Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Notes on Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Sign languages in the world
- 3 Sign languages in contact
- 4 Variation and change in sign languages
- 5 Discourse analysis and sign languages
- 6 Language policy and planning in Deaf communities
- 7 Language attitudes in Deaf communities
- Index
- References
6 - Language policy and planning in Deaf communities
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2015
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Tables
- Notes on Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Sign languages in the world
- 3 Sign languages in contact
- 4 Variation and change in sign languages
- 5 Discourse analysis and sign languages
- 6 Language policy and planning in Deaf communities
- 7 Language attitudes in Deaf communities
- Index
- References
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 - 145Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
and (2010) Sign languages in the Arab world. In (ed.), Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey (pp. 433–450). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(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.
, , and (2012) Language policies in Uruguay and Uruguayan Sign Language (LSU). Sign Language Studies 12(4): 519–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2002) Basisgrammatica Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Amsterdam/Bunnik: University of Amsterdam/Dutch Sign Language Centre.Google Scholar
and (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
(1983) Language planning: The state of the art. In and (eds.), Progress in Language Planning (pp. 3–26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2004) Background paper on the international convention for the protection and promotion of the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. Available at
(1989) Distinguishing language contact phenomena in ASL interpretation. In (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community (pp. 85–102). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006) ‘Soft’ standardization of sign languages?Veröffentlichungen des Zentrums für Gebärdensprache und Hörbehindertenkommunikation der Universität Klagenfurt 8: 98–118.Google Scholar
, , and (eds.) (2012) Handbuch Deutsche Gebärdensprache. Sprachwissenschaftliche und anwendungsbezogene Perspektiven. Seedorf: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
[n.d] International Sign Disclaimer. European Union of the Deaf. Available at
(1968) Language development. In , , and (eds.), Language Problems of Developing Nations (pp. 27–36). New York, London: Wiley.Google Scholar
, , , and , (2013) The neural correlates of childhood linguistic isolation. In , , and (eds.) Proceedings of the 37th Boston University Conference on Language Development (vol. I, pp. 110–121). Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
and (1993) Looking back: A Reader on the History of Deaf Communities and their Sign Languages. Seedorf: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
(1974) Language planning and language planning research: The state of the art. In (ed.), Advances in Language Planning (pp. 15–33). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theory and Practice of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(2012) Language policy and planning: The case of Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 12(4): 494–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1966) Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case of modern Norwegian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2009) Flemish Sign Language standardisation. Current Issues in Language Planning 10(3): 308–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2012) Data collection. In , , and (eds.), Sign Languages (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, HSK (pp. 1023–1045). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(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
(2001) The lexical database of Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Sign Language and Linguistics 4: 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1969) Possibilities on Group Bilingualism: A Report. Quebec: International Centre for Research on Bilingualism.Google Scholar
and (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
(2009) On the legal status of sign languages: A commented compilation of resources. Current Issues in Language Planning 10(3): 351–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1978) Some cognitive and sociocultural consequences of being bilingual. In (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp. 214–229). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
(2002) The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1995) Educating Deaf Children Bilingually. Washington, DC: Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center.Google Scholar
, , , and (2011) Age of acquisition effects on the functional organization of language in the adult brain. Brain and Language 119: 16–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2008) A Language in Space: The Story of Israeli Sign Language. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2010) Perspectives of the Concept and Definition of International Sign. World Federation of the Deaf. Available at
(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
(1970) Basic types of treatment of language problems. Linguistic Communication 1: 77–98.Google Scholar
(1990) Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science 14(1): 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Language planning, policy and implementation in South Africa. Accessed 12/08/2013
, , , and (2008) Grammatik der Deutschen Gebärdensprache aus der Sicht gehörloser Fachleute. Seedorf: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
and (1991) Toward a national policy for deaf education in the ‘new’ South Africa. South African Journal of Communication Disorders 38: 19–24.Google Scholar
and (1994) The properties of South African Sign Language: Lexical diversity and syntactic unity. Sign Language Studies 85: 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (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
(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
(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
et al. (2005). Gramàtica bàsica LSC. Barcelona: FESOCA-Universitat de Barcelona. Available online at Google Scholar
and (2012) Sign Language Studies, Special Issue on Language Planning for Sign Languages 12(4).
(2001) Language planning and policy. In (ed.), Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages (pp. 145–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Language policy and sign languages. In (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method (pp. 329–345). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2010) Language Policy and Planning for Sign Languages. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
(ed.) (2006) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2004) An investigation of international sign: Analyzing structure and comprehension, Ph.D. dissertation, Gallaudet University.
and (2012) Sociolinguistics aspects of variation and change. In , , and (eds.), Sign Languages (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, HSK) (pp. 788–816). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
and (2013) Sociolinguistic variation and change in sign languages. In , , and (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 503–524). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012a) Language planning. In , , and (eds.), Sign Languages (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, HSK) (pp. 889–908). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2012b) Sign language planning in the Netherlands between 1980 and 2010. Sign Language Studies 12(4): 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2000) Why schools for deaf children should hire deaf teachers: A preschool issue. Journal of Education 3(182): 37–47.Google Scholar
and (2004) When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology 49: 370–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , , , , , , and (2002) Grammatik der Österreichischen Gebärdensprache. Veröffentlichungen des Forschungszentrum für Gebärdensprache und Hörgeschädigtenkommunikation der Universität Klagenfurt: Band 4: 2002. Klagenfurt: ZGH.Google Scholar
and (1999) The Languages of Israel: Policy, Ideology and Practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(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
, , and (1965) A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press. [reprinted in 1976 by Linstok Press]Google Scholar
(1995) A Review of bilingual/bicultural programs for deaf children in North America. American Annals of the Deaf 140(2): 84–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
. Signwriting system. At (accessed August, 28 2013).
. (1981) Sign Writing for Everyday Use. La Jolla: Deaf Action Committee for Sign Writing.Google Scholar
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
- 5
- Cited by