DOCUMENTATION OF HAWAI`I SIGN LANGUAGE: AN OVERVIEW OF

SOME RECENT MAJOR RESEARCH FINDINGS

Brenda Clark, Linda Lambrecht, Samantha Rarrick, Claire Stabile, and

James Woodward

Topics for Discussion

1) Lexicostatistical evidence for the categorization of Hawai`i Sign Language (HSL) as a distinct language isolate,

2) Probable number of HSL users,

3) Code-shifting and code-mixing,

4) HSL phonological characteristics,

5) HSL morphological structure,

6) HSL syntactic structure.

LEXICOSTATISTICAL EVIDENCE FOR

CATEGORIZATION OF HSL AS A

LANGUAGE ISOLATE

• While many people have claimed HSL

is related to ASL, lexicostatistics

demonstrates this is not the case.

• HSL appears to have developed as a

language isolate.

Methodological

Issues in SL Lexicostatistical

Research

1) The need to compare basic core vocabulary.

2) The need to use a Swadesh word list modified for sign language research.

3) The need to invoke phonological processes, such as assimilation, deletion, epenthesis, metathesis when comparing for cognates.

Lexicostatistical ComparisonsGuidelines for percentages of cognate-like

items in basic core vocabulary

• 80%-100% dialects of the same language

• 36%-79% distinct but historically related

languages in the same language family

• <36% distinct languages that belong to

different language families

Example of SL Cognate

HSL ‘woman’ MSL ‘woman’

Example of SL Non-Cognate

HSL ‘pig’ MSL ‘pig’

Lexicostatistics and Distinct

but “Related” Sign Languages

Pairs of

Languages

Basic Core

Vocabulary

Explanation

HCMCSL & HNSL 58% cognates Historical relationship

JKSL & YKSL 64% cognates Historical relationship

OBSL & OCMSL 65% cognates Historical relationship

ASL & MTSL 52% cognates Creolization

ASL & LSF 62% cognates Creolization

HKSL & SHSL 66% cognates Creolization

Lexicostatistics and Distinct but

“Unrelated” Sign LanguagesPairs of

Languages

Basic Core

Vocabulary

Explanation

ASL & OBSL 9% cognates No contact

ASL & OCMSL 10% cognates No contact

HCMCSL & BKSL 18% cognates No contact

MTSL & OBSL 25% cognates Limited contact

MTSL & OCMSL 27% cognates Limited contact

ASL & BSL 31% cognates Contact

Lexicostatistics and HSL

Pairs of

Languages

Basic Core

Vocabulary

Explanation

HSL & ASL 12% cognates No Contact

HSL & MSL 27% cognates Limited Contact?

Number of HSL Users

• UN statistical estimates suggest 280

deaf people in Hawai`i over age of 65.

• However this estimate is too high for

users of HSL for several reasons.

• 40 deaf people over age of 65, born in

Hawai`i, still live in Hawai`i and claim to

know HSL.

HSL AND CREOLIZED HSL

• Interviews conducted so far suggest

that 75% of the people claiming to use

HSL are using creolized HSL (CHSL).

• CHSL is a creolization of varieties of

HSL and ASL. There are possible

cognates with HSL, with ASL, and

neologisms.

Examples of HSL/CHSL

Cognate

HSL ‘black’ CHSL ‘black’

Example of HSL/CHSL

Non-Cognate

HSL ‘sister’ CHSL ‘sister’

Example of Neologisms in

CHSL

CHSL ‘son’ CHSL ‘daughter’

Lexicostatistics and CHSL

Pairs of

Languages

Basic Core

Vocabulary

Explanation

CHSL&HSL 54% cognates Creolization

CHSL&ASL 42% cognates Creolization

ONGOING DOCUMENTATION OF

HSL

• 3 hours of recording per week

• 1-4 HSL/CHSL users

• 6 students

• HSL lessons in video and book format

• conversational data

• translation and transcription of videos

Code-switching

• Limited opportunity to use HSL/CHSL

• Specific participants change the

languages used (and the balance of

ASL vs HSL vs CHSL)

• As we get better at HSL, so do our

participants

• We now talk about some metalinguistic

aspects in HSL

Importance of Time in

Documentation

• Existence of CHSL

• User numbers for HSL and CHSL

• Evolving native user intuition

• New minimal pairs

• Importance of certain features for

phonological, morphological, and

syntactic distinctions

PHONOLOGY

• Importance of non-manual features

• Non-manual signs

• Small differences in movement

• Identification of reduplication and

deletion

Non-manual Components

• Many minimal pairs differ only by facial

expression

• Some signs include (or consist of)

mouthing an English, Hawaiian, or

Pidgin word

Non-manuals: Minimal Pair

LOVE (non-romantic) LOVE-ROMANTICALLY

Non-manuals: Minimal Set

NEW

NICE

PRETTY

Non-manuals: Question Words

WHAT?

WHY?

WHO?

Completely Non-manual Signs

negation FAVORITE

• Some signs are (or can be) produced with no manual components

Non-manual Signs Based on Spoken

Words

DEAD (“make”) FINISH (“pau”)

HAVE

Movement• Very small differences in movement create

several minimal sets

• Reduplication can help distinguish signs

• While deletion can create more minimal pairs

• In some cases this means non-manual

components become even more important

Movement: Minimal Set

NAME WRITE COLOR

DRAW PRINT SENTENCE

Movement: Reduplication

WHITE AMERICA

HAOLE

Movement: Deletion

WHITE HANDSOME

HANDSHAPE MORPHOLOGY

• Agreement

• Two-handed signs with identical

handshapes

• Handshapes with morphological

meaning

Agreement

• Many sign languages have directional

verbs, including ASL (Liddell 2003)

• Relatively few of these have been found

in HSL

‘I ask you’; ‘you ask me’

ASL HSL

‘I give you’; ‘you give me’

ASL HSL

Two-handed signs with identical

handshapes

• Used to create plural meanings

• Also used to create meaning related to

large size

(The HSL Production Team, 2015)

‘grapes’ ‘sheet’

Handshapes with Morphological

Meaning

• Found in many sign languages

• Tend to fall into 4 categories:

– Size & shape

– Whole entity

– Handling

– Body & body part (Stokoe 1978)

• In most SL’s these can be incorporated

into location and path of motion

predicates (Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006)

• Represents the size and shape of an

object’s periphery

• Types found in HSL:

– Small and round

– Large and round

– Cylindrical

Size & Shape

• 3-fingered (mid, ring, and little) [+thumb],

[+ bent], [+ round], [+contact] handshape

Small & Round

‘grapes’ ‘eat.grapes’ ‘cheap’ ‘expensive’

(The HSL Production Team, 2015)

• 4-fingered [+thumb], [+bent], [+round],

[+spread] handshape

Large and Round

‘orange’ ‘eat.orange ‘coconut’ ‘eat.coconut’

‘stone’

• 4-fingered, [+thumb], [+bent], [+round],

[-spread] handshape

Cylindrical

‘can’

• Represent an entire object

• Types found in HSL:

– Long and thin

– Surface

– Vehicle/Vessel

Whole Entity

• 1-fingered (index) [-thumb] handshape

Long & Thin (Singular)

‘pencil.sharpener’ ‘cherry’

• 2-fingered (index and mid) [-thumb],

[+spread]

Long & Thin (Dual)

‘compass’ ‘chopsticks’ ‘vegetable’

• 4-fingered [xthumb], [ -spread]

handshape

Surface

‘book’ ‘pineapple’ ‘eat.pineapple’ ‘floor’

• 4-fingered [xthumb], [ -spread]

handshape

Vehicle/Vessel

‘2.canoes’ ‘surfboards’

• Represent how an item is physically

handled

• Types found in HSL:

– Pinchable object

– Handheld object

– Writing Instrument

Handling

• 3-fingered (mid, ring, and little)

[+thumb], [+bent], [+round], [+contact],

[+taper]

Pinchable Object

‘eat.pineapple’ ‘sheet’ ‘eat.cherry’

• zero-fingered [-thumb] ‘S’ handshape

Handheld Object

‘eraser’ ‘school.bag’ ‘watermelon’ ‘eat.watermelon’

• 1-fingered (index) [+thumb], [-round],

[+contact], [+taper]

Writing Instrument

‘pencil’ ‘name’ ‘color’

• Represent a person or animal’s body or

body part

• Types found in HSL:

– Long, thin body

– Claws

– Paws

Body & Body part

• 1-fingered (index) [-thumb] handshape

Long, thin body

‘eel’

• 1-fingered (index) [-thumb] handshape

Long, thin body

‘worm’

• 4-fingered [+thumb], [+bent], [+spread]

handshape

Claws

‘tiger’ ‘monster’

• 4-fingered [xthumb], [-spread], [+taper]

handshape

Paws

‘dog’ ‘rabbit.jumping’ ‘rat.walking’

Handshape Category Handshape Location

Size & Shape

Small and round Yes

Large and round No

Cylindrical Yes

Whole Entity

Long and thin No

Surface No

Vehicle/Vessel Yes

Handling

Pinchable object No

Handheld object No

Writing Instrument No

Body & Body part

Claws No

Hands No

Long, thin Body No

Location Restrictions

Motion Restrictions

Handshape Category Motion

Size & Shape No

Whole Entity No

Handling No

Body & Body part No

BASIC HSL WORD ORDER

• Surface word order is SOV

– SVO can occur

– Object first can occur with topicalization

• WH and yes/no questions marked differently

• WH question words occur in final position

• Negation occurs in final position

• Negation precedes WH

Basic SOV Structure

“Sam kicked Brenda”

Sam Brenda kick

Basic yes/no question

“Did Sam kick Brenda?” note the

eyebrows raise

Sam kick Brenda +Q

Basic WH questions

“Why did Sam kick Brenda?”

Sam Brenda kick WH (why)

Negation of basic sentences

“Sam didn’t kick Brenda”

Sam Brenda kick not

Negation and WH questions

“Who didn’t kick Brenda?”

Brenda kick not who

Conversational Data

• Code switching

• Presence of different users can

influence word order

– CHSL users tend to use more SVO order

– Students tend to use more SVO order

LINDA’S PERSPECTIVE

Mahalo!

This research is supported by ELDP Grant MDP0278

“Documentation of Hawai`i Sign Language: Building the

foundation for the documentation, conservation, and

revitalization of endangered Pacific Island Sign Languages

Selected ReferencesTHE HSL PRODUCTION TEAM. 2015. Hawai‘i Sign Language: Student handbook 1,

level 1. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Department of

Linguistics.

LIDDELL, SCOTT. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign

Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

STOKOE, WILLIAM. 1978. Sign language structure: The first linguistic analysis of

American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.

SANDLER, WENDY, and DIANE LILLO-MARTIN. 2006 Sign language and linguistic

universals. New York: Cambridge University Press. WOODWARD,

JAMES. (1991). Sign Language Varieties in Costa Rica. Sign Language Studies, 73,

329–46. Gallaudet University Press.

WOODWARD, JAMES. (1996). Modern standard Thai Sign Language, influence from

ASL, and its relationship to original Thai sign varieties. Sign Language

Studies, 92, 227–52. Gallaudet University Press.

WOODWARD, JAMES. (2011). Some Observations on Research Methodology in

Lexicostatistical Studies of Sign Languages. In Deaf Around the World:

The Impact of Language, ed. by Gaurav Mathur and Donna Jo Napoli,

38–53. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.