DOCSLIB.ORG

Why American Sign Language Gloss Must Matter Samuel J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why American Sign Language Gloss Must Matter Samuel J Why American Sign Language Gloss Must Matter Samuel J. Supalla, Jody H. Cripps, Andrew P. J. Byrne American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 161, Number 5, Winter 2017, pp. 540-551 (Article) Published by Gallaudet University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2017.0004 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/648964 Access provided by University of Connecticut @ Storrs (9 Jun 2017 21:09 GMT) 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 540 Supalla, S. J., Cripps, J. H., & Byrne, A. P. J. (2017). Why American Sign Language gloss must matter. American Annals of the Deaf, 161 (5), 540 –551. WHY AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE GLOSS MUST MATTER ESPONDING TO AN ARTICLE by Grushkin on how deaf children best learn to read, published, along with the present article, in an American Annals of the Deaf special issue, the authors review American Sign Lan - guage gloss. Topics include how ASL gloss enables deaf children to learn to read in their own language and simultaneously experience a transi - tion to written English, and what gloss looks like and how it underlines deaf children’s learning and mastery of English literacy through ASL. Re - buttal of Grushkin’s argument includes data describing a deaf child’s en - gagement in reading aloud (entirely in ASL) with a gloss text, which occurred without the breakdown implied by Grushkin. The authors characterize Grushkin’s argument that deaf children need to learn to read through a conventional ASL writing system as limiting, asserting that ASL gloss contributes more by providing a path for learning and R mastering English literacy. SAMUEL J. S UPALLA , J ODY H. CRIPPS , AND ANDREW P. J. KEYWORDS: ASL gloss, signed years. Supports and strategies for help - BYRNE language reading, best reading ing deaf children learn and master instruction practices, oral reading in Eng lish literacy (via English-based inter - ASL, ASL-to-written-English transition vention systems and translation via ASL; SUPALLA IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR , Garate, 2012; Trezek, Wang, & Paul, DEPARTMENT OF DISABILITY AND Writing in the present issue of the 2010) are one option. However, a more PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL STUDIES , U NIVERSITY American Annals of the Deaf , Grushkin clearly defined option is needed, espe - OF ARIZONA , T UCSON . C RIPPS IS AN ASSOCIATE appropriately observes that attention cially given that, as Andrews, Leigh, and PROFESSOR , D EPARTMENT OF AUDIOLOGY , to writing down American Sign Lan - Weiner (2004) point out, the cohesion SPEECH -L ANGUAGE PATHOLOGY , AND DEAF guage (ASL) for the purpose of instruct - of reading theory is far from real in the STUDIES , T OWSON UNIVERSITY , T OWSON , MD. ing deaf children is much needed and field of deaf education. What educators BYRNE IS AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR , timely. The reading difficulties that deaf and researchers may have overlooked is DEPARTMENT OF WORLD LANGUAGES , children experience in learning to read that while English is an issue in reading FRAMINGHAM STATE UNIVERSITY , English are well known and under - for deaf children (regardless of what FRAMINGHAM , MA. standable due to the impact of hearing supports and strategies are provided), loss, especially for those children who the print itself can be the source of the have been profoundly deaf since birth problem for these children. It is our be - or lost their hearing before the age of 2 lief that a wrong language is being rep - 540 VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 541 resented in print; the focus should not while simultaneously transitioning to 1982; Mikos, Smith, & Lentz, 2001; be on English print but on, for exam - English literacy. ASL gloss can be seen Smith, Lentz, & Mikos, 2008; Zinza, ple, written ASL. as the “elusive” intermediary system 2006). The value and benefits of ASL To this end, exploration of the area for children who are competent in gloss merit attention in the form of re - of signed language reading must oc - ASL and in need of undergoing the search and scholarship. Grushkin sees cur. In this scenario, deaf children process of learning to read English. glossing as problematic, not some - would have recovered their capacity (See Goldin-Meadow & Mayberry, thing to pursue. He is not alone in his for reading when it came to ASL as 2001, for discussion on the need for an disapproval of ASL gloss; multiple schol - compared to English. According to the intermediary system that maps ASL ars share his opinion (e.g., Baker, van ASL proficiency measurement re - onto English literacy in order to pro - den Bogaerde, & Woll, 2008; Hoiting & search (e.g., Enns & Herman, 2011; duce better reading outcomes.) Al - Slobin, 2002; Hoza, 2011; Humphries & Maller, Singleton, Supalla, & Wix, 1999; though Grushkin acknowledges the MacDougall, 2000; Lane, Hoffmeister, see Singleton & Supalla, 2011, for a re - intentions of ASL gloss with his brief & Bahan, 1996; Neidle, Kegl, MacLaugh - view of the topic), deaf children are discussion based on Supalla, Wix, and lin, Bahan, & Lee, 2000; Slobin, 2008). known for being native signers. This is McKee (2001), he suggests pursuing One must remember that up to the understandable given that ASL is a the course of creating a conventional latter part of the 20th century, ASL was signed language, whereas English is writing system for ASL, not something written off as a human language (for its not. Thus, deaf children who experi - intermediary with English literacy in supposed lack of linguistic principles). ence signed language reading are ex - mind. Going back to the linguistic ac - Meier (2002) explains that two of the pected to be free of the complications cessibility framework, English is not most notable linguists of the 20th cen - associated with their disability. With simply another language for consider - tury (Leonard Bloomfield and Edward the needed sensitivity of theory and ation with deaf children. The status Sapir) took an unfavorable position on practice for language modalities (i.e., of English as a spoken language is a signed languages. It was Dr. William C. signed vs. spoken languages), the con - serious matter that Grushkin does Stokoe, an English professor at Gal - cept of linguistic accessibility is highly not seem to understand or address. laudet University, the venerable institu - relevant, for it offers a possible remedy Although he makes reference to a the - tion of higher education for deaf for the reading difficulties that plague oretical paper published in 1998 (Sin - students, who had to teach himself lin - deaf children as a group (see Supalla & gleton, Supalla, Litchfield, & Schley) guistics and engage in research to Cripps, 2008, for further discussion of to introduce the notion of modality- prove that the understanding about the linguistic accessibility concept). constrained bilingualism concerning human languages at the time was Grushkin’s focus on providing reasons ASL and English with deaf children, wrong (Maher, 1996). Thus, any misun - and discussions in regard to what careful consideration of the relation - derstanding about ASL gloss deserves a form an ASL writing system should ship between ASL and English as two correction, which we endeavor to pro - take serves as an excellent starting languages is lacking. vide in the present article through our point for the field of deaf education. Adding to the urgent need for clar - discussion of the implementation of Any consideration of the signed lan - ifications associated with ASL gloss, ASL gloss in a charter school, as well as guage–based approach to teaching Grushkin criticizes the ASL glossing preliminary data showcasing how a reading would carry much potential phenomenon as used in ASL instruc - deaf child performed when reading a for the curriculum, instruction, and as - tion of thousands of hearing students gloss text. As a response to Grushkin, sessment alignment. who study the signed language as part the present article will, we hope, gen - However, the title of our response of meeting their foreign/second-lan - erate a shift in attitude about alterna - article, “Why American Sign Language guage requirement in American high tives to how ASL is represented in Gloss Must Matter,” suggests that schools, colleges, and universities. As print. something is missing in Grushkin’s reported by Supalla and Cripps (2011), writing about the value of written ASL glossing is a norm among ASL text - Some Clarifications on in the education of deaf children. To books and student workbooks that ASL Gloss elaborate, ASL gloss is composed of a have been published over the years To begin, Grushkin comments that the particular approach to teaching read - (e.g., Baker-Shenk & Cokely, 1980; authors of the well-known, popular ASL ing to deaf children that includes Humphries & Padden, 2004; Lentz, curriculum Signing Naturally (Lentz et learning to read in their own language Mikos, & Smith, 1988, 2014; Madsen, al., 1988, 2014; Mikos et al., 2001; Smith 541 VOLUME 161, N O. 5, 2017 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF 18991-AAD161.5_Winter2017 2/9/17 2:54 PM Page 542 WHY ASL G LOSS MUST MATTER et al., 2008) avoided using ASL gloss. With the gloss sentence, Grushkin cor - the ASL pronouns. This includes the This observation represents one criti - rectly capitalizes various English words opportunity for the readers to under - cal part of his argument against the sys - (in their root forms), but there are a stand that ASL does not pursue case tem. However, when one opens the few problems to discuss here. First, it marking with its pronouns (or having instructor’s edition of the curriculum, is important to understand that a a subject or object pronoun, as is it becomes clear that gloss text is in use signer would point to himself for both found in English).
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]
  • Building BSL Signbank: the Lemma Dilemma Revisited
    Fenlon, Jordan, Kearsy Cormier & Adam Schembri. in press. Building BSL SignBank: The lemma dilemma revisited. International Journal of Lexicography. (Pre-proof draft: March 2015. Check for updates before citing.) 1 Building BSL SignBank: The lemma dilemma revisited Abstract One key criterion when creating a representation of the lexicon of any language within a dictionary or lexical database is that it must be decided which groups of idiosyncratic and systematically modified variants together form a lexeme. Few researchers have, however, attempted to outline such principles as they might apply to sign languages. As a consequence, some sign language dictionaries and lexical databases appear to be mixed collections of phonetic, phonological, morphological, and lexical variants of lexical signs (e.g. Brien 1992) which have not addressed what may be termed as the lemma dilemma. In this paper, we outline the lemmatisation practices used in the creation of BSL SignBank (Fenlon et al. 2014a), a lexical database and dictionary of British Sign Language based on signs identified within the British Sign Language Corpus (http://www.bslcorpusproject.org). We argue that the principles outlined here should be considered in the creation of any sign language lexical database and ultimately any sign language dictionary and reference grammar. Keywords: lemma, lexeme, lemmatisation, sign language, dictionary, lexical database. 1 Introduction When one begins to document the lexicon of a language, it is necessary to establish what one considers to be a lexeme. Generally speaking, a lexeme can be defined as a unit that refers to a set of words in a language that bear a relation to one another in form and meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethiopian Sign Language Useful Words & Phrases
    Ethiopian Sign Language Useful Words & Phrases To watch a video of the signs, go to: https://youtu.be/c636uSx0o7g *Note: This sheet is being made by a right-handed signer. Unless otherwise stated, “right hand” can interchanged for “dominant hand”. English/Amharic Ethiopian Sign Language American Sign Language equivalent or closely signed Hello/Selam Same sign as “health” Both hands start in ‘5’ handshape with fingers on shoulders, palms facing toward shoulders Hands move away from body to s-handshapes at shoulder height, palms still facing shoulders Thanks be to Most similar to “tree good” God/Exhabier yemesgen except tree is signed with (response to selam) fingers together and no movement God- left arm: across in front of stomach, hand flat with fingers together right arm: elbow on top of left hand, making a right angle. Hand is flat with fingers together Thank you- same handshapes as god. Right hand starts with fingers touching chin, palm facing the body. Left hand starts about 6 inches in front of stomach, palm facing toward chin. Right hand moves from chin to left hand Welcome/ Enquan dehena Same as “candy health metachu sign” Signed in 3 parts: Enquan- Right pointer finger touches cheek, wrist turns front to back dehena (selam)- see above metachu- both hands in ‘1’ handshapes move in circles toward the chest Ethiopia “Hawaii” signed with an ‘a’ handshape ‘a’ handshape, start with right hand in front of forehead with thumb facing forehead. Move toward left ear to begin making a circle around the face. After a complete circle, the
    [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]
  • Linking an ID-Gloss Database of ASL with Child Language Corpora
    Linking an ID-gloss database of ASL with child language corpora Julia Fanghella1, Leah Geer2, Jonathan Henner3, Julie Hochgesang4, Diane Lillo-Martin1, Gaurav Mathur4, Gene Mirus4, Pedro Pascual-Villanueva1 1University of Connecticut, 2University of Texas at Austin, 3Boston University, 4 Gallaudet University julia.fanghella, diane.lillo-martin @uconn.edu, julie.hochgesang, gaurav.mathur, gene.mirus @galluadet.edu, { } { } [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract We describe an on-going project to develop a lexical database of American Sign Language (ASL) as a tool for annotating ASL corpora collected in the United States. Labs within our team complete locally chosen fields using their notation system of choice, and pick from globally available, agreed-upon fields, which are then merged into the global database. Here, we compare glosses in the database to annotations of spontaneous child data from the BiBiBi project (Chen Pichler et al., 2010). These comparisons validate our need to develop a digital link between the database and corpus. This link will help ensure that annotators use the appropriate ID-glosses and allow needed glosses to be readily detected (Johnston, 2011b; Hanke and Storz, 2008). An ID-gloss database is essential for consistent, systematic annotation of sign language corpora, as (Johnston, 2011b) has pointed out. Next steps in expanding and strengthening our database’s connection to ASL corpora include (i) looking more carefully at the source of data (e.g. who is signing, language background, age, region, etc.), (ii) taking into account signing genre (e.g. presentation, informal conversation, child-directed etc), and (iii) confronting the matter of deixis, gesture, depicting verbs and other constructions that depend on signing space.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossing a Multi-Purpose Sign Language Corpus
    4th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpora and Sign Language Technologies Glossing a multi-purpose sign language corpus Ellen Ormel1, Onno Crasborn1, Els van der Kooij1, Lianne van Dijken1, Yassine Ellen Nauta1, Jens Forster2 & Daniel Stein2 1 Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, PO box 9103, NL-6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands 2 Human Language Techinology and Pattern Recognition, RWTH Aachen University, Germany E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract This paper describes the strategies that have been developed for creating consistent gloss annotations in the latest update to the Corpus NGT. Although the project aims to embrace the plea for ID-glosses in Johnston (2008), there is no reference lexicon that could be used in the creation of the annotations. An idiosyncratic strategy was developed that involved the creation of a temporary ‘glossing lexicon’, which includes conventions for distinguishing regional and other variants, true and apparent homonymy, and other difficulties that are specifically related to the glossing of two-handed simultaneous constructions on different tiers. 1. Introduction This paper will discuss the process of finding gloss Over the past years, various initiatives in the area of conventions for the Corpus NGT that on the one hand signed language annotation have been undertaken, but in function like ID-glosses, and on the other hand can be the area of sign language glossing, no clear standards consistently created in the absence of a reference have been developed (Schembri & Crasborn, this lexicon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for Interlinear Morpheme-By-Morpheme Glosses
    Leipzig, last change: May 31, 2015 Further updates will be managed by the Committee of Editors of Linguistics Journals. 1 The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses About the rules The Leipzig Glossing Rules have been developed jointly by the Department of Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Bernard Comrie, Martin Haspelmath) and by the Department of Linguistics of the University of Leipzig (Balthasar Bickel). They consist of ten rules for the "syntax" and "semantics" of interlinear glosses, and an appendix with a proposed "lexicon" of abbreviated category labels. The rules cover a large part of linguists' needs in glossing texts, but most authors will feel the need to add (or modify) certain conventions (especially category labels). Still, it will be useful to have a standard set of conventions that linguists can refer to, and the Leipzig Rules are proposed as such to the community of linguists. The Rules are intended to reflect common usage, and only very few (mostly optional) innovations are proposed. We intend to update the Leipzig Glossing Rules occasionally, so feedback is highly welcome. Important references: Lehmann, Christian. 1982. "Directions for interlinear morphemic translations". Folia Linguistica 16: 199-224. Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xix-xxv. The rules (revised version of February 2008) Preamble Interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses give information about the meanings and grammatical properties of individual words and parts of words. Linguists by and large conform to certain notational conventions in glossing, and the main purpose of this document is to make the most widely used conventions explicit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Dictionaries, Glosses, and Annotations to Facilitate Vocabulary Comprehension for L2 Learners of Russian
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 2014-06-16 The Use of Dictionaries, Glosses, and Annotations to Facilitate Vocabulary Comprehension for L2 Learners of Russian Elizabeth Christel Todd Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Other Languages, Societies, and Cultures Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Todd, Elizabeth Christel, "The Use of Dictionaries, Glosses, and Annotations to Facilitate Vocabulary Comprehension for L2 Learners of Russian" (2014). Theses and Dissertations. 4115. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4115 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. The Use of Dictionaries, Glosses, and Annotations to Facilitate Vocabulary Comprehension for L2 Learners of Russian Elizabeth Christel Todd A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Michael D. Bush, Chair Alan K. Melby Kirk R. Belnap Center for Language Studies Brigham Young University June 2014 Copyright © Elizabeth Christel Todd All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT The Use of Dictionaries, Glosses, and Annotations to Facilitate Vocabulary Comprehension for L2 Learners of Russian Elizabeth Christel Todd Center for Language Studies, BYU Master of Arts Technology is changing education. Just 30 years ago, instructors were using slow, inefficient technology such as projectors and reels of film, whereas today they have instant access to video from anywhere in the world. This capability has the potential to change the way that language is being taught and learned.
    [Show full text]
  • English to ASL Gloss Machine Translation
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 2015-06-01 English to ASL Gloss Machine Translation Mary Elizabeth Bonham Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the Linguistics Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Bonham, Mary Elizabeth, "English to ASL Gloss Machine Translation" (2015). Theses and Dissertations. 5478. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5478 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. English to ASL Gloss Machine Translation Mary Elizabeth Jouett Bonham A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Deryle Lonsdale, Chair Alan Melby Norman Roberts Department of Linguistics and English Language Brigham Young University June 2015 Copyright © 2015 Mary Elizabeth Jouett Bonham All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT English to ASL Gloss Machine Translation Mary Elizabeth Jouett Bonham Department of Linguistics and English Language, BYU Master of Arts Low-resource languages, including sign languages, are a challenge for machine translation research. Given the lack of parallel corpora, current researchers must be content with a small parallel corpus in a narrow domain for training a system. For this thesis, we obtained a small parallel corpus of English text and American Sign Language gloss from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We cleaned the corpus by loading it into an open-source translation memory tool, where we removed computer markup language and split the large chunks of text into sentences and phrases, creating a total of 14,247 sentence pairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Language 1
    Sign Language 1 INSIGHTS INTO AUSLAN Handshapes used in Auslan (Adapted by Anne Horton from “Australian Sign Language: An introduction to sign language linguistics” by Johnston and Schembri) Our understanding of the intricacies of the handshapes used in signed languages is really just beginning. The human hand is able to make a vast array of possible shapes. Even so, sign language tends to use only a limited number of handshapes to create the total number of signs used in a given sign language. More systematic research is required before the exact number of handshapes needed to describe the signs of Auslan can be specified. This is largely because of the complexity of the productive nature of signs (for example, the “depicting” signs) and the influence of other signed languages and their handshapes. At present, there are sixty-two handshapes listed in the Signs of Australia dictionary of Auslan (Johnston, 1998). Of these sixty-two handshapes, thirty-seven are the core handshapes used and the other twenty-five are seen as non- significant variations of these (the exception to this is with productive signing where small differences can represent a different and precise meaning). Some handshapes in Auslan are used much more often than others. This is seen in the 1998 edition of the Auslan dictionary where four of the handshapes are used for over 50 percent of all the signs. These four most commonly used handshapes are “pointing”, “flat hand with fingers together”, “flat hand with fingers apart” and “fist”. The fifteen most frequent handshapes account for 80 percent of the signs in the 1998 Auslan dictionary.
    [Show full text]
  • The Linguistic Challenges Faced by Kenyan Sign Language Interpreters of the Proceedings of the Kenya National Assembly
    The Linguistic Challenges Faced by Kenyan Sign Language Interpreters of the Proceedings of the Kenya National Assembly A Research Project submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Arts in Interpretation Linguistics and Languages Department, Faculty of Arts, University of Nairobi by Rachel Christine Wanjir ǔ Koigi November 2013 Declaration This research project is my original work and it has not been submitted for any other examination in any other university or any other institution of higher learning. ____________________________ ____________ Rachel Christine Wanjir ǔ Koigi Date This research project has been submitted for examination with our approval as the University of Nairobi supervisors. ___________________________ _____________ Professor Okoth Okombo Date ____________________________ ______________ Dr Jefwa G Mweri Date ii Dedication I dedicate this work in the first instance to my parents, Mr Solomon Koigi Kabi ũ and Mrs Rahab Nyambugi Koigi, who promoted equal gender education against overwhelming odds. Further, to my brother Paul Owen Nd ũng’ ũ Koigi, for the tenet “give a person every opportunity to restart, even if it be a million times to achievement”. In addition, to my brother, Edward Gach ũnũ Solomon Koigi, with the addendum that “after all, you can teach old dogs new tricks”. iii Acknowledgements Many people have contributed very substantially to this study and I thank them all for their assistance, guidance, understanding, indulgence, and sponsorship. The following deserve my extra special gratitude: My supervisors: Professor Okoth Okombo and Dr Jefwa Mweri: thank you for your encouragement and correction; thank you for the reference materials; thank you for your guidance and thank you for helping me to assemble this research project into the Linguistic Challenges faced by Kenyan Sign Language Interpreters of the Proceedings of the Kenya National Assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • A Sketch of Handshape Morphology in Hawai'i Sign Language (PDF)
    W O R K I N G P A P E R S I N L I N G U I S T I C S The notes and articles in this series are progress reports on work being carried on by students and faculty in the Department. Because these papers are not finished products, readers are asked not to cite from them without noting their preliminary nature. The authors welcome any comments and suggestions that readers might offer. Volume 46(6) December 2015 DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA HONOLULU 96822 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Institution University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa: Working Papers in Linguistics 46(6) DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS FACULTY 2015 Victoria B. Anderson Andrea Berez-Kroeker Derek Bickerton (Emeritus) Robert A. Blust Lyle Campbell Kenneth W. Cook (Adjunct) Kamil Deen Patricia J. Donegan (Chair) Katie K. Drager Emanuel J. Drechsel (Adjunct) Michael L. Forman (Emeritus) Gary Holton Roderick A. Jacobs (Emeritus) William O’Grady Yuko Otsuka Ann Marie Peters (Emeritus) Kenneth L. Rehg (Adjunct) Lawrence A. Reid (Emeritus) Amy J. Schafer (Acting Graduate Chair) Albert J. Schütz, (Emeritus, Editor) Jacob Terrell James Woodward Jr. (Adjunct) ii A SKETCH OF HANDSHAPE MORPHOLOGY IN HAWAI‘I SIGN LANGUAGE SAMANTHA RARRICK Hawai‘i Sign Language (HSL) is a critically endangered sign language indigenous to the Hawaiian Islands. Lexicostatistical data gathered by Lambrecht, Earth, and Woodward (2013) have shown that HSL is unrelated to American Sign Language (ASL). This article aims to provide additional descriptive work for this language, demonstrate a grammatical difference between HSL and ASL with respect to handshape morphology, and discuss the usage restrictions of these handshapes in typological perspective, concluding that this grammatical difference between ASL and HSL is significant and the restrictions found in HSL are typologically rare.* 1.
    [Show full text]