Language is not a monolithic entity, since it is not homogeneously used by all speakers. Language can display variation due to sociolinguistic factors, leading to the existence of several alternative expressions to refer to the same referent. These variations can be due to language-internal or language-external factors.
Within sociolinguistic studies, there is a general consensus about the existence of five main kinds of variation: diachronic, diastratic, diaphasic, diamesic, and diatopic. Diachronic variation depends on temporal factors or arises from the comparison between old and young signers. Modifications are diastratic, if the changes are related to different social and economic conditions. Diaphasic variation is affected by communicative settings, for example the shifting between formal or informal registers. Diamesic modifications depend on the communicative medium (for example, face-to-face communication, video recordings or online video calls). In fact, in LIS, video calls and recorded videos often imply some reduction of space or adjustments due to a two-dimensional type of transmission. Modifications depending on geographic areas determine diatopic variation. Some cases of diatopic variations in LIS can be traced back to the different Institutes attended by deaf people. In these cases, for example, in a city it is possible to find more than one variant for the same sign, because different signs came from different Institutes based in the same city. Il Dizionario bilingue elementare della Lingua dei Segni (SOCIO-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 4.2) collected many of these instances of linguistic variation.
Among language-external factors in sociolinguistic variation, we find education (SOCIO-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 2.4), age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, linguistic background, and socio-economic conditions.
As far as LIS is concerned, a high degree of sociolinguistic variation is observed. This is triggered by several factors: i) the lack of formal recognition by the Italian government, ii) the pressure caused by the spoken Italian language, which in some cases is considered as more prestigious, iii) the paucity of bimodal bilingual educational programs for deaf students at school, and iv) the absence of a written form of LIS. Different types of variation can co-occur in relation to various layers of linguistic structure: lexical processes, phonological processes, morphological processes, syntactic processes and discourse level processes. The videos below show the diachronic evolution of the lexical sign phone (a-e).
a. phone(1)
b. phone(2)
c. phone(3)
d. phone(4)
e. phone(5)
In this case, the evolution of the sign reflects the historical evolution of its referent, from candlestick telephones to modern smartphones.
Generally, diachronic variation concerning lexical changes seems to undergo a process of loss of iconicity, whereas an opposite tendency leads younger signers to adopt and codify more arbitrary forms. Furthermore, younger users of LIS seem to use the most standardised and unified variety of LIS.
The variability attested on word order seems to be related to both diatopic and diachronic variation. Indeed, northern signers tend to produce SVO structures, as in (a) below. On the contrary, southern signers seem to prefer the SOV order, as in (b). Moreover, SVO seems to be the order preferred by older signers, while younger signers show a marked preference for SOV. Exceptions to these two tendencies depend on the presence of functional elements or on the reversibility of the verb, in these cases, the social variables are not significant.
a. gianni buy house
‘Gianni bought a house.’
b. gianni house buy
‘Gianni bought a house.’
Another example of diachronic variation concerns the sign one, used as cardinal and indefinite determiner. Middle-aged and older generations use the sign one both as cardinal number and indefinite determiner (probably due to the influence of Italian). According to some studies, middle-aged and older generations of signers use the sign one as an indefinite determiner by associating it with a tremoring motion, a slight trembling movement of the forearm and hand. In these cases, the sign one is not articulated in a particular point in space, rather in an unmarked location. Furthermore, the sign one used as an indefinite determiner could also be accompanied by a facial expression denoting uncertainty, namely pulling the corners of the mouth down (LEXICON 3.6.2). More recent studies argue that the indefinite determiner one seems to be mostly accompanied by upward head tilt and a shrug of the shoulders. An example is provided below.
indef
one(det) woman CL(G): ‘come’1
‘A woman suddenly came to me.’
On the other hand, new generations tend to use the sign one only as a cardinal number. Therefore, indefiniteness is only expressed by facial expressions of uncertainty, as in the example below.
indef
woman CL(G): ‘come’1
‘A woman suddenly came to me.’
An example of diatopic modification is the different realisation of the sign one. Depending on the geographical provenience, signers tend to sign one in two different ways. In the northern regions, one is signed with the index finger (a), namely, with the handshape G, while in the southern regions it is articulated with the thumb extended (b), namely with the handshape S (LEXICON 3.6.2).
a. one(det)(G)
b. one(det)(S)