Buttering their Bread on Both Sides? The Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities

Maartje De Meulder, Joseph J. Murray

Résultats de recherche: Contribution à un journal/une revueArticle

Résumé

In the past two decades, a wave of campaigns to recognise sign languages have taken place in numerous countries. These campaigns sought official recognition of national sign languages, with the aim of enhancing signers’ social mobility and protecting the vitality of sign languages. These activities differ from a long history of sign language planning from a ‘language as a problem’ approach largely used by educators and policymakers to date. However, the instrumental rights and social mobility obtained as a result have thus far been limited with educational linguistic and language acquisition rights especially lacking. This article identifies two reasons for this situation. First, a view of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) from a medical perspective has led to confusion about the meaning of linguistic rights for them and led governments to treat sign language planning differently than that for spoken languages. Furthermore, SLPs political participation is hindered by recognition being offered by governments without substantial commitments to financial resources, changes in government practices or greater inclusion of sign languages in public life. One exception to this trend are sign language planning bodies, but even these face challenges in the implementation phase. Going forward, we argue that sign language recognition legislation should centre on deaf communities’ concerns regarding sign language vitality. In addition to a need to ensure acquisition for deaf L1 signers, we contend that while the expansion of hearing L2 users of sign language can be interpreted in terms of language endangerment it can also be seen as strengthening sign languages’ vitality.
langueAnglais
journalLanguage Problems and Language Planning
Les DOIs
étatAccepté/sous presse - 2017

Empreinte digitale

Planning
Linguistics
language
community
Audition
History
Social Mobility
planning
campaign
endangerment
linguistics
spoken language
political participation
language acquisition
legislation
inclusion
educator
commitment
trend
history

mots-clés

    Citer ceci

    @article{daa4dbf64ceb4a1d9026a9d6166ba743,
    title = "Buttering their Bread on Both Sides? The Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities",
    abstract = "In the past two decades, a wave of campaigns to recognise sign languages have taken place in numerous countries. These campaigns sought official recognition of national sign languages, with the aim of enhancing signers’ social mobility and protecting the vitality of sign languages. These activities differ from a long history of sign language planning from a ‘language as a problem’ approach largely used by educators and policymakers to date. However, the instrumental rights and social mobility obtained as a result have thus far been limited with educational linguistic and language acquisition rights especially lacking. This article identifies two reasons for this situation. First, a view of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) from a medical perspective has led to confusion about the meaning of linguistic rights for them and led governments to treat sign language planning differently than that for spoken languages. Furthermore, SLPs political participation is hindered by recognition being offered by governments without substantial commitments to financial resources, changes in government practices or greater inclusion of sign languages in public life. One exception to this trend are sign language planning bodies, but even these face challenges in the implementation phase. Going forward, we argue that sign language recognition legislation should centre on deaf communities’ concerns regarding sign language vitality. In addition to a need to ensure acquisition for deaf L1 signers, we contend that while the expansion of hearing L2 users of sign language can be interpreted in terms of language endangerment it can also be seen as strengthening sign languages’ vitality.",
    keywords = "Deaf communities, Language rights, New signers, Sign language legislation, Sign language planning, Sign language vitality",
    author = "{De Meulder}, Maartje and Murray, {Joseph J.}",
    year = "2017",
    doi = "10.1075/lplp.41.2.04dem",
    language = "English",
    journal = "Language Problems and Language Planning",
    issn = "0272-2690",
    publisher = "John Benjamins Publishing Company",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Buttering their Bread on Both Sides? The Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities

    AU - De Meulder,Maartje

    AU - Murray ,Joseph J.

    PY - 2017

    Y1 - 2017

    N2 - In the past two decades, a wave of campaigns to recognise sign languages have taken place in numerous countries. These campaigns sought official recognition of national sign languages, with the aim of enhancing signers’ social mobility and protecting the vitality of sign languages. These activities differ from a long history of sign language planning from a ‘language as a problem’ approach largely used by educators and policymakers to date. However, the instrumental rights and social mobility obtained as a result have thus far been limited with educational linguistic and language acquisition rights especially lacking. This article identifies two reasons for this situation. First, a view of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) from a medical perspective has led to confusion about the meaning of linguistic rights for them and led governments to treat sign language planning differently than that for spoken languages. Furthermore, SLPs political participation is hindered by recognition being offered by governments without substantial commitments to financial resources, changes in government practices or greater inclusion of sign languages in public life. One exception to this trend are sign language planning bodies, but even these face challenges in the implementation phase. Going forward, we argue that sign language recognition legislation should centre on deaf communities’ concerns regarding sign language vitality. In addition to a need to ensure acquisition for deaf L1 signers, we contend that while the expansion of hearing L2 users of sign language can be interpreted in terms of language endangerment it can also be seen as strengthening sign languages’ vitality.

    AB - In the past two decades, a wave of campaigns to recognise sign languages have taken place in numerous countries. These campaigns sought official recognition of national sign languages, with the aim of enhancing signers’ social mobility and protecting the vitality of sign languages. These activities differ from a long history of sign language planning from a ‘language as a problem’ approach largely used by educators and policymakers to date. However, the instrumental rights and social mobility obtained as a result have thus far been limited with educational linguistic and language acquisition rights especially lacking. This article identifies two reasons for this situation. First, a view of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) from a medical perspective has led to confusion about the meaning of linguistic rights for them and led governments to treat sign language planning differently than that for spoken languages. Furthermore, SLPs political participation is hindered by recognition being offered by governments without substantial commitments to financial resources, changes in government practices or greater inclusion of sign languages in public life. One exception to this trend are sign language planning bodies, but even these face challenges in the implementation phase. Going forward, we argue that sign language recognition legislation should centre on deaf communities’ concerns regarding sign language vitality. In addition to a need to ensure acquisition for deaf L1 signers, we contend that while the expansion of hearing L2 users of sign language can be interpreted in terms of language endangerment it can also be seen as strengthening sign languages’ vitality.

    KW - Deaf communities

    KW - Language rights

    KW - New signers

    KW - Sign language legislation

    KW - Sign language planning

    KW - Sign language vitality

    U2 - 10.1075/lplp.41.2.04dem

    DO - 10.1075/lplp.41.2.04dem

    M3 - Article

    JO - Language Problems and Language Planning

    T2 - Language Problems and Language Planning

    JF - Language Problems and Language Planning

    SN - 0272-2690

    ER -