This document summarizes recent research on Hawai'i Sign Language (HSL). Lexicostatistical analysis shows that HSL has developed independently as a language isolate, with only 12-27% cognates when compared to other sign languages. There are currently estimated to be 40 fluent HSL users, though 75% use a creolized form mixing HSL and ASL. HSL has distinct phonological characteristics including extensive use of non-manual markers and subtle movement differences. Morphologically, handshapes indicate semantic categories like size, shape, and handling. Syntax follows a basic SOV word order, though conversational signing can include code-switching and variation. Ongoing documentation aims to further document and preserve HSL

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Lexicostatistical Comparisons
Guidelines 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

6. Example of SL Cognate
HSL ‘woman’ MSL ‘woman’

7. Example of SL Non-Cognate
HSL ‘pig’ MSL ‘pig’

8. 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

9. Lexicostatistics and Distinct but
“Unrelated” Sign Languages
Pairs 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

10. Lexicostatistics and HSL
Pairs of
Languages
Basic Core
Vocabulary
Explanation
HSL & ASL 12% cognates No Contact
HSL & MSL 27% cognates Limited Contact?

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Examples of HSL/CHSL
Cognate
HSL ‘black’ CHSL ‘black’

14. Example of HSL/CHSL
Non-Cognate
HSL ‘sister’ CHSL ‘sister’

15. Example of Neologisms in
CHSL
CHSL ‘son’ CHSL ‘daughter’

16. Lexicostatistics and CHSL
Pairs of
Languages
Basic Core
Vocabulary
Explanation
CHSL&HSL 54% cognates Creolization
CHSL&ASL 42% cognates Creolization

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. PHONOLOGY
• Importance of non-manual features
• Non-manual signs
• Small differences in movement
• Identification of reduplication and
deletion

21. Non-manual Components
• Many minimal pairs differ only by facial
expression
• Some signs include (or consist of)
mouthing an English, Hawaiian, or
Pidgin word

22. Non-manuals: Minimal Pair
LOVE (non-romantic) LOVE-ROMANTICALLY

23. Non-manuals: Minimal Set
NEW
NICE
PRETTY

24. Non-manuals: Question Words
WHAT?
WHY?
WHO?

25. Completely Non-manual Signs
negation FAVORITE
• Some signs are (or can be) produced with no
manual components

26. Non-manual Signs Based on Spoken
Words
DEAD (“make”) FINISH (“pau”)
HAVE

27. 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

28. Movement: Minimal Set
NAME WRITE COLOR
DRAW PRINT SENTENCE

29. Movement: Reduplication
WHITE AMERICA
HAOLE

30. Movement: Deletion
WHITE HANDSOME

31. HANDSHAPE MORPHOLOGY
• Agreement
• Two-handed signs with identical
handshapes
• Handshapes with morphological
meaning

32. Agreement
• Many sign languages have directional
verbs, including ASL (Liddell 2003)
• Relatively few of these have been found
in HSL

33. ‘I ask you’; ‘you ask me’
ASL HSL

34. ‘I give you’; ‘you give me’
ASL HSL

35. 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’

36. 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)

37. • Represents the size and shape of an
object’s periphery
• Types found in HSL:
– Small and round
– Large and round
– Cylindrical
Size & Shape

38. • 3-fingered (mid, ring, and little) [+thumb],
[+ bent], [+ round], [+contact] handshape
Small & Round
‘grapes’ ‘eat.grapes’ ‘cheap’ ‘expensive’
(The HSL Production Team, 2015)

39. • 4-fingered [+thumb], [+bent], [+round],
[+spread] handshape
Large and Round
‘orange’ ‘eat.orange ‘coconut’ ‘eat.coconut’

40. ‘stone’

41. • 4-fingered, [+thumb], [+bent], [+round],
[-spread] handshape
Cylindrical
‘can’

42. • Represent an entire object
• Types found in HSL:
– Long and thin
– Surface
– Vehicle/Vessel
Whole Entity

43. • 1-fingered (index) [-thumb] handshape
Long & Thin (Singular)
‘pencil.sharpener’ ‘cherry’

44. • 2-fingered (index and mid) [-thumb],
[+spread]
Long & Thin (Dual)
‘compass’ ‘chopsticks’ ‘vegetable’

45. • 4-fingered [xthumb], [ -spread]
handshape
Surface
‘book’ ‘pineapple’ ‘eat.pineapple’ ‘floor’

46. • 4-fingered [xthumb], [ -spread]
handshape
Vehicle/Vessel
‘2.canoes’ ‘surfboards’

47. • Represent how an item is physically
handled
• Types found in HSL:
– Pinchable object
– Handheld object
– Writing Instrument
Handling

48. • 3-fingered (mid, ring, and little)
[+thumb], [+bent], [+round], [+contact],
[+taper]
Pinchable Object
‘eat.pineapple’ ‘sheet’ ‘eat.cherry’

49. • zero-fingered [-thumb] ‘S’ handshape
Handheld Object
‘eraser’ ‘school.bag’ ‘watermelon’ ‘eat.watermelon’

50. • 1-fingered (index) [+thumb], [-round],
[+contact], [+taper]
Writing Instrument
‘pencil’ ‘name’ ‘color’

51. • Represent a person or animal’s body or
body part
• Types found in HSL:
– Long, thin body
– Claws
– Paws
Body & Body part

52. • 1-fingered (index) [-thumb] handshape
Long, thin body
‘eel’

53. • 1-fingered (index) [-thumb] handshape
Long, thin body
‘worm’

54. • 4-fingered [+thumb], [+bent], [+spread]
handshape
Claws
‘tiger’ ‘monster’

55. • 4-fingered [xthumb], [-spread], [+taper]
handshape
Paws
‘dog’ ‘rabbit.jumping’ ‘rat.walking’

56. 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

57. Motion Restrictions
Handshape Category Motion
Size & Shape No
Whole Entity No
Handling No
Body & Body part No

58. 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

59. Basic SOV Structure
“Sam kicked Brenda”
Sam Brenda kick

60. Basic yes/no question
“Did Sam kick Brenda?” note the
eyebrows raise
Sam kick Brenda +Q

61. Basic WH questions
“Why did Sam kick Brenda?”
Sam Brenda kick WH (why)

62. Negation of basic sentences
“Sam didn’t kick Brenda”
Sam Brenda kick not

63. Negation and WH questions
“Who didn’t kick Brenda?”
Brenda kick not who

64. 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

65. LINDA’S PERSPECTIVE

66. 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

67. Selected References
THE 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.