Introduction: The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages: Advocacy and Outcomes Around the World

Meulder, Maartje De; Murray, Joseph J.; McKee, Rachel

doi:10.21832/9781788924016-002

Cited by 24 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(2) Shielded by sensory impasse from the communicative flow of spoken languages, these interactive spaces initially emerged as a self-sustaining ecosystem of language and belonging which land-formed within the interactive spaces of multigenerational 3 For sign languages in general (De Meulder et al 2019) and for BSL in particular (Jones 2016), it has not. One possibility is that the policy is simply too young.…”

Section: Sign Language Peoples As Indigenous People; íTm Is An Indigenous Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Batterbury et al also cite one other piece of evidence for the current status of SLPs, their languages: despite the clear articulation of the "self-determination" stance in the indigenous language literature, many in the indigenous research field would not extend indigeneity discourse to the SLP community. 7 To the long but far from comprehensive list in Batterbury et al (2007), we add the following: because the people that use those languages are minoritized in both policy and general public view (Krausneker 2003;De Meulder et al 2019), including access to the right of the native language itself, language instruction associated with sign languages is best described as utilitarian (Snoddon and Meulder 2020), reminiscent of the so-called "cognitive imperialism" structures (Battiste 2018, a.o.). In short, Batterbury et al (2007), among others, demonstrate that the term "indigenous" in (2) is directly applicable to SLPs and, by extension, to their languages.…”

Section: Sign Language Peoples As Indigenous People; íTm Is An Indigenous Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to Ensure Bilingualism/Biliteracy in an Indigenous Context: The Case of Icelandic Sign Language

Koulidobrova

Sverrisdóttir

2021

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper discusses the implementation of a bilingual education language policy in the context of endangered indigenous sign language—Icelandic Sign Language (íslenskt táknmál, ÍTM). Unlike other indigenous endangered languages (e.g., Sámi), or other sign languages (e.g., American Sign Language, ASL), ÍTM has received certain recognition typically associated with equitable language policy—by law, it is considered the “first language” of the deaf/hard of hearing Icelanders; further, Iceland overtly states that ÍTM-signing children must be educated bilingually. However, we show that as a country that has committed itself to linguistic equality as well as the support of indigenous languages under the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, Iceland still has a way to go—both in terms of language attitudes and the associated implementations. We analyze the current situation focusing on the issues of bilingualism and biliteracy (vis-à-vis indigeneity and endangerment), explain the reason for the state of affairs by contextualizing the barrier to both for signers, and offer an explicit path forward which articulates the responsibilities of the power structures as well as potential outcomes related to revitalization, should these responsibilities be fulfilled.

show abstract

Section: Sign Language Peoples As Indigenous People; íTm Is An Indigenous Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sign Language Peoples As Indigenous People; íTm Is An Indigenous Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

How to Ensure Bilingualism/Biliteracy in an Indigenous Context: The Case of Icelandic Sign Language

Koulidobrova

Sverrisdóttir

2021

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, we build our analysis upon the growing research literature about and meta-studies of sign language legislation and recognition (examples are De Meulder, 2015;De Meulder et al, 2019;Murray, 2015;Reagan, 2010), and our study should also be considered as a contribution to the growing body of research that critically assesses the impact of sign language legislation.…”

Section: A Comparative Studyour Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Status planninglanguage legislation Reagan (2010) mentions status planning as the most visible language planning activity regarding sign languages from a global perspective. Status planning activities include legal recognition; De Meulder (2015) has categorised recognition of sign languages into explicit and implicit recognition, where the latter "refers to legislation that implicitly acknowledges the use of sign language via measures addressing disability access" (De Meulder et al, 2019). As will be shown below, SSL and NTS have been implicitly recognised since 1979 and 1985 respectively, and explicitly since 2008 (NTS) and 2009 (SSL).…”

Section: Language Documentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study confirms that legal recognition alone is not sufficient to understand the status of a signed language in a particular country (cf. De Meulder, Murray, & McKee, 2019;Murray, 2015). In the case of signed languages, education policies and resources, disability politics, research activities and attitudes among sign language people are factors to consider when assessing the status of a particular signed language and the people who use the language.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When language recognition and language shaming go hand in hand – sign language ideologies in Sweden and Norway

Haualand

Holmström

2019

Deafness & Education International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on the similar approaches to, yet different contexts of legal recognition of sign languages in Sweden and Norway. We use examples from sign language documentation (both scientific and popular), legislation that mentions sign language, organization of implementation of sign language acquisition, and public discourse (as expressed by deaf associations' periodicals from the 1970s until today), to discuss the status and ideologies of sign language, and how these have affected deaf education. The legal documents indicate that Norway has a stronger and more wide-reaching legislation, especially sign language acquisition rights, but the formal legal recognition of a sign language is not necessarily reflected in how people discuss the status of the sign language. Our analysis reveals that the countries' sign languages have been subject to language shaming, defined as the enactment of linguistic subordination. The language shaming has not only been enacted by external actors, but has also come from within deaf communities. Our material indicates that language shaming has been more evident in the Norwegian Deaf community, while the Swedish Deaf community has been more active in using a "story of legislation" in the imagination and rhetoric about the Swedish deaf community and bilingual education. The similarities in legislation, but differences in deaf education, popular discourse and representation of the sign languages, reveal that looking at the level and scope of legal recognition of sign language in a country, only partially reflects the acceptance and status of sign language in general. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Enhancing word signing in hearing students with reading disorders using computer‐based learning trials

Evans,

Skinner,

Wolbers

et al. 2024

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple‐baseline‐across‐word‐sets designs were used to determine whether a computer‐based intervention would enhance accurate word signing with four participants. Each participant was a hearing college student with reading disorders. Learning trials included 3 s to observe printed words on the screen and a video model performing the sign twice (i.e., simultaneous prompting), 3 s to make the sign, 3 s to observe the same clip, and 3 s to make the sign again. For each participant and word set, no words were accurately signed during baseline. After the intervention, all four participants increased their accurate word signing across all three word sets, providing 12 demonstrations of experimental control. For each participant, accurate word signing was maintained. Application of efficient, technology‐based, simultaneous prompting interventions for enhancing American Sign Language learning and future research designed to investigate causal mechanisms and optimize intervention effects are discussed.

show abstract

Introduction: The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages: Advocacy and Outcomes Around the World

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

How to Ensure Bilingualism/Biliteracy in an Indigenous Context: The Case of Icelandic Sign Language

How to Ensure Bilingualism/Biliteracy in an Indigenous Context: The Case of Icelandic Sign Language

When language recognition and language shaming go hand in hand – sign language ideologies in Sweden and Norway

Enhancing word signing in hearing students with reading disorders using computer‐based learning trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About