Language Policies and Sign Languages

Author(s):  
Ronice Müller de Quadros

This chapter argues for specific actions needed for language planning and language policies involving sign languages and Deaf communities, based on the understanding of what sign languages are, who the signers are, where they sign, and the sign language transmission and maintenance mechanisms of the Deaf community. The first section presents an overview of sign languages and their users, highlighting that sign languages are often used in contexts where most people use spoken languages. The second section addresses the functions, roles, and status of sign languages in relation to spoken languages, as well as the relationship between Deaf communities and hearing society. The medical view of deafness, which has a significant impact on language policies for Deaf people, is critically considered. The third section offers examples of language policies, especially related to the use of sign languages in education, and an agenda for future work on sign language policy and planning.

Author(s):  
Eva Codó

This chapter maps out the empirical research conducted on language policy and practice in neoliberalising institutional spaces. The chapter is divided according to three main types of institutional spaces: the workplace, education, and civil society organisations. The analysis examines individual subjectivities, institutional regimes, and political economy in contemporary institutions. The first section reviews studies that have investigated changing language policies and practices in relation to labour processes in the neoliberalised work environments of late modernity. The second section refers to the ways in which the neoliberalisation of education has impacted on and been achieved through language policies in that domain. The third section discusses research that has addressed the study of language policy in nongovernmental organisations providing services outsourced by the state. The chapter concludes with a discussion of possible avenues for further investigation of language policy and planning (LPP), institutions, and neoliberalisation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Socorro Cláudia Tavares de Sousa ◽  
Cynthia Israelly Barbalho Dionísio

ABSTRACT The aim of this work is to present an overview of the themes discussed in the field of Language Policy and Planning over the last twenty-one years (1990-2010) in Brazil, comparing the alignment of Brazilian research with the international scenario. To that end, expanded notions of language policy were adopted (COOPER, 1989; SHIFFMAN, 1996, 2006; SPOLSKY, 2004, 2009, 2012) and a survey was carried out in order to find the number of articles in the field in a sample of abstracts from Brazilian academic journals of Linguistics and Literature. The main themes identified in this study were: educational language policies, language planning, languages in contact, diffusion of the Portuguese language, and (meta)linguistic knowledge and language policies. On the one hand, these themes show a convergence between Brazilian and international trends; however, on the other, they show a specific thematic trend in the former, that is, the interest in the constitution of (meta)linguistic knowledge in relation to language policy.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Seyed Hadi Mirvahedi

<p>This thesis examines how Azeri, a minority language with the largest number of speakers in Iran, is marginalized by de facto monolingual language policies of the state favoring Farsi, the only official language, over Azeri in the three selected domains. The research provides insights into how family language policies, i.e. attitudes, ideologies and practices in the home, are influenced by macro policies of multilingual nation-states, leading to language maintenance/shift among minority groups.  The investigation adopted and integrated a number of complementary theoretical frameworks and paradigms. An ecology of language paradigm (Haugen, 1972; Hornberger & Hult, 2008; Mühlhäusler, 1996) was used to situate the research within a broader sociopolitical, historical and economic context. The ethnolinguistic vitality model (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977), and language policy and planning (LPP) frameworks proposed by Shohamy (2006) and Lo Bianco (2005, 2008c, 2012a; 2013) were utilized to explore the complex interaction between macro level LPP activities and micro level attitudes and practices. The integrated model demonstrates how language policies implemented within state-run domains and institutions produce particular Discourses. The proposed framework further illustrates how such Discourses may influence people at the grass roots level which in turn could lead to language maintenance/shift in different communities and groups.  The data base for the study comprised two phases: the first phase involved ethnographic observations of the public sphere (linguistic landscape data), language use in the home (three case studies), and the local channel for Azeris (media data), interviews with fifty children, and authorities of ten kindergartens and preschools. A focus-group interview was also conducted in this phase to assist with designing an attitude questionnaire which was administered in the second phase to 150 parents of young children.  The empirical data suggests that family language policies among Azeris in Tabriz are constantly and increasingly influenced by monolingual policies of the state. The institutionalization and legitimization of Farsi through de facto LPP activities has resulted in formation of uncommitted, if not negative, attitudes among Azeri parents regarding their ethnic language. The analysis shows how a Farsi-only education system cajoles kindergarten principals into favoring Farsi over Azeri, leading them to suggest that parents and children speak Farsi in the home to ease their integration into the education system.  The linguistic landscape data demonstrates the absence of Azeri both in top-down governmental and private individual signage indicating its low status compared to Farsi and English, the two prevalent languages in public signage in Tabriz. Exploring the broadcasting media suggests Azeris' inclination towards Farsi, and then in a second place, Turkish channels. As a result, having attracted only one percent of Azeri audience, the only available channel provided by the government for Azeris, Sahand TV, provides arguably no institutional support for Azeri. The findings suggest that although family members may be viewed as free agents to choose a particular language to speak in the home, in reality such choices are highly constrained by the ecology surrounding the home which is shaped by LPP decisions and activities.  Overall, this thesis sheds light on the complex nature of language policy and planning in multilingual nation-states, and how they impact on language maintenance/shift processes among minority groups, whilst also illuminating how language ecologies are manipulated by nation-states to achieve particular non-linguistic goals.</p>


2000 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 129-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sauli Takala ◽  
Kari Sajavaara

The field of language policy and planning is clearly a sub-field within applied linguistics. It generally does not draw heavily on formal linguistics, except for aspects of corpus and status planning. However, it does draw extensively from a range of disciplines in order to plan, implement, and evaluate language policies that respond to the needs of stake holders of various types. Despite continuous development of the field, aspects of language policy and planning need to be developed further. One of the key areas where policy can be enhanced considerably is in the area of policy and planning evaluation. This direction of inquiry is also relevant to a number of other areas within applied linguistics.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Seyed Hadi Mirvahedi

<p>This thesis examines how Azeri, a minority language with the largest number of speakers in Iran, is marginalized by de facto monolingual language policies of the state favoring Farsi, the only official language, over Azeri in the three selected domains. The research provides insights into how family language policies, i.e. attitudes, ideologies and practices in the home, are influenced by macro policies of multilingual nation-states, leading to language maintenance/shift among minority groups.  The investigation adopted and integrated a number of complementary theoretical frameworks and paradigms. An ecology of language paradigm (Haugen, 1972; Hornberger & Hult, 2008; Mühlhäusler, 1996) was used to situate the research within a broader sociopolitical, historical and economic context. The ethnolinguistic vitality model (Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977), and language policy and planning (LPP) frameworks proposed by Shohamy (2006) and Lo Bianco (2005, 2008c, 2012a; 2013) were utilized to explore the complex interaction between macro level LPP activities and micro level attitudes and practices. The integrated model demonstrates how language policies implemented within state-run domains and institutions produce particular Discourses. The proposed framework further illustrates how such Discourses may influence people at the grass roots level which in turn could lead to language maintenance/shift in different communities and groups.  The data base for the study comprised two phases: the first phase involved ethnographic observations of the public sphere (linguistic landscape data), language use in the home (three case studies), and the local channel for Azeris (media data), interviews with fifty children, and authorities of ten kindergartens and preschools. A focus-group interview was also conducted in this phase to assist with designing an attitude questionnaire which was administered in the second phase to 150 parents of young children.  The empirical data suggests that family language policies among Azeris in Tabriz are constantly and increasingly influenced by monolingual policies of the state. The institutionalization and legitimization of Farsi through de facto LPP activities has resulted in formation of uncommitted, if not negative, attitudes among Azeri parents regarding their ethnic language. The analysis shows how a Farsi-only education system cajoles kindergarten principals into favoring Farsi over Azeri, leading them to suggest that parents and children speak Farsi in the home to ease their integration into the education system.  The linguistic landscape data demonstrates the absence of Azeri both in top-down governmental and private individual signage indicating its low status compared to Farsi and English, the two prevalent languages in public signage in Tabriz. Exploring the broadcasting media suggests Azeris' inclination towards Farsi, and then in a second place, Turkish channels. As a result, having attracted only one percent of Azeri audience, the only available channel provided by the government for Azeris, Sahand TV, provides arguably no institutional support for Azeri. The findings suggest that although family members may be viewed as free agents to choose a particular language to speak in the home, in reality such choices are highly constrained by the ecology surrounding the home which is shaped by LPP decisions and activities.  Overall, this thesis sheds light on the complex nature of language policy and planning in multilingual nation-states, and how they impact on language maintenance/shift processes among minority groups, whilst also illuminating how language ecologies are manipulated by nation-states to achieve particular non-linguistic goals.</p>


Author(s):  
Li Wei

This chapter aims to reconceptualise the notions of community and community languages in late modernity and to recontextualise the discussion of language policy and planning (LPP) with reference to diaspora. The chapter consists of six sections: (1) a critique of the notion of community in late modernity; (2) an analysis of the renewed interest in the notion of diaspora; (3) an examination of the role of language and multilingualism; (4) a discussion of the possibilities and constraints of language policies and planning with regard to mobile and minority communities; (5) consideration of the importance of grassroots language planning actions, especially those that are carried out beyond institutionalised settings; (6) a discussion of the new challenges facing community languages in late modernity, highlighting the dilemmas of post-multilingualism and suggesting translanguaging as a possible solution.


1994 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 254-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vic Webb

Academic involvement in language policy and planning in South Africa must be seen within the context of the country's sociolinguistic complexity and the relationship between language and a number of serious problems in the country. South Africa's sociolinguistic complexity (see Appendix) is a function of a number of factors: 1) a multiplicity of languages and cultures; 2) the overlapping demographical and geographical distribution of the country's major languages; and 3) the politicization of these languages and cultures due to both the colonial past and the policy of apartheid, and the differentiated linguistic manifestation of their politicization.


2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Conchúr Ó Giollagáin

This is the first of a two-part article which examines the implications of the transformations in the relationship between those who exercise political and State power in Ireland and those who adhere to the minority Irish language culture. The evolution of language policy in the Irish State since independence in 1922 is considered from the perspective of linguistic sustainability, as opposed to the well-established trend in language policy discourse in Ireland which primarily focuses on institutional provision. The analysis here delineates the various policy phases which defined the official approach of the Irish State to its national but minority language. This analysis provides the basis for the examination in the second article of the process of contemporary language policy reform in Ireland. From the joint perspective of legacy issues in language policy and planning and the current transformations in relevant State policy, these two papers contend that the Irish State effectively abandoned the language revival in the early 1970s and that the current reform process marks an equally significant policy watershed in that the independent State is now preparing to abandon its policy concerning the small surviving Irish-speaking districts (Gaeltacht).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document