DOCSLIB.ORG

A LEXICAL DATABASE of KENYAN SIGN LANGUAGE Table 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A LEXICAL DATABASE of KENYAN SIGN LANGUAGE Table 1 A LEXICAL DATABASE of KENYAN SIGN LANGUAGE Table 1. HAND CONFIGURATION Hope E. Morgan • University of California San Diego • [email protected] number of hands main articulator (primary), handshape symmetry movement symmetry SignType (Battison) geometry of the two hands ‘Digging into Signs’ Workshop; UCLondon, March 30 - April 1, 2015 1 secondary articulator same simultaneous X mirror end-stacked; tips same 2 hand different simult; connected 0 mirror; alternating end-stacked; tips opposite 1 or 2 hand (stiff wrist) same, same simult; h2 stationary 0/X mirror; alternating; asymmetric end-stacked; tips perpendicular forearm different, same alternating 1 mirror; offset adjacent; ranked prox-dist This poster presents an ongoing project to code the lexical prop- METHODS: arm same, different H2 stationary 2 mirror; asymmetric perpendicular plane head complex 3 stacked; tips same same plane; adjacent; tips perpindicular erties of signs in Kenyan Sign Language (KSL)* including pho- Participants: 28 deaf signers in total, though the majority face 3-minimal stacked; tips opposite h2 base eyes 3-move stacked; tips perpendicular h1 under h2 netic, phonemic, iconic, semantic, grammatical, and etymologi- of signs were produced by 3 signers mouth 4 stacked; facing; tips same n/a cal, with the focus here on phonetic properties. The ultimate author tongue C stacked; facing; tips opposite Coder: teeth unsure stacked; facing; tips perpendicular future goal is to link these lexical records to a full corpus of KSL. Language genres: (1) elicitation of citation forms by author whole body stacked; opposite facing; tips perpendicular with deaf Kenyan participant, (2) dyadic exchanges be- upper body side-stacked; tips same The database was created in FileMaker Pro, allowing for maxi- clothes side-stacked; tips opposite tween deaf Kenyans doing communiative tasks, (3) group not sure side-stacked; tips perpendicular mum flexibility during coding (see data entry screen in Fig. 1). conversations among deaf Kenyans, which contained a few This flexibility allowed phonetic categories to emerge organically spontaneous narratives (4). during the coding process, though it also resulted in a prolifera- tion of possible values. Currently, a phonemic analysis is under- BASIC LEXICAL TYPES IN DATABASE: Table 2. HANDSHAPE way to identify the core contrastive features and understand the • Non-compound signs: 1,864 formational organization of KSL signs at a more abstract level. • Compound signs: ~500 dominant HS name, dominant HS HamNoSys, • Fingerspellings/abbreviations: 13 non-dom HS name non-dom HS HamNoSys joint change Tables 1-6 show the main phonological domains: Hand configu- • Unsure: 27 1 open>close ration (Table 1), Handshape (Table 2), Handshape features (Table 1-curved close>open 4 curve>close 3), Orientation (Table 4), Location (Table 5), and Movement (Table A open>curve * This data is from a variety of Kenyan Sign Language used in a Luo- 6). Within each domain, the phonetic features appear here as list A-thumb bend speaking area of western Kenya: south Nyanza province. A signifcant A-thumb-lax straighten headers in bold (e.g., “number of hands” in Table 1) are repre- proportion of the items in this database are believed to be shared B flatten sent individual fields in the database. The feature values in each across the country, but anecdotally, local variants exist and a dialectal baby-o rubbing survey of KSL remains to be done. bent flutter field are listed underneath (e.g., “1”, “2”, “1 or 2”). bent-1 spreading bent-H twisting bent-i pivoting bent-L open>close>open bent-thumb unsure bent-V C Table 4. ORIENTATION C (grip) h1 absolute orientation, claw h1 dynamic h1 dynamic h1 relative orientation finger orientation claw-narrow relative orientation h2 absolute orientation absolute orientation claw-taper ulnar [pinky] closed-claw n/a up down>up up>in none contra>in dynamic/prosodic up>out palm closed-G prone>supine down down>out up>out out>in contra>out up up>down tips cupped supine>prone in down>in up>down out>back contra>up down out>up back curved bidirectional out down>contra up>back out>up contra>down in/back out>down radial [thumb] D back>palm contra down>ipsi up>ipsi out>down contra>ipsi out contra/ipsi>out root E palm>back ipsi in>up down; up out>contra ipsi>contra contra relative to bodypart palm&tips [figure out] E-fist radial>ulnar diagonal in>out down; contra down>up tracing ipsi relative to object palm; back F ulnar>radial diagonal (out/contra) in>down down; ipsi down>out trill contra/ipsi (2-hands) morpho variation back; palm fist signers vary diagonal (out/ipsi) in>contra up; down down>in dynamic (minimal) contra/up (2-hands) n/a ulnar<>radial fist-stacked tracing out>in in>ipsi in; contra down>contra relative to bodypart ipsi/contra (2-hands) palm<>back flat arc path out>up in>down in; ipsi in>up relative to object out/up (2-hands) back<>palm flat-o other out>down contra>down relative to bodypart in>down morpho variation out/ipsi (2-hands) tips<>root flat-o-curved out>contra contra>in relative to object in>out up/ipsi (2-hands) arm exterior flat-tense out>ipsi ipsi>in morpho variation in>contra up/out (2-hands) arm interior flat-thumb ipsi>out signers vary in>ipsi diagonal: contra/ipsi (2-hands) thumb pad G ipsi>up n/a up>in mixed (2-hands) unsure H ipsi>down up>out ipsi>contra unsure (dynamic) H-thumb up>down contra>ipsi unsure (circle/arc) H-thumb-closed up>contra unsure: two values i signers vary K n/a (no path) L Figure 1. Data entry screen showing sample record: “RABUON” #1333 lax mid-bend N Table 5. LOCATION N-straight namibia Minor Area 1a, O Major Area 1, open Minor Area 1b, open-curved Major Area 2 Minor Area 2 Symmetry 2 Sequential locations Setting change Path Plane Contact Type Proximity H1 handpart contact Contact type open-E 2LOC NS: mid/unmarked shoulder H2: fingertips ipsi yes ipsi>contra Midsagittal: in/out begin contact thumb, tip [repeated in open-G NEUTRAL SPACE (plane) NS: high over shoulder H2: back contra no contra>ipsi Vertical: up/down end proximity only thumb, interior Movement] open-spray H2 NS: low upper arm: exterior H2: palm ipsi, contra high>low Horizontal: side/side grazing/middle no contact thumb, radial open-thumb HEAD NS: over shoulder upper arm: interior H2: finger interior contra, ipsi low>high Diagonal: continuous radial, full R NECK NS: setting change mid arm: exterior H2: finger exterior center prox>dist Tracing double radial, interior full S TRUNK face elbow: exterior H2: fingers, exterior, closed hand symmetric (2hands) dist>prox Around body part holding heel small-C ARM top of head elbow: interior H2: between fingers asymmetric cntr>periph variable: to person, obj, loc bounce root snap (dynamic) WRIST temple/crown lower arm: exterior H2: ulnar full asymmetric (2hands) periph>cntr other begin & end back, whole T LEG side of face lower arm: interior H2: ulnar finger variable front>rear unsure 2/3 end back, center teeny-C NS/HEAD forehead whole arm: exterior H2: ulnar heel unsure rear>front 2/3 begin back, fingers Thumb-in-fist NS/H2 eye wrist: interior H2: index, radial rubbing 1/2 end wrist, interior uganda nose wrist: exterior H2: index, ulnar contra>ipsi>contra 1/2 begin wrist, exterior V cheek wrist: ulnar H2: pinky, ulnar ipsi>contra>ipsi wrist, ulnar V-claw upper lip wrist: radial H2: thumb, tip middle>ends wrist, radial V-L mouth trunk: collarbone H2: thumb, radial tracing whole hand inside W teeth trunk: pectoral (mid) H2: thumb, ulnar clockwise whole hand outside wood tongue trunk: stomach H2: radial full counterclockwise ulnar, radial (alternating) X jaw trunk: hips H2: heel across major areas elbow, h1 on h2 Y chin trunk: setting change H2: index+thumb, radial [relative to locations] lower arm, h1 on h2 under chin thigh H2: whole finger index+thumb, radial ear butt H2: whole hand inside index+thumb pinch skin neck H2: whole hand outside middle+thumb, interior Table 3. HANDSHAPE FEATURES (linked to HANDSHAPE) handshape name [see “dominant HS name”] Table 6. MOVEMENT fingers number all, 1, 2, 3, 4 1st unique syllable Shape Path plane Plane Relativity Relative to what Contact type Manner of Movement 1 Trill Tense Mouthing Mouthing detail Phonetic syllables Phonemic syllables fingers exact I, IM, IMR, IMRP, M, P, T, TI, TIM, TIMRP, TIP, TP 01 Hold straight [repeated in Relative to body part head [repeated in single path yes none [text entry] 1 monosyllabic 02 Handshape Change (HSC) arc Location] Relative to object head+h2 Location] repeated, exact hs: rubbing no English 2 disyllabic fully open, curved open, curved closed, flat open, flat closed, 03 Trill/Flutter circle Relative to other side of head, ear repeated, 2 location hs: hooking maybe English, reduced 3 trisyllabic joint position bent closed, fully closed 04 Wrist Movement '7' Absolute directionality face repeated, 3 location hs: flattening Swahili 4 mono or di 05 Ulnar Movement zigzag Embodied neck repeated, switch dominance hs: wiggling Swahili, reduced 5 none spread spread, unspread, n/a 06 Path (elbow movement) cross/X Parallel to bodypart arm repeat-on-path hs: releasing Luo 6 unsure 07 Path + Handshape Change U-shape Perpendicular to bodypart lower arm trill hs: closing name 7 08 Path + Trill/Flutter checkmark Around body part non-dom hand bidirectional/reflection ori: nodding unknown 1 or 2 stacked stacked, crossed, none 09 Path + Wrist Movement circle+straight Through body part body front bounce ori: twisting unclear/hidden heavy mono 10 Path + Ulnar Movement down+out variable: towards person/ leg alternating, sequential
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sign Language Typology Series
    SIGN LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SERIES The Sign Language Typology Series is dedicated to the comparative study of sign languages around the world. Individual or collective works that systematically explore typological variation across sign languages are the focus of this series, with particular emphasis on undocumented, underdescribed and endangered sign languages. The scope of the series primarily includes cross-linguistic studies of grammatical domains across a larger or smaller sample of sign languages, but also encompasses the study of individual sign languages from a typological perspective and comparison between signed and spoken languages in terms of language modality, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to sign language typology. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages Edited by Ulrike Zeshan Sign Language Typology Series No. 1 / Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages / Ulrike Zeshan (ed.) / Nijmegen: Ishara Press 2006. ISBN-10: 90-8656-001-6 ISBN-13: 978-90-8656-001-1 © Ishara Press Stichting DEF Wundtlaan 1 6525XD Nijmegen The Netherlands Fax: +31-24-3521213 email: [email protected] http://ishara.def-intl.org Cover design: Sibaji Panda Printed in the Netherlands First published 2006 Catalogue copy of this book available at Depot van Nederlandse Publicaties, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag (www.kb.nl/depot) To the deaf pioneers in developing countries who have inspired all my work Contents Preface........................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • (Sasl) in a Bilingual-Bicultural Approach in Education of the Deaf
    APPLICATION OF SOUTH AFRICAN SIGN LANGUAGE (SASL) IN A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL APPROACH IN EDUCATION OF THE DEAF Philemon Abiud Okinyi Akach August 2010 APPLICATION OF SOUTH AFRICAN SIGN LANGUAGE (SASL) IN A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL APPROACH IN EDUCATION OF THE DEAF By Philemon Abiud Omondi Akach Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree PHILOSOPHIAE DOCTOR in the FACULTY OF HUMANITIES (DEPARTMENT OF AFROASIATIC STUDIES, SIGN LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE PRACTICE) at the UNIVERSITY OF FREE STATE Promoter: Dr. Annalie Lotriet. Co-promoter: Dr. Debra Aarons. August 2010 Declaration I declare that this thesis, which is submitted to the University of Free State for the degree Philosophiae Doctor, is my own independent work and has not previously been submitted by me to another university or faculty. I hereby cede the copyright of the thesis to the University of Free State Philemon A.O. Akach. Date. To the deaf children of the continent of Africa; may you grow up using the mother tongue you don’t acquire from your mother? Acknowledgements I would like to say thank you to the University of the Free State for opening its doors to a doubly marginalized language; South African Sign Language to develop and grow not only an academic subject but as the fastest growing language learning area. Many thanks to my supervisors Dr. A. Lotriet and Dr. D. Aarons for guiding me throughout this study. My colleagues in the department of Afroasiatic Studies, Sign Language and Language Practice for their support. Thanks to my wife Wilkister Aluoch and children Sophie, Susan, Sylvia and Samuel for affording me space to be able to spend time on this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Iconicity As a Pervasive Force in Language: Evidence from Ghanaian Sign
    Iconicity as a pervasive force in language: Evidence from Ghanaian Sign Language and Adamorobe Sign Language By Mary Edward A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Brighton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Humanities University of Brighton 2021 Abstract In this dissertation, I investigate various manifestations of iconicity and how these are demonstrated in the visual-spatial modality, focusing specifically on Ghanaian Sign Language (GSL) and Adamorobe Sign Language (AdaSL). The dissertation conducts three main empirical analyses comparing GSL and AdaSL. The data for the analyses were elicited from deaf participants using lexical elicitation and narrative tasks. The first study considers iconicity in GSL and AdaSL lexical items. This study additionally compares the iconic strategies used by signers to those produced in gestures by hearing non-signers in the surrounding communities. The second study investigates iconicity in the spatial domain, focusing on the iconic use of space to depict location, motion, action. The third study looks specifically at the use of, simultaneous constructions, and compares the use of different types of simultaneous constructions between the two sign languages. Finally, the dissertation offers a theoretical analysis of the data across the studies from a cognitive linguistics perspective on iconicity in language. The study on lexical iconicity compares GSL and AdaSL signers’ use of iconic strategies across five semantic categories: Handheld tools, Clothing & Accessories, Furniture & Household items, Appliances, and Nature. Findings are discussed with respect to patterns of iconicity across semantic categories, and with respect to similarities and differences between signs and gestures.
    [Show full text]
  • A Lexical Comparison of South African Sign Language and Potential Lexifier Languages
    A lexical comparison of South African Sign Language and potential lexifier languages by Andries van Niekerk Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters in General Linguistics at the University of Stellenbosch Supervisors: Dr Kate Huddlestone & Prof Anne Baker Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Department of General Linguistics March, 2020 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za DECLARATION By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Andries van Niekerk March 2020 Copyright © 2020 University of Stellenbosch All rights reserved 1 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za ABSTRACT South Africa’s history of segregation was a large contributing factor for lexical variation in South African Sign Language (SASL) to come about. Foreign sign languages certainly had a presence in the history of deaf education; however, the degree of influence foreign sign languages has on SASL today is what this study has aimed to determine. There have been very limited studies on the presence of loan signs in SASL and none have included extensive variation. This study investigates signs from 20 different schools for the deaf and compares them with signs from six other sign languages and the Paget Gorman Sign System (PGSS). A list of lemmas was created that included the commonly used list of lemmas from Woodward (2003).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Deaf Children's Teaching and Learning
    A University of Sussex DPhil thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details TEACHING DEAF LEARNERS IN KENYAN CLASSROOMS CECILIA WANGARI KIMANI SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FEBRUARY 2012 ii I hereby declare that this thesis has not been and will not be, submitted in whole or in part to another university for the award of any other degree. Signature: ……………………… iii Table of Contents Summary.........................................................................................................................ix Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................xi Dedication.......................................................................................................................xii List of tables..................................................................................................................xiii List of figures................................................................................................................xiv
    [Show full text]
  • AFRICAN SIGN LANGUAGES WORKSHOP PROGRAM Includes Most of Europe, South Africa, Egypt, More Info: Malawi, Sudan, Rwanda, Zambia, Etc
    WORLD CONGRESS OF AFRICAN LINGUISTICS 10 (WOCAL10), LEIDEN UNIVERSITY Schedule is in timezone of conference site (Central European Time; GMT+2 in DST). This AFRICAN SIGN LANGUAGES WORKSHOP PROGRAM includes most of Europe, South Africa, Egypt, more info: http://sign.wocal.net Malawi, Sudan, Rwanda, Zambia, etc. For more timezones, see Page 2 RECEPTION: 6:00-7:30PM SATURDAY, JUNE 5, 2021 DAY 1 MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2021 DAY 2 TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021 DAY 3 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2021 DAY 4 THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2021 DAY 5 FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 2021 START TIME EVENT START TIME EVENT START TIME EVENT START TIME EVENT START TIME EVENT WORKSHOP OPENING; Introductions 4:00PM Daily opening 4:00PM Daily opening 3:00PM Plenary: Woinshet Girma (moderator, interpreters, authors), Zoom WOCAL Committee on African Sign 4:00PM TBD Theme: Documentation and language comparisons Theme: Language origins and 3:40PM Break before sessions start protocols & instructions, announcements Languages meeting (all participants invited) language of expression 4:00PM Daily opening Theme: African sign languages in use: Annie Risler, Alain Gebert • The 4:00PM Daily opening Ingeborg Groen • Anger expression in Theme: African sign languages and across borders and in the home Dictionary for Seychellois Sign Language: 4:10 PM Theme: Lexical variation and new methods 4:10PM Ghanaian Sign Language (GSL) deaf students in the classroom Amandine le Maire • Mobilities / A tool forthe preservation, transmission Anne Baker, Andries van Niekerk, Kate Hope E. Morgan, Evans N. Burichani, Yede Adama Sanogo • Sign language 4:10PM Immobilities of deaf people in Kakuma and development of Seychelles' heritage Huddlestone • Studying lexicalvariation Jared O.
    [Show full text]
  • The Deaf of South Sudan the South Sudanese Sign Language Community South Sudan Achieved Its Independence in 2011 from the Republic of Sudan to Its North
    Profile Year: 2015 People and Language Detail Report Language Name: South Sudan Sign Language ISO Language Code: not yet The Deaf of South Sudan The South Sudanese Sign Language Community South Sudan achieved its independence in 2011 from the Republic of Sudan to its north. Prior to that, Sudan suffered under two civil wars. The second, which began in 1976, pitted the Sudanese government against the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and lasted for over twenty years. These wars have led to significant suffering among the Sudanese and South Sudanese people, including major gaps in infrastructure development and significant displacement of various people groups. All of this war has traumatized the people of Sudan, and the Deaf in particular. The country appears to have a very small middle class, while a vast majority of its citizens are either very wealthy or extremely poor. The Deaf in South Sudan tend to be the poorest of the poor. Some cannot afford food and must stay at home with families (even though the home environ- ment often means that no one can communicate with them). There are currently no Deaf schools in South Sudan. Deaf schools are photo by DOOR International typically the center of language and cultural development for the Deaf of a country. A lack of Deaf schools means that there is a need for a central cultural organization among the Deaf. Deaf churches could function in this Primary Religion: role if they were well-established. There is currently only one Deaf church in Non-religious __________________________________________________ South Sudan. This church meets in Juba, and has fewer than 50 members.
    [Show full text]
  • Stakeholders' Views on Use of Sign Language Alone As a Medium Of
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.33, No.1, 2018 Stakeholders’ Views on Use of Sign Language Alone as a Medium of Instruction for the Hearing Impaired in Zambian Primary Schools Mandyata Joseph, Kamukwamba Kapansa Lizzie, School of Education, University of Zambia ([email protected]) Abstract The study examined views of stakeholders on the use of Sign Language as a medium of instruction in the learning of hearing impaired in primary schools of Lusaka, Zambia. A case study design supported by qualitative methods was used. The sample size was 57, consisting of teachers, pupils, curriculum specialist, education standards officers, lecturers and advocators on the rights of persons with disabilities. Purposive sampling techniques to selected the sample, interview and focused group discussion guides were tools for data collection. The study revealed significant differences in views of stakeholders on use of Sign Language alone as medium of instruction. While most participants felt sign language alone was ideal for learning, others believed learners needed exposure to total communication (combination of oral and sign language) to learn better. Those who felt using sign language alone was better, believed the practice had more positive effects on learning and that use of oral language, total communication often led to confusion in classroom communication among learners with hearing impairments. Participants who opposed use of sign language alone were of the view teachers: were ill-prepared; signs were limited in scope; education system lacked instructional language policy and learning environment were inappropriate to support use of sign language alone in the learning process. The study recommended strengthening of training of sign language teachers and introduction of sign language as an academic subject before it can be used as the sole medium of classroom instruction in the Zambian primary schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Competition Materials
    Competition Opens: 8 November 2017 Closing Date: 16 February 2018 Sign On For Literacy Prize Page 2 of 20 Sign On For Literacy All Children Reading: A Grand Challenge for Development Application Document Contents Summary 3 Background 3 About All Children Reading: A Grand Challenge for Development 5 The Challenge 5 Solution Requirements 7 Resources 9 Competition and Phases 10 Submission Questions 12 Judging Criteria for Phase 1 14 Terms and Conditions 16 Sign On For Literacy Prize Page 3 of 20 Summary Acquisition of a first language is essential for early childhood development and a building block for learning to read. Literacy is linKed to all development goals contributing to psycho-social health, employment opportunities, economic growth, and breaKing the cycle of poverty. Globally for children who are deaf, hard of hearing and deafblind (henceforth referred to as ‘Deaf’∗), access to and education in a local sign language is often limited or absent. Without access to whole language with frequent and daily input to an accessible and natural language, the foundations of literacy, children are prevented from reaching their full potential. In developing countries and low-resource contexts, literacy outcomes for children who are Deaf are particularly substandard. As such, All Children Reading: A Grand Challenge for Development is launching the Sign On For Literacy Prize, which seeks technology-based innovations to increase access to local sign languages and develop literacy interventions for children who are Deaf in low-resource contexts. Winning innovations must be novel, while utilizing technology to maKe a significant impact upon learning and literacy in the Deaf Community.
    [Show full text]
  • “Ugandan Sign Language [Ugn] (A Language of Uganda)
    “Ugandan Sign Language [ugn] (A language of Uganda) • Alternate Names: USL • Population: 160,000 (2008 WFD). 160,316–840,000 deaf (2008 WFD, citing various sources). 528,000–800,000 deaf (Lule and Wallin 2010, citing various sources). Over 700,000 deaf adults (Oluoch 2010, citing 2002 Uganda Bureau of Statistics). Figures range from 0.5%–2.7% of the general population of approx. 31,000,000. • Location: Scattered, mainly in urban areas. • Language Status: 5 (Developing). Recognized language (1995, Constitution, Article XXIV(d)). • Classification: Deaf sign language • Dialects: None known. Historical influence from British Sign Language [bfi], American Sign Language [ase] and Kenyan Sign Language [xki], but clearly distinct from all three. Influence from English [eng] in grammar, mouthing, initialization, fingerspelling (both one-handed and two-handed systems), especially among young, urban Deaf. Some mouthing from Luganda [lug] and Swahili [swa] (Lule and Wallin 2010). • Typology: One-handed and two-handed fingerspelling. • Language Use: Schools for deaf children since 1959. 8 primary schools and 2 secondary for the deaf; mixture of bilingual education and Total Communication (WFD Regional Secretariat for Southern and Eastern Africa 2008). Sign language in classrooms tends to be Signed English, especially by hearing teachers; some teachers are Deaf. Some schools are residential; education at preschool through vocational and university levels, but not available to all deaf children; many are in mainstream settings (Lule and Wallin 2010). Interpreters available for university, social, medical and religious services, courts, parliament, etc. (WFD Regional Secretariat for Southern and Eastern Africa 2008). Positive attitudes towards USL among Deaf; negative attitudes still common among hearing (Lule and Wallin 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Official Language Designation
    Official Language Designation Constitution-Building Primer 20 Official Language Designation International IDEA Constitution-Building Primer 20 Sujit Choudhry and Erin C. Houlihan © 2021 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance International IDEA publications are independent of specific national or political interests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the views of International IDEA, its Board or its Council members. The electronic version of this publication is available under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence. You are free to copy, distribute and transmit the publication as well as to remix and adapt it, provided it is only for non-commercial purposes, that you appropriately attribute the publication, and that you distribute it under an identical licence. For more information visit the Creative Commons website: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/>. Cover illustration: © 123RF, <http://123rf.com> Design and layout: International IDEA DOI: <https://doi.org/10.31752/idea.2021.40> ISBN: 978-91-7671-412-6 (PDF) Created with Booktype: <https://www.booktype.pro> Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 6 Defining ‘official’ and ‘national’ languages .............................................................. 6 Advantages and risks ............................................................................................... 7 Where
    [Show full text]
  • Using Eidr Language Codes
    USING EIDR LANGUAGE CODES Technical Note Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Recommended Data Entry Practice .............................................................................................................. 2 Original Language..................................................................................................................................... 2 Version Language ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Title, Alternate Title, Description ............................................................................................................. 3 Constructing an EIDR Language Code ......................................................................................................... 3 Language Tags .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Extended Language Tags .......................................................................................................................... 4 Script Tags ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Region Tags .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]