Linguistic imperialism: still a valid construct in relation to language policy for Irish Sign Language

Abstract

Linguistic imperialism-a term used to conceptualize the dominance of one language over others-has been debated in language policy for more than two decades. Spolsky (Language policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004), for example, has questioned whether the spread of English was a result of language planning, or was incidental to colonialism and globalization. Phillipson (Lang Policy 6(3):377-383, 2007) contests this view, arguing that linguistic imperialism is not based on 'conspiracy', and is underpinned by evidence of explicit or implicit language policy that aims to intentionally advantage some languages at the expense of others. This paper analyses Irish Sign Language policy, or lack thereof, in terms of linguistic imperialism. It does this by presenting evidence within a conceptual framework of linguistic imperialism to explore how discrimination and inequality occurs in relation to Irish Sign Language users in Ireland. The findings highlight many policies and practices that fit the linguistic imperialism paradigm including linguicism, audism, and the denial of linguistic rights. The paper, therefore, challenges some views in language policy that linguistic imperialism lacks credibility by highlighting a current case of minority language (ISL) users under imperialistic-like control of policy geared towards a dominant language (English).

The Study of Heritage Language Development From a Bilingualism and Social Justice Perspective

“…Members of these otherwise very different communities are common targets of language‐related discrimination, or linguicism (Skutnabb‐Kangas, ), for how they sound (or write) in one or all their languages. If they are signers, they will experience audism and immense pressure for them and their families to conform to the surrounding hearing world (Humphries et al., ; Rose & Conama, ). HL speakers are grassroots, folk, or circumstantial bilinguals who are expected to develop their HLs only naturalistically, and who are told to maintain their home languages at their own risk.…”

The New Language Policy of the Nigerian Army: National Integration or Linguistic Imperialism?

“…Results show that the adoption of the three major Nigerian languages as working languages of the army is a mark of domination and exploitation of the minoritized languages in the army and, by extension, Nigeria as a whole. This evidence reveals that linguistic imperialism is alive and kicking (Rose and Conama, 2017: 16) in the professional context of the Nigerian Army.…”

Foreword

“…Across the years, we have also seen research on language policy (e.g. Conama, 2010Conama, , 2012Rose & Conama, 2017); deaf education (Mathews, 2011;O'Connell, 2013); aspects of the teaching, learning and assessment of ISL (e.g. Hoffman, Goslin, Nolan, Leeson, & Sheikh, 2010;Leeson & Grehan, 2010;Sadlier, 2007;Sheridan, 2019); and vi on a variety of aspects of sign language interpreting (e.g.…”