A Sociolinguistic Survey of Guatemala

A Sociolinguistic Survey of Guatemala

Elizabeth ParksSIL InternationalApril 12, 2007CSLR2: Nijmegen, Netherlands

Elizabeth Parks, SIL International

2

Presentation Outline

Overview of Guatemala Research Questions Field Procedure Survey Tools Introductory Findings Proposed Changes and Future Work


3

Guatemala

Total Population:15 million (approx)

Capital: Guatemala City (GC)

Official Language:Spanish

Bordering Countries:

Mexico, Belize, Honduras, & El Salvador


CONADI = Nacional Para La Atencion de Las Personas con Discapacidad

4

The Deaf Community Total deaf population:

70-110 thousand (CONADI*) 40% of total reportedly uses a signed language:

28-44 thousand (approximate) Limited equal access

60% of deaf people make under 1500 Quetzales a month (Roughly 200 USD, 150 EUR, 100 GBP).

No deaf schools teach above grade 6 Deaf Associations: 5 total

Guatemala City: ASORGUA (198-) and AGUASOR (2005) Quetzaltenango: 1 (2007) San Marcos: 1 (200-) Cobán: 1 (2007)


5

Schools for Deaf Students

7 schools for deaf students: Oral and Total Communication (TC)

approaches (TC in 1996) 4 of these schools are run by the

Comité 5-10 deaf teachers total

Mainstreamed and schools for disabled Mostly without interpreters

1-2 universities in GC accept deaf students, with a total of 4 interpreters Only available for computer

training at bachelor level No Interpreter Training Programs No skilled interpreters available

outside of GC and Xela


6

Comité’s Guatemala Schools Oral TC

(GC) Fray Pedro Ponce de León 1946 –

(GC) Jardín Infantil para niños Sordos 1991 –

preschool

(GC) Centro de Comunicación Total 1996 -

(GC) Centro de Educación Continuada para Sordos Adultos “CECSA”

1989 – vocational

(Xela) Centro Educativo para Niños Sordos de Occidente1991 –

(K-5)

(Zacapa) Escuela para Niños Sordos Regional de Oriente 1991 -

(Retalhuleu) Escuela para Niños Sordos Regional del Sur 1994 -

Four Privately Funded: Escuintla, Huehuetenango, Jalapa, & San Marcos


7

Publications Specifically On or About Signed Languages in Guatemala

Only 1 found: Dictionary of GC Sign Variety El Lenguaje de Señas Guatemalteco (LENSEGUA)

2001: 1st dictionary of LENSEGUA by ASORGUA (Line Drawings) 2004: 2nd edition of dictionary with permission of ASORGUA by

Hefzi-Bá Beula (Photographs)

Xela: TV Program Tuesday evening, 1 hour free program on Xela signs and deaf

culture Teacher: Deaf association Vice-president Have been broadcasted for approximately 1 year


8

Survey Procedure

2-3 months of field work Invited by founder of Hefzi-Bá Beula Search for available materials on

Guatemala (few) Field Work: January-March 2007 Connect with ASORGUA and deaf

community leaders Deaf interpreters and guides

Locations: Guatemala City Quetzaltenango Huehuetenango San Marcos Mazatenango Cobán


9

Research Questions

RQ1: To what extent does signing vary within Guatemala?

RQ2: What are the levels of intelligibility between Guatemala City and Quetzaltenango, the two largest cities in Guatemala?


10

Research Tools

Sociolinguistic Interviews Gathering knowledge of their world through individual

socio-cultural profiles Adapted from Bickford (1988), Showalter (1990), and

Parkhurst (2003) Wordlist comparison

Evaluate lexical similarity Adapted from Woodward and previous SIL researchers’

wordlists Recorded Text Testing (RTT)

Evaluate comprehension Make inferences about intelligibility

Adapted from Blair (1990), Grimes (1995), and Parkhurst (2001)


11

Introduction to Any Data Collection

Thanks Purpose

We are interested in learning more about the Guatemalan deaf community and their sign languages.

Confidentiality You will not be identified by name in our research in any way.

Future use of information Lead to better educational and employment opportunities, more

respect for deaf people and their signed language, educating people

Duration and Activity This interview will take about 1 hour. You will be…

Participant Assent Do you have any questions before we begin? Are you willing to

participate?


12

Sociolinguistic Interviews

Gathering knowledge of the deaf world and their perspectives through individual socio-cultural profiles


13

Sociolinguistic Questionnaire Foci

Attitudes toward: Language (Spanish and Sign varieties) People (Deaf people from other areas and hearing people)

Language acquistion Perceived sign language variation Family dynamics & ethnolinguistic vitality Means of employment Interpreters Language contact:

With other countries or areas within Guatemala Signers visiting from other countries or areas within

Guatemala


14

A Few Interview Results:


15

Acquisition of Sign Language

Locations: Schools, Deaf Clubs, Deaf Community, Churches and

Christian ministries, Hospitals, Deaf family members, Hearing parents, LENSEGUA dictionary, TV programs

GC and Xela as centers: Many people acquired language in GC because there were

no schools elsewhere until 1991. After 1991, Xela became a center on the mountain ridge

Signed Spanish: Although not officially taught, hearing teachers use signed

Spanish in their classes


16

Perceived Language Variation

Language differences are based on: Age, locale, school, church and social group,

hearing vs. deaf Guatemala signs have relationships with:

El Salvador, Mexico, Cuba, Costa Rica, USA Language similarity groups:

Huehuetenango and Mazatenango to Xela Esquintla, Zacapa, and Cobán to GC,


17


18

Language Attitudes

Equality of Guatemala sign varieties Lack of vocabulary: Some want gaps to be filled in

with signs from Spain and not other places Unify Guatemalan sign language varieties, but

desire to retain their local sign Resistance to outside forcing signs on them: GC on

Xela, USA on Guatemala Sign language is more important than Spanish

because it gives access to the deaf community


19

Wordlist Comparisons

Evaluates the similarity in various language varieties through comparison of their lexical items


20

Wordlists

210 words Nouns, verbs, time,

descriptors Power point presentation:

Spanish word Picture or clipart

Grouped by topic (e.g.) animals, food,

verbs, relations, time Opposites are placed

side-by-side

Parks Wordlist Power Point 2007

210 words


22

Wordlist Procedure Deaf guides help choose and make contact with participants

Not from same families, born and raised in location with minimal travel outside of their area or the country, leaders in their deaf communities

Variation in school, level of education, location, age (over and under 35), occupation, and religion

16 Wordlists

GC Xela San Marcos

Huehue Mazate Cobán

Female, under 35

1 2 1 1

Male, under 35

1 1 2 1

Female, over 35

1 1 1

Male, over 35

1 1 1 1


23

Wordlist Procedure

Introduction and participant assent Show power point wordlist and record

participant’s sign with camcorder Stop at 100 if that they seemed to be having

trouble with the procedure 1 each in Cobán, Huehue, and Xela


*Max Planck Institute 24

Wordlist Procedure

Code wordlists in ELAN* Handshape, orientation, location, movement Coding is based on ASL. (e.g.) CAT:

F.CU>BU.Nose>Cheek.I/Br+ Handshape – F Orientation – CU>BU Location – Nose>Cheek Movement – I/Br+

Nonmanuals may be skewed by Spanish words and not included


*SIL International 25

Wordlist Procedure

Compare coding to find similarity in WordSurv* Binary scoring: If 2 or more parameters are

considered the same, the word is considered similar are scored as 1. If less than 2 are the same, it is 0

Sorry, but analysis of this part is not quite ready share


26

Wordlist Challenges Who should you include to reflect the community? What is the best way to compare wordlists?

Side by side video – long time and lack of long-term use Linear coding – loss of information

Which words do you include? What percentage of the words should be iconic? Which are culturally acceptable and widespread?

Throw out #59 (may not know) How should they be represented and elicited?

Thow out #112 (multiple meanings in Spanish) Throw out #145-145 (pictures skew results)

How many wordlists and words in that list do you need before it is a statistically meaningful study?


27

Recorded Text Testing (RTT)

Evaluate comprehension Make inferences about intelligibility by their

ability to comprehend the text


28


2-3 participants are selected who are respected in the community for natural signing

A natural text is gathered of 4-5 minutes in length from each

The “best” text is chosen and a clip of 1-3 minutes is created. “Best” as defined by: Naturalness of sign Appropriate duration Community’s unfamiliarity with the story Community’s familiarity with the topic


29


1-3 minute video is split into 5-10 segments Main points are selected for each segment First view: participants watch video in its

entirety Second view:

The video is paused after each segment Participants are asked to retell what had been

signed

Guatemala City Text 1

March 2007

VOLUNTEER?


31

Points We’re Looking For in GC TextBlue = 2 or less missed Red = 3 or less missed White = 4 or more missed

3b-1.Some of the group walked around

3c-1.went to miralfores

4a-1.Her bus

4a-2. stuck in a traffic jam

4b.Her house

4b-2. was far away

4c-1.She arrived home tired

4c-2.laid down

4c-3.rested for the night

5a.She helped

5a-1. clean her house

5b-1.Today she got up

5b-2.got ready

5c-1.She came

5c-2.talked with the deaf group

1a-1.yesterday

1a-2.she got up

1a-3.and bathed

1b-1.She went to work

1b-2.computers

1c-1.She talked with deaf people

1c-2.4 deaf people

2a-1.She left work

2a-2.at 10

2b-1.She went to celebrate

2b-2.a birthday

2c-1.Various deaf pople got together to chat

2c-2.tease the birthday-person

2c-3.discuss ideas

3a-1.As time passed

3a-2.it became hot


32


GC text result in GC and Xela

GC Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Percent of 100% correct

83.9% 74.2% 71.0% 0.0% 45.2% 38.7% 83.9% 41.9%

Xela Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


87.1 87.1 61.3 74.2 87.1 74.2 64.5 67.7 74.2 83.9

GC average = 54.8% Xela = 66.2%

Xela has highest and GC has lowest


33


Xela text result in GC and Xela

GC Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


97.1 61.8 64.7 44.1 38.2 61.8 94.1 64.7

Xela Results

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


76.5 64.7 67.7 94.1 73.5 50.0 61.8 58.8 44.1 70.6

GC average = 65.8% Xela average = 76.1%

GC has highest and lowest


34

Why the odd results?

R1: The GC text may use more Xela sign and the Xela more GC signs Unlikely. The signers were born, raised, and lived in GC and

Xela, respectively, all their lives, with little travel R2: Xela signers are more equipped to understand 2-d signing

Possible. They have a weekly TV program of signs R3: Xela signers were better educated and familiar with testing

procedure Possible. Because of time constraints, Xela participants were

mostly younger, educated people. R4: The Xela text was easier or more familiar

Possible. The Xela text was about more shared topics (Futbol, Association, etc.) and the GC text was specific to her day.

R5: Any other ideas?


35

What could improve this survey?

A better wordlist: some of the words and pictures should be eliminated or changed

An established means of coding signs for the purpose of analysis (like the IPA)

More resources: time and money would have allowed for us to cover more ground and meet more people

Hometown testing the RTT text before use: Making sure the text is a good one would help to make sense of the results


36

References

Blair, Frank. 1990. “Survey on a Shoestring.” pp. 17-21 [section on “Intelligibility testing: What? – How do I score it?”, on LinguaLinks, section 3.1-9]

Comité Pro Ciegos y Sordos de Guatemala “Web Site – Home.” http://www.prociegosysordos.org.gt [A national blind and deaf organization]

Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/ . [Information on population size, number of deaf institutions, location of 4 deaf schools, language development (found in http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=csn).]

Grimes, Joseph. 1995. “Language Survey Reference Guide.” pp. 33-34. [section on “Dialect intelligibility testing”, on LinguaLinks section 3.2]

Parkhurst, Stephen and Dianne. 2001. “SL Variation Spain.” ?? [Chapter on Recorded Text Tests]

Parkhurst, Stephen and Dianne. 2003. “Lexical Comparisons of Signed Languages and the Effects of Iconicity.” Work papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota, vol. 47. [www.und.edu/dept/linguistics/wp/2003ParkhurstParkhurst.pdf]

Paz, Edith. Personal correspondence. December 2006. [She is full-time staff with Hefzi-Bá Beula - a Christian organization working with the deaf community]

Showalter, Catherine J. 1990. “Getting what you asked for: A study of sociolinguistic questionnaires.” Section 6.5 of the Survey Reference Manual, Bergman 1990.


37

Thanks to…

Jason Parks – My fellow coworker Kevin and Abby Micheo – Our Guatemalan survey

partners Jay Soper – who helped provide funding Albert Bickford and Ken Decker – for providing

helpful survey mentoring Julia Ciupek-Reed – for contacts The Guatemalan Deaf Community – for their

generosity, love, and joy to work alongside

Documents

A Sociolinguistic Survey of Guatemala