Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T15:37:23.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Language policy and planning in Deaf communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Josep Quer  and
Ronice Müller de Quadros
Edited by
Adam C. Schembri  and
Ceil Lucas
Josep Quer
Affiliation:
Pompeu Fabra University
Ronice Müller de Quadros
Affiliation:
Federal University of Santa Catarina
Adam C. Schembri
Affiliation:
La Trobe University, Victoria
Ceil Lucas
Affiliation:
Gallaudet University, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

Introduction: language policy and planning in Deaf communities

Language policies represent a kind of social intervention in a community. This is not new: for many decades nations and states have been inducing and even forcing people to adopt specific languages or to use specific forms of a language in their interactions. In this sense, the term “language policy” can be used with respect to rather diverse contexts. A language policy will determine decisions regarding the use of languages in a specific country or within linguistic communities (Cooper 1989). To this end, “language planning” will be followed to implement a specific language policy. Haugen (1959) referred in the following way to “language planning” when discussing language intervention in modern Norway:

Ideas concerning linguistics engineering have here reached out from the quiet studies of linguistics to the market place, where they have affected every citizen and his children.

(68)

This passage gives us an idea of what linguistic policy is about: social intervention at the language level. For Haugen, language planning involves developing a normative orthography, grammar and dictionary to establish the prestigious dialect of a language in a specific community. The goal of language planners is to conduct language policies in specific communities. These decisions may or may not coincide with the community's interests in relation to language use, as reported by several researchers, including language planning for Deaf communities (for recent examples, see Behares, Brovetto, and Crespi 2012; Geraci 2012; Meir and Sandler 2008; Quadros 2012; Quer 2012; Schermer 2012a, 2012b). In this seminal publication, Haugen already underscores the question about changes in languages that are driven by political decisions. It is clear that language planning is a complex issue, since it will not only concern linguistic issues with regard to a language and its community, but it will also imply ethical aspects from the community perspectives, together with political ones: language planning means much more than establishing normative language standards, because it incorporates ideological and political stands with respect to a community.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sociolinguistics and Deaf Communities , pp. 120 - 145
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Fityani, K. and Padden, C. (2010) Sign languages in the Arab world. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey (pp. 433–450). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barros, M. E. (2008) ELiS – Escrita das Línguas de Sinais: proposta teórica e verificação prática, Ph.D. thesis, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.
Behares, L. E., Brovetto, C., and Crespi, L. P. (2012) Language policies in Uruguay and Uruguayan Sign Language (LSU). Sign Language Studies 12(4): 519–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, H. and Kuiken, F. (2002) Basisgrammatica Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Amsterdam/Bunnik: University of Amsterdam/Dutch Sign Language Centre.Google Scholar
Branson, J. and Miller, D. (2004). The cultural construction of linguistic incompetence through schooling: Deaf education and the transformation of the linguistic environment in Bali. Indonesia. Sign Language Studies 5(1): 6–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brien, D. (ed.) (1992) Dictionary of British Sign Language/English. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Cobarrubias, J. (1983) Language planning: The state of the art. In Cobarrubias, J. and Fishman, J. (eds.), Progress in Language Planning (pp. 3–26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cobarrubias, J. and Fishman, J. A. (eds.) (1983) Progress in Language Planning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (1989) Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Council of Arab Ministers of Social Affairs (2004) Background paper on the international convention for the protection and promotion of the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. Available at
Davis, J. (1989) Distinguishing language contact phenomena in ASL interpretation. In Lucas, C. (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community (pp. 85–102). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotter, F. (2006) ‘Soft’ standardization of sign languages?Veröffentlichungen des Zentrums für Gebärdensprache und Hörbehindertenkommunikation der Universität Klagenfurt 8: 98–118.Google Scholar
Duke, Irene (2009) The Everything Sign Language Book, 2nd edn. Avon, US: Adams Media.Google Scholar
Eichmann, Hanna, Hansen, Martje, and Heßmann, Jens (eds.) (2012) Handbuch Deutsche Gebärdensprache. Sprachwissenschaftliche und anwendungsbezogene Perspektiven. Seedorf: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
EUD [n.d] International Sign Disclaimer. European Union of the Deaf. Available at
Ferguson, C. A. (1959) Diglossia. Word 15: 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1968) Language development. In Fishman, J. A., Ferguson, C. A., and Jyotirindra, D. G. (eds.), Language Problems of Developing Nations (pp. 27–36). New York, London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ferjan Ramirez, N., Leonard, M. K., Halgren, E., and Mayberry, , , R. I. (2013) The neural correlates of childhood linguistic isolation. In Baiz, S., Goldman, N., and Hawkes, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 37th Boston University Conference on Language Development (vol. I, pp. 110–121). Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. and Lane, H. (1993) Looking back: A Reader on the History of Deaf Communities and their Sign Languages. Seedorf: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1974) Language planning and language planning research: The state of the art. In Fishman, J. A. (ed.), Advances in Language Planning (pp. 15–33). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theory and Practice of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Geraci, C. (2012) Language policy and planning: The case of Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 12(4): 494–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, E. (1959) Planning in modern Norway. Anthropological Linguistics 1(3): 68–81.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1966) Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case of modern Norwegian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrero Blanco, Ángel (2009) Gramática didáctica de la lengua de signos española (LSE). Madrid: S.M.Google Scholar
Herreweghe, M. and Vermeerbergen, M. (2009) Flemish Sign Language standardisation. Current Issues in Language Planning 10(3): 308–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herreweghe, M. and Vermeerbergen, M. (2012) Data collection. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., and Woll, B. (eds.), Sign Languages (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, HSK (pp. 1023–1045). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heryanto, A. (1995) Language Development and Development of Language: The Case of Indonesia. Pacific Linguistics, Series D86, Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. (2001) The lexical database of Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Sign Language and Linguistics 4: 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloss, H. (1969) Possibilities on Group Bilingualism: A Report. Quebec: International Centre for Research on Bilingualism.Google Scholar
Knorrs, H. and Marschark, M. (2012) Language planning for the 21st century: Revisiting bilingual language policy for deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 17(3): 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausneker, V. (2009) On the legal status of sign languages: A commented compilation of resources. Current Issues in Language Planning 10(3): 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, W. E. (1978) Some cognitive and sociocultural consequences of being bilingual. In Alatis, J. E. (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp. 214–229). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. (2002) The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lucas, C. and Valli, C. (1992) Language Contact in the American Deaf Community. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mahshie, S. (1995) Educating Deaf Children Bilingually. Washington, DC: Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I., Chen, J.-K., Witcher, P., and Klein, D. (2011) Age of acquisition effects on the functional organization of language in the adult brain. Brain and Language 119: 16–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meir, I. and Sandler, W. (2008) A Language in Space: The Story of Israeli Sign Language. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mesch, J. (2010) Perspectives of the Concept and Definition of International Sign. World Federation of the Deaf. Available at
Mesthrie, R. (2006) Language, transformation and development: A sociolinguistic appraisal of post-apartheid South African language policy and practice. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 24(2): 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neustupny, Jiri V. (1970) Basic types of treatment of language problems. Linguistic Communication 1: 77–98.Google Scholar
Newport, E. (1990) Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science 14(1): 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ngcobo, M. N. (2013) Language planning, policy and implementation in South Africa. Accessed 12/08/2013
Padden, C. and Humphries, T. (1988) Deaf in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, C. and Humphries, T. (2005) Inside Deaf Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Papaspyrou, C., von Meyenn, A., Matthaei, M., and Herrmann, B. (2008) Grammatik der Deutschen Gebärdensprache aus der Sicht gehörloser Fachleute. Seedorf: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Penn, C. and Reagan, T. (1991) Toward a national policy for deaf education in the ‘new’ South Africa. South African Journal of Communication Disorders 38: 19–24.Google Scholar
Penn, C. and Reagan, T. (1994) The properties of South African Sign Language: Lexical diversity and syntactic unity. Sign Language Studies 85: 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penn, C. and Reagan, T. (1995) On the other hand: Implications of the study of South African Sign Language for the education of the deaf in South Africa. South African Journal of Education 15: 92–96.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. (1997) Educação de surdos: a aquisição da linguagem. Porto Alegre: Artes Médicas.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. (2012) Linguistic Policies, Linguistic Planning, and Brazilian Sign Language in Brazil. In Sign Language Studies, Special Issue on Language Planning for Sign Languages. 12.4: 543–564.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. and Cruz, Carina (2011) Línguas de Sinais: Instrumentos de Avaliação. Porto Alegre: ArtMed.Google Scholar
Quer, J. (2012) Legal pathways to recognition of sign languages: a comparison of the Catalan and Spanish sign language acts. Sign Language Studies 12(4): 565–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quer, J. et al. (2005). Gramàtica bàsica LSC. Barcelona: FESOCA-Universitat de Barcelona. Available online at Google Scholar
Quer, J. and Quadros, R.M (2012) Sign Language Studies, Special Issue on Language Planning for Sign Languages 12(4).
Reagan, T. (2001) Language planning and policy. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages (pp. 145–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reagan, T. (2006) Language policy and sign languages. In Ricento, T. (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method (pp. 329–345). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reagan, T. (2010) Language Policy and Planning for Sign Languages. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Ricento, T. (ed.) (2006) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rosenstock, R. (2004) An investigation of international sign: Analyzing structure and comprehension, Ph.D. dissertation, Gallaudet University.
Rubin, J. and Jernudd, B. (eds.) (1971) Can Language Be Planned?Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Schembri, A. and Johnston, T. (2012) Sociolinguistics aspects of variation and change. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., and Woll, B. (eds.), Sign Languages (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, HSK) (pp. 788–816). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schembri, A. and Johnston, T. (2013) Sociolinguistic variation and change in sign languages. In Bayley, R., Cameron, R., and Lucas, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 503–524). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schermer, T. (2012a) Language planning. In Bayley, R., Cameron, R., and Lucas, C. (eds.), Sign Languages (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, HSK) (pp. 889–908). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schermer, T. (2012b) Sign language planning in the Netherlands between 1980 and 2010. Sign Language Studies 12(4): 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shantie, C. and Hoffmeister, R. J. (2000) Why schools for deaf children should hire deaf teachers: A preschool issue. Journal of Education 3(182): 37–47.Google Scholar
Singleton, J. L. E and Newport, E. (2004) When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology 49: 370–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skant, A., Dotter, F., Bergmeister, E., Hilzensauer, M., Hobel, K., Krammer, I., Okorn, C., Orasche, R., Ortner, , and Unterberger, N. (2002) Grammatik der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache. Veröffentlichungen des Forschungszentrum für Gebärdensprache und Hörgeschädigtenkommunikation der Universität Klagenfurt: Band 4: 2002. Klagenfurt: ZGH.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. and Shohamy, E. G. (1999) The Languages of Israel: Policy, Ideology and Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. (1960) Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf, Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers (No. 8). Buffalo: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo. [reprinted Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10(1) 2005]Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. C., Casterline, D. C., and Croneberg, C. G. (1965) A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press. [reprinted in 1976 by Linstok Press]Google Scholar
Strong, M. (1995) A Review of bilingual/bicultural programs for deaf children in North America. American Annals of the Deaf 140(2): 84–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutton, V. Signwriting system. At (accessed August, 28 2013).
Sutton, V. (1981) Sign Writing for Everyday Use. La Jolla: Deaf Action Committee for Sign Writing.Google Scholar
Tauli, V. 1968. Introduction to a Theory of Language Planning. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Wheatley, M. and Pabsch, A. (2010) Sign Language Legislation in the European Union. Brussels: EUD.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×