SIGNS OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN HONG KONG SIGN
LANGUAGE
WEI, Xiao
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
in
Linguistics
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
June 2013
Abstract of thesis entitled:
Signs of Sexual Behavior in Hong Kong Sign Language
Submitted by Wei Xiao
For the degree of Master of Arts in Linguistics
at The Chinese University of Hong Kong in June 2013
This study focuses on the documentation of signs of sexual behavior in Hong Kong Sign
Language. Across the globe, people would avoid expressing themselves too directly about
vulgar, impolite and embarrassing topics, thus comes the euphemistic ways to replace the
taboo words and expressions. Sex, among all other areas of taboos, is proved to be
pervasively talked about in an indirect way at least in spoken languages. Due to the visual
features of sign languages, the use of euphemisms of signs of sexual behavior would thus be
possible for the sake of not offending the interlocutors. The research was conducted with the
help of deaf research assistants who discussed the related signs with six HKSL deaf
informants. The list of sexual behavior signs by Woodward (1979) was adopted in this
research, with some additional target signs relating to concepts that emerge in recent decade.
It has been seen from the data that there exists differences by gender and age where female
and male, the elder and the young would sometimes use signs that are not the same. Male and
female differ in signs according to their different roles in sexual activities. For certain
sex-oriented concepts, both men and women would have euphemistic expressions. They have
distinct idea on the directness for certain signs. The elder people have different idea in
applying loan words, English in particular. They sometimes even use completely different
signs compared with the young peer. With the documentation provided, hopefully, the
outcome of this paper would play its role in sex-related education, law issues as well as health
consultations among the deaf community in Hong Kong.
i
摘要
本研究旨在紀錄香港手語中有關性行為的手語。縱觀全球，在談論粗魯、無禮或尷尬的
話題時，爲了避免太過直接的表達自己，人們選擇用委婉語代替禁忌語。這一現象在討
論性話題時尤為普遍。鑒於手語的可觀性的特點，為避免冒犯談話對象，使用委婉手語
來表達性行為不失其可能性。本次研究是在聾人研究助理的幫助下，以助理同六位香港
聾人被試對話的方式進行的。除了沿用 Woodward (1979)中關於性行為手語的名錄之外，
本研究還加入了最近出現的相關詞語。數據顯示，性別和年齡會導致手語差異。根據其
在性活動中角色的不同，男性和女性會使用不同 的手語。對於一些針對性別的概念，
男性和女性都會使用委婉的表達方式。在判斷一些概念是否為委婉用語時，男女也會有
不同的看法。長者會較少使用舶來詞，特別是英文。長者與年輕人有時會使用完全不同
的手語詞彙來表達相同的概念。本文以記錄為目的，以期在性教育、與性相關的法律問
題及健康諮詢等方面福澤香港聾人社群。
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to my thesis supervisor, Prof. Felix Sze,
for her constant support and guide on my thesis as well as my life. Without her, I would never
gain the chance to work together with her, and get to know more about sign language, Hong
Kong Sign Language in particular. By the thesis I also want to thank Prof. Peggy Mok who
made me realize my weakness in research, so I could be stronger.
This thesis could never have reached an end without the help of the deaf researcher, Aaron
Wong, who dedicated himself into this program. I would like to thank him for being the
interviewer for all the informants, to help in the transcription for the elder signs, as well as for
being the model of all the sign examples in my thesis. My sincere thanks also go to Becky
Yau, Kenny Chu and Connie Lo, for their kind help in consultation about the signs. I would
also like to thank all my deaf informants, who are the crucial part of this research.
I wish to give my great gratitude to Khakha, Adhika Irlang Suwiryo, who at the very
beginning led me to the world of sign language and offered her altruistic assistance. But for
her, I would probably not have the courage to choose the way of doing research. For all the
days of happiness and sorrow, laugh and tears, it is my honor to have her beside. My other
friends, classmates and colleagues, Hao Yuan, Sheng Yixuan, Wang Qian, Zhao Yanjie, to
name a few, thank you for your accompany in this long procedure. My thanks also go to the
IT colleagues who give me lots of support on the techniques.
Last but not least, I want to give my endless gratitude and love to my family, my
grandparents, my parents and my sister, who have no idea of this field but support me as
always, allow me to choose what I want, and enable me to see a different world.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………i
摘要……………………………………………………………………………………............ii
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………….iii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………….iv
List of figures/tables……………………………………………………………………….vi
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 2
2.1 TABOO, EUPHEMISM AND SEX-RELATED EXPRESSIONS IN SPOKEN LANGUAGES .................. 2
2.2 SEX-RELATED SIGNS IN SIGN LANGUAGES .......................................................................... 3
2.3. SIGN LANGUAGE LEXICAL VARIATION ............................................................................... 5
2.4 GENDER SEPARATIONS IN SIGN LANGUAGES ....................................................................... 6
2.5 LEXICAL VARIATION ACCORDING TO AGE GROUPS .............................................................. 7
2.6 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY AT HAND ............................................................................... 8
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 8
3.1 DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................................. 8
3.2 DATA CODING ................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 INFORMANTS .................................................................................................................... 11
4. LEXICAL VARIATION IN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR SIGNS........................................... 13
4.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 13
4.2 GENDER ........................................................................................................................... 26
4.3 AGE.................................................................................................................................. 38
4.4 AGE AND GENDER............................................................................................................. 44
5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 47
iv
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 49
APPENDIX (WORD LIST) .................................................................................................. 52
v
LIST OF FIGURES/TABLES
Figure 3.1.1 a more vulgar form of INTERCOURSE used in male-talk ................... 10
Figure 3.1.2 Adjusted form of INTERCOURSE with the appearance of female in
male-talk ............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 4.1.1 people, animal, bike and vehicle classifiers in HKSL ........................... 14
Figure 4.1.2 variation of INTERCOURSE using semantic classifier ........................ 14
Figure 4.1.3 one variation of MUTUAL-ORAL-SEX using semantic classifier....... 15
Figure 4.1.4 one variation of RAPE using semantic classifier................................... 15
Figure 4.1.5 one variation for INTERCOURSE with lexical classifier ..................... 16
Figure 4.1.6 one variation for FOREPLAY with productive classifier (touch and
sexual-desire) ..................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4.1.7 one variation for FOREPLAY with productive classifier (with circle
movement) .......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4.1.8 one variation for FOREPLAY with productive classifier (kiss/touch
from head to toe) ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 4.1.9 one variation of EJACULATION using body classifier (by female signer)
............................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 4.1.10 MALE-MASTURBATION using body classifier ............................... 19
Figure 4.1.11 CLITORAL-MASTURBATION using body classifier ....................... 20
Figure 4.1.12 one variation for VAGINA using SASS classifier ............................... 20
Figure 4.1.13 TESTES/TESTICLES (left) and BREASTS (right) using SASS
classifier ............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 4.1.14 VAGINA-MASTURBATION and FELLATIO using handling classifier
............................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 4.1.16 one variation of MENSTRUATION from the mid-aged female signer
(RED_MOON) ................................................................................................... 23
Figure 4.1.17 one variation of INTERCOURSE from the mid-aged female signer .. 24
Figure 4.1.18 one variation for FOREPLAY using description ................................. 25
vi
Figure 4.1.19 one variation for PRECOCITY/EARLY MATURE (mind getting
mature early) ...................................................................................................... 25
Figure 4.1.20 one variation for PRECOCITY/EARLY MATURE (HIGH-FAST) .... 25
Figure
4.1.21
one
variation
for
PRECOCITY/EARLY
MATURE
(BREASTS-EARLY) ......................................................................................... 26
Figure 4.2.1 one variation of MALE-BESTIALITY from the young male informant
............................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 4.2.2 one variation of FEMALE-BESTIALITY from the young male
informant ............................................................................................................ 27
Figure 4.2.3 one variation for INTERCOURSE with the male role .......................... 28
Figure 4.2.4 Female sign for BE-RAPED using animate classifier ........................... 29
Figure 4.2.5 compound sign of VIRGIN .................................................................... 30
Figure 4.2.6 female sign for male VIRGIN (INTERCOURSE-NEVER) .................. 30
Figure
4.2.7
male
sign
for
male
VIRGIN
(MALE_DESTRUCTION-OF-VIRGIN_NOT-YET) ....................................... 30
Figure 4.2.8 euphemistic expression for ASK-FOR-PROSTITUTE from the elder
male signer ......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.2.9 euphemistic expression for ASK-FOR-PROSTITUTE from the elder
male signer ......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.2.10 one variation of CUNNINLINGUS from the elder male signer .......... 32
Figure 4.2.11 one variation of FELLATIO from the young female signer ................ 32
Figure 4.2.12 direct expression of the sign MENSTRUATION from male of the three
age groups .......................................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.2.13 Female indirect expression of the sign MENSTRUATION (mom has
come) .................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 4.2.14 Female indirect expression of the sign MENSTRUATION (friend has
come) .................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 4.2.15 SANITARY-NAPKIN used by both genders ....................................... 34
Figure 4.2.16 SANITARY-NAPKIN used by female signer which is thin ................ 35
Figure 4.2.17 SANITARY-NAPKIN used by female signer with wings ................... 35
Figure 4.2.18 one variation of GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER from the elder female
vii
signer .................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4.2.19 one variation of GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER from the elder female
signer .................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4.2.20 one variation of GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER from the elder female
signer .................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4.2.21 one variation of ANUS from the young female signer and the mid-aged
male signer ......................................................................................................... 37
Figure 4.2.22 one variation of MUTUAL-ORAL-SEX from the middle age signers
and the male old age signer (see whether the elder woman has it) .................... 38
Figure
4.3.1
BUTCH
from
elder
signs
with
a
description
(GESTURE_SHIRT_MALE_SHORT-HAIR) ................................................... 39
Figure 4.3.2 fingerspelling „TB‟ for BUTCH from the younger signer ..................... 40
Figure 4.3.3 SANITARY-NAPKIN with the initial fingerspelling M ........................ 40
Figure 4.3.4 PENIS signed by younger group (young and mid-aged) ....................... 41
Figure 4.3.5 PENIS signed by elder group................................................................. 41
Figure 4.3.6 PEE by younger signers (up left) and elder signers (the rest two) ........ 41
Figure 4.3.7 the sign PROMISCUOUS-PEOPLE for male (left) and female (right)
claimed as using by her mother by the middle age female informant ................ 42
Figure 4.3.8 the sign PROMISCUOUS-PEOPLE for male (left) and female (right)
claimed as self-use by the middle age female informant ................................... 42
Figure 4.3.9 iconic INTERCOURSE from the elder female signer ........................... 43
Figure 4.3.10 elder male signer‟s PEE for female (left) and male (right) .................. 44
Figure 4.4.1 CLITORIS from the young and mid-aged male signers ........................ 45
Figure 4.4.2 CLITORIS from the mid-aged female signer ........................................ 45
Figure 4.4.3 CLITORIS from the elder male signer .................................................. 46
Figure 4.4.4 MALE-MASTURBATION used by younger male signer .................... 46
Figure 3.1.1 a more vulgar form of INTERCOURSE used in male-talk ................... 10
Figure 3.1.2 Adjusted form of INTERCOURSE with the appearance of female in
male-talk ............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 4.1.1 people, animal, bike and vehicle classifiers in HKSL ........................... 14
viii
Figure 4.1.2 variation of INTERCOURSE using semantic classifier ........................ 14
Figure 4.1.3 one variation of MUTUAL-ORAL-SEX using semantic classifier....... 15
Figure 4.1.4 one variation of RAPE using semantic classifier................................... 15
Figure 4.1.5 one variation for INTERCOURSE with lexical classifier ..................... 16
Figure 4.1.6 one variation for FOREPLAY with productive classifier (touch and
sexual-desire) ..................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4.1.7 one variation for FOREPLAY with productive classifier (with circle
movement) .......................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4.1.8 one variation for FOREPLAY with productive classifier (kiss/touch
from head to toe) ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 4.1.9 one variation of EJACULATION using body classifier (by female signer)
............................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 4.1.10 MALE-MASTURBATION using body classifier ............................... 19
Figure 4.1.11 CLITORAL-MASTURBATION using body classifier ....................... 20
Figure 4.1.12 one variation for VAGINA using SASS classifier ............................... 20
Figure 4.1.13 TESTES/TESTICLES (left) and BREASTS (right) using SASS
classifier ............................................................................................................. 21
Figure 4.1.14 VAGINA-MASTURBATION and FELLATIO using handling classifier
............................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 4.1.16 one variation of MENSTRUATION from the mid-aged female signer
(RED_MOON) ................................................................................................... 23
Figure 4.1.17 one variation of INTERCOURSE from the mid-aged female signer .. 24
Figure 4.1.18 one variation for FOREPLAY using description ................................. 25
Figure 4.1.19 one variation for PRECOCITY/EARLY MATURE (mind getting
mature early) ...................................................................................................... 25
Figure 4.1.20 one variation for PRECOCITY/EARLY MATURE (HIGH-FAST) .... 25
Figure
4.1.21
one
variation
for
PRECOCITY/EARLY
MATURE
(BREASTS-EARLY) ......................................................................................... 26
Figure 4.2.1 one variation of MALE-BESTIALITY from the young male informant
............................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 4.2.2 one variation of FEMALE-BESTIALITY from the young male
ix
informant ............................................................................................................ 27
Figure 4.2.3 one variation for INTERCOURSE with the male role .......................... 28
Figure 4.2.4 Female sign for BE-RAPED using animate classifier ........................... 29
Figure 4.2.5 compound sign of VIRGIN .................................................................... 30
Figure 4.2.6 female sign for male VIRGIN (INTERCOURSE-NEVER) .................. 30
Figure
4.2.7
male
sign
for
male
VIRGIN
(MALE_DESTRUCTION-OF-VIRGIN_NOT-YET) ....................................... 30
Figure 4.2.8 euphemistic expression for ASK-FOR-PROSTITUTE from the elder
male signer ......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.2.9 euphemistic expression for ASK-FOR-PROSTITUTE from the elder
male signer ......................................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.2.10 one variation of CUNNINLINGUS from the elder male signer .......... 32
Figure 4.2.11 one variation of FELLATIO from the young female signer ................ 32
Figure 4.2.12 direct expression of the sign MENSTRUATION from male of the three
age groups .......................................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.2.13 Female indirect expression of the sign MENSTRUATION (mom has
come) .................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 4.2.14 Female indirect expression of the sign MENSTRUATION (friend has
come) .................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 4.2.15 SANITARY-NAPKIN used by both genders ....................................... 34
Figure 4.2.16 SANITARY-NAPKIN used by female signer which is thin ................ 35
Figure 4.2.17 SANITARY-NAPKIN used by female signer with wings ................... 35
Figure 4.2.18 one variation of GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER from the elder female
signer .................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4.2.19 one variation of GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER from the elder female
signer .................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4.2.20 one variation of GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER from the elder female
signer .................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4.2.21 one variation of ANUS from the young female signer and the mid-aged
male signer ......................................................................................................... 37
Figure 4.2.22 one variation of MUTUAL-ORAL-SEX from the middle age signers
x
and the male old age signer (see whether the elder woman has it) .................... 38
Figure
4.3.1
BUTCH
from
elder
signs
with
a
description
(GESTURE_SHIRT_MALE_SHORT-HAIR) ................................................... 39
Figure 4.3.2 fingerspelling „TB‟ for BUTCH from the younger signer ..................... 40
Figure 4.3.3 SANITARY-NAPKIN with the initial fingerspelling M ........................ 40
Figure 4.3.4 PENIS signed by younger group (young and mid-aged) ....................... 41
Figure 4.3.5 PENIS signed by elder group................................................................. 41
Figure 4.3.6 PEE by younger signers (up left) and elder signers (the rest two) ........ 41
Figure 4.3.7 the sign PROMISCUOUS-PEOPLE for male (left) and female (right)
claimed as using by her mother by the middle age female informant ................ 42
Figure 4.3.8 the sign PROMISCUOUS-PEOPLE for male (left) and female (right)
claimed as self-use by the middle age female informant ................................... 42
Figure 4.3.9 iconic INTERCOURSE from the elder female signer ........................... 43
Figure 4.3.10 elder male signer‟s PEE for female (left) and male (right) .................. 44
Figure 4.4.1 CLITORIS from the young and mid-aged male signers ........................ 45
Figure 4.4.2 CLITORIS from the mid-aged female signer ........................................ 45
Figure 4.4.3 CLITORIS from the elder male signer .................................................. 46
Figure 4.4.4 MALE-MASTURBATION used by younger male signer .................... 46
Table 3.3 Informants and their information…………………………………………12
xi
1. Introduction
The aim of the current study is the documentation of the signs of sexual behavior in Hong
Kong Sign Language with the purpose of providing better sex-related education, lawful
assistance and medical services within the deaf community (cf.Woodward 1979). With a
higher risk of sexual abuse for the deaf (Kvam, 2004; Sebald, 2008), it is important to educate
deaf or hard of hearing children about sex for their safety reasons, and it is a must for the
educators to grasp the related sign terms for deaf children. Trials related to sex involving deaf
people are also in need of this group of signs, who may need interpreters to deliver exactly
what they have been through or what their thoughts are. Besides, healthy issues familiar to
hearing people may be unknown to the deaf due to lack of proper education, as hearing
teachers in deaf schools may not know how these concepts are expressed in signing. All the
problems above call for the study under discussion. No former documentations related to
sexual signs have ever been done before about Hong Kong Sign Language. This research here,
hopefully, would be a starting line for recording signs of such kind of sensitive issues, and
would contribute to the deaf community in Hong Kong.
This thesis begins with a review of previous studies on sex-related expressions in spoken
and signed languages, followed by the research questions to be addressed. The methodology
of the paper is introduced afterwards. During the procedure of the documentation, signs from
people of different ages and genders would be studied upon to see whether there would be
variations among the data. It is estimated that gender differences may occur for certain signs,
i.e. female signers would probably prefer to use the more euphemistic forms, as is found in
existing studies in spoken and sign languages. Besides, young people nowadays, with a more
open mind, could have diverse opinions on taboo words compared with their ancestors. Thus,
age may also be another important factor for the variation across the dataset.
1
2. Literature review
2.1 Taboo, euphemism and sex-related expressions in spoken languages
Globally, people polish their words when they might sound offensive, embarrassing or coarse
to others. According to the degree of this politeness for expressions, there are three ways of
communicating with people when using taboo words: “orthophemism (straight talking),
euphemism (sweet talking), and dysphemism (speaking offensively)” (Allan & Burridge,
2006: 1). Euphemism is described as a milder expression (Holder, 2008), indirectly referring
to unpleasant or unsuitable concepts (Hornby, 2005), with the purpose of saving the speaker‟s
face as well as making it more acceptable to the hearer (Allan, 1991; McGlone & Batchelor,
2003). Euphemisms are often related to females who would prefer more polite forms and talk
like a lady, which suggests their subordinate social status (Lakoff, 1973; Haas, 1979; Jay,
1980; Risch, 1987). But some also claim that young women nowadays use taboo words which
they consider rude before just as young men do. However, young men are not allowed to use
the euphemistic forms (Frab, 1974).
Sex, as a pervasive topic in everyday life of human being as well as one that will easily
cause embarrassment, is a kind of taboo that often requires the replacement of euphemistic
expressions (Linfoot-Ham, 2005). Sexual phrases have been widely studied upon in spoken
languages. For quite an amount of researches, the so-called “dirty words” (Jay, 1980: 614;
Gordon, 1993: 16) are related to gender differences. Although Haas (1979) claims that no
clues have shown that certain languages are distinctly used by one sex, others debate in
stating that the usage of taboo words might still differ via gender. Female speech is said to be
more conservative, with less use of slangs and taboos and more politeness (Labov, 1966;
Lakoff, 1973; Risch, 1987). Male speech, on the other hand, is described to be “coarser and
more direct” (Haas, 1979: 616). Women, under the discussion related to sex, “are shy of
2
mentioning certain parts of the human body and certain natural functions by the direct and
often rude denominations which men and especially young men prefer when among
themselves.” (Jesperson, 1922/1949, in Haas, 1979) For different aspects this topic might
touch upon, Jay (1980) recommends in discovering the linguistic components of the dirty
words from phonological, semantic and syntactic perspectives.
Within more detailed researches on sex-related expressions that have been conducted,
gender differences are discovered. Expressions about menstruation (Joffe, 1948), sexual
intercourse (Walsh & Leonard, 1974; Simkins & Rinck, 1982), female genitalia and male
genitalia (Simkins & Rinck, 1982) and more detailed issues of female masturbation, male
masturbation, sexual intercourse and menstruation (Gordon, 1993), have been studied upon
based on the two genders. The results show that not only do males contribute more phrases
about the issues under discussion than their female companions; the two genders also have
different preference for certain contexts, same-gender sex, for instance. Furthermore, female
tend to use more technical words such as “coitus” (Walsh & Leonard, 1974: 374), probably
due to the fact that they are more unwilling to use the taboo words. Different interactive
context one is in, added by gender, might cause distinct results in the usage of formal category,
euphemism, and even no response (Simkins & Rinck, 1982). As much as the variation appears,
this is still not a final comment on whether women behave more conservatively than their
male counterparts since both genders have a wide range of expressions in common. Thus, it is
suggested that the researches recall for more background information of the informants, how
the language is learned, under what circumstances would they feel comfortable in using the
expressions, their age and ethnicities, etc. (Gordon, 1993)
2.2 Sex-related signs in sign languages
Speaking of sign language, which is a manual-visual-spatial system, it would seem to be more
offensive if signs of sexual behavior are expressed directly in front of the audience. As Rajend
3
Swann & Ara (2009) claims, sign euphemisms would often refrain from “visual explicitness”
(434), which is a distinctive feature of sign taboos. Moreover, these signs will often have
restricted signing space and movement, as well as neutral facial expressions (Rajend Swann &
Ara, 2009).
Across various sign languages, not much research has been done on the recording of signs
of sexual behaviors. Woodward (1979) was the earliest one that includes signs of sexual
behaviors from ten aspects: body parts, sexual excitement, masturbation, oral sex, intercourse,
other sexual activity, individuals and relationships, birth control, health, hygiene and function,
and some other signs in American Sign Language (ASL). Along with the documentation,
Woodward specifies the variation he found among region, ethnicity, style and age, with the
aim that it would better serve the hearings, interpreters in particular, in building up “effective
communication” (Woodward, 1979: 7) by learning and using signs from every aspect within
the deaf culture. In his research, Woodward also found age-based variation, the sign for
ADULTERY being one of them, with a historical change of handshape assimilation. Besides,
he noted some variation that is sex-oriented. For example, the two-handed sign with a „3‟
handshape moving upward or downward in front of the body represents FEMALE-CLIMAX
only. It would never be applied to a male target. Euphemistic expressions are also recorded,
examples being the signs MENSTRUATION and GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER. In ASL, body
classifiers are also commonly seen in sex-related lexicons, especially for signs representing
masturbation and oral sex (Woodward, 1979).
Mirus et al. (2012) and Napoli et al. (2012) touched upon the word-formation,
morphological and syntactic features of taboo terms used in ASL, in which non-manual
features are considered to be important for taboo expressions. Colville & Stewart (1998) also
contribute to British Sign Language, but the publication is out of print, unfortunately. Sze (in
progress) is currently collecting data from four Asian sign languages, Hong Kong Sign
Language under discussion among one of them, with the other three being Jakarta Sign
4
Language, Sri Lankan Sign Language and Japanese Sign Language. The focus of her research
will be on taboos and euphemism expressions of sex-related signs. According to her pilot
study, gender differences in the use of euphemistic expressions have been observed in Jakarta
Sign Language when signers of both genders are asked to exhibit the sign
MALE-FEMALE-INTERCOURSE, for which the female uses a euphemistic form.
2.3. Sign Language lexical variation
Variation, spoken and signed languages alike, plays an important role in that it could be a
proof of the nature of sign language as a real language; it helps to identify differences in
signed and spoken modalities; besides, it is the evidence of language change (Lucas et al.
2003). Studies upon lexical variation in sign languages have been carried out widely.
Sociolinguistic variations on the lexical level have been found in Dutch Sign Language
(Schermer & Harder 1985; Schermer 2003), Chinese Sign Language (CSL) (Yau & He 1990),
British Sign Language (BSL) (Woll 1991), American Sign Language (ASL) (Lucas et al. 2001;
Lucas, Bayley, and Valli 2001; Lucas & Bayley 2005), Australian Sign Language (Auslan)
(Johnston & Schembri 2007; Schembri & Johnston 2007), British, Australian and New
Zealand Sign Languages (BANZSL) (Schembri et al. 2010), West African sign languages
(Nyst, 2010), New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) (McKee & McKee 2011; McKee et al.
2011), Italian Sign Language (LIS) (Geraci et al. 2011), and so on.
Studies vary in different aspects, such as variation in the use of fingerspelling (Schembri &
Johnston 2007), in numeral variation (McKee et al. 2011), and the wholesale of
sociolinguistic varieties, including the following subdivisions as are mentioned by Geraci et
al.: “geographic origin, age, gender, type of education (special school for the deaf, public
schools with or without the aid of interpreters or signing educators), type of school
(elementary, middle, high school, college), family situation (presence of deaf parents or
siblings), and social status” (2011: 531). Lucas et al. also note that when studying upon
5
sociolinguistic variation, things that should be considered are “whether or not the signer was
deaf, whether or not the signer‟s parents were deaf, the age at which sign language was
learned, whether or not the signer attended college, and gender” (2001:82). Besides these,
religious background decides a variation as is explored in Britain for Jewish Deaf (Weinberg
1992). Ethnicity is also found a significant index in variation in ASL between African
American and white signs (Lucas et al. 2001).
2.4 Gender separations in sign languages
Researches on gender-based variation are also widely launched in signed languages such as
Auslan (Johnston & Schembri 2007), ASL (Lucas, Bayley, and Valli 2001; Lucas & Bayley
2010), BANZSL (Schembri et al. 2010), LIS (Geraci et al. 2011), NZSL numerals (McKee et
al. 2011), among others.
Gender can be a single factor that decides the variation. In the study of ASL, Lucas, Bayley
and Valli (2001) reported that 26 out of 34 stimuli involved in their research depict variation
via gender. Besides, gender is found to play an important role in fingerspelling, where males
tend to use more finger-spelled signs that are produced outside of the normal area than women
(Mulrooney 2001). Also, it is stated that gender plays a role in differing signs with different
locations. It is said that male signers prefer using lowered signs, while their female
counterparts dislike them. (Lucas & Bayley 2010).
Gender is found to co-work with age in differentiating social groups. In Australian Sign
Language (Auslan), Johnston and Schembri (2007) found that for elder people, men tend to
use more fingerspelling, which might be a reflection that men used to receive higher
educations and are exposed more to English than women. Together with age, they also
mention the differences of salute among men and women. In the past, the sign indicating
„doffing the hat‟ was used only by males. Now, even when hats are not that popular than
before, men and women still differ in that men or youths would salute by moving the hand
6
from head outwards, while women would use the sign HELLO without body contact.
Education background functions together with gender in lexical variation as well. Le
Master and Dwyer report that there are gender-based lexical distinctions in signs used in
Dublin, Ireland (1991). This is caused directly by the separated schooling that Ireland
provides for deaf children.
Above all, however, not many studies have touched upon the topic of relations between
gender and euphemistic expressions, which indicates the significance of the current research.
2.5 Lexical variation according to age groups
Age is another important factor on variation among sign languages. It functions together with
districts in African American and white signing in ASL (Lucas et al. 2001). Besides
inter-group differences on the two lexicons AFRICA and JAPAN, they also imply that the
elder signers tend to be opposed to the introduction of new signs. Similar result is also seen in
the location variation in ASL, where it is found that the younger the signers are, the more
non-citation form of signs they would tend to use, i.e. younger signers have a preference on
newer signs (Lucas et al. 2002). Similarly, non-elder signers use more derived signs rather
than original ones compared with elder signers as is found in LIS (Geraci et al. 2011).
Age as a social factor also takes effect in NZSL. It is seen as the strongest in causing
variation, and could be a trace of diachronic changes, especially in numeral expressions
(McKee & McKee 2011; McKee et al. 2011).
More specifically, age-based variation is recorded in fingerspelling in BSL and Auslan
(Sutton-Spence et al. 1990; Schembri & Johnston, 2007). It is found in Auslan that signers
above 51 years old use fingerspelling more frequently than their younger counterparts, which
may be caused by education system and attitudes towards sign language at their school age
(Schembri & Johnston, 2007). As for BSL, the age lowers to 45, where the manual alphabet is
seen in more than 80 percent of the sentences in the data (Sutton-Spence et al. 1990).
7
2.6 Implications of the study at hand
As the above literatures suggest, it is estimated that when talking about sexual behaviors,
HKSL signers would probably refer to euphemisms to avoid embarrassment among the
interlocutors. With the different role gender plays in the society, it is also predicted that
gender differences may appear in the data for certain concepts, and female signers would
possibly use more euphemistic signs to express the same concept. Age may also take an effect
in the variation among different generations.
Based on the hypothesis and the literatures previously, the research questions thus come
into shape:
1. What are the signs of sexual behavior used by the Deaf Community in Hong Kong?
2. Does the variation in the sexual signs pattern based on gender? Will gender be a factor on
the classification of neutral, taboos or euphemistic for these signs?
3. Would age as a social factor also affect the sexual variation? How about the relationship
with directness?
With the research questions bearing in mind, the methodology of the current study is
explained below.
3. Methodology
3.1 Data collection
This research adopted the list from Woodward (1979), and revised it with a focus on the
sexual behaviors and some hygiene signs related to sex. Besides, some recent lexicons in
Hong Kong related to sexual behaviors were also added. According to the modified list, a
PowerPoint file for 99 concepts was made with pictures as the major stimulus and was shown
8
to the informants. But for a number of target concepts, it is hard to express the meaning solely
by pictures (For example, the phrase SEXUAL-DESIRE). Accordingly, a Chinese translation
of certain concepts was added beneath. One thing should be noted is that these entries were
not fully shown to the first two informants as the list was revised later. The newly added
lexicons, however, did not engender much variation among the latter participants. Thus, they
were not discussed in detail in the current study.
Data collections were done with two different procedures: Number one, during the
elicitation procedure, one Hong Kong signer signed to another deaf person in a conversational
way as they discuss about the signs, and the PowerPoint of the list were shown to both for the
production. The two signers should know each other well so as to avoid embarrassment and
unwillingness of showing the signs. Two cameras were set up for recording, each one facing
one of the deaf persons in conversation. Number two, for the sake of protection of the
informant‟s privacy, the informant would read the PowerPoint and produce the sign all by
himself/herself. During both of the procedures, one deaf native signer was also invited to be
an assistant in case any kind of help was needed. After the recording, the video clips were
synchronized and transcription and illustration were done for each of the signs. The
transcription was then double checked with the help of the deaf assistant and the informants
themselves where necessary.
It is also noted that during the elicitation, informants were encouraged to produce as much
variation as they could think of. The first sign they produced when they saw the lexical words
or pictures is usually seen as the sign they apply themselves. Then, they would be enquired as
to whether they had any indirect way of describing the word or the situation. Besides,
informants who have deaf families, especially deaf parents, would often provide older forms
of a certain sign which they ever saw or used when they communicate with their elder deaf
families. These are also counted in this study with the purpose of tracing the possible
diachronic changes through generations. Furthermore, some informants offered interesting
9
distinctions of the signs they use when their interlocutors are from different sexes. For
example, for the sign INTERCOURSE, one male informant claimed that one special form,
which is vulgar in nature, is widely acceptable if it is only among a male talk (figure 3.1.1).
With the appearance of a female peer, however, they would change to another more
acceptable usage, as is shown below (figure 3.1.2). This is further proved by another two
female informants who agreed that the vulgar form is „male only‟. These findings suggest that
for certain signs, different applications according to sex through context indeed exist.
Figure 3.1.1 a more vulgar form of INTERCOURSE used in male-talk
Figure 3.1.2 Adjusted form of INTERCOURSE with the appearance of female in male-talk
10
3.2 Data coding
All the tokens based on the 99 lexis produced by the six HKSL signers were annotated using
the software ELAN. There were misunderstandings for the first three signers about the word
CATAMITE, where the signers all produce the sign for PEDOPHILIA instead of CATAMITE.
As a result, the new lexicon PEDOPHILIA was added and the elicitations from the first three
signers were counted as the tokens for PEDOPHILIA. All the tokens were thus grouped as
„self‟ when they were stated to be used by the signers themselves, and „seen‟ if based on the
experience of the signers when they had a conversation with others. The grouping as „direct‟
and „indirect‟ were also applied if signers had a clear idea about the directness of the signs.
Besides, if there were signs particularly used by certain sex, the coding of „male‟ and „female‟
was added. Further, if the signers ever held that a certain variation was used by their peers,
while others were passed by the elder signers, the classifications of „young‟ and „elder‟,
respectively, were adopted.
3.3 Informants
As for the informants, six deaf signers of Hong Kong Sign Language from three different age
groups, three of whom are native signers, were invited for the study, with one male and one
female for each age group. They are separated as Old age group (above fifty), Middle age
group (thirty to fifty years old) as well as Young age group (below thirty). Their detailed
information and the total glosses they produced are listed in table 3.3. Five out of the six
signers went to the same deaf school called Hong Kong School for the Deaf (HKSD). HKSD
is reported to be the first deaf school in Hong Kong which was established in 1935 (Sze et al.
2013). From the very beginning, the school followed the oral teaching for the children strictly.
During the World War II, the school had to be closed, but it managed to open again eight
years after. The school required students to reside in the dormitories with only a few chances
11
to go back home at least before 1968 (Sze et al. 2013). The boarding system enabled the
emergence of early forms of HKSL, and spontaneous signing systems came into being due to
the communication among peers in the residential school, which is also seen in previous
literatures (Groce 1985, Senghas, Senghas and Pyers 2005). The one remaining informant
came from another school named Clubs for Deaf Children which is established by Social
Welfare Department. The school existed from 1960s to 1977 and the sign language approach
with an origin of Nanjing/Shanghai Sign Language was adopted (Sze et al. 2013). According
to Woodward (1993) and Sze et al. (2013), the term „Hong Kong Sign Language‟ nowadays is
a mixture of local signs and the Nanjing/Shanghai variety. However, due to different
schooling and different education systems, it is likely that there would still be differences
among ages or schools. The family background of these informants varies as well, some with
deaf parents while some being the only deaf person within the whole family. As so, they may
fail to produce signs by elder signers as they could not learn the signs from their parents.
Participants in the Old age group may also be unable to offer signs from even elder generation,
as anecdotally few deaf people at this age are native signers, i.e. they were not born in hearing
families.
No
Informant
Sex
Age
Education
1
A
M
27
HKSD
Family background
Glosses
Deaf parents, deaf younger
155
brother and hearing elder sister
2
B
F
29
HKSD
No deaf family
326
3
K
M
33
HKSD
Deaf parents, deaf elder sister
170
4
C
F
35
HKSD
Dear parents
183
5
CKH
M
54
HKSD
Deaf elder sister
330
6
CKC
F
66
CDC
No deaf family
324
Table 3.3 Informants and their information
12
4. Lexical variation in sexual behavior signs
4.1 Introduction
This chapter addresses the three research questions stated in section 2.6 with the support of
sexual sign data collected. In this introduction part, the general formational properties of signs
of sexual behavior in HKSL are illustrated. Section 4.2 focuses on the second question with
an investigation on the characteristics of gender variation in this dataset. Section 4.3 discusses
how the data vary across age. Gender and age are found to co-function within the data, thus
section 4.4 is added as an explanation.
Among the 99 lexical items applied in this study, some elicit more variation among others.
Based on the observation, sexual behavior signs in HKSL convey certain morphological
aspects in common, some of which are also shown in ASL.
The use of classifiers. First of all, sexual expressions in HKSL tend to apply the usage of
classifiers. In this dataset, semantic and body classifiers appear most among all the signers.
Semantic classifiers, or entity classifiers, are a kind of a construction that could represent the
category of the thing under description (Trevor and Schembri 2007). They are more abstract
compared to SASS handshape which is introduced later, and they are used as an independent
morpheme shown by the handshape alone (Supalla 1986). In HKSL, several semantic
classifiers are discovered, such as the animate classifier, the bike classifier the vehicle
classifier (see figure 4.1.1). For instance, for the vehicle classifier, it is different from SASS
classifiers in that the single handshape could represent various shapes, brands or colors of
vehicles. Animate classifiers in the sexual sign data are the most prominent, especially when
talking about the process of coitus. Examples could be seen from variation of
INTERCOURSE (figure 4.1.2), where different positions and moves of the two people
involved are expressed. The two signs in figure 4.1.2 show two people having contact at the
13
lower body or one from the back of the others.
Figure 4.1.1 people, animal, bike and vehicle classifiers in HKSL
Figure 4.1.2 variation of INTERCOURSE using semantic classifier
14
Figure 4.1.3 one variation of MUTUAL-ORAL-SEX using semantic classifier
The sign MUTUAL-ORAL-SEX (figure 4.1.3) also extracted the use of animate classifier,
where the signers indicate that two people lie with head towards feet, which is discussed
further below.
Another significant example for semantic classifier is RAPE, with the similar movement
like INTERCOURSE shown above in the first sign, added by the touching of throat and
difference in the mouth. (Figure 4.1.4)
Figure 4.1.4 one variation of RAPE using semantic classifier
15
Semantic classifiers, for example, the I extended handshape (thumb plus pinky)
representing animated creatures with limbs, are sometimes lexicalized, i.e. signs with a
combination of parameters with different meanings are now used as a single morpheme
(Trevor & Schembri 2007). As Aronoff et al. state, such classifier constructions are called
“frozen lexicon” (Emmorey K. 2003: 69). Once it is lexicalized, the parameters such as
handshape, location and movement will not separate meanings in certain sign. Aronoff et al.
gives an example in ASL where in the lexicon FALL, the upside-down V handshape is applied.
It is usually used to represent two-legged animated beings as a classifier. However, in this
case, since FALL is lexicalized, it could also express other inanimate things such as
APPLE-FALL. Moreover, the frozen sign has a restricted form compared with the classifier
predicates. (Emmorey K. 2003) One example in HKSL would be the indirect expression for
INTERCOURSE (Figure 4.1.5), where two-people-falling-down represents the meaning of
having sex straightforwardly, rather then indicating that two people exactly fall on the bed at
the same time.
Figure 4.1.5 one variation for INTERCOURSE with lexical classifier
Some other signs, on the other hand, do not indicate the process of lexicalization as
different signers do not have a standardized lexical sign to represent the relative spoken
language word. The classifiers are productive in nature. For instance, the word FOREPLAY
elicited various kinds of moves before two people go to bed, kisses, touches, rolling together,
16
etc. Signers still tend to use the animate classifier, but instead of a single lexical sign, they
produce completely different movements to represent the same idea.
Figure 4.1.6 one variation for FOREPLAY with productive classifier (touch and sexual-desire)
Figure 4.1.7 one variation for FOREPLAY with productive classifier (with circle movement)
17
Figure 4.1.8 one variation for FOREPLAY with productive classifier (kiss/touch from head to toe)
For some other signs indicating various methods and actions of having sex, if the semantic
classifiers are not applied, body classifiers would take place. Body classifier is a type of
structure that is also used as a single morpheme representing the body of living creatures
(Supalla 1986). In this sexual behavior dataset, body classifiers are found where a certain
body part is involved, differing in the roles male and female play. For instance, for the sign
EJACULATION, the two younger female signers showed a sign with the release of all the
fingers from an O handshape towards their lower trunks with an upward movement, depicting
the scene where a man ejaculates inside a woman‟s body. (Figure 4.1.9)
18
Figure 4.1.9 one variation of EJACULATION using body classifier (by female signer)
Figure 4.1.10 MALE-MASTURBATION using body classifier
MALE/CLITORAL-MASTURBATION, where the sexual organs of both sexes are
required, would also involve the use of body classifiers at the lower body (for
MALE-MASTURBATION, it is a compound of a SASS and a handling classifier, which is
explained below). As are shown in the snapshots, the male sign indicates a man masturbating
his penis using the flexed fist (figure 4.1.10), while the female sign depicts a woman
masturbating her clitoris using fingers (4.1.11).
19
Figure 4.1.11 CLITORAL-MASTURBATION using body classifier
Other classifiers also appear in this set of data. Size and shape specifiers (SASS) depict
their objects of their size and shape. For example, the 1 handshape (the index) may express a
smaller and thinner object (such as a pocket knife), while the B handshape (with four
extended non-spread fingers without the extension of the thumb) would describe a giant
kitchen knife. SASS classifiers are frequently seen when signers want to describe the sexual
organs such as their breasts or penis, etc. They also function when signers try to explain the
different sizes for SANITARY-NAPKIN. The sign VAGINA, for example, illustrates the
female‟s body part using the two hands with the forefingers and the thumbs, as is widely seen
among all the signers.
Figure 4.1.12 one variation for VAGINA using SASS classifier
20
SASS is also seen in the signs for TESTES/TESTICLES as well as BREASTS, where the
two manual articulators are used side by side with the size and shape of the certain parts
signers want to display (figure 4.1.13).
Figure 4.1.13 TESTES/TESTICLES (left) and BREASTS (right) using SASS classifier
Handling classifier, which manipulates the hands of human or animals holding or operating
the object (Trevor & Schembri 2007), is also observed where certain instruments are handled
or some parts of the body need to be held by hand. In this case, one variation of
VAGINAL-MASTURBATION showing below describes a female using a tool to penetrate
her own vagina. The sign FELLATIO applies similar handshape together with the body
classifier, indicating someone holding male‟s penis and doing the oral sex with mouth.
21
Figure 4.1.14 VAGINA-MASTURBATION and FELLATIO using handling classifier
Loan words. Sometimes, it may not be easy for signers to find a „pure‟ lexical sign for the
relative written forms. Thus, the use of some loan words from English as well as Cantonese
was found among this data base. Signers are seen to use these loan words either fully or for
certain characters from Cantonese or initial fingerspellings from English. When signing the
item GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER, for example, signers from young and mid-aged groups
provided the signed Chinese form of UP-BED, together with the mouthing (figure 4.1.15).
Despite the absence of this specific sign in the young male‟s data, a further consultation with
him proved that he made use of that form as well. He further claimed that it would not be seen
in elder people‟s signing, which was affirmed judging from the two elder signers. Besides, the
mid-aged female signer had a sign for MENSTRUATION, self-claimed as a form restricted to
elder people, with the sign for MOON which was one character for the Cantonese
counterparts (figure 4.1.16). This was further proved as the same sign which was seen within
the data from the elder female signer. When signing the item INTERCOURSE, the mid-aged
22
female signer produced the initial letters M-L for the English word „make-love‟. It is
self-claimed as the sign used among her peers and her, which depicts an influence of English.
(figure 4.1.17)
Figure 4.1.15 one variation of GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER by the young female signer
Figure 4.1.16 one variation of MENSTRUATION from the mid-aged female signer (RED_MOON)
23
Figure 4.1.17 one variation of INTERCOURSE from the mid-aged female signer
Descriptions. When it is indeed difficult for signers to have a lexical item which exactly
matched with the spoken language, descriptions about the meaning of certain words were
done. This case also happens when the lexicon involves various kinds of activities. For the
former type, such sentence descriptions were extracted from the lexicons such as
MALE/FEMALE-BESTIALITY (see figure 4.2.1/4.2.2), where the exact animal that involves
in the activity would be separated, and also INCEST, where usually the specific family
members were mentioned. As for the latter one, descriptions would be elicited from the
lexical forms such as FOREPLAY (figure 4.1.18), where signers tend to indicate the way the
participators kiss, touch, roll together, etc. Similar things also went for the sign PUBERTY or
EARLY-MATURE, where detailed development for children‟s mind (figure 4.1.19) and
height (figure 4.1.20), boys‟ mustache, Adam‟s apple and penis as well as girls‟ breasts
(figure 4.1.21), etc., were depicted.
24
Figure 4.1.18 one variation for FOREPLAY using description
Figure 4.1.19 one variation for PRECOCITY/EARLY MATURE (mind getting mature early)
Figure 4.1.20 one variation for PRECOCITY/EARLY MATURE (HIGH-FAST)
25
Figure 4.1.21 one variation for PRECOCITY/EARLY MATURE (BREASTS-EARLY)
With the above principles bearing in mind, variation according to gender and age was
discovered and discussed below based on their distinct properties.
4.2 Gender
Gender differences were found based on distinct roles male and female play in the sexual
behaviors, gender-oriented concepts, and the perception of directness to their eyes.
Role differences. Conventionally, female and male play different roles in the process of
having sex, such as the position of the two involvers. Thus, when signers of the two sexes
produce signs relative to making love, female tend to act as the passive one while male the
active one. One example is seen from the signs below for MALE/FEMALE-BESTIALITY.
26
Figure 4.2.1 one variation of MALE-BESTIALITY from the young male informant
Figure 4.2.2 one variation of FEMALE-BESTIALITY from the young male informant
27
As is clearly shown from the snapshots above in figure 4.2.1, the signer signed ANIMAL
and then set up the loci of it as lying down at the bottom using his non-dominant hand (the
fourth snapshot). He then signed MALE using the dominant hand and set it to the active
position on the top. It was the reverse way of the sign for FEMALE-BESTIALITY. In this
case (figure 4.2.2), the signer first located the female involved at the bottom with the
non-dominant hand, and the participated animal by the dominant hand on the top, which was
how the bestiality happened. Compared with MALE-BESTIALITY, signers would do a role
shift between these two signs. The young female signer also contributed a sign for
FEMALE-BESTIALITY where she indicated a woman took the penis of a horse and
penetrated it inside her own lower body, with body classifier included.
Similar distinctions in the roles male and female play could also be traced in some variants
for INTERCOURSE, where the signer plays the role of the male while pretending to hold a
female body moving inwardly or upwardly/downwardly for the process of having sex,
claimed by all to be male-only.
Figure 4.2.3 one variation for INTERCOURSE with the male role
28
Gender-oriented concepts. For some concepts, men tend to think that it belongs to female
only. Thus, they do not have particular signs for male. For example, signers from both sexes
managed to provide the sign for RAPE, although it is not lexicalized yet. Common variants
are signed Chinese, the application of animate classifier and a touch with the neck
accompanied by mouthing. One example of RAPE is shown in figure 4.1.4. For the sign
BE-RAPED, however, the mid-aged male informant clearly stated that he did not have this
sign in his own language. In his mind, this sign is female-oriented and thus only female would
find a way to describe it. His female counterparts indeed offered the sign for BE-RAPED
using animate classifier and a movement towards their own bodies. (figure 4.2.4)
Figure 4.2.4 Female sign for BE-RAPED using animate classifier
Also, for the sign VIRGIN, all the signers could give out the same sign for female virgin,
with a compound of VAGINA plus NEW (figure 4.2.5), using the SASS classifier to depict
the outlook of the vagina, hence female-oriented. For the male virgin, however, gender
difference appeared as the female informants produced neutral signs for male virgin (figure
4.2.6), while the mid-aged male failed to offer male-based sign. The young male managed to
give out two forms for male, but afterwards he claimed that these were all borrowed from the
female version, with the use of the sign VAGINA still (figure 4.2.7). It is estimated that for
this kind of concepts, focus is often more on women, especially in a place like Hong Kong
with the root of Eastern culture.
29
Figure 4.2.5 compound sign of VIRGIN
Figure 4.2.6 female sign for male VIRGIN (INTERCOURSE-NEVER)
Figure 4.2.7 male sign for male VIRGIN (MALE_DESTRUCTION-OF-VIRGIN_NOT-YET)
Concepts which are sex-distinct also depict differences between male and female signers.
ASK-FOR-PROSTITUTE is often considered as a sign talking about male. Male, as a result,
produce various euphemistic expressions to describe the action. As is shown below, the elder
male signer provided two indirect forms that are too blur for others to know the actual
30
meaning, one picking his nose (figure 4.2.8) and the other rubbing his oxter (figure 4.2.9).
Figure 4.2.8 euphemistic expression for ASK-FOR-PROSTITUTE from the elder male signer
Figure 4.2.9 euphemistic expression for ASK-FOR-PROSTITUTE from the elder male signer
Another sign, traditionally deemed as male-dominant, had an indirect variation presented
by the elder male signer. CUNNILINGUS represents the situation where someone (men
usually) use the tongue or lips to lick female‟s vagina or clitoris, offering sexual stimulus to
them. The elder signer, with the use of body classifier (the tongue), applied the V handshape
as the vagina at the lower jaw with an upward-downward movement, as can be seen below.
31
Figure 4.2.10 one variation of CUNNINLINGUS from the elder male signer
Similar sign for oral sex for male, FELLATIO, which is considered usually done by female,
absorbed indirect signs from females. The young female signer managed to produce a
euphemistic sign for this word, with the forward-backward movement of her head
representing the situation where one uses his/her mouth to lick or suck the male penis (figure
4.2.11).
Figure 4.2.11 one variation of FELLATIO from the young female signer
For the signs MENSTRUATION and SANITARY-NAPKIN, which are female-oriented,
men fail to produce signs of variation. Their female peers, instead, have all sorts of different
expressions, many of which are euphemistically conveyed.
32
Figure 4.2.12 direct expression of the sign MENSTRUATION from male of the three age groups
Rather, the female participants claim that when unfamiliar male appear, the sign shown
above is sometimes not acceptable. Thus, they would change to other indirect ways. A
common expression is to indicate that a relative (figure 4.2.13) or an old friend has come back
(figure 4.2.14).
Figure 4.2.13 Female indirect expression of the sign MENSTRUATION (mom has come)
33
Figure 4.2.14 Female indirect expression of the sign MENSTRUATION (friend has come)
Similar thing goes to the sign SANITARY-NAPKIN. While male have at most two ways of
expressing the sign (figure 4.2.15), female offered various signs, usually differ in the size
(figure 4.2.16) and usage (figure 4.2.17) of the napkin, of which men may have little
knowledge.
Figure 4.2.15 SANITARY-NAPKIN used by both genders
34
Figure 4.2.16 SANITARY-NAPKIN used by female signer which is thin
Figure 4.2.17 SANITARY-NAPKIN used by female signer with wings
Moreover, some lexicons do not have a clear boundary of male or female only. They
convey, however, different degree of embarrassment when people from the two sexes talk
about them. For example, when discussed about having sex, female may feel more
uncomfortable if they say it too visibly. To avoid the awkwardness, they prefer more indirect
ways. Below are three euphemistic patterns from the elder female signer, where the first one
(figure 4.2.18) can be understood as the move of turn of the light while the other two are
untraceable (figure 4.2.19; figure 4.2.20). They are not seen in male signs.
35
Figure 4.2.18 one variation of GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER from the elder female signer
Figure 4.2.19 one variation of GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER from the elder female signer
Figure 4.2.20 one variation of GO-TO-BED-TOGETHER from the elder female signer
36
Perception of directness. Different perceptions among men and women are seen in the
dataset, in two different directions. Firstly, men consider some terms to be too vulgar as that
they could only be seen from male. Women participants, however, also produce the same
variant with the claim that they also make use of it themselves. Secondly, when discussing
about female organs, women would apply certain signs which they consider to be direct
enough, whereas men at the same age, using the same form, considering it to be a euphemistic
expression. Elder male, on the other hand, also considered it as straight forward. Examples are
the signs for ANUS and MUTUAL-ORAL-SEX, respectively, which are both sexual organs
and not easy to sign in a less explicit way.
Figure 4.2.21 one variation of ANUS from the young female signer and the mid-aged male signer
The two signs by the young female and mid-aged male informants are with the same
mouthing of the relative Cantonese word si2 fat1, which is considered as strong for native
Cantonese speakers. This is probably the reason why the male informant thought it is used
only by men. With the production of the same sign from the female, however, it is seen that
women nowadays, especially younger generation, have more courage to talk about things that
are considered not polite or even forbidden for women in old time, which in a way indicates
37
the rising social status of this community.
Figure 4.2.22 one variation of MUTUAL-ORAL-SEX from the middle age signers and the male old
age signer (see whether the elder woman has it)
Using exactly the same sign for the word MUTUAL-ORAL-SEX, the mid-aged female
informant claimed that this is a direct way of describing this sexual activity, whereas her male
counterpart considered it an indirect expression. The elder male participant displayed the
same sign, while claiming that it is direct in his eyes. This suggests that for some sex-related
moves, men and women have different perceptions as to whether it is too explicit or not to
show one sign. This female informant, in this case, is more conservative than male as she
considered the use of human classifiers overt already. Male, on the other hand, would view it
as obscure enough since the sign does not indicate the actual movement of the two
participators. Age is another significant feature in perception, as elder people, even the male
one, would regard it as obvious to audience.
4.3 Age
As previously mentioned, age is considered a significant factor for lexical variation in a
number of signed languages. It is also the case in this set of data for HKSL. Judging from the
three different age groups, especially the two younger groups compared with the elder group,
38
distinctions appeared among the following directions.
Loan words proportion. As is mentioned above, it is commonly seen in the criteria for
sexual behavior signs that signers sometimes tend to use English or Cantonese loan words,
wholly or partially, to represent the idea. This phenomenon happened most among younger
groups, English fingerspelling in particular. So far, no English loan words were observed from
elder signers. The word BUTCH, for instance, representing the boyish lesbians who dress up
like a male or taking part in masculine sports, etc., showed spoken language influence within
the younger generation. Despite the fact that elder signers had nothing but description on how
a girl behaved, dressed or looked like a boy (figure 4.3.1), younger signers (both young and
mid-aged groups) all produced the word of fingerspelling TB, which is another English loan
word for „tomboy‟. (figure 4.3.2) This is not available from the elder signs.
Figure 4.3.1 BUTCH from elder signs with a description (GESTURE_SHIRT_MALE_SHORT-HAIR)
39
Figure 4.3.2 fingerspelling „TB‟ for BUTCH from the younger signer
Another English loan word example is from the sign SANITARY-NAPKIN, where the
young female signer contributed a sign as a compound of M-NAPKIN, where M comes from
the initial fingerspelling of the English word menstruation. No such signs are seen in elder
signers‟ signs.
Figure 4.3.3 SANITARY-NAPKIN with the initial fingerspelling M
Completely different lexicons. As was witnessed in some signs, younger signers would
use completely different lexical signs compared with the senior people. PENIS is a best
example for this phenomenon, whereby signers from different age groups applied signs with
distinct handshapes, as are displayed below. For younger signer groups, the sign is composed
with the handshape of PEE (figure 4.3.4), whereas for seniors, they prefer the 1 handshape
(figure 4.3.5). No trace of phonological change was seen from this difference, and it would be
understood as the result of the variation of the generation.
40
Figure 4.3.4 PENIS signed by younger group (young and mid-aged)
Figure 4.3.5 PENIS signed by elder group
Figure 4.3.6 PEE by younger signers (up left) and elder signers (the rest two)
41
Similar things also go to the lexicon for PEE, where all around younger people apply the
handshape for WC, a lexicalized loan word, while elder people still maintain two other signs
that are not at all alike with the young (figure 4.3.6).
Phonological changes. Across data, phonological changes via generation were noticed. For
instance, it exists in the sign PROMISCUOUS-PEOPLE, signed by the middle-aged female,
who produced both the signs from her mother (figure 4.3.7) and her own signs (figure 4.3.8).
The elder form was also provided by the young male informant.
Figure 4.3.7 the sign PROMISCUOUS-PEOPLE for male (left) and female (right) claimed as using by
her mother by the middle age female informant
Figure 4.3.8 the sign PROMISCUOUS-PEOPLE for male (left) and female (right) claimed as self-use
by the middle age female informant
42
Judging from the two groups of signs, it is seen that the only difference between the two
groups is the location. The handshapes are interpreted as vagina and penis, respectively, in the
signs indicating male and female. The location, however, moves from the forehead to the jaw,
representing the centralization change. With the meaning remains still, it is proved that the
sign changes phonologically throughout generation. Similar sign for „promiscuous woman‟
also appeared in the young male signer‟s elicitation. He claimed that it is not a polite form in
his eyes, which is seen mainly used by elder people. The aspect of phonological changes,
however, is not so significant within the whole dataset, probably due to the fact that the
number of informants involved is limited.
Iconicity. Across data, a tendency of decreasing iconicity via age is seen, although to
confirm it more data on more elder informants are needed in the future. It is estimated that the
elder signers tend to produce more iconic signs, especially when they are related with sexual
organs, while the younger generation favor the less visual-straightforward signs. For example,
for the sign INTERCOURSE, the elder female signer produced a sign which clearly showed
the penis added to the animate classifier (the ring finger) (figure 4.3.9). The penetrating
process is thus iconic and the modified animate classifier resembles the body of a male. This
particular sign is only seen from this elder female signer, and the reason of the unpopularity is
probably because the handshape is really marked, i.e. difficult for signers to produce.
Figure 4.3.9 iconic INTERCOURSE from the elder female signer
43
Within the elder male signer‟s data, iconic signs also took place. For example, for his sign
for PEE separated by different sexes, the male clearly delineated the different ways male and
female urinate, where female sit on the toilet seat and male use the penis to pee inside the
toilet pot.
Figure 4.3.10 elder male signer‟s PEE for female (left) and male (right)
4.4 Age and gender
Sometimes, these two social factors functioned together to form variation. For example, for
the sign for the sexual organ CLITORIS, young and middle aged male participants would
borrow Letter G (see figure 4.4.1, the last four snapshots representing HKSL fingerspelling of
Letter G) from the spoken language word of „Gräfenberg spot‟ or „G-spot‟, which indicates
the erogenous zone of female. This sign, however, did not appear in female or elder signs.
Female signers tend to point at the front part of vagina, while the elder male signer patted his
own head to indicate the position (figure 4.4.2). The elder female signer even failed to
produce a lexical sign for this word. The male signer managed to sign a compound of
VAGINA plus HEAD, showing the position of the organ. (figure 4.4.3) It is possible that
separated education elder people and young generation received may distinguish the
application of English loan words. Also, speaking of sex-related body part, female would
behave more conservative, while male express directly about the sexual function they can
44
think of.
Figure 4.4.1 CLITORIS from the young and mid-aged male signers
Figure 4.4.2 CLITORIS from the mid-aged female signer
45
Figure 4.4.3 CLITORIS from the elder male signer
MALE-MASTURBATION depicts the move when male massages his penis to get the
sexual excitement and ejaculate. Signers of both sexes produce a very iconic sign where
handling and body classifiers are used (see figure 4.1.10). Male, however, are able to provide
euphemistic way for this sign with male origin, where female informants fail to do so.
Furthermore, this sign is restricted to younger male group while elder signers fail to offer this
form. The sign is a metaphor which compare this activity with the shooting of airplanes in the
sky, thus with the classifier for airplanes (figure 4.4.4).
Figure 4.4.4 MALE-MASTURBATION used by younger male signer
46
5. Conclusion
In this research, signs of sexual behaviors are collected from six HKSL signers. It is
discovered that euphemistic expressions are applied to quite a number of such signs, as they
are blunt in nature, just like spoken languages do. Some signs, for example the relatively
vulgar sign for INTERCOURSE shown in figure 3.1.1 may be labeled as dysphemism, as is
previously mentioned in literature review. Some are claimed by signers as general
applications, i.e. the signs convey neutral meanings. Others are indirect ways where signing
straightforwardly may cause unnecessary embarrassment and things alike.
As has been hypothesized, gender is a significant correlate of the lexical variation on sexual
behaviors. Similar with researches on spoken languages, it is not evident enough to say that
female tend to use more euphemistic expressions than their male counterparts. The data do
show, however, that for certain concepts with a clear or preferred sex orientation, men and
women make use of indirect methods accordingly. Based on the roles male and female play in
the process of sex, some distinctions are also revealed. Furthermore, for some signs that male
and female use the same form, they have separated opinions on whether it is direct or tactful.
Age also influences the variation within the data, whereby elder and younger signers have
different expressions for the same word. Traces of phonological changes are discovered, with
centralization as the most salient example. Another application is the usage of loan words.
Whereas the young generation, influenced by the merging culture globally or other sign
languages, prefer to use initial fingerspelling for newly merged lexicons, the seniors still
follow the old ways of signing or explain only by description. As for some other signs, with a
historical change, completely different lexical variants are also found across the dataset. Elder
signers have also shown tendency of using more iconic forms, which need more evidence as a
firm conclusion.
47
Age and gender also interact with each other and create variation. For certain words,
differences are seen between the elder male signer and the mid-aged female signer, or other
gender and age groups. This type of variation is less significant than the former two in this
data.
It should be noticed that as a preliminary study on this perspective, the results are not fixed
and thus more signers from both sexes need to be included for a larger base of sociolinguistic
research corpus. Some other problems may arouse attention, for example, signers sometimes
would be affected by the Chinese translation on the PowerPoint and thus produce signed
Chinese only. Hopefully, this basic study could pave way for similar researches for HKSL,
and benefit the deaf community in the end.
48
References
Allan, K. (1991). Euphemism and Dysphemism: Language Used as a Shield and Weapon.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Allan, K. & Burridge K. (2006). Forbidden Words. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Colville, M. & Stewart, C. (1998). Signs of a sexual nature: an introduction to some sexual
signs used in British Sign Language. UK: Cheshire Society for the Deaf.
Emmorey, K. (2003). Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Farb, P. (1974). Word play: What happens when people talk. New York: Knopf,
Geraci, C. et al. (2011). The LIS Corpus Project: A discussion of Sociolinguistic Variation in
the Lexicon. Sign Language Studies 11(4). 528-574.
Gordon, M. Sexual slang and gender. (1993). Women and Language 16 (2). 16.
Groce, N.E. (1985). Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Hereditary Deafness on Martha’s
Vineyard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Haas, A. (1979). Male and female spoken language differences. Psychological Bulletin 86.
616-626.
Holder, B. (2008). Dictionary of Euphemisms. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hornby, A.S. (2005). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Jay, T. (1980). Sex roles and dirty word usage: A review of the literature and a reply to Haas.
Psychological Bulletin 88. 614-621.
Joffe, N. F. (1948).The vernacular of menstruation. Word 4. 181-186.
Johnston, T. and A. Schembri. (2007). Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An Introduction to
Sign Language Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kvam, M. H. (2004). Sexual abuse of deaf children. A retrospective analysis of the prevalence
and characteristics of childhood sexual abuse among deaf adults in Norway. Child Abuse
& Neglect 28(3). 241-251.
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman's place. Language in Society 2(1). 45-80.
Le Master, B. and J. Dwyer. (1991). Knowing and using female and male signs in Dublin.
Sign Language Studies 73. 361-396.
Linfoot-Ham, K. (2005). The linguistics of euphemism: a diachronic study of euphemism
formation. Journal of Language and Linguistics 4(2). 227-263.
Lucas, C. and R. Bayley. (2005). Variation in ASL: The Role of Grammatical Function. Sign
Language Studies 6(1). 38-75.
49
Lucas, C. and R. Bayley. (2010). Variation in American Sign Language. In Brentari D. (ed.),
Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 451–475.
Lucas, C., R. Bayley, and C. Valli. (2001). Sociolinguistic Variation in American Sign
Language. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Lucas, C., R. Bayley, and C. Valli. (2003). What’s your sign for pizza? : an introduction to
variation in American Sign Language. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Lucas, C., R. Bayley, M. Rose and A. Wulf. (2002). Location Variation in American Sign
Language. Sign Language Studies 2(4). 407-440.
Lucas, C., R. Bayley, C. Valli, M. Rose and A. Wulf. (2001). Sociolinguistic variation. In
Lucas C. (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McGlone, M.S. & Batchelor, J. A. (2003). Looking out for Number one: Euphemism and Face.
Journal of Communication.
McKee, R., and D. McKee. (2011). Old Signs, New Signs, Whose Signs? Sociolinguistic
Variation in the NZSL Lexicon. Sign Language Studies 11(4). 485–527.
McKee, D., R. McKee, and G. Major. (2011). Numeral Variation in New Zealand Sign
Language. Sign Language Studies 12(1). 72–97.
Mirus, G., Fisher, J. & Napoli, D. J. (2012). Taboo expressions in American Sign Language.
Lingua 122. 1004-1020.
Mulrooney, K. (2001). Gender variation in fingerspelling in American Sign Language.
Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Napoli, D. J., Fisher, J. & Mirus, G. (2012). Bleached taboo-term predicates in American Sign
Language. Lingua 123. 148-167.
Nyst, V. (2010). Sign languages in West Africa. In Brentari D. (ed.), Sign Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 405–432.
Rajend, Swann M. & Ara, J.D. (2009). Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Risch, B. (1987). Women's Derogatory Terms for Men: That's Right, "Dirty" Words.
Language in Society 16(3). 353-358.
Schembri, A., K. Cormier, T. Johnston, D. McKee, R. McKee and B. Woll. (2010).
Sociolinguistic variation in British, Australian and New Zealand Sign Languages. In
Brentari D. (ed.), Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 476–498.
Schembri A. and T. Johnston. (2007). Sociolinguistic Variation in the Use of fingerspelling in
Australian Sign Language: A Pilot Study. Sign Language Studies 7(3). 319–347.
Schermer, G. M. (2003). From Variant to Standard: An Overview of the Standardization
Process of the Lexicon of Sign Language of the Netherlands over Two Decades. Sign
Language Studies 3(4). 469–486.
Schermer, G. M. & R. Harder (1985). Lexical variation in Dutch Sign Language: some
implications for language planning. In B. T. Tervoort (ed.), Signs of Life: Proceedings of
50
the Second European Congress on Sign Language Research. Amsterdam: University of
Amsterdam. 134–141.
Sebald, P. (2008). Child Abuse and Deafness: an overview. American Annals of the Deaf
153(4). 376-383.
Senghas, R., A. Senghas, and J. Pyers. (2005). the Emergence of Nicaraguan Sign Language:
Questions of Development, Acquisition, and Evolution. In Biology and Knowledge
Revisited: From Neurogenesis to Psychogenesis, ed. J. Langer, S. Parker, and C.
Milbrath, 287-306. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simkins, L. & Rinck, C. (1982). Male and Female Sexual Vocabulary in Different
Interpersonal Contexts. The Journal of Sex Research 18(2). 160-172.
Supalla, T. (1986). The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Noun classes and
categorization: typological studies in language 7. 181-214. ed. C. Craig. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Sutton-Spence, R., B. Woll, and L. Allsop. (1990). Variation and Recent Change in
Fingerspelling in British Sign Language. Language Variation and Change 2. 313-330.
Sze, F. in progress. Taboos and euphemisms: a preliminary study of sex-related signs in Asian
Sign Languages.
Sze, F., C. Lo, L. Lo, & K. Chu. (2013). Historical Development of Hong Kong Sign
Language. Sign Language Studies 13 (2). 155-185.
Trevor, J. & A. Schembri. (2007). Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An Introduction to
Sign Language Linguistics. West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Walsh, R. H. & Leonard W. M. (1974). Usage of terms for sexual intercourse by men and
women. Archives of Sexual Behavior 3(4). 373-376.
Weinberg, J. (1992). The History of the Residential School for Jewish Deaf Children. London:
Reunion of the Jewish Deaf School Committee.
Woll, B. (1991). Variation and Recent Change in British Sign Language. Final report to
Economic and Social Research Council. University of Bristol: Centre for Deaf Studies.
Woodward, J. (1979). Signs of sexual behavior: an introduction to some sex-related
vocabulary in American Sign Language. T.J. Publishers.
Woodward, J. (1993). Intuitive Judgments of Hong Kong Signers about the Relationship of
Sign Language Varieties in Hong Kong and Shanghai. CUHK Papers in Linguistics 4.
88-96.
Yau S. and J. He. (1990). How do deaf children get their name signs during their first month
in school? In Edmondson W. H. and Karlsson F. (eds.), SLR 1987: Papers from the
Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, Lappeenranta, Finland,
15-19 July 1987. Hamburg: Signum Press. 243–254.
51
Appendix (word list)
Body Parts
1
Anus
2
Breasts
3
Clitoris
4
Nipples
5
Pee
6
Penis
7
Testes/Testicles
8
Vagina
Sexual Excitement
9
Climax
10
Ejaculation
11
Ejaculation-inside-Vagina
12
Erection-of-Penis
13
Female-Climax
14
Female-Lubrication
15
Horny
16
Male-lubrication
17
Nipple-Erection
18
Semen
19
Sexual-Desire
20
Sexual-Excitement
Masturbation
21
Clitoral-Masturbation
22
Gay-Female-Mutual-Vaginal-Masturbation
23
Gay-Male-Mutual-Masturbation
24
Male-Masturbation
25
Vaginal-Masturbation
Oral Sex
26
Cunnilingus
27
Fellatio
28
Gay-Male-Mutual-Oral-Sex
29
Mutual-Oral-Sex, Sixty-Nine
Intercourse
30
Anal-Intercourse
52
31
Gay-Female-Intercourse
32
Gay-Male-Intercourse
33
Intercourse
34
Penetration
Other Sexual Activity
35
Be-Raped
36
Female-Bestiality
37
Group-Sex
38
Male-Bestiality
39
Many-Men-Using-One-Woman
40
Mate-Swapping
41
Rape
Individuals and Relationships
42
Adultery
43
Butch
44
Common-Law-Relationship
45
Effeminate
46
Fornication
47
Gay
48
Gay-Male
49
Gay-Female, Lesbian
50
Incest
51
Promiscuous-Person
52
Promiscuous-Woman
53
Prostitute
54
Straight
55
Virgin
56
Come-out-of-the-closet
Health, Hygiene, and Function
57
Menstruation
58
Sanitary-Napkin
Other Signs
59
Breast-Sucking (sexual)
60
Foreplay
61
French-Kissing
62
Go-To-Bed-Together
63
Hickey
53
64
Think-Dirty-Thoughts
65
sleep with many men
66
sleep with many women
67
bisexual
68
transsexual
69
Indecent assault
70
catamite
71
ask for prostitute
72
pimp
73
援交
74
one night stand (419)
75
change from gay back to heterosexual
76
change from heterosexual to gay
77
nude
78
Cyber-sex
79
pornographic website
80
X-rated movie
81
四級片
82
AIDS
83
puberty
84
precocity/early mature
85
destruction of virgin
86
young man having an affair/sex/get married with an old woman
87
young woman having an affair/sex/get married to an old man
88
gang rape
89
underage prostitute
90
一樓一鳳
91
黃色駕步
92
出鐘
93
pornographic place
94
red-light district
95
pornographic publication
96
male procuress
97
procuress
98
Exhibitionism
99
Fetish
54