Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
®
DigitalResources Electronic Survey Report 2012-027
Daniel EberleElizabeth ParksS. EberleJason Parks
Sociolinguistic Survey Report of the Ecuadorian Deaf Community
Sociolinguistic Survey Report of the
Ecuadorian Deaf Community
Daniel Eberle, Elizabeth Parks, S. Eberle, and Jason Parks
SIL International® 2012
SIL Electronic Survey Report 2012-027, August 2012 © 2012 Daniel Eberle, Elizabeth Parks, S. Eberle, Jason Parks, and SIL International® All rights reserved
Abstract
For this rapid appraisal survey, we wanted to gain a basic understanding about the sociolinguistic situation of the Ecuadorian deaf community. During four weeks of fieldwork in January and February of 2011, our survey team focused on gathering information about sign language use and deaf identity in Ecuador in 11 cities in cooperation with national Ecuadorian deaf leaders and local deaf community members. In addition, we gauged the needs and desires of the language community for future community and sign language development efforts. Our research methodology included participant observation, sociolinguistic questionnaires, wordlist comparison, and dialect network analysis.
Initial results indicate that Lengua de Señas de Ecuador (LSEC) is the primary sign language of Ecuador, with significant historical influence from old Ecuadorian signs, American Sign Language (ASL), and a variety of sign language from Spain. Evidence points to geographical region and age being the two primary sociolinguistic variables influencing perceived and actual LSEC variation. Quito’s LSEC variety appears to be the most influential and easiest to understand variety and Quito offers the most resources and opportunities to deaf Ecuadorians. Government support of the deaf community is strong, and while LSEC still lacks official recognition, the Federación Nacional de Sordos del Ecuador (National Federation of the Deaf - FENASEC) and the entire Ecuadorian deaf community is committed to both community and LSEC development as currently evidenced by the current LSEC dictionary project.
1
Contents 1 Introduction to Ecuador 2 Disability in context 3 Methodology
3.1 Participant observation 3.2 Sociolinguistic questionnaires 3.3 Wordlists 3.4 Dialect Network Analysis 3.5 Research questions
4 Sign language in the Ecuadorian deaf community 4.1 History of Lengua de Señas de Ecuador (LSEC) 4.2 Variation within LSEC 4.3 Wordlist analysis 4.4 Perception and contact of LSEC varieties
5 Sign language use and deaf identity 5.1 Sign language acquisition 5.2 Deaf identity
6 Sociolinguistic environment 6.1 Deaf schools 6.2 Deaf churches and ministries 6.3 Associations, meeting places, and events 6.4 Language development projects
7 Conclusion and recommendations Appendix A: Sociolinguistic questionnaire Appendix B: Wordlist items Appendix C: Deaf schools contact information Appendix D: Deaf associations and organization contact information References
2
1 Introduction to Ecuador
In this report we aim to provide tangible and practical linguistic and cultural information about the deaf1 community of Ecuador based on information that was gathered through background and library research, four weeks of sign language assessment fieldwork involving 11 cities and nine provinces, and analysis of data gathered during that fieldwork. We thank the deaf community of Ecuador for their generous involvement in this project and hope that it will be a support to them in their language and community development.
Ecuador lies on the western coast of South America with roughly the same land area as the state of Nevada. It shares borders with Peru to the south and east and Colombia to the north, but over half of its borders are Pacific coast to the west. Its full name, República del Ecuador, comes from its location firmly on the equator. See Figure 1. Ecuador map (World Atlas.com 2010).
Figure 1. Ecuador map
Ecuador’s weather is tropical along the coast, becoming cooler inland at higher elevations up to 20,000 ft (6,096 meters) and tropical in the Amazonian jungle lowlands. The terrain is divided into three main types of topography: coastal plains (the Costa) in the west, inter-Andean central highlands (the Sierra), and flat to rolling eastern jungle (the Oriente) in the east (CIA The World Factbook 2010). See Figure 2 for a map of major cities in Ecuador that we focused on during language assessment fieldwork.
1 Some deaf people identify themselves as capital-D “Deaf”, in order to focus on their cultural identity, rather than a lower-case d “deaf,” focusing on audiological status. We recognize the diversity of perspectives and conventions for referring to deaf and hard of hearing people around the world. For this report, we have chosen to use a lower-case “deaf” with the goal of being most inclusive of all deaf and hard of hearing people in Ecuador, regardless of their cultural and linguistic identification.
3
Figure 2. Ecuador focus map, modified from CIA The World Factbook (2010)
Ecuador has an estimated population of just over 14 million. Roughly 66 percent of the total population is urbanized and 95 percent of Ecuadorians identify themselves as Roman Catholic. In 2005, the service industry dominated the country’s economy at 70.4 percent of the labor force; industry at 21.2 percent, and agriculture at 8.3 percent. Ecuador’s major exports include petroleum, bananas, cut flowers, shrimp, cacao, coffee, hemp, wood and fish (CIA The World Factbook 2010).
Quito, the capital city, has a population of around 2.5 million, and is located in the north-central part of the country. At over 9,000 ft (2,743 m), Quito is one of the highest capital cities in the world. Guayaquil is the largest city in Ecuador, with a population exceeding two million. It is also a center of commerce for the country (GeoHive 2011).
Because deaf cultural communities tend to form in a country’s urban centers, overall population information factored into our choice of cities for language assessment fieldwork. Table 1. Population of the ten largest cities in Ecuador below (GeoHive 2011) includes population data for the ten largest cities in Ecuador based on information from the 2010 national census.
Table 1. Population of the ten largest cities in Ecuador
City Population (2010)
Guayaquil 3,573,003Quito 2,570,201Portoviejo 1,345,779Babahoyo 765,274Machala 588,546Esmeraldas 520,711Ambato 500,755Riobamba 452,352Loja 446,743Latacunga 406,798
4
In the following section, we discuss the general social environment for people with disabilities in Ecuador and some of the impact it has on Ecuadorian deaf culture.
2 Disability in context
The number of deaf people in Ecuador is around 213,000 people; 31,654 of these are registered as deaf (CONADIS 2011). “20 percent of the [total Ecuadorian] population having some degree of hearing impairment” (Ortiz, 2010). An estimated 1.6 million people have disabilities (CONADIS 2011). According to the 7th International Federation of Hard of Hearing Congress in Helsinki in 2004, one significant cause of audiological deafness in Ecuador is mining that takes place with loud dynamite on the border near Peru. Loud blasting and handling of mercury led to hearing loss for many miners (European Association of Cochlear Implant Users 2005).
Measuring deaf populations is difficult and we need to make a distinction between audiological deafness (hearing loss) and cultural deafness (a distinct, self-identifying people group). Different groups categorize populations differently and some deaf community members may be audiologically deaf and not culturally deaf. Except when referring to cited audiologically deaf population figures, we generally use the term “deaf” in this report to refer to deaf people who use sign language, or those people who identify with and associate with a larger deaf culture and community, not the entire Ecuadorian population with hearing loss.
The deaf population numbers in Table 2. Deaf population by province and fieldwork cities below (CONADIS 2011) are given by province and are listed in descending order based on total deaf population as reported by the Consejo Nacional de Discapacidades (National Council for Disabilities - CONADIS). This table includes the specific cities and provinces that we visited during fieldwork and only includes deaf people who are registered with CONADIS.
Table 2. Deaf population by province and fieldwork cities
Fieldwork Cities Province Registered Deaf Population by Province
Guayaquil Guayas 6,447Quito Pichincha 6,005Portoviejo, Manta, Jipijapa Manabi 2,785Cuenca Azuay 1,638Riobamba Chimborazo 1,628Loja Loja 1,298Ambato Tungurahua 1,284Quevedo Los Rios 914Puyo Pastaza 193TOTAL 22,192
In 2002, the World Committee on Disability awarded Ecuador the Franklin Delano Roosevelt International Disability Award “for making noteworthy progress toward the U.N. World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons, which calls for the full and equal participation of people with disabilities worldwide in all aspects of life, regardless of their nation's level of development” (National Organization on Disability, 2002).
In 2008, Ecuador ratified the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), an international, legally-binding instrument to protect the rights of disabled peoples. The CRPD guarantees rights such as “the right to liberty; the right to an education; the right to vote and participate in public and cultural life; and the right to receive information in accessible formats…” (Shettle, 2008). However, according the International Disability Rights Monitor (2007), it seems that many of these rights are
5
greatly lacking in government support. Problems include lack of accessible information, prevention of disabled persons from witnessing legal matters, and educational deficiencies. Within the country, 129 schools exist, but only 9 percent of these serve children who are classified as hearing impaired. Almost 40 percent of people with disabilities receive no education, and only 10.5 percent finish high school. The high school completion rate for the general population is 25.9 percent, more than twice the rate for people with disabilities. For more information about the situation for people with disabilities in Ecuador, see the International Disability Rights Monitor website (http://www.idrmnet.org/).
Several research participants told us that Ecuador has mandatory labor laws requiring all adults to work. All employers are also required to hire people with disabilities; however, many participants claimed that, for most deaf people, only entry level jobs and low-paying jobs are available. Workers can progress to more advanced roles after time, but it is a difficult and slow process. Several participants told us that many deaf people work with computers, welding, or in offices or factories, but in parts of the country they mostly have agricultural jobs or manual labor. One participant said that Guayaquil, Quito, and Ambato (in that order) have the best jobs for deaf people. Many deaf people come into the country from Peru because of Ecuador’s stronger economy. Several schools we visited offered vocational training.
During fieldwork, participants told us that the current vice president of Ecuador, Lenín Moreno, is confined to a wheelchair. He is a major champion of disability rights and has done much to support the deaf community. Elections will take place in 2012 and some deaf informants indicate concern that a change in leadership could negatively impact the current progress that has been made for disability rights.
The primary disability organization in Ecuador is Consejo Nacional de Discapacidades (CONADIS). CONADIS was established in 1992 and works at a national level to form disability policy and support other disability organizations. Federación Nacional de Sordos del Ecuador (The National Federation of the Deaf of Ecuador - FENASEC), is dedicated to meeting the needs of its members and those members of affiliated organizations, furthering education of deaf and about deafness, training and job placement, and social integration. FENASEC is a national member of the World Federation of the Deaf (CONADIS 2011). Another organization, the D.H.Ex Foundation, aims to provide counseling for families with deaf children, among other services.
Other major organizations that work with deaf Ecuadorians include Ayúdame a Escuchar and Proyecto Indio. The Ayúdame a Escuchar foundation works to financially support those with hearing impairments, as well as educate about hearing health. They also maintain facilities for diagnosis and treatment (Ayudame a Eschuchar 2008). Proyecto Indio supports, develops and funds projects in Ecuador’s most needed areas, with a focus on education, health, and economic prosperity. This project has ties with deaf schools in both Chimborazo and Pichincha provinces (Proyecto Indio 2010).
From Ecuador’s forward-thinking council on disabilities and prestigious awards for human rights, one might expect access to information, services, media, and other areas to be highly accessible to the deaf community, but much need for progress still remains. Fourteen years ago, the 1997 United Nations’ report on Ecuadorian government action on disability policy stated that:
Sign language for deaf people has no officially recognized status. It is neither used as the first language in education of deaf people, nor recognized as the main means of communication between deaf people and others. There are no government measures for encouraging media and other forms of public information to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities. The following services are provided to facilitate information and communication between persons with disabilities and others: literature in Braille/tape, news magazines on tape/Braille, sign language interpretation being available only for major events. (Michailakis 1996)
We can confirm from conversations with deaf leaders during survey fieldwork that this is still the case; many deaf contacts informed us that there is a huge need for sign language interpreting services. They indicated that interpreters are scarce or unskilled, and there seems to be no formal interpreter training available. The interpreters we encountered during fieldwork seemed capable but not professionally trained. A 2008 news article claims that the national disabilities act, which guarantees deaf access to the media is “dead,” and of the six news stations airwaves, none has provided an interpreter despite the law (Tapia 2008). In September 2009, the Ecuador chapter of the WFD sponsored a march to encourage the government to pass an act regarding accessibility of information, bilingualism,
6
and drivers licenses for the deaf (World Federation of the Deaf 2009). Participants in Guayaquil told us that another march was held in 2010 with the goal of getting sign language recognized as an official language. The government issues people with disabilities identification cards which allow 50 percent discounts on in-country transportation, including bus fares and flights.
Many deaf community members seem to own cell phones and texting is prevalent; a few have cell phones with video calling capabilities. One participant who had spent time in the United States said that there are very few videophones and no video relay services. Many participants had email addresses, but many said they could not access email regularly. Facebook use seems very common, and DVD players were very inexpensive in country and in common use, opening up the possibility for digital distribution of language materials.
3 Methodology
In this section, we discuss the methodology applied during fieldwork. An approach similar to the rapid appraisal (RA) methodology (Stalder, 1996) was used to gather as much information as possible about the language community as a whole within a relatively short time commitment. Rapid appraisal sign language assessment takes a snapshot of the social environment in which the sign language community exists by looking at community perspectives, language attitudes, standardization and vitality of the sign language, perceived needs and existing projects, and whether or not it is similar to other known sign languages in Latin America. Our research goals focused on gathering the above information with a small team of four researchers from the United States that worked in cooperation with national Ecuadorian deaf leaders and local deaf community members. In this section we describe our sampling method, research tools, research participants, and research questions.
We used a chain sampling method, in which we recruited research participants through an existing social network with whom we had contact, primarily through FENASEC. We found this sampling technique to be particularly useful for this RA research as it allowed us to access a relatively large number in each target deaf community in a short time period, even though the deaf population as a whole could be difficult to find as they are integrated into an urban setting. We chose the 11 cities that we visited based on information that pointed to their being major deaf population centers, having existing deaf cultural sites that we could visit during our limited time frame (e.g., deaf schools or association meetings), and availability of contacts that we gained through chain sampling. We visited the following cities (listed alphabetically): Ambato, Cuenca, Guayaquil, Jipijapa, Loja, Manta, Portoviejo, Puyo, Quevedo, Quito, and Riobamba. Four primary tools were used to gather and analyze the sociolinguistic situation: participant observation, sociolinguistic questionnaires, wordlist comparison, and dialect network analysis. Below, we describe each tool’s use and include demographics for the research participants included for each tool during rapid appraisal fieldwork.
3.1 Participant observation
Participant Observation (PO) includes careful observation informal interviews combined with regular and thorough note taking about interactions with participants, especially language attitudes and community opinions and needs. Details include things such as addresses, names, locations and meeting times of deaf clubs, the educational philosophy of local deaf schools, and other facts related to each observation site and participants. Additionally, conversations and general impressions of language attitudes and language use, cultural behavior, and other sociolinguistic factors are noted (Parks and Parks 2011). Our note-taking procedure consisted of taking individual notes as soon as possible (as culturally appropriate) after a conversation, meeting, or other interaction was finished. At the end of each work day, the team would gather to discuss notes and combine them into a master document including each person’s notes, perceptions, and a team discussion of those observations. For final analysis and inclusion in this report, these notes were then organized by topic and the data used to write this report.
7
Notes were taken at 12 deaf associations, nine dictionary meetings, five deaf schools, one church meeting, as well as several other less formal meetings. We interacted through participant observation with roughly 211 people during fieldwork in approximately 19 different sites covering the 11 surveyed cities.
3.2 Sociolinguistic questionnaires
We used sociolinguistic questionnaires (SLQs) consisting of 30 open and closed questions to gather information related to our research questions. The SLQs questions probed topics such as demographics of the deaf community, deaf services and meeting places, language use and attitudes, language variation, community needs and values, and sociolinguistic perceptions. Forty-two SLQs were administered in 11 Ecuadorian cities. For a summary of SLQ participants metadata, see Table 3.
8
Table 3: SLQ participant metadata
SLQ # City Age Gender Years of Education 1 Quito 17 female 52 Quito 19 male 113 Quito 26 male 144 Quito 26 male 85 Quito 50 female 176 Riobamba 24 male 147 Riobamba 32 male 118 Riobamba 26 female 189 Riobamba 17 female 1410 Riobamba 34 male 811 Riobamba 42 female 012 Riobamba 22 male 1513 Riobamba 30 male 1114 Puyo 40 female 1915 Puyo 26 male 316 Quito 31 male 2017 Guayaquil 40 male 518 Guayaquil 36 male 2619 Guayaquil 36 female 320 Guayaquil 39 male 621 Guayaquil 45 female 1922 Guayaquil 44 male 623 Guayaquil 39 female 824 Cuenca 29 male 525 Cuenca 30 male 426 Cuenca 21 female 627 Loja 13 female 828 Loja 18 male 1029 Loja 33 female 330 Portoviejo 35 male 1931 Portoviejo 26 male 532 Portoviejo 20 female 033 Portoviejo 33 male 834 Portoviejo 26 male 1435 Manta 26 female 336 Jipijapa 40 female 1137 Quevedo 29 male 938 Quevedo 36 male 339 Quevedo 49 male 540 Quevedo 32 male 341 Quevedo 52 female 542 Quevedo 25 female 6
Our SLQ sample is divided between the Sierra and Costa regions, with Sierra regions being grouped on the left of the figure and Costa regions on the right. The Sierra region includes (listed alphabetically) Ambato, Cuenca, Quevedo, Quito, and Riobamba. The Costa region includes Guayaquil, Jipijapa, Loja,
Manta, Poregion and
NinetEcuadoriatotal Ecuaparticipanquestionn
ortoviejo, andd 19 in the C
y-eight percean populationadorian populnts, 25 male anaires.
d Puyo. Basedosta region.
nt of our partn (ages 15-64)lation lies in tand 17 female
Fig
Rioba
Q
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Num
ber o
f SLQ
's
d on these city
Figure 3
ticipants fit in), as defined bthis age rangee. See Figure
gure 4. Age gr
amba, 8
Quevedo, 6
Quito, 5
Cuenc
Am
y groupings, t
3. SLQ Locati
nto the most by the CIA We. We admini4 for a summ
roups of SLQ
a, 3
mbato, 10Jipijapa,
Ma
SLQ Location
there were 23
ions
populous ageWorld Factboo
istered the qumary of age gr
participants
1anta, 1Puyo, 2
Loja, 3
Portov5
Gu
ns
3 SLQs gather
e group of thek (2010); 60
uestionnaire troups include
iejo,
uayaquil, 7
red in the Sie
e overall percent of th
to a total of 4ed in our 42
9
rra
he 2
We hafamily mehaving famincluded awho had nfor more i
Data fanalysis st
3.3 W
The purporepresentaunderstan(Parks andwithin thestudying twithin coudocument
We elMicrosoft lexical itebe elicitedparticipanprovide alwas comfoparticipancamera wthe proces
This pranging infrom 3 to Appendix
ad a nearly evembers and 2mily membera broad rangenever attendeinformation o
from the SLQtage of this R
Wordlists
ose of the woative sample
nd the lexical d Parks 2011e target countthe history ofuntry) and latation for latelicited LenguaPowerpoint s
em. Before elid in the procents could undll known signortable movinnt and the par
was then startess. particular studn age from 2319 years of sB. Wordlist p
ven split betw2 did not, a frs with whome of participaned school to ton education.
Figu
Qs were compiRA survey. See
rdlist elicitatiof each commvariation pre). Each wordltry and with f sign languagrge scale (bet
er study or fora de Señas deslides that inccitation, reseess and showeerstand the w
ns for each Spng forward wrticipant’s desed and the wo
dy used a 2153 to 66 years, schooling. Theparticipant m
ween participafactor which w
m they can comnts with bothhose who had See Figure 5
re 5. Particip
iled and analye Appendix A
ion is to gathmunity so thaesent in the silist is then cowordlists from
ges, understantween countrr historical an Ecuador (LSEcluded a Spanarchers descred them vario
wordlist elicitapanish word thwith the resear
sired accessibordlist elicitat
5-item wordliwith 7 males
e 215 wordlismetadata is giv
ants with deawould point tmmunicate inh low and highd attended sc for a summa
ants by years
yzed in an MiA for a list of S
er all known at we can comign language(ompared to otm other counnding languagies or across nd cultural puEC) wordlistsnish word andribed for eachous slides in tation processhat they knewrch tool, the rbility for theirtion procedur
ist, gathered fs and 8 femalst items are liven in Table 4
af family and to roughly han sign languagh education l
chool for a totary of particip
s of education
icrosoft ExcelSLQ question
lexical varietmpare these va(s) used by thther wordlists
ntries. These cge situations a continent), urposes. s by showing d, when possih participant tthe Powerpoins. Each particiw were used iresearcher recr videotaped re continued
from 15 partiles, and educaisted in the or4 below.
those withoualf of our partge. Our questlevels, spannital of 26 yearpant educatio
n
l spreadsheets used during
ties for a list oariants with e
he Ecuadorians that have becomparisons aon both a smand sign lang
participants aible, an imagethe types of wnt presentatioipant was encin Ecuador. Ifcorded metadsigns was recuntil the part
icipants, reprational backgrder they wer
ut: 20 had deaicipants possi
tionnaire saming from thosrs. See Sectionon levels.
t during the g fieldwork.
of words fromeach other ann deaf commueen gathered are useful for
mall (local or guage
a series of e representinwords that woon so that couraged to f the participadata for the corded. The vticipant comp
resenting 11 cgrounds rangire elicited in
10
af ibly ple e n 0
m a nd unity
ng the ould
ant
video pleted
cities, ing
11
Table 4: WL participant metadata
WL # City Age Gender Years of Education 1 Quito 39 male 162 Quito 66 male 43 Quito 29 female 74 Ambato 50 female 45 Riobamba 23 male 96 Riobamba 24 male 147 Puyo 30 female 178 Guayaquil 35 female 99 Cuenca 24 male 1310 Loja 64 female 511 Loja 33 female 312 Portoviejo 35 male 1913 Manta 27 female 1314 Jipijapa 61 female 1315 Quevedo 29 male 9
We analyzed the 15 sign varieties of Ecuador using a wordlist comparison methodology developed by Parks (Parks 2011). Using ELAN annotation software, we coded four parameters of the elicited signs: initial handshape, final handshape, initial location, and final location (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics 2011). While coding, we categorized handshapes based on an inventory of 74 values, and a location inventory of 31 values. The 15 sign varieties were then compared to assess similarity of lexical items using SLLED and Rugloafer software designed by White (White 2011). This software calculated the Levenshtein distance among varieties using an algorithm designed by Kleiwig (Kleiweg 2011). Levenshtein distances are calculated based on the number of parameter value differences for each lexical item. Levenshtein distances can range from 0 (signs are identical), to 1 (all parameter values are different). Distances for each lexical item are averaged over the entire wordlist to calculate the Levenshtein distance between each pair of sign varieties.
3.4 Dialect Network Analysis
D. Eberle spearheaded the development of a new research tool for this survey trip and named it Dialect Network Analysis (DNA). DNA was inspired by the dialect mapping tool developed for use in the Participatory Methods for Engaging Communities framework (Truong and Garcez 2009). The purpose of DNA is to provide a snapshot of a focus group’s perceptions of language variation, taking advantage of group discussion and interaction to obtain as much information as possible about perceived language variation in a low pressure context and short time frame. By using groups of participants, we encouraged participants to reach consensus about perceived sign language use in a pre-established set of cities and to group these cities into clusters with shared sign varieties. The focus group’s categorization of cities could then be viewed as perceived regional sign varieties within a country.
This tool’s results provides another useful research tool as it gathers information about regional variation without asking participants direct questions about variation. It augments direct questions asked through the questionnaire, actual language use data gathered through wordlist elicitation and analysis, as well as researcher perceptions of language variation and clustering gained through participant observation, and provides an important additional perspective of language variation within a country.
To begin, the researcher presented groups of participants with a stack of cards, each with a city name. We chose the cities in advance based on cities that we expected to have a stronger deaf presence and therefore more familiar to deaf Ecuadorians as a whole. The researcher would then elicit and discuss local signs for each of the cities to make sure everyone involved understood which city each card represented. Participants were asked to show the DNA administrator which cities signed the same as the
12
city where they lived and to move the cards on the surface of the table or floor to be grouped according to similarity with their local sign variety. All members of the community were encouraged to participate, not just leaders, and the researcher tried not to interfere or ask leading questions. After consensus had been reached about the cities which signed similarly to their home city, participants were asked to do a similar task with placing other cities together in perceived similarity groupings. Cities that signed the same were then grouped together in clusters. Each of the focus group’s clusters were then recorded for later analysis.
DNA data were gathered from all 11 fieldwork cities: Quito, Guayaquil, Cuenca, Loja, Ambato, Riobamba, Machala, Manta, Jipijapa, Puyo, and Portoviejo, with a total of approximately 100 participants. Most focus groups consisted of 6-10 participants while a few included fewer participants. See Figure 6 for an example of one group’s clustered result of this tool, in which the participants sorted the cities into three language varieties, as indicated by the three rows of cities.
Figure 6. Example of Dialect Network Analysis activity input
We compiled DNA data in an Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and imported it into UCINET, a social network analysis program, developed by Analytic Technologies and in use since 2000 (Analytic Technologies 2010). We used UCINET to graphically represent the dialect network and show us the number of times two given cities were said to sign similarly (be clustered together). General social network theory guided our analysis process as we played particular attention to the strength of the ties between cities which pointed to them sharing a stronger network and therefore have a higher probability of being part of a shared regional variety.
3.5 Research questions
We used the following research questions (RQ) to guide our RA survey through use of the above described research tools:
RQ1: What sign languages are used in Ecuador, what is their relationship to neighboring but foreign sign languages, and what attitudes exist towards outside sign varieties? To answer this question we used Participant Observation (PO), Sociolinguistic Questionnaires (SLQ), and Dialect Network Analysis (DNA) in varied environments and locations.
RQ2: What sign language variation exists within Ecuador and what are its causes and impact within the deaf community? PO, SLQ, WLs, and DNA were used to determine the existence and extent of variation within the country.
13
RQ3: What are the opportunities for language development within Ecuador and who are the primary stakeholders and potential partners? PO and SLQ’s were used to identify interested and important individuals and groups in the language development process.
4 Sign language in the Ecuadorian deaf community
In this section, we discuss the results from our RA fieldwork and four research tools that relate to sign language use within the Ecuadorian deaf community. In particular, we discuss LSEC, language contact between LSEC and neighboring sign varieties, DNA and wordlist analyses of LSEC, and reference variants of LSEC.
4.1 History of Lengua de Señas de Ecuador (LSEC)
Our first research question (RQ1) focused on sign languages use in Ecuador and its relationship to other neighboring sign languages, both historically and geographically. Based on all information currently available, it appears that there is a single sign language used in Ecuador: Lengua de Señas de Ecuador (LSEC), ISO 639-3: [ecs] (Lewis 2009).
LSEC is distinct from sign languages used in other countries; however, there has been a great deal of influence from foreign sign languages on LSEC. Several participants mentioned that members of the Peace Corps came to Ecuador and taught American Sign Language (ASL), and a Spanish sign language was mentioned by several participants. The vice president of FENASEC recounts that a deaf man born in Ecuador went to Spain to study and brought back Spanish signs. Because of this man’s instrumental involvement in the founding of FENASEC, some Spanish signs were adopted into the local community’s sign language use. According to the vice president of the FENASEC, the influence of these languages has weakened through the years and currently LSEC is composed of about 30 percent ASL, 20 percent Spanish sign language, and 50 percent original signs to Ecuador. However, 71 percent of our SLQ participants said that LSEC is unique, while only 24 percent indicated it was like another sign language, and five percent said they did not know.
Among the 24 percent of participants that indicated LSEC to be similar to other sign languages, there was little consensus as to which languages were similar with six countries mentioned: Peru, the United States, Colombia, Spain, Venezuela, and Chile. See Table 5 for a list of countries listed by frequency of times their sign language was mentioned by SLQ participants who felt they had enough language contact to give a response.
Table 5. Countries with similar sign languages
Country Number of mentionsPeru 7United States 5Colombia 5Spain 2Venezuela 1Chile 1
Deaf Ecuadorians reported that Peru is also the most frequently visited country, with Colombia coming out as more frequently visited than the United States. See Figure 7 for more detail.
Resulin Table 5perceivedand the U
4.2 V
Our secongathered tmembers between dpresentedvariation
ts in Figure 75 of most simid influence) frUnited States.
Variation w
nd research quthrough all odo not believ
diverse groupd below in Figwithin LSEC.
7 show a remailar sign langrom language
within LSEC
uestion askedf our research
ve that these dps. One questigure 8. Result
Figure 7. M
arkably similauages, sugges contact with
C
d about sign lah tools that thdifferences arion in our SLQts show that th
Most visited co
ar report of costing that theh these other c
anguage variahere is some vre large enougQ addressed the majority (
ountries
ountries that ere may be somcountries, esp
ation within Evariation withgh to significathis question (88%) of parti
are most visime influence pecially with
Ecuador. It ishin LSEC, butantly impact directly, withicipants do be
ited with repo(or at least Peru, Colomb
s clear from dt deaf commucomprehensi
h its results elieve that th
14
orts
bia,
data unity ion
here is
Deaf ppercent), gender (3results.
Severcountry. TFENASECrecruiting
participants seducation (13 percent), and
al participantThe area seem staff mention
g their involve
Figure 8. D
suggested sev3 percent), red spoken lang
Figure 9
ts mentioned ms to be fairlyned trying to ement. Also, w
Do all deaf pe
eral causes ofeligion (10 peguage roots (3
9. Causes of la
that people fy isolated, andinclude themwe noted sign
eople in Ecua
f language vaercent), intera3 percent). Se
anguage varia
from Esmeraldd there appea
m in their dictnificant preju
ador sign the s
ariation: geogaction with otee Figure 9 fo
ation within L
das sign diffears to be no wtionary projecudice in the ge
same?
graphy (38 pether countriesor a visual rep
LSEC
erently from twell-establishect but had litteneral commu
ercent), age (2s (10 percentpresentation o
the rest of theed deaf schootle success unity towards
15
22 ), of the
e ols.
s the
16
large population of African-American descendants of slaves, which could potentially account for perceptions of different signing. We were unable to visit the area during fieldwork and believe that future research should focus on investigating reported perceptions of Esmeraldas having significantly different sign language than other areas of Ecuador as there was no specific data that confirmed this being the case.
DNA data further investigated the primary reported factor impacting LSEC variation: geographical variation. The numbers in the table below show the total number of participant groups that said the cities are equal. For example, 13 focus groups representing 13 different social networks in 11 cities put Manta and Portoviejo (Porto) in the same language group, suggesting a strong similarity, while only one session put Guayaquil (Guaya) and Cuenca (Cuenc) in the same group, suggesting very minor similarities. For many pairs, no ties were formed, as with Esmeraldas (Esmer) and Quito. See Table 6 below.
Table 6. Dialect network analysis tie strength matrix
Quito 1 Guayaquil 9 1 Cuenca 8 1 7 Loja 10 1 7 7 Ambato11 1 7 8 12 Riobamba0 9 0 0 0 0 Machala1 8 0 0 0 1 8 Manta1 8 0 0 1 1 8 13 Portoviejo 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 Esmeraldas
In the network diagram below, each node represents one of our target cities. The ties between each city show the strength of relationship between the two cities; thicker lines mean more participants said the cities sign the same (stronger ties). See Figure 10 for a graphical representation of the above matrix.
17
Figure 10. Dialect network analysis of LSEC
This DNA data strongly suggests that deaf community member perceptions point to two distinct variants of LSEC, one based in the Costa and one in the Sierra. We can tentatively cluster Esmeraldas, Manta, Portoviejo, Guayaquil, and Machala as the Costa regional variety and Loja, Cuenca, Riobamba, Ambato, and Quito as the Sierra regional variety, based on perceived sign varieties clustered by our focus groups.
The second highest reported cause of variation is age, with 23 percent of participants mentioning it in their SLQ. This variation is strongly confirmed by lexical similarity testing conducted using our wordlists; we found that the four wordlists with the most difference from the others all came from participants over 50. Several participants mentioned “old” signs and an old fingerspelling system, but said that few people still know them. When asked, participants did not seem concerned that the signs or system was dying out. For further information about wordlist analysis results and age variation, see Section 4.3.
4.3 Wordlist analysis
During fieldwork we elicited 215 lexical items from 15 participants, as described in the wordlist methodology in Section 3.3. A total of 3,262 sign tokens were compared in this analysis. The Cronbach's Alpha (a reliability measure of internal consistency where a score of one marks the highest possible level of internal consistency) was 0.939. The Levenshtein distance between each pair of the 15 sign varieties is shown in Table 7 (the smaller the Levenshtein distance, the more similarity there is between the sign varieties). These results show Levenshtein distances among Ecuador sign varieties ranging from the most similar varieties of Riobamba-05 and Riobamba-06 (0.381), to the most different varieties of Quito-02 and Jijipjapa-14 (0.717).
18
Table 7. Levenshtein distances among Ecuador wordlists
The distances between the most similar sign variety pairs follow the participant perceptions shown
in the DNA results which emphasized signing variation based on geographical regions. The five most similar pairs of varieties represent communities that are geographically close to each other: Riobamba-05 and Riobamba-06 are from the same city (0.381), Riobamba-06 and Puyo-07 (0.401), Cuenca-09 and Loja-11 (0.403), Puyo-07 and Loja-11 (0.405), all represent deaf communities in the southern mountain region; and Portoviejo-12 and Manta-13 (0.406) are neighboring cities along the coast.
We also assessed similarity groupings of varieties using a clustering algorithm called the unweighted pair-group method (UPGMA). The cluster analysis based on Levenshtein distances is shown in the dendrogram below in Figure 11. The similarity clusters do not clearly identify similar varieties based on geography, but they do highlight wide variation based on age.
Figure 11. Dendrogram of Levenshtein distances among Ecuador sign language varieties
Because there are such strong community perceptions toward two distinct LSEC varieties that are based on geographical regions of the Sierra and Costa, one might expect similarity clusters based on regional variation. However, wordlist comparison results show age to have an even stronger influence on LSEC variation than geography. As shown in the dendrogram, the main cluster (grouped at a Levenshtein distance of 0.475) includes 11 varieties representing both the Sierra (Cuenca, Loja, Puyo, Riobamba,
Quito‐010.664 Quito‐020.486 0.701 Quito‐030.513 0.674 0.541 Ambato‐040.506 0.706 0.466 0.548 Riobamba‐050.421 0.668 0.454 0.513 0.381 Riobamba‐060.438 0.682 0.439 0.494 0.428 0.401 Puyo‐070.484 0.675 0.500 0.491 0.486 0.458 0.447 Guayaquil‐080.442 0.701 0.480 0.500 0.468 0.432 0.423 0.453 Cuenca‐090.612 0.654 0.625 0.596 0.626 0.587 0.590 0.588 0.562 Loja‐100.466 0.676 0.491 0.493 0.446 0.434 0.405 0.452 0.403 0.564 Loja‐110.501 0.706 0.495 0.518 0.516 0.451 0.427 0.447 0.435 0.589 0.449 Portoviejo‐120.462 0.693 0.478 0.507 0.486 0.472 0.444 0.436 0.417 0.580 0.421 0.406 Manta‐130.667 0.717 0.671 0.669 0.693 0.655 0.660 0.643 0.623 0.676 0.657 0.622 0.615 Jipijapa‐140.485 0.683 0.459 0.528 0.462 0.420 0.441 0.461 0.428 0.588 0.430 0.478 0.451 0.632 Quevedo‐15
19
Quito, and Ambato) and the Costa (Manta, Portoviejo, Quevedo, and Guayaquil), pointing to little variation between the two main regions.
Another sociolinguistic factor of variation, age, is clearly highlighted in the dendrogram. The four varieties separated from the main cluster all represent participants 50 years of age or more. The cluster of 11 varieties all represent participants 39 years of age or less. These four varieties merge with the main cluster at Levenshtein distances of 0.513 (Ambato-04), 0.592 (Loja-10), 0.653 (Jipijapa-14), and 0.686 (Quito-02). From these results, it appears that clustering of similar LSEC varieties is influenced more by age than by geographical region. Interestingly, two of the four participants specifically indicated that they used “old Ecuadorian signs”, however, the wordlist comparison results do not indicate high similarity among these four sign varieties. These results do not suggest that the older generation shares a similar sign variety. On the contrary, they are quite different from each other: Quito-02 and Jipijapa-14 is the most different variety pairing at a Levenshtein distance of 0.717. These differences suggest a possibility that old Ecuadorian signs may not have been very standard, as compared to the more modern LSEC that is used by the younger generation.
In conclusion, wordlist comparison results both confirm and contrast with qualitative information gathered through our other tools. While they confirm age as a significant sociolinguistic variable affecting LSEC variation, they contradict the perceived importance of geography. Participant observation indicated that deaf Ecuadorians do not, in general, have difficulty understanding each other which confirmed the community’s assertion of a single national sign language: LSEC. In addition, participants indicated that deaf community members from the coast and the mountainous regions gather periodically for national events, suggesting high mobility. This periodic interaction and language contact between regional varieties probably leads to higher degrees of intelligibility. It may be that perceptions of LSEC regional variation among the Ecuadorian deaf community actually reflect a broader cultural attitude that is also present among hearing Ecuadorians: the presence of distinct Ecuadorian cultures between people living in the mountains and those living on the coast. Future research should look further into perceived versus actual LSEC variation as influenced by geography.
4.4 Perception and contact of LSEC varieties
Although deaf community perceptions point to two regional varieties within LSEC, the Sierra variety seems to be regarded as the reference variety for LSEC development and use. When we asked participants to rank cities by ease of understanding in the SLQ, Sierra cities were consistently ranked higher than Costa cities, with Quito almost always ranked as easiest to understand. Guayaquil, grouped with the Costa variety, was voted second easiest to understand. Most often, the city in which the questionnaire was conducted, which should be representative of the participant’s own sign variety, was ranked third. This suggests that while two variants of LSEC may need to be considered when considering acceptability of LSEC materials and development, the Sierra variant is probably the sign variety most accessible to and respected by the largest number of deaf Ecuadorians. See Figure 12 for a ranking of cities based on participants’ reported ease of understanding.
A largother comvarieties aThe commcities geogvariant. Syes, no, n
Regardingthe same percent ha
ge majority ofmmunities in Eand that variamunities mentgraphically clee Figure 13 o comment, a
Fi
g standardizateverywhere, ad no opinion
Figure 1
f participantsEcuador, whicants will growtioned Quito lose to the qufor a summarand I don’t kn
igure 13. Is th
tion, 76 perceciting reasonn, and 10 per
No C
12. Cities ran
s (74 percent)ch infers that
w more similaas the most fr
uestionnaire cry of participnow (IDK).
here interactio
ent of particips such as clarcent believe t
IDK5%
Yes74%
Comment14%
nked by ease o
) claimed thatt there is a lotar over time dfrequently viscity. This agaiant responses
on between r
pants (42 parrity, solidaritythat retaining
No7%
of understand
t their commut of contact bdue to sustainited location,in suggests Qs to this quest
regions within
rticipants) saiy, and easy geg LSEC differe
ding
unities interabetween varioned and incre, as well as G
Quito as a potetion, includin
n Ecuador?
id that they wenerational trences is good
IDK
No
Yes
No Comm
act with manyous cities’ signasing interactuayaquil andential referenng responses o
wanted LSEC transfer, while.
ment
20
y n tion.
d nce of
to be e 14
In sumLSEC showand curreforeign sigEcuadoriageographibetween sis central country QUnificatioappears to
5 Sign
This sectioattempt tohaving de
5.1 S
One seriesthat they family. Se
The dknow or lschool, schearing pacquisitiomajority o
mmary, only ows evidence ont contact frogn varieties wans. Perceivedical regions asocial networkfor the Sierra
Quito, the capon and standao be having th
n languag
on discusses so briefly desceaf family on
ign langua
s of questionslearned to sig
ee Figure 14 f
data in Figure earn it themshools could barents sign w
on. Also, whenof participant
one sign langof influence hom sign variewith focused dd and actual iand age, but thks within thea region and Gpital city, appeardization of Lhe strongest i
ge use an
sign languagecribe trends ineducation, an
age acquisi
s in the SLQ agn in a schoolfor a descripti
F
14 suggests tselves. Additiobe a major de
with their deafn asked in thets put sign lan
0
5
10
15
20
25
Num
ber o
f Participan
ts
guage has beehistorically froties in Peru adevelopment internal variahis variation
e deaf commuGuayaquil is cears to have tLSEC is generimpact on LSE
nd deaf id
e acquisition an relationshipnd the cohesiv
ition
addressed lanl environmenion of the con
Figure 14. Lan
that families onally, it tellstermining facf children, sche SLQ to ranknguage teachi
Sign Acqu
21
13
en identified aom both ASL and Colombiaand standard
ation clearly edoes not app
unity. Participcentral for ththe most presrally held as aEC use across
dentity
and deaf idenps between heveness of the
guage acquisnt, and only ontexts in whic
nguage acquis
are either nots us that becactor in languahools are probk the need of ding materials
uisition
5
1
as being wideand a sign la
a, but influencdization of a uexists, as definpear to impedepants generallhe Costa regiostigious and ina positive goas Ecuador.
ntity, using POearing people deaf commu
sition directlyone said that tch participant
sition sites
t teaching theause so many age variation.bably the primdifferent langat the top of
Schoo
Friend
Assoc
Family
ely used in Ecanguage variece appears to unique LSEC ned by Sierrae intelligibilitly agree that on, but that fonfluential LSEal and the Qu
O and SLQ’s. and deaf peo
unity in Ecuad
y. Half of our they learned tts learned sig
eir children Lsigners are le
. In addition, mary source guage materiaf the list.
ol
ds
iation
y
cuador: LSEC.ety from Spain
be waning frfor deaf
a and Costa ty or interactthe Quito var
or the entire EC variety. ito variant
In addition, wople, the impador.
participants sto sign from t
gn language.
LSEC, or do noearning LSECbecause veryof language als in LSEC, th
21
n, rom
tion riant
we act of
said their
ot C at y few
he
22
5.2 Deaf identity
Our general impressions from fieldwork is that the deaf community has a strong deaf identity which is growing stronger. FENASEC is working on a dictionary project with the goal of standardizing the sign language and purging signs borrowed from the United States and Spain, which are generally considered less favorable than Ecuadorian signs.
Several questions in the SLQ targeted individual deaf community member’s language identity. The first of these addressed interaction between deaf and hearing Ecuadorians. We found that 57 percent of participants interact most with other deaf community members, while 26 percent interact equally with deaf and hearing people, 12 percent interact more with hearing people, and five percent declined to comment. See Figure 15 for a summary of responses, which suggests a strong deaf community.
Figure 15. Who do you interact with more, deaf people or hearing people?
Deaf Ecuadorians indicated that they used a combination of signing and mouthing Spanish, writing, and gesture when they communicate with hearing people, although some deaf questionnaire participants indicated that they did not communicate with hearing people at all. We found that most participants had a poor view of support provided by the hearing community. Some claimed that they received financial support and/or educational assistance, and others told us that they were oppressed, harassed on the street, and looked down upon. See Figure 16 for a summary of responses about hearing support.
Deaf, 57%
No Comment, 5%
Equal, 26%
Hearing, 12%
Deaf
No Comment
Equal
Hearing
A larglanguage,saw no evFigure 17
Particwere askestatus, sigranked hiare audiolthrough li
Fig
ge percentage citing reason
vidence of peo for participa
Figure 17
cipants rankeded to sort the gning skill, edghest, with splogically deafiteracy or spe
No
gure 16. Are h
e of our particns such as natople being ashant responses.
7. Which is be
d qualities imfollowing fiv
ducation, literpoken languaf and sign weeech. See Figu
Yes, 43%
o Comment, 2%
hearing peopl
cipants (67 peturalness, eashamed of sign
etter for deaf
mportant in a ve qualities inracy, and spokage skills rankll outweighin
ure 18.
le supportive
ercent) said the of communning in public
f people, sign
deaf leader, s order from mken languageked lowest, shng factors that
I don't 5%
No, 50%
of the deaf c
hat sign langunication, and cc, regardless o
language or
specifically anmost importane skills. Deaf showing commt point to skil
know, %
%Y
community?
uage was preclarity. Durinof their surro
spoken langu
n association nt to least imstatus and sig
munity values ll in Spanish
I don't know
No
Yes
No Comment
eferable to spong fieldwork woundings. See
uage?
president. Thmportant: Deafgning skills we
for leaders thlanguage use
23
oken we
hey f ere hat
e
In sumdeaf commEcuador.
6 Soci
Here we dEcuador. Tmeeting p
See FiWhile resphighest, b
3
mmary, our dmunity. These
iolinguist
discuss variouTopics includ
places and eveigure 19 for pponses differe
but by smaller
311.00
260.0
Figure 1
data offers mae healthy atti
tic enviro
us external sode education aents, and empparticipant raed slightly, thr margins tha
Figure 1
00
212.00
Quito
Riobamba
18. Rankings –
any indicatorstudes should
onment
ciolinguistic and deaf schoployment. ankings of whhe overall rann other simila
9. Cities with
182.00 166
From 32 SLQ
Guayaqil
Manta
– Qualities of
s of positive labe helpful in
constraints wools, deaf chu
ich cities pronkings were var questions i
h best services
6.00 161.00
Q's with comple
Ambato
Loja
f a deaf presid
anguage attitn starting lang
which impact urches and mi
ovided the besvery similar. Qin our SLQ.
s for deaf peo
160.00
11
ete data
Cuenca
Machala
dent
tudes towardsguage develop
the deaf coministries, form
st services forQuito and Gua
ople.
13.00 110.0
Portoviejo
Esmereldas
s LSEC withinpment projec
mmunity in mal communit
r deaf people.ayaquil are ra
085.00
24
n the ts in
ty
. ated
25
6.1 Deaf schools
We have few firm statistics for the level of deaf education in Ecuador. As discussed in Section 2, almost 40 percent of people with disabilities receive no education, and only 10.5 percent finish high school. The high school completion rate for the general population is 25.9 percent, more than twice the rate for people with disabilities. Although there are no statistics on the illiteracy rate among people with disabilities, the high number of disabled people who receive no education suggests that illiteracy is far higher among the disability community than the 9.8 percent rate for the general population. For our study’s participants, the average years of education completed was just over nine years. According to the data, the average years of education among the 20 participants with deaf family was 10.1 years, while the average for the 22 participants without deaf family members was 1.6 years less, at 8.5 years. When asked to rank which sign language materials were most important between teaching materials in sign language, dictionaries, interpreter training materials, and the Bible in sign language, participants ranked sign language educational materials as being the highest need.
We visited several different deaf schools over the course of fieldwork. Schools varied in number of students, educational philosophies, curriculum, funding, and other factors. We discuss the schools we have information on here; however, very little information is available on many of the schools.
• Instituto Nacional de Audición y Lenguaje
Instituto Nacional de Audicion y Lenguaje (INAL), located in Quito, is the largest deaf school in Ecuador. INAL claims that sign language is the natural language of deaf people and that SL is the first language and Spanish is the second. Their goal is independent life for deaf students. Serving around 200 deaf students, mostly from the Quito area, in grades K-10 and three levels of school beyond elementary levels. Vocational training and adult literacy classes are offered as well. INAL uses a bilingual bicultural teaching method, recently instituted on advice from a representative of Gallaudet University in the U.S. Prior to this change, the school used Total Communication (using any number of languages and visual prompts to suit the needs of individual students). The school employs three deaf instructors; more deaf adults are encouraged to support the school, but mandatory employment laws make it difficult for adult signers. Many other schools look to INAL for teaching materials and policies.
• Instituto Especial para Niños Ciegos y Sordos Mariana de Jesus
Instituto Especial para Niños Ciegos y Sordos Mariana de Jesus is based just outside of Quito in Santo Domingo, and was founded in 1953. This school had over 50 students when we contacted them, 33 of which are deaf. Grades 1-7 are offered, using total communication. A small number of students board at the school, but most are close enough to travel home regularly. The school is non-profit and is funded by donations.
• Movimiento de Educación Popular Fe y Alegría
This school is managed and funded by the international organization Movimiento de Educación Popular Fe y Alegría. We conducted a phone interview with them during fieldwork and found that the organization has only one school in Ecuador (possibly in Guayaquil), which serves children with many disabilities including deafness. They could not share more information over the phone, but welcomed us to visit. School hours are from 7:30 in the morning to 2:00 in the afternoon.
• Instituto de Educacion Especial para Dificitarios Auditivos
Based in Ambato, this school works with students ages 6-20 through 7th grade. They have one deaf teacher; the other teachers sign, but not fluently. While visiting during fieldwork, the parents who came to pick up their children seemed to have difficulty communicating with both the students and their teachers. Teachers were very respectful of classroom time but were willing to let us visit. One teacher showed us the materials they use which are basically pictures of signs with Spanish vocabulary; she stated that she wasn’t satisfied with the materials and would like instructional videos.
26
• Escuela de Sordos de Chimborazo
We visited this school in Riobamba during fieldwork. Escuela de Sordos de Chimborazo serves around a hundred students from surrounding provinces ages 0-27. Some children from distant provinces board at the school during the week and are picked up on weekends. Young children (0-4) come with their parents for an early childhood development program; vocational training for older students and adult education is offered in the afternoon and on weekends. The school has 10 teachers and 4 other staff, none of which are deaf. They showed us a dictionary which they use for teaching; it consisted of basic terms with line drawings and blanks next to them for writing the Spanish word. They have multiple volumes of this dictionary for different age groups.
• Escuela San Joaquin Y Santa Ana
We conducted a phone interview with this Catholic school in Guayaquil. They have around 130 students but only 10 percent are deaf. They offer Pre-K through 7th grade and most students are from the local community. The school expressed a need for volunteers.
• Escuela Especial del Patronato Muicipal del Nino de Quevedo
This school is based in Quevedo. Our contact there took us to visit, but the deaf students were on vacation. Their regular students are all deaf, but they also serve children with other disabilities through physical therapy, music, daycare, and career building programs. All the teachers are hearing and while visiting the school there were some signs of an oral approach, yet the administration also seeks to teach sign language in the classroom.
For more information about deaf schools in Ecuador, please refer to Appendix C.
6.2 Deaf churches and ministries
We encountered very few deaf churches or ministries during fieldwork. For the most part, participants showed little interest when church or religion was brought up during questionnaires or casual conversation. They indicated that many deaf people do not attend church because there are no interpreters, although the Jehovah’s Witnesses do have more skilled interpreters than other religious groups. In addition, although some indicated knowing someone who attended church, most indicated that deaf churches and ministries had very few attendees, with groups ranging in size from one to 30.
6.3 Associations, meeting places, and events
During our fieldwork in Ecuador, we attended numerous association meetings. The primary organization is FENASEC, and most of the associations in the country are FENASEC members. We were told by participants that a minimum number of members are required to become a full association, but pre-associations exist as well. Several major rallies have taken place, at least two sponsored by the World Federation of the Deaf, focused on obtaining new rights and government recognition of LSEC. Also, there are many informal meetings to socialize or play soccer, etc., which we do not have information on. See Appendix D for a list of known associations.
6.4 Language development projects
The most wide-scale language development project is the FENASEC LSEC dictionary. This is a large, well organized project funded by USAID. The goal is to standardize LSEC by involving signers from all over Ecuador, and to provide teaching materials. The dictionary is being developed with strong community input; several different associations are involved in the process. Every two weeks, representatives from the different associations gather in Quito, where they are given lists of words. They take these words back to their respective associations, where they vote on which sign should be included in the dictionary for each Spanish word. At the end of two weeks, the representatives meet again in Quito to cast votes for
27
each word. Signs for inclusion are decided by majority vote; after a sign has been voted on, it is then included in the dictionary. The dictionary is made up of line drawings and written Spanish. Many deaf community members we spoke to seemed very positive about the dictionary and expressed hope for standardization and better teaching materials from it. Others, however, felt that they were underrepresented in the project. Overall, the dictionary project seems to be succeeding and well accepted. The FENASEC Vice President expressed to us personally that his biggest hope for the dictionary is to standardize LSEC.
7 Conclusion and recommendations
From the data gathered during fieldwork and background research, we can conclude that LSEC is the dominant sign language in Ecuador. We have found evidence of perceived and actual variation between the coastal and mountain regions of the country as well as age variation, but many factors indicate that the language is moving towards standardization and the community shows strong support and desire for standardization. Ecuador has a strong network of deaf associations centered around FENASEC, whose dictionary project is central to the standardization of the language. Community support is strong for this dictionary project, especially in the educational realm, but some groups, especially along the coast, feel as though they are not being fairly represented. Government support of the deaf community has been increasing, in part because of the work of the current vice-president, but official recognition of LSEC and accessibility to information are still lacking.
Our research points strongly to the Sierra region and Quito specifically as being home to both the most widely understood and the most prestigious LSEC variant, making it ideal for any language development projects. The deaf community seems excited about recent developments with the dictionary project and are eager to be involved with future projects focused on the development of sign language training materials, such as those that would focus on information about health care, family life, interpreter training materials and classes, and any other topic that educates deaf people and enables them to pursue healthy, independent lives. Involving FENASEC should be an integral part of any language project undertaken. They expressed significant interest in having linguistic consultation on their dictionary project, and it seemed to us that they would be supportive of nearly any development project in LSEC that will benefit the Ecuadorian deaf community.
28
Appendix A: Sociolinguistic questionnaire
Questionnaire templates were formed in Microsoft Word and include both open and closed questions. Table 8 contains the list of questions asked. Questions 1-6 examined the SLQ participant’s metadata (personal background information). Questions 7-12 collected basic information regarding the participant’s perception of the social situation of the deaf community. These questions could be used with either hearing or deaf people. Questions 13-28 gathered information about the participant’s language use and attitudes. The SLQ also included a brief explanation of the research, gave an opportunity for the participant to show consent for being involved in the project, and showed which level of accessibility the participant was willing to give for the use of any data they provided.
Table 8. Sociolinguistic questionnaire
Participant Metadata 1. Roughly how old are you now? 2. Do you have any deaf family members? If so, who? 3. Where do you currently live? 4. How many years of education have you completed? 5. Please name the school(s) you have attended. 6. At what age did you first start signing? Where and instructed by whom? Name: Deaf Services and Meeting Places 7. List associations and organizations serving deaf people in your area, or informal places where deaf
people socialize, indicating their role/activities: 8. Do you attend religious services? If no, explain why not. If yes, please answer the following: What
religious service/church do you attend? Why do you attend services? What language(s) does the service use? How many deaf people attend these services?
9. Please list the deaf schools in your area. How many years of education do these schools offer students? Please identify the communication philosophy of each school (oral, bilingual, TC, etc.)
10. Please list any published materials (videos, books, dictionaries, etc.) about/using the sign language in your area. Do deaf people use and/or like them?
11. Do deaf people in your community interact with deaf people from other regions in Ecuador? If so, please answer the following: Which other communities? Where and why do they meet?
12. Have deaf people here interacted with deaf people from other countries? If so, which countries? Language Use and Attitudes 13. How well do deaf people sign in your community? 14. Do you interact more with deaf or hearing people? Why? How do you communicate with hearing
people? 15. Do deaf parents sign with their hearing children? 16. Do hearing parents sign with their deaf children? 17. Are hearing people supportive of the deaf community? Explain your answer. 18. Do all deaf people in Ecuador sign the same? If no, what factors lead to different signing? 19. Do you want everyone in Ecuador to sign the same? Explain your answer. 20. Is your sign language like the sign language of any other country? If yes, which one(s)? How do you
feel about the use of these sign languages in Ecuador? 21. Do you think that it is better for deaf people to use sign language or spoken language? Explain your
answer.
29
22. How well do you read and write Spanish? 23. What does your deaf community need most to succeed in life? Comparisons 24. Rank the need of language materials from highest to lowest (SL dictionary, Interpreter training
materials, Bible, signed educational materials) 25. When choosing a president in your deaf association/organization, how would you rank the
importance of the following five characteristics (deaf, sign well, able to speak, able to read/write, well educated)?
26. Best city for deaf people to live in (most services, education, support, etc.). 27. City with sign language that is the easiest to understand. 28. City with the most beautiful sign language. Additional Notes:
30
Appendix B: Wordlist items
Table 9. Wordlist items
31
Appendix C: Deaf schools contact information
Province City Name
Tungurahua Azuay
Ambato Instituto de Educacion Especial para Dificitarios Auditivos
Azuay Cuenca Instituto Fiscal Especial de Invidentes y Sordos del Azuay
Azuay Cuenca Escuela Cristiana de Sordos Bethel
Guayas Guayaquil Unión de Fieles Católicos "Mi Corazón te escucha"
Guayas Guayaquil Instituto Médico Pedagógico de Audición y Lenguaje – IMPAL
Guayas Guayaquil Escuela San Joaquín y Santa Ana Guayas Guayaquil Maranatha Baptist Academy Guayas Guayaquil Movimiento de Educación
Popular Fe y Alegría Loja Loja Centro Auditivo de Educación y
Lenguaje El Oro Machala Instituto de Educación Especial
de Ciegos y Sordos Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas
Santo Domingo
Instituto de Educación Especial Fe y Alegría
Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas
Santo Domingo
Fe y Alegria
Los Rios Quevedo Escuela Especial del Patronato Muicipal del Nino de Quevedo
Pichincha Quito Instituto Nacional de Audicion y Lenguaje (INAL)
Pichincha Quito Instituto Fiscal de Audición y Lenguaje "Enriqueta Santillan"
Pichincha Quito Instituto Especial para Niños Ciegos y Sordos Mariana de Jesus
Pichincha Quito Consejo Provincial de Imbabura en Ibarra(Centro Educativo para Niños Sordos)
32
Appendix D: Deaf associations and organization contact information
Province City Name
Tungurahua Ambato Asociacion De Sordos De Tungurahua, Ambato Ecuador
Azuay Cuenca Asociacion de Sordos del Azuay
Guayas Guayaquil Asociación Cultural de Sordos de Guayaquil
Guayas Guayaquil Asociación de Sordos de Guayas Guayas Guayaquil Liga de Sordos del Guayas Guayas Guayaquil Liga de Sordos del Guayas
Manabi Jipijapa Asociacion de Personas Sordos de
Jipijapa Pastaza Puyo Pre Asociacion de Sordos de
Pastaza Los Rios Quevedo Asociacion de Sordos de Quevedo
(acuerdo # 0184)
Pichincha Quito Ex-INAL Pichincha Quito Federacion Nacion de Personas
Sordos del Ecuador (FENASEC)
Pichincha Quito D.H.EX. Intercultural Programs for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons
Pichincha Quito Fundación Nacional para el Desarrollo de la Comunidad ( FUNDEC )
Pichincha Quito Association de Personas Sordos de Pinchincha (APSOP)
33
References
Analytic Technologies. UCINET Homepage. 10 21, 2010. http://www.analytictech.com/ucinet/ (accessed 5 9, 2011).
Ayudame a Eschuchar. 2 27, 2008. http://www.thebestofecuador.com/fundaye/index.htm (accessed 12 21, 2010).
Baptist International Missions, Inc. Baptist International Missions, Inc. - South America. 6 7, 2006. http://www.bimi.org/worldMag/200A6a.php (accessed 12 22, 2010).
CBDeaf Ministry. CBDeaf Ministry. 08 06, 2010. http://cbdeafministry.com/International-Deaf-Ministries.aspx?region=South%20America (accessed 12 22, 2010).
CONADIS. Consejo Nacional de Discapacidades. 1 1, 2011. http://www.conadis.gov.ec/quienessomos.htm#quienes (accessed 12 16, 2010).
CONADIS. National Council on Disabilities. 5 9, 2011. http://www.conadis.gob.ec/estadisticas.htm#estadis (accessed 5 9, 2011).
European Association of Cochlear Implant Users. European Association of Cochlear Implant Users. 5 30, 2005. http://www.eurociu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=99&lang=en&limitstart=1 (accessed 12 24, 2010).
GeoHive. GeoHive - Ecuador population statistics . 5 9, 2011. http://www.geohive.com/cntry/ecuador.aspx (accessed 5 9, 2011).
Hampshireview Baptist Church. Hampshireview Baptist Church Directory. 01 12, 2009-01-12 . http://www.hvbdc.com/churches.html#Ecuador (accessed 12 22, 2010).
Hanneman, Robert, and Mark Riddle. Robert Hanneman's Homepage. Introduction to social network methods. 2005. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/ (accessed 5 9, 2011).
International Disability Rights Monitor. International Disability Rights Monitor. 2007. http://idrmnet.org/pdfs/IDRM_Americas_Sp_04.pdf (accessed 12 16, 2010).
Kleiweg, Peter. 2011. RuG/L04: software for dialectometrics and cartography. http://www.let.rug.nl/~kleiweg/indexs.html.
Lewis, M. Paul (ed.). 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. 2011. ELAN - Language Archiving Technology. Nijmegen, The Netherlands. http://www.lat-mpi.eu/tools/elan/.
Michailakis, Dimitris. Independant Living Institute.org. 2 26, 1996. http://www.independentliving.org/standardrules/UN_Answers/Ecuador.html (accessed 12 24, 2010).
Modified from CIA The World Factbook. 12 8, 2010. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ec.html (accessed 12 16, 2010).
National Organization on Disability. 2002 N.O.D Report. 2002. http://www.nod.org/about_us/our_history/annual_reports/2002_annual_report/ (accessed 12 21, 2010).
Ortiz, Gonzalo. Gáldu - Resource centre for the rights of indigenous peoples. 7 10, 2010. http://www.galdu.org/web/index.php?odas=4803&giella1=eng (accessed 12 16, 2010).
Parks, Elizabeth, and Jason Parks. 2011. Rapid appraisal sign language survey procedures. 2011. Parks, Jason. 2011. Sign language word list comparisons: Toward a replicable coding and scoring
methodology. M.A. Thesis, Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota. Proyecto Indio. Proyecto Indio. 10 13, 2010. http://www.proyectoindio.org/en/index.php (accessed 12
17, 2010).
34
Shettle, Andrea. Ecuador, the 20th Country, Ratifies the CRPD! … Now What? 4 3, 2008. http://ratifynow.org/2008/04/03/ecuador-the-20th-country-ratifies-the-crpd-%E2%80%A6-now-what/ (accessed 12 20, 2010).
Silent Word Ministries. Silent Word Ministries. 12 9, 2010. http://www.silentwordministries.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=758:whats-up&catid=114:2010-5-september-october&Itemid=209 (accessed 12 22, 2010).
Stalder, Jürg. 1996. Update on rapid appraisal. Notes on Literature in Use and Language Programs 48. S.l.: s.n. p. 24–28.
Tapia, Jimmy. El Telegrafo. 7 1, 2008. http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/diversidad/noticia/archive/diversidad/2008/07/01/Sordos_2C00_-excluidos-en-la-TV.aspx (accessed 12 24, 2010).
Truong, Christina Lai, and Lilian Garcez. "PARTICIPATORY METHODS FOR LANGUAGE DOCUMENTATION AND CONSERVATION: BUILDING COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND ENGAGEMENT." 1st International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation (ICLDC). Manoa: University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2009.
White, Chad. 2011. Rugloafer. Website. https://sites.google.com/site/rugloafer/home. Wikipedia. Ecuador. 12 25, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador (accessed 12 1, 2011). Wikipedia. List of cities in Ecuador. 12 29, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Ecuador
(accessed 1 1, 2011). World Atlas.com. World Atlas.com. 12 31, 2010.
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/samerica/ec.htm (accessed 12 31, 2010). World Federation of the Deaf. International Week of the Deaf unites around the world. WFD Newsletter,
11 2009: 13.
