’s setting, characters, and other background information. First, he introduced the story’s main characters, the hare and the tortoise, and then explained the background of their conflict: the tortoise challenges the hare to a race. The participant further clarified the background with a description of the setting, the race arena marked by the use of a classifier, i.e., a sign that imitated a long banner with “START” written on it. In addition, he also described the characters through their interactions and dialog. The tortoise was described through the hare’s statement that the tortoise is a slow animal. Through direct description, Participant 1 described the tortoise as a patient animal. This was shown by role shift performed by Participant 1. From the sentence TURTLE RIGHT (TURTLE)-LEFT (PATIENCE), after the TURTLE signal, Participant 1 performed a role shift, from the point of view of the storyteller, by changing roles into a turtle marked with RIGHT (TURTLE)-LEFT (PATIENT). This RIGHT (TURTLE)-LEFT gesture was a shifted gaze made by the participant, by turning his gaze to the left toward the rabbit, as if the participant were acting like a turtle character trying to be patient with the rabbit.

Complication is conveyed using basic details of an event that is the focus of the story. For this story, Participant 1 categorized the complication into three parts and explained it through the hare and the tortoise’s perspectives. The first complication consisted of a description of the hare’s and the tortoise’s actions when the race begins. Participant 1 described in detail the tortoise’s movements and its progress in the race with various classifiers and modification verbs to illustrate the hare’s and the tortoise’s respective positions.

For the second complication, Participant 1 described in detail the hare’s and the tortoise’s further actions in the race. As Participant 1 related, after managing to get ahead of the tortoise in the middle of the race, the hare stops to relax while grabbing a bite to eat. On the other hand, the participant explained that the tortoise continues walking, and maintaining her/his patience.

For the third complication, Participant 1 described the tortoise’s position of almost catching up with the hare. He further described the hare’s action with a classifier sign for the hare, showing the hare running quickly, and leaving the tortoise behind.

Next, the resolution details the race results, in which the tortoise wins and the hare loses. The resolution, i.e., the tortoise’s victory, was described as a process in which, after the hare falls, the tortoise is still far behind. Then, by using a classifier movement, Participant 1 signed that the tortoise is catching up to and getting ahead of the hare.

Following this resolution, in the evaluation, the participant identified the lesson that should be learned from the fable or the reason the event occurs in the story. He explained in detail the reason behind the tortoise’s victory and the hare’s defeat: the hare, who is in a hurry, becomes unaware of its surroundings, stumbles, and falls over a cliff. Meanwhile, the tortoise was described as having patience, which helps it win the race. In this case, the participant explained the evaluation from his own perspective as narrator.

Participant 1 ended up his storytelling with a nonmanual sign movement, signifying that he had finished the story. He smiled and shrugged to signal that the story was over. The movement served as a coda that closed all the stories’ narrated events.

Similar to Participant 1’s narrative, Participant 2’s narrative structure was also close to complete, with only the coda missing. Participant 2 clearly included orientation. He explained and described the story’s characters: the hare, the tortoise, the monkey, and the elephant. He described the hare by mentioning its physique and character—a furry, buck toothed animal, that was also arrogant—through his sign movement for WALKING WITH A PUFFED-UP CHEST. He also described the hare’s character through the dialog, with a sign movement for RIGHT (EASY)—LEFT (HARE) and PRON-1 (HARE) GREAT. The participants emphasized the character using a nonmanual sign (e.g., PUFFED CHEST) that focused on the body movement. This is also similar to Participant 1, where Participant 2 used body movement to embody the HARE’s character within himself and changed the role shift from the narrator’s perspective to the character’s perspective.

Participant 2 did not describe the other characters in detail, signing the tortoise only as an animal that moves very slowly. The other characters—the monkey and the elephant—were identified through his sign vocabulary: for the elephant, Participant 2 imitated an elephant’s trunk with his hand, and for the monkey, he imitated a monkey’s typical movements of scratching its body and head.

When Participant 1 introduced the story, he signed the tortoise challenging the hare to a race. Participant 2 introduced the story by signing that the hare and the tortoise are race participants without explaining the reason for the race. He described the monkey and the elephant as supporting the tortoise in winning the race.

Like Participant 1, Participant 2 divided the complication section into three parts based on the stages of the race. For the first complication, Participant 2 explained that the race would soon begin because the hare and the tortoise were getting into position on a mark made by the monkey. He described that after the race begins, the tortoise walks very slowly, while the hare hops fast. He explained that the race continues with the hare leaving the tortoise far behind.

Participant 2 described the second complication from the hare’s perspective—slacking off—because the hare knows that the tortoise is too far behind to catch up. At this point, the participant described a new setting, using classifiers to imitate the hare hopping through a winding path and up a hill. Then, he described a tree atop the hill where the hare eats and sleeps. Along with the new setting, he explained the hare’s next actions of eating and sleeping under the tree.

For the third complication, Participant 2 explained the rest of the story from two perspectives, those of the hare and the tortoise. He began with the tortoise walking slowly and moving past the hare. Then, he explained that the hare slacks off and falls asleep until it is almost dark. The hare then wakes up and is surprised when the tortoise is no longer in sight. Participant 2 explained that as the hare hurries to catch up, the tortoise is walking close to the finish line. In this part, in addition to the characters’ perspectives on chronology, he also used signs for TIME PASSES and IT STARTS TO GET DARK, adding information about time to signal the race’s chronology.

Participant 2 divided the resolution into two different parts; first, an explanation that the tortoise wins the race because its right foot touches the finish line a fraction of a second before the hare’s foot does. He also repeated this detail through the perspective of the monkey, who explains to the hare that it has lost the race. He then ended the resolution with the monkey and the elephant celebrating the tortoise’s victory.

Participant 2 delivered the evaluation from the hare’s perspective. The hare is surprised and disappointed to know that it lost the race. Moreover, the hare cannot believe that the tortoise has defeated her/him. The participant made no sign movement representing a coda to close the tale and connect all the narrative’s events. After delivering the resolution, Participant 2 signed only THANK YOU to close the narrative.

Cohesion in Jakarta Sign Language Narratives

Most of the cohesive devices mentioned by Johnston and Schembri (2007) were attested in the data, as described below.

  1. (1)

    Grammatical Cohesion

    1. a.

      Referential Cohesion

      1. i.

        Full noun phrases

Noun phrases produced by the participants included sign movements and fingerspellings. Both participants made references using fingerspelling and direct sign movements’ noun phrase. Fingerspelling was used to spell tortoise (T-O-R-T-O-I-S-E) and hare (H-A-R-E). In addition, noun phrases were used in PT + ka KURA-KURA as a reference for the tortoise. Below are examples from the data. Spellings are used to refer to the tortoise (K-U-R-A-K-U-R-A) and rabbit (K-E-L-I-N-C-I) characters. In addition, the noun phrases are raised in PT + Ka KURA-KURA as a reference for the tortoise.

1.2

t                                                    t                          t                                t

MAU CERITA D-O-(N)-G-E-N-G TENTANG FATIS KELINCI K-E-L-I-

-t

N-C-I YANG-KEDUA PT+ka KURA-KURA

Saya mau bercerita mengenai dongeng tentang Kelinci dan Kura-kura

[I want to tell a story about a hare and a tortoise.]

2.3

AM: an

AM: an

      PRON-3 (KELINCI[PT+ki]) · K-E-L-I-N-C-I    KELINCI    PRON-3 (KURA-KURA[PT+ka])    K-U-R-A-K-U-R-A · PRON-3 (KURA-KURA[PT+ka])    KURA-KURA

      Ada lomba, lomba adu cepat antara Kelinci yang berbulu badannya

dan memiliki dua gigi menonjol dengan Kura-kura.

      [There is a race, a race between a furry, bucktoothed hare and a

tortoise to see who is faster.]

  1. ii

    Pronouns and determiners

Determining a location with reference to a spatial sign strengthens the texture’s and the reference’s correlation and continuity of discourse. By pointing, Participant 1 positions the hare on the left (PT + ki) and the tortoise on the right (PT + ka). Only the tortoise’s location was pointed out clearly, so the implication is that the hare’s position was on the left. The following is an example of the location description.

1.2

MAU CERITA D-O-(N)-G-E-N-G TENTANG FATIS KELINCI K-E-L-I-N-C-I YANG-

KEDUA PT + ka KURA-KURA

Saya mau bercerita mengenai dongeng tentang Kelinci dan Kura-kura

[I want to tell a story about a hare and a tortoise.]

1.3

PRON-3 (KURA-KURA[PT + ka]) BERKATA BALAP

     Kura-kura mengajak Kelinci untuk balapan

[The tortoise challenges the hare to a race.]

As already mentioned, Participant 2 included four characters in the narrative: the tortoise, the hare, the monkey, and the elephant. During the narrative, he described only the locations of the two main characters, the hare (PT + ki) and the tortoise (PT + ka). The locations of the other characters—the monkey and the elephant—were not fully and consistently described throughout the story. Instead, he produced sign Mused direct signs for the MONKEY and the ELEPHANT. In his story, the monkey and the elephant’s locations tended to be replaced by PRON-1 and PRON-2 (I and you).

2.8

AM:an AM: ar

M: @ M: n

MONYET    GAJAH    BERTEPUK-TANGAN + dp [KURA-KURA] ·

Monyet dan Gajah bertepuk tangan kepada Kura-kura

[The monkey and the elephant cheer for the tortoise.]

2-9

AM:ar

M: n AYO    SEMANGAT + dp [KURA-KURA]    PRON-2 (KURA-KURA[PT + dp]) · CEPAT

  AM:ar

  M: n

  CEPAT

  “Ayo semangat, Kura-kura! Kamu bisa cepat!” kata Monyet dan Gajah menyemangati Kura-kura

[Go, tortoise! You can do it!” says the monkey and the elephant, cheering for the tortoise.]

2.10

[MONYET] KIRI(KL[BENDERA])-KANAN(KL[MEMEGANG BENDERA])    Monyet memegang bendera untuk memulai lomba

[The monkey is holding a flag to signal the start of the race.]

  1. iii

    Modification verbs/agreement verbs

Modification verbs also appeared in the data. Johnston and Schembri (2007, p. 141) distinguish between five categories of these verbs. One category, which shows what the subject does and what location is used, was mentioned by Participants 1 and 2. The example (1.6) shows how the subject, the tortoise, glances at a specific location (to the left, in the hare’s direction) using a nonmanual sign and locating the verb toward the left (M:v + ki), which marks alignment between modification verbs and the location used to describe the characters in the following sentence.

1-6

M:v+ki

KURA-KURA KURA-KURA-MELIRIK-KE-ARAH-+ki [KELINCI]

Kura-kura melirik ke arah Kelinci.

[The tortoise glances in the hare’s direction.]

The second form of modification verb is a modification of a verb that states the number of referents involved. In this type of verb modification, there is no match between more than one reference. Modification of verbs, in both data, refers to one reference only, as in the previous example, with the subject (the tortoise) glancing at the rabbit (one reference). Therefore, only one object is included in this sentence. In contrast, different things were found in Participant 2’s data with reference to a single entity object, while the number of subjects involved is two characters, the ELEPHANT and the MONKEY, as in the following clause example.

2.75

AM: an

M: @

GAJAH    MONYET    KL[MENGANGKAT-KURA-KURA-KE-PUNDAK]

[The elephant and the monkey then lifted the tortoise onto their shoulders.]

The third form is modification of verbs, which is concerned with indicating aspect. It is found in Participant 2’s narrative, shown in the two examples below. Both examples describe non-punctual time.

2.46.

AM: ar

M: n

GB: uu

WAKTU-TERUS-BERJALAN ·

[Time keeps running]

2.47.

HARI-MULAI-GELAP ·

Waktu terus berjalan dan hari pun mulai gelap

[IT’S GETTING DARK

Time keeps running and the day is getting dark]

The fourth form is modification of the verb, shown through how the action is executed (the manner). In the data, the most noticeable type of verb modification is in both participants’ description of the tortoise and the rabbit competing. Both participants describe the rabbit running rapidly with the gestural portrayal of action and with a description of the action using a classifier. Meanwhile, the tortoise is described as running very slowly. The use of this type of modification verb in the data reinforces the manner adverb with the appearance of nonmanual and other traits. In the data, the behavior of the tortoise is not shown using nonmanual characteristics, but instead both participants used speed and conditional delays. The movement of the tortoise is described by Participants 1 and 2 as very slow to reinforce the tortoise’s slow movements. Meanwhile, the speed of the rabbit’s motion, in addition to being marked by the speed of motion, is also described using nonmanual characteristics, as shown in the following example.

2.7

AM: an

M: @

PRON-3 (KURA-KURA[PT + ka]) · KURA-KURA-BERJALAN-PELAN

Sementara itu, Kura-kura datang dengan berjalan sangat pelan

[Meanwhile, the tortoise comes very slowly.]

The fifth aspect is the agreement modification verb with intensification for adjectives to reinforce meaning. In oral Indonesian, an example is sangat or very in English (Johnston & Schembri, 2007, p. 153). Johnston and Schembri explain that in Auslan, separate intensifier signs, such as VERY and TRUE, exist. Nevertheless, the sign for some adjectives and verbs in Auslan may need a specific modification of their movement features to signal intensification. As shown in the data, Participant 2 describes the tortoise's position by signing so faraway, characterized by a nonmanual sign of the eye (shrinking), and the eyebrow (wrinkled), and makes a further movement onward to show the intense meaning of the sign, as seen in the following example. In spoken language, it could be identified as an intensifying adjective or adverb (Johnston & Schembri, 2007, 153). In our data, the gesture form for intensifying cues is not found. As described earlier, in the fourth type of modification verb, the concept of intensity, in sign language, can be conveyed by certain nonmanual characteristics and the addition of speed or delay in movement. Participant 2 describes the tortoise’s position by indicating a distant word, characterized by nonmanual eye (shrinking) and eyebrow (wrinkled) signs to indicate intensity, as in the following example.

2.27

B:tg + ka

K:tg + ka

AM: ar

M: n

[KURA-KURA-MASIH]-JAUH    FATIS-(ALAH) + ka

  “Ah, Kura-kura masih jauh sekali.” ujar Kelinci

[“Ah, Tortoise is still very far away,” said Rabbit.]

  1. iv.

    Classifier

The classifier is used by both participants in almost every act. One type of classifier found is an entity classifier to represent the hare and the tortoise. Participant 1 used two pointing handshapes to represent the hare and the tortoise.

1.30

GB: uu

KANAN (KL-[KURA-KURA-TERTINGGAL)-KIRI (KL-[KELINCI-LARI-CEPAT])

Kelinci berlari cepat meninggalkan Kura-kura. Dan Kura-kura jauh tertinggal di belakang

[The hare runs in a dash, leaving the tortoise behind. And the tortoise is left far behind.]

The next classifier found in the data is the handling classifier. One of the handling classifiers is found in Participant 2’s narrative. The participant uses verb forms for conveying the action of grasping. In the story, the rabbit is grasping the carrot while falling asleep, as a result of overeating. The example of a handling classifier is provided in 2.34.

2.34

B: sd + bz

GB: aa

KELINCI] KANAN (MENGUAP) LEFT (KL[MEMEGANG WORTEL])

Belum sempat habis wortelnya, dia mulai menguap dan merasa mengantuk

[Had not finished his carrot, he started yawning and feeling sleepy.]

The next classifier that appears in the data is a classifier based on a shape and size determiner (Size and Shape Handshapes’ Specifier/SASS). In the data, the SASS classifier is found in Participant 2’s narrative. This participant used the SASS classifier by signing a thin line representing the end of the race. An example is given in 2.55.

2.55

AM: an

M: @

 

    KURA-KURA-BERJALAN-PELAN · KL[GARIS-FINISH] ·

    Kura-kura masih berjalan dengan pelannya dan mulai mendekati garis finish

[The tortoise is still walking slowing and approaching the finish line.]

  1. v.

    Role shift

Role shift was present in Participant 2’s narrative. This participant shifted between the two characters’ perspectives, i.e., the hare and the tortoise, by showing it through bodily movement. He first imitated the tortoise’s slow movement and then quickly shifted to the hare’s jumping movement.

2.56

AM: ar

     M: n

     GB: oo

KURA-KURA-BERJALAN-PELAN · KELINCI-MELOMPAT-SEMAKIN-CEPAT ·

Kura-kura masih berjalan dengan pelannya sementara Kelinci melompat semakin cepat.

[The tortoise is moving very slowly, while the hare is jumping even faster.]

  1. vi.

    List buoys

No list buoy was found in the data. When listing characters, neither participant mentioned the characters in a particular order, using both hands, with the subordinate hand indicating numbers and the dominant hand explaining the list. However, both participants immediately mentioned the characters involved, using full noun phrases and determiners, as shown in the example below.

1.2

MAU CERITA D-O-(N)-G-E-N-G TENTANG FATIS KELINCI K-E-L-I-N-C-I YANG KEDUA PT+ka KURA-KURA

Saya mau bercerita mengenai dongeng tentang Kelinci dan Kura-kura.

[I want to tell a story about a hare and a tortoise.]

  1. b.

    Ellipsis

In addition to role shifting between characters, ellipsis was also found in one participant’s role shift, but in different sentences. The following is an example of ellipsis.

2.20

AM:an

M:@ M:g + ka K:tg + ka

KELINCI · BERJALAN-SENYUM-MEREMEHKAN + ka · MELOMPAT-LOMPAT ·

Kelinci memandang Kura-kura dengan remeh. Dia berjalan, kemudian melompat-lompat

[The hare gives an underestimating look at the tortoise. Then, it hops away.]

2.21

K: tg + ka

KIRI(KELINCI-MELOMPAT-LOMPAT) > KANAN (KL[KURA-KURA TERTINGGAL JAUH]) ·

Kelinci melompat-lompat hingga jauh meninggalkan Kura-kura di belakangnya

[The hare hops away from the tortoise, leaving it far behind.]

2.27

   B: sd + b

   AM: ar

[KELINCI]-DUDUK-BERSANDAR-DI-BAWAH-POHON · LAPAR · MAKAN ·

   Kelinci kemudian duduk bersandar di bawah pohon di puncak bukit itu. Dia kemudian kelaparan dan ingin makan

[The hare then sits under a tree on the top of the hill. It gets hungry and wants to eat.]

In examples 2.21 and 2.27, the participants performed different roles for the same referent, the hare. Sentence 2.21 contains the subject kelinci ‘hare’ performing an action, WALKS, SMILES, UNDERESTIMATES. In fact, in the next move, HOPS AWAY, the same subject is omitted and continues to be omitted in the following sentences describing this subject performing different actions: HOPS AWAY and SITS and EATS. In the data, ellipsis was indicated, not only by role shifting but also by using a classifier movement for the same referent, the hare.

  1. (2)

    Lexical Cohesion

Johnston and Schembri (2007) distinguish between two types of lexical cohesion: reiteration and collocation. In the data, reiteration was found in the repetition of sentences. The following is from Participant 2’s narrative.

2.29

B: sd + b

     GB: MENGUNYAH

   [KELINCI]-WORTEL-MAKAN

2.30

B: sd + b

     [KELINCI]-MENGAMBIL-WORTEL

2.31

B: sd + b

     GB: MENGUNYAH

  [KELINCI]-WORTEL-MAKAN

2.32

B: sd + b

     [KELINCI]-MENGAMBIL-WORTEL ·

2.33

B: sd + b

     GB: MENGUNYAH

  [KELINCI]-WORTEL-MAKAN ·

     Kelinci mengambil wortel-wortel yang dibawanya dan memakannya

[The hare takes out the carrots it brought with her/him and eats them.]

Besides repetition, Participant 1 used antonymy to compare the tortoise and the hare. For example, an antonymy was presented, from the hare’s perspective, in which she/he compares her-/himself (FAST) with the tortoise (SLOW), as shown in 2.6 and 2.7.

2.6

AM: an

   M: @ M:v + ka

KELINCI BILANG + ka PRON-2 (KURA-KURA) TIDAK-MAMPU + ka KURA-KURA

   M:v + ka

PELAN-PELAN PRON-3 (KURA-KURA[PT + ka]) TIDAK-MAMPU + ka

Kelinci berkata, “Kura-kura lambat, dia tidak akan mampu!

[The hare claims, “The tortoise is slow, it won’t win the race!”]

2.7

AM: an

   M: @ M:v + ka

   (MEREMEHKAN) GB: mm

PRON-3 (KELINCI[PT + ki]) KELINCI BILANG CEPAT PRON-1(KELINCI)-BANGGA

 

M:v + ka

(MEREMEHKAN)GB: mm

HEBAT + ka

Kelinci dengan bangga berkata bahwa dia cepat, “Aku kan hebat!”

[Proudly, the hare says that it runs fast, “I’m the best!”]

Collocation identifies discourse cohesiveness from the relation between words within the same environment or area. Only Participant 2 used this lexical cohesive device:

2.2

AM: an

   M: @ GB (TERSENYUM-BANGGA) mm

   KELINCI    KL[MEMAKAI-IKAT-KEPALA]   BERGIGI-DUA-MENONJOL

   GB (TERSENYUM-BANGGA) mm

   KL[MEMAKAI-KAIN-DIIKAT-DI-LENGAN-KIRI BERJALAN-MEMBUSUNGKAN-DADA

   Kelinci datang berjalan membusungkan dada dengan memakai ikat kepala, dan lengan terikat kain.

[The hare comes walking with a puffed-up chest, wearing a band around its head and a ribon around its arm.]

In example 2.2, the participant used a sign movement for TWO BUCKTEETH to represent the hare’s physique. Here, the phrase BERGIGI DUA MENONJOL “having two buckteeth” was mentioned within the same environment as the KELINCI “hare” and thus collocated with it.

Conclusion

This study has presented an analysis of narrative structure produced by native users of JSL. We have shown that the structure of their narrative matches that described by Labov and Waletzky (1967). Participant 1’s narrative shows a structure that includes complete components—from orientation to complication, resolution, and evaluation to coda. Meanwhile, Participant 2’s narrative includes orientation, complication, resolution, and evaluation, but the coda was absent.

As structured discourse, narrative is incomplete without an element connecting each of its parts. An analysis of sign language elements that create cohesiveness can build on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) theory and on Johnston and Schembri’s (2007) variables for cohesion in sign language discourse.

Grammatical cohesion is attested in the data in the form of referential cohesion, ellipsis, substitution, and discourse markers. Referential cohesion takes a number of forms: full noun phrases, pronouns and determiners, modification verbs, classifiers, role shifting, and list buoys—the last form has no equivalent in JSL. In their narratives, the two participants used a type of lexical cohesion not mentioned by Johnston and Schembri, namely antonymy. This research result shows that not only narrative structure, but also the discourse structure of JSL used by Deaf people, can be studied. It is also interesting, for example, to study the argumentation structure of sign language or how deaf people describe things in the language.