Creating a Dictionary for Setswana Sign Language: A Feasibility Study
A dictionary for Setswana Sign Language would be more than a collection of hand movements and definitions. It would be a record of how Deaf Setswana-speaking communities communicate, classify experience, explain culture and adapt to new settings such as schools, hospitals, workplaces and digital media. A serious feasibility study must therefore consider linguistic evidence, community ownership, visual design, technology, funding and long-term maintenance.
The Australian context offers useful points of comparison. Auslan has established dictionaries, interpreter training pathways and Deaf-led organisations, while Australian users are familiar with searchable online language resources and accessibility standards. At the same time, Setswana Sign Language would require its own research methods rather than being treated as a regional version of Auslan or as a signed form of spoken Setswana.
| Area | Setswana Sign Language Dictionary | Australian Reference Point |
|---|---|---|
| Primary users | Deaf signers, families, teachers, interpreters and researchers | Auslan users, schools, interpreters and public services |
| Evidence base | Recorded signing, community consultation and regional variation | Video corpora, dictionaries and Deaf community archives |
| Format | Video entries with glosses, meanings, examples and usage notes | Digital and printed resources, with increasing video access |
| Main risk | Imposing spoken-language grammar or ignoring local signs | Treating Auslan as uniform across all communities |
| Sustainable model | Deaf-led editorial team, institutional support and regular updates | Partnerships among Deaf organisations, universities and service providers |
Why The Project Matters
Setswana is spoken across Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and neighbouring areas, while Deaf communities may use different signing practices according to locality, school history, family networks and contact with other sign languages. A dictionary project must begin by recognising this variation. The goal is not to force every signer into one standard, but to document forms, meanings and patterns in a way that makes variation visible and useful.
The project also belongs within wider work on African languages and language documentation. T.J. Otlogetswe’s research interests demonstrate how lexicography, corpus linguistics, translation and language history can inform one another. For Setswana Sign Language, the same combination would support a resource that describes actual usage rather than simply translating entries from a spoken Setswana dictionary.
For Australian readers, the distinction between a signed language and a manually coded spoken language is especially important. Auslan has its own grammar, including spatial organisation, facial expression and discourse conventions. Setswana Sign Language should likewise be studied as a language with its own structure. A project that merely assigns Setswana words to signs would produce a word list, not a reliable dictionary.
Defining The Linguistic Scope
The first feasibility decision concerns the intended coverage. A small pilot might document several hundred high-frequency signs used in education, family life, health, transport and employment. A larger reference dictionary could include regional variants, technical vocabulary, idioms, name signs, borrowed signs and grammatical information. These options differ substantially in cost, staffing and time.
Each entry should contain a video demonstration, a written gloss, one or more meanings, example sentences or signed contexts, grammatical notes and information about regional use. A gloss is a research label, not a literal translation. It helps organise data, but it cannot fully represent a sign’s movement, location, orientation, facial expression or timing.
Spoken-language dictionaries also offer useful lessons about historical change. The history of the letter S in Setswana orthography shows how writing systems can reflect institutional decisions, pronunciation and contact between languages. A sign-language dictionary will face parallel questions: how should signs be named, how should variants be cross-referenced, and which conventions should be used when a sign has no established written form?
The project should therefore use written Setswana carefully. Entry labels might use Setswana terms where they are helpful, alongside English explanations and visual examples. Written labels must support access without suggesting that spoken Setswana grammar determines the grammar of the signed language.
Building A Community-Owned Evidence Base
A credible dictionary requires recorded language data. Researchers could collect video from Deaf signers in Botswana and South Africa, with attention to age, gender, education, region and professional background. Elicitation tasks might cover objects, actions, narratives and abstract concepts, but spontaneous conversation is equally important because it reveals discourse markers, turn-taking and natural variation.
Community participation should begin before filming. Deaf consultants, teachers, interpreters and family members can help identify priorities, review definitions and decide which recordings may be shared publicly. Consent agreements need to explain storage, future publication, commercial use and the right to withdraw material. A Deaf-led advisory group would provide stronger governance than occasional consultation after the main research has been completed.
Digital learning platforms may support training for data collectors and dictionary users. A resource such as online learning materials can illustrate the value of clear visual sequencing and modular instruction, although its design should not be copied uncritically. A Setswana Sign Language platform needs high-quality video, captions, playback controls, downloadable research information and interfaces that work on low-bandwidth connections.
Australia provides a practical reminder that accessibility is part of language design. Users in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and remote communities may access resources through different devices and internet conditions. The same principle applies across Southern Africa: a dictionary should work on a mobile phone, allow repeated viewing and avoid assuming that every user has reliable broadband or advanced computer equipment.
Technology, Search And Editorial Practice
A web-based dictionary is the most realistic starting point because signs are inherently visual and need movement-based examples. Each entry could include several clips: an isolated citation form, a natural conversational example, a regional variant and an explanation of grammatical behaviour. Search could operate through glosses, Setswana or English keywords, semantic domains, handshape, location and video tags.
Automatic sign recognition may eventually assist with searching and transcription, but it should not be the foundation of the first edition. Machine learning systems require large, carefully labelled datasets and can reproduce bias when they are trained on a narrow group of signers. Human review remains essential, especially for signs distinguished by facial expression, movement quality or discourse context.
Lexicographers should establish an editorial manual covering gloss conventions, variant labels, example translation, taboo vocabulary, proper names and borrowed signs. Historical and cultural notes can be valuable, but they should be separated from current definitions. The history of a word or sign does not automatically determine its present meaning; this is a principle familiar from studies of expressions such as the phrase lapsus linguae.
An open technical standard would make the resource easier to preserve and extend. Video files should have stable identifiers, descriptive metadata and backups held by more than one institution. Where possible, the platform should permit corrections and new regional entries without erasing earlier records. A change log would allow researchers to see how the dictionary develops.
Costs, Users And Long-Term Value
The main costs would include community payments, travel, filming, transcription, translation, software development, server storage, editorial work and project management. A pilot with 300 to 500 entries could be feasible through a university, Deaf association or language institute, particularly if equipment and technical expertise are shared. A national-scale dictionary would require multi-year funding and a more formal governance structure.
Potential users form a strong social and economic case. Deaf children need accessible educational vocabulary; parents need reliable resources when learning to communicate; teachers and interpreters need consistent documentation; health workers and public servants need terminology for respectful service delivery. Employers may also benefit from a resource covering workplace safety, technology and professional communication.
The Australian market offers several relevant models for sustainability. Auslan resources are used in schools, interpreter education, community programs and accessibility services rather than being sold only as ordinary consumer dictionaries. A Setswana Sign Language dictionary could similarly combine public funding, institutional subscriptions, educational licences and free community access. Any commercial arrangement should protect community rights and ensure that payment does not become a barrier to essential use.
Feasibility should be measured through evidence rather than enthusiasm. Useful indicators include the number and diversity of contributors, completion time per entry, user success in finding signs, willingness of schools to adopt the platform, technical performance on mobile devices and the proportion of users who judge definitions accurate and respectful. A pilot can also reveal whether one shared dictionary is practical or whether linked regional editions would better reflect actual signing communities.
A Practical Pilot Path
The strongest first step would be a six-month scoping phase involving Deaf organisations, Setswana linguists, sign-language researchers, teachers, interpreters and software specialists. The team would map existing resources, agree on ethical procedures, identify priority domains and recruit a representative group of signers. It should also document related sign-language names and avoid assuming that school vocabulary reflects the wider community.
The pilot could then produce 300 carefully edited entries across everyday communication, education, health, family life and public services. Each entry would contain video, gloss, English and Setswana explanations where appropriate, usage examples, regional notes and contributor information. A small group of Deaf reviewers should test every entry before publication, followed by classroom and community trials.
The project would be viable if it demonstrates three things: users can find and understand the entries, contributors retain meaningful control over their language data, and a host institution can maintain the platform after initial funding ends. These conditions matter more than producing a large number of entries quickly. A modest, trusted resource will provide a stronger foundation for expansion than an extensive database with weak documentation.
The concrete next step is to convene a Deaf-led feasibility workshop in Gaborone and invite participants to select the first 50 signs for recording, establish consent rules and nominate the editorial team.