A Sociolinguistic Survey
of Guatemala
Elizabeth Parks
SIL International
April 12, 2007
CSLR2: Nijmegen, Netherlands
Presentation Outline






Overview of Guatemala
Research Questions
Field Procedure
Survey Tools
Introductory Findings
Proposed Changes and Future Work
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
2
Guatemala
Total Population:
15 million (approx)
Capital:
Guatemala City (GC)
Official Language:
Spanish
Bordering Countries:
Mexico, Belize, Honduras, &
El Salvador
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
3
The Deaf Community

Total deaf population:


40% of total reportedly uses a signed language:


28-44 thousand (approximate)
Limited equal access



70-110 thousand (CONADI*)
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)
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
CONADI = Nacional Para La Atencion de
Las Personas con Discapacidad
4
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
5
Comité’s Guatemala Schools
Oral
(GC) Fray Pedro Ponce de León
1946 –
(GC) Jardín Infantil para niños Sordos
1991 –
preschool
TC
(GC) Centro de Comunicación Total
1996 -
(GC) Centro de Educación Continuada para Sordos Adultos
“CECSA”
1989 –
vocational
(Xela) Centro Educativo para Niños Sordos de Occidente
1991 –
(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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
6
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
7
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
8
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?
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
9
Research Tools

Sociolinguistic Interviews

Gathering knowledge of their world through individual
socio-cultural profiles


Wordlist comparison

Evaluate lexical similarity


Adapted from Bickford (1988), Showalter (1990), and
Parkhurst (2003)
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)
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
10
Introduction to Any Data Collection


Thanks
Purpose


Confidentiality


Lead to better educational and employment opportunities, more
respect for deaf people and their signed language, educating
people
Duration and Activity


You will not be identified by name in our research in any way.
Future use of information


We are interested in learning more about the Guatemalan deaf
community and their sign languages.
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?
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
11
Sociolinguistic Interviews
Gathering knowledge of the deaf world and
their perspectives through individual sociocultural profiles
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
12
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
13
A Few Interview Results:
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
14
Acquisition of Sign Language

Locations:


GC and Xela as centers:



Schools, Deaf Clubs, Deaf Community, Churches and
Christian ministries, Hospitals, Deaf family members,
Hearing parents, LENSEGUA dictionary, TV programs
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
15
Perceived Language Variation

Language differences are based on:


Guatemala signs have relationships with:


Age, locale, school, church and social group,
hearing vs. deaf
El Salvador, Mexico, Cuba, Costa Rica, USA
Language similarity groups:


Huehuetenango and Mazatenango to Xela
Esquintla, Zacapa, and Cobán to GC,
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
16
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
17
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
18
Wordlist Comparisons
Evaluates the similarity in various language
varieties through comparison of their lexical
items
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
19
Wordlists

210 words


Power point presentation:



Spanish word
Picture or clipart
Grouped by topic


Nouns, verbs, time,
descriptors
(e.g.) animals, food,
verbs, relations, time
Opposites are placed
side-by-side
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
20
Parks Wordlist Power Point
2007
210 words
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
Female,
under 35
1
2
Male,
under 35
1
1
Female,
over 35
1
Male,
over 35
1
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
San
Marcos
Huehue
Mazate
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Cobán
1
1
22
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
23
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
*Max Planck Institute
24
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

Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
*SIL International
25
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?


How should they be represented and elicited?



Throw out #59 (may not know)
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?
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
26
Recorded Text Testing (RTT)


Evaluate comprehension
Make inferences about intelligibility by their
ability to comprehend the text
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
27
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
28
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
29
Guatemala City Text 1
March 2007
VOLUNTEER?
Points We’re Looking For in GC Text
Blue = 2 or less missed
1a-1.yesterday
Red = 3 or less missed
White = 4 or more missed
1a-2.she got up
3b-1.Some of the group walked around
3c-1.went to miralfores
1a-3.and bathed
4a-1.Her bus
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
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
3a-1.As time passed
3a-2.it became hot
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
31
Recorded Text Testing (RTT)
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
Percent
of 100%
correct
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
32
Recorded Text Testing (RTT)
Xela text result in GC and Xela
GC
Results
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Percent
of 100%
correct
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
Percent
of 100%
correct
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
33
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?
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
34
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
35
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 HefziBá 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.
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
36
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
Elizabeth Parks, SIL
International
37