A Sociolinguistic Survey of Guatemala

1. A Sociolinguistic Survey of Guatemala Elizabeth Parks SIL International April 12, 2007 CSLR2: Nijmegen, Netherlands

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

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) CONADI = Nacional Para La Atencion de Las Personas con Discapacidad

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

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,

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

21. 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

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

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 *Max Planck Institute

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  *SIL International

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. Recorded Text Testing (RTT) • 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. Recorded Text Testing (RTT) • 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

30. Guatemala City Text 1 March 2007 VOLUNTEER?

31. Points We’re Looking For in GC TextBlue = 2 or less missedRed = 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

32. Recorded Text Testing (RTT) GC text result in GC and Xela GC average = 54.8% Xela = 66.2% Xela has highest and GC has lowest

33. Recorded Text Testing (RTT) Xela text result in GC and Xela 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