3 results
29 - Sign Language Standardization
- from Part V - Standardization in Late Modernity
- Edited by Wendy Ayres-Bennett, University of Cambridge, John Bellamy, University of Cambridge
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- Published online:
- 01 July 2021
- Print publication:
- 22 July 2021, pp 765-788
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter addresses issues related to sign language standardization, a topic that has been approached from many different perspectives. To some members of the Deaf communities, language standardization represents a form of outsider oppression meant to ‘fill in gaps’ with the establishment of a ‘standard’ sign language that is ‘more consistent’. In this sense, there is a resistance in some Deaf communities against dictionaries or glossaries proposed for educational purposes or for teaching sign language. On the other hand, others in the Deaf communities discuss how to standardize their language(s) considering different motivations that are more inclusive, such as the recognition of the diverse varieties of a sign language and how to deal with them. These points are discussed considering the complex factors that are involved in the tentative language standardization processes of sign languages in many different countries. We present and discuss the different experiences and motivations of various language planning projects that include proposals of sign language standardization. We conclude that a successful language standardization process needs to include Deaf professionals as the protagonists.
6 - Language policy and planning in Deaf communities
-
- By Josep Quer, Pompeu Fabra University, Ronice Müller de Quadros, Federal University of Santa Catarina
- Edited by Adam C. Schembri, La Trobe University, Victoria, Ceil Lucas, Gallaudet University, Washington DC
-
- Book:
- Sociolinguistics and Deaf Communities
- Published online:
- 05 February 2015
- Print publication:
- 12 February 2015, pp 120-145
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
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.
11 - Clause structure
- from II - SHARED CROSSLINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS
-
- By Ronice Müller De Quadros, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Diane Lillo-Martin, University of Connecticut, Storrs
- Edited by Diane Brentari, Purdue University, Indiana
-
- Book:
- Sign Languages
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 27 May 2010, pp 225-251
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
This chapter is concerned with the clause structure of Brazilian Sign Language (LSB) and American Sign Language (ASL). In order to investigate clause structure, we devote some consideration to issues of basic and derived word order. These considerations allow us to formulate a proposed structure which captures the word order possibilities.
We find that LSB and ASL share a basic word order of Subject-Verb-Object (SVO). However, other word orders are also possible due to a variety of syntactic processes including topicalization, object shift and focus.
The chapter also discusses ways in which clause structure is different for sentences with agreeing verbs versus plain verbs (cf. chapters in this volume by Mathur and Rathmann and by Padden et al. on verb agreement). These differences motivate distinct phrase structures for sentences of the two types.
The structures in this chapter are presented using the terminology of generative syntax (see, among others, Chomsky 1995, Bošković & Lasnik 2007). We find that the formalism of this approach allows us to ask specific, detailed questions and make explicit proposals. The observations and generalizations we make are empirically based, however, and should be of interest to linguists using other approaches as well.
Our approach contributes to the overall goal of this volume by exploring the crosslinguistic similarities and differences between two geographically distinct sign languages. LSB and ASL have many similarities in word order and clause structure, but they also show intriguing differences.