DOCSLIB.ORG

Icelandic Deaf Culture a Discourse Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Icelandic Deaf Culture a Discourse Analysis University of Iceland Department of Humanities Culture Studies Icelandic Deaf Culture A Discourse Analysis Essay for M.A. degree Haukur Darri Hauksson Kt.: 161192-2449 Instructors: Adjunct Lecturer Davíð Ólafsson Assistant Professor Rannveig Sverrisdóttir February 2018 Abstract Icelandic sign language is equal to Icelandic by law, but Icelandic sign language is an endangered language facing a trajectory towards extinction if no changes occur to prevent that from happening. Discourse surrounding deafness in Iceland is based on diverging modules of deafness where governmental and societal institutions discuss hearing loss in terms of pathology on one hand, and in terms of being a cultural and linguistic minority on another. Discourse arising from the governmental institutions The Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and The National Hearing and Speech Institute of Iceland as well as discourse from the social institutions The Association of the Deaf and The Association of the Hard of Hearing, along with some examples taken from Icelandic media and society, have been analysed with Foucauldian discursive methods to reveal how deafness and Icelandic Sign Language is sometimes contradictorily spoken about at an institutional level. The conclusions of the analysis uncover a wide-spread societal ignorance about the role and function of Icelandic Sign Language in the lives of deaf people and more-so what it fundamentally means to be deaf; in which members of the Deaf community are continuously pushing for recognition as belonging to a cultural and linguistic minority. 1 Ágrip Íslenskt táknmál er jafnrétthátt íslensku samkvæmt lögum en íslenskt táknmál er í útrýmingarhættu og mun hverfa ef ekkert verður gert til að komast í veg fyrir það. Orðræður sem snúa að heyrnarleysi á Íslandi byggja á ólíkum hugmyndum. Ríkis- og samfélagsstýrðar stofnarnir ræða heyrnarleysi með afar ólíkum hætti en annars vegar er rætt um heyrnarleysi í læknisfræðilegum skilningi og hins vegar er talað um það sem hluti af mál- og menningarminnihlutahóps. Orðræðuvenjur ríkisstofnanna Samskiptamiðstöðvar heyrnarlausra og heyrnarskertra og Heyrnar- og talmeinastöðvar Íslands og samfélagsstofnanna Félag heyrnarlausra og Heyrnarhjálpar, ásamt dæmum úr íslenskum fjölmiðlum og samfélagi, eru teknar fyrir og greindar með greiningaraðferðum Foucault svo varpa megi ljósi á það hvernig ákveðin mótsögn birtist stundum í umræðum stofnana um heyrnarleysi og íslenskt táknmál. Niðurstöður greiningarinnar sýna djúpstæða fáfræði meðal almennings um hlutverk og stöðu íslensks táknmáls í lífi heyrnarlausra og ekki síst hvað það þýðir í grundvallaratriðum að vera heyrnarlaus en samfélag heyrnarlausra er í sífelldri baráttu við að öðlast viðurkenningu sem fyrst og fremst mál- og menningarminnihlutahópur. 2 Table of Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 First Segment – Culture, Language, and the Deaf-World .......................................... 8 Culture is Ordinary: A Definition ................................................................................. 8 Deaf Culture and the Deaf-World ............................................................................... 10 Deafhood and the Deafness Museum ......................................................................... 13 Deaf-Gain .................................................................................................................... 14 Deaf-Same .................................................................................................................. 15 Sign Language is Natural ............................................................................................ 17 The Relationship between Language and Culture ...................................................... 20 Endangered Languages ............................................................................................... 27 Icelandic Sign Language‟s Endangerment Status ....................................................... 30 Deaf Culture in Iceland: A Brief History .................................................................... 33 The Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.................................. 37 The Icelandic Association of the Deaf ........................................................................ 38 The National Hearing and Speech Institute of Iceland ............................................... 38 Icelandic Association of the Hard of Hearing ............................................................ 39 Second Segment – Power, Violence, Control, Oppression ........................................ 41 Foucault, Power and the Panoptic Subject .................................................................. 41 Gramsci‟s Theory of Cultural Hegemony .................................................................. 44 A Violent Understanding of Deafness ........................................................................ 47 Prejudice and the Hearing Agenda ............................................................................. 48 Pedagogy and the Deaf ............................................................................................... 51 Medicine and the Deaf ................................................................................................ 54 Deafness: Disability, Impairment, or Handicap? ........................................................ 57 Third Segment – Discourse Analysis .......................................................................... 60 3 Defining Discourse ..................................................................................................... 61 Types of Discourse ..................................................................................................... 63 Who are the Deaf? ...................................................................................................... 64 Names and Titles: A Closer Look ............................................................................... 66 Terminology: The Many Ways to be Deaf ................................................................. 69 Contradicting Language Environments ...................................................................... 72 Agency and the Panoptic Subject ............................................................................... 76 Does Sign Language Come Second? .......................................................................... 82 Legalistic Discourse Surrounding Deafness ............................................................... 88 Economic Discourse Surrounding Deafness ............................................................... 90 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 94 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 101 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 103 4 Foreword I am usually called Darri by those who know me. My name is signed by hooking the index finger and touching it away from the chin in two simple motions. My name looks suspiciously similar to the word for „hearing‟ in American Sign Language, and although I am hearing, this is a coincidence. Both of my parents are Deaf which makes me a CODA (Child of Deaf Adults). This means that I grew up speaking Icelandic Sign Language as my first language and developed strong ties to the Deaf-World. I lived in the United States between the ages of six to ten years old where I had the fortune of learning American Sign Language and encountering Deaf Culture at Gallaudet University, the only university in the world to teach entirely in sign language. This exposure to Deaf people of all kinds of nationalities created a fascination within me for sign languages from around the world, and became the basis for my cultural identity as a CODA with one foot in the Hearing world and another in the Deaf-World. For my undergraduate degree I studied Japanese language and culture where I received the opportunity to live in Japan for a year as a part of my education. In Japan I studied Japanese Sign Language and worked closely with the local Deaf community. My interest for sign languages and global Deaf Cultures arises out of answering many familiar questions from other hearing people about deafness and sign language. The role of connecting the hearing world to the Deaf-World came naturally to me and eventually lit a spark that has since intensified and progressed, becoming a catalyst for my passions and prompting me to engage in this analysis. This essay would never have come into fruition if not for my endlessly patient, compassionate, and resourceful instructors Davíð Ólafsson and Rannveig Sverrisdóttir to whom I wish to sincerely thank. I also wish to extend gratitude to my friend Steinunn, who has gone above and beyond in her assistance to me. Finally, I would like to dedicate this essay to Victoria, who has made me a better person throughout this entire process; thank you keeping the flame alight. 5 Introduction Icelandic Sign Language (ÍTM)1 was fastened into law in 2011 by the Icelandic government, acknowledging it as the first language of those
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sign Language Typology Series
    SIGN LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY SERIES The Sign Language Typology Series is dedicated to the comparative study of sign languages around the world. Individual or collective works that systematically explore typological variation across sign languages are the focus of this series, with particular emphasis on undocumented, underdescribed and endangered sign languages. The scope of the series primarily includes cross-linguistic studies of grammatical domains across a larger or smaller sample of sign languages, but also encompasses the study of individual sign languages from a typological perspective and comparison between signed and spoken languages in terms of language modality, as well as theoretical and methodological contributions to sign language typology. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages Edited by Ulrike Zeshan Sign Language Typology Series No. 1 / Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages / Ulrike Zeshan (ed.) / Nijmegen: Ishara Press 2006. ISBN-10: 90-8656-001-6 ISBN-13: 978-90-8656-001-1 © Ishara Press Stichting DEF Wundtlaan 1 6525XD Nijmegen The Netherlands Fax: +31-24-3521213 email: [email protected] http://ishara.def-intl.org Cover design: Sibaji Panda Printed in the Netherlands First published 2006 Catalogue copy of this book available at Depot van Nederlandse Publicaties, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Den Haag (www.kb.nl/depot) To the deaf pioneers in developing countries who have inspired all my work Contents Preface........................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • On the Status of the Icelandic Language and Icelandic Sign Language
    No. 61/2011 7 June 2011 Act on the status of the Icelandic language and Icelandic sign language. THE EXECUTANTS OF THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF ICELAND under Article 8 of the Constitution, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Althingi and the President of the Supreme Court, make known: the Althingi has passed this Act, and we confirm it by our signatures: Article 1 National language – official language. Icelandic is the national language of the Icelandic people and the official language in Iceland. Article 2 The Icelandic language. The national language is the common language of the people of Iceland. The government authorities shall ensure that it is possible to use it in all areas of the life of the nation. Everyone who is resident in Iceland shall have the opportunity of using Icelandic for general participation in the life of the Icelandic nation as provided for in further detail in separate legislation. Article 3 Icelandic sign language. Icelandic sign language is the first language of those who have to rely on it for expression and communication, and of their children. The government authorities shall nurture and support it. All those who need to use sign language shall have the opportunity to learn and use Icelandic sign language as soon as their language acquisition process begins, or from the time when deafness, hearing impairment or deaf-blindness is diagnosed. Their immediate family members shall have the same right. Article 4 Icelandic Braille. Icelandic Braille is the first written language of those who have to rely on it for expression and communication.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Icelandic Sign Language an Endangered Language?
    Is the Icelandic Sign Language an endangered language? RANNVEIG SVERRISDÓTTIR This article appears in: Endangered languages and the land: Mapping landscapes of multilingualism Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages (FEL XXII / 2018) Vigdís World Language Centre, Reykjavík, 23–25. August 2018 Editors: Sebastian Drude, Nicholas Ostler, Marielle Moser ISBN: 978-1-9160726-0-2 Cite this article: Sverrisdóttir, Rannveig. 2018. Is the Icelandic Sign Language an endangered language? In S. Drude, N. Ostler & M. Moser (eds.), Endangered languages and the land: Mapping landscapes of multilingualism, Proceedings of FEL XXII/2018 in Reykjavík, 113–114. London: FEL & EL Publishing. Note: this article has not been peer reviewed First published: December 2018 Link to this article: http://www.elpublishing.org/PID/4017 This article is published under a Creative Commons License CC-BY-NC (Attribution-NonCommercial). The licence permits users to use, reproduce, disseminate or display the article provided that the author is attributed as the original creator and that the reuse is restricted to non-commercial purposes i.e. research or educational use. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Foundation for Endangered Languages: http://www.ogmios.org EL Publishing: http://www.elpublishing.org Is the Icelandic Sign Language an endangered language? Rannveig Sverrisdóttir Centre for Sign Language Research, Faculty of Icelandic and Comparative Cultural Studies The University of Iceland • Sæmundargata 2 • 101 Reykjavík • Iceland [[email protected]] Abstract Icelandic Sign Language (ÍTM) is a minority language, only spoken by the Deaf community in Iceland. Origins of the language can be traced back to the 19th century but for more than 100 years the language was banned as other signed languages in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Sign Language Acronyms
    Sign language acronyms Throughout the Manual, the following abbreviations for sign languages are used (some of which are acronyms based on the name of the sign language used in the respective countries): ABSL Al Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language AdaSL Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana) ASL American Sign Language Auslan Australian Sign Language BSL British Sign Language CSL Chinese Sign Language DGS German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache) DSGS Swiss-German Sign Language (Deutsch-Schweizerische Gebärdensprache) DTS Danish Sign Language (Dansk Tegnsprog) FinSL Finnish Sign Language GSL Greek Sign Language HKSL Hong Kong Sign Language HZJ Croatian Sign Language (Hrvatski Znakovni Jezik) IPSL Indopakistani Sign Language Inuit SL Inuit Sign Language (Canada) Irish SL Irish Sign Language Israeli SL Israeli Sign Language ÍTM Icelandic Sign Language (Íslenskt táknmál) KK Sign Language of Desa Kolok, Bali (Kata Kolok) KSL Korean Sign Language LIS Italian Sign Language (Lingua dei Segni Italiana) LIU Jordanian Sign Language (Lughat il-Ishaara il-Urdunia) LSA Argentine Sign Language (Lengua de Señas Argentina) Libras Brazilian Sign Language (Língua de Sinais Brasileira) LSC Catalan Sign Language (Llengua de Signes Catalana) LSCol Colombian Sign Language (Lengua de Señas Colombiana) LSE Spanish Sign Language (Lengua de Signos Española) LSF French Sign Language (Langue des Signes Française) LSQ Quebec Sign Language (Langue des Signes Québécoise) NGT Sign Language of the Netherlands (Nederlandse Gebarentaal) NicSL Nicaraguan Sign Language NS Japanese Sign Language (Nihon Syuwa) NSL Norwegian Sign Language NZSL New Zealand Sign Language DOI 10.1515/9781501511806-003, © 2017 Josep Quer, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Carlo Geraci, Meltem Kelepir, Roland Pfau, and Markus Steinbach, published by De Gruyter.
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Space Theory and Icelandic Sign Language
    The ITB Journal Volume 9 Issue 1 Article 2 2008 Mental Space Theory and Icelandic Sign Language Gudny Bjork Thorvaldsdottir Follow this and additional works at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/itbj Part of the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Thorvaldsdottir, Gudny Bjork (2008) "Mental Space Theory and Icelandic Sign Language," The ITB Journal: Vol. 9: Iss. 1, Article 2. doi:10.21427/D7NT71 Available at: https://arrow.tudublin.ie/itbj/vol9/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Ceased publication at ARROW@TU Dublin. It has been accepted for inclusion in The ITB Journal by an authorized administrator of ARROW@TU Dublin. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License ITB Journal Mental Space Theory and Icelandic Sign Language Gudny Bjork Thorvaldsdottir Centre for Deaf Studies, School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences. Trinity College Dublin 1. Introduction Signed languages are articulated in space and this is why the use of space is one of their most important features. They make use of 3-dimesional space and the way the space is organised during discourse is grammatically and semantically significant (Liddell 1990, Engberg-Pedersen 1993). The Theory of Mental Spaces (Fauconnier 1985) has been applied to signed languages and proves to be an especially good method when it comes to conceptual understanding of various aspects of signed languages. This paper is based on an M. Phil (Linguistics) dissertation submitted to University of Dublin, Trinity College, in 2007 and discusses how Mental Space Theory may be applied to Icelandic Sign Language (ÍTM).
    [Show full text]
  • Icelandic Sign Language [Icl] (A Language of Iceland)
    “Icelandic Sign Language [icl] (A language of Iceland) • Alternate Names: Íslenskt Táknmál, ÍTM • Population: 300 (2010 The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture). 250 (2014 EUD). 1,400 (2014 IMB). • Location: Mainly in the Reykjavik area. • Language Status: 6b (Threatened). Recognized language (2011, Act. No. 61). • Dialects: None known. Significant mutual intelligibility between Icelandic Sign Language and Danish Sign Language [dsl] (Brynjólfsdóttir etal. 2012). Based on Danish Sign Language [dsl]. Until 1910, deaf children were sent to school in Denmark; but the languages have diverged since then (Aldersson and McEntee-Atalianis 2007). Lexical similarity: 66% with Danish Sign Language [dsl] (Aldersson and McEntee-Atalianis 2007). Fingerspelling system similar to French Sign Language[fsl]. • Typology: SVO; One-handed fingerspelling. • Language Use: Used natively by hearing children of Deaf parents and as L2 by many other hearing people (2014 R. Sverrisdóttir). The language is taught as a subject within one school in the language area. The language of introduction is Icelandic (isl) mixed with ÍTM. Home, school (mixed language use), media, community. Mostly adults. Neutral attitudes. Most are bilingual in Icelandic [isl], mostly written. • Language Development: New media. Theater. TV. Dictionary. • Other Comments: 27 sign language interpreters (2014 EUD). Committee on national sign language. Research institute. Signed interpretation provided for college students. Instruction for parents of deaf children. The Communication Centre for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing provides interpreter services, ÍTM courses and consultation for families of deaf children. Interpreter training, ÍTM grammar and Deaf studies are taught at the University of Iceland. Christian (Protestant).” Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D.
    [Show full text]
  • MA Thesis Bayt Al-Hikmah
    MA thesis Religious Studies Bayt al-Hikmah – House of Wisdom The future of Islam and Muslims in Iceland Identity Construction and Solidarity through Interculturalism, Communicative Dialogue and Mutual Understanding Halldór Nikulás Lár Supervisor Magnús Þorkell Bernharðsson June 2021 University of Iceland School of Humanities Religious Studies Bayt al-Hikmah – House of Wisdom The future of Islam and Muslims in Iceland Identity Construction and Solidarity through Interculturalism, Communicative Dialogue and Mutual Understanding M.A.-thesis Halldór Nikulás Lárusson Kt.: 070854-2369 Supervisor: Magnús Þorkell Bernharðsson June 2021 2 Útdráttur Þjóðerniseinangrun múslima er vaxandi vandamál í Evrópu, þar sem tilhneigingin er að skilgreina alla múslima saman í einn einsleitan hóp. Þessi rannsókn sýnir fram á að túlkun Jihadista á íslam, með þeim alvarlegu afleiðingum sem henni fylgja, er meginástæða þessarar félagslegu afmörkunar múslima. Í því er vandamálið fólgið, ekki í íslam sem trú, heldur í ákveðinni túlkun á henni og viðbrögðum við þeirri túlkun. Allt bendir til þess að túlkun öfgahópa íslam sé langt frá því að vera nákvæm framsetning á trúnni. Vandamálin í samskiptum meginlands Evrópu og múslima eiga ekki við um Ísland, en þessi breyting í átt að aðskilnaði ætti að vera lærdómur fyrir landið. Rannsóknargögnin staðfesta að þetta þarf ekki að vera vandamál. Erfið aðlögun múslima í Evrópu stafar fyrst og fremst af a) félagslegri afmörkun múslima sem byggir á mótun ákveðinnar staðalímyndar, b) skilningsleysi og vanhæfni fjölmenningarstefnunnar (e. multiculturalism) til að takast á við andlega menningu múslima og löngun þeirra til trúarlegs lífs í veraldlegu samfélagi. Því horfir Evrópa nú til sammenningarstefnunnar (þýðing höfundar á enska orðinu interculturalism) eftir aðstoð.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Lexicostatistical Methods to Sign Languages: How Not to Delineate Sign Language Varieties
    Palfreyman, Nick (2014) Applying lexicostatistical methods to sign languages: How not to delineate sign language varieties. Unpublished paper available from clok.uclan.ac.uk/37838 Applying lexicostatistical methods to sign languages: How not to delineate sign language varieties.1 Nick Palfreyman ([email protected]) International Institute for Sign Languages and Deaf Studies, University of Central Lancashire. The reliability and general efficacy of lexicostatistical methods have been called into question by many spoken language linguists, some of whom are vociferous in expressing their concerns. Dixon (1997) and Campbell (2004) go as far as to reject the validity of lexicostatistics entirely, and Dixon cites several publications in support of his argument that lexicostatistics has been ‘decisively discredited’, including Hoijer (1956), Arndt (1959), Bergslund and Vogt (1962), Teeter (1963), Campbell (1977) and Embleton (1992). In the field of sign language research, however, some linguists continue to produce lexicostatistical studies that delineate sign language varieties along the language-dialect continuum. Papers referring to lexicostatistical methods continue to be submitted to conferences on sign language linguistics, suggesting that these methods are – in some corners of the field, at least – as popular as ever. Given the ongoing popularity of lexicostatistical methods with some sign language linguists, it is necessary to be as clear as possible about how these methods may generate misleading results when applied to sign language varieties, which is the central aim of this paper. Furthermore, in several cases, lexicostatistical methods seem to have been deployed for a quite different purpose – that of establishing mutual intelligibility – but the suitability of lexicostatistical methods for such a purpose has not been openly addressed, and this is dealt with in Section 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructed Action in American Sign Language: a Look at Second Language Learners in a Second Modality
    Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works Articles Faculty & Staff Scholarship 11-12-2019 Constructed Action in American Sign Language: A Look at Second Language Learners in a Second Modality Kim B. Kurz Rochester Institute of Technology Kellie Mullaney Corrine Occhino Rochester Institute of Technology Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/article Recommended Citation Kurz, K.B.; Mullaney, K.; Occhino, C. Constructed Action in American Sign Language: A Look at Second Language Learners in a Second Modality. Languages 2019, 4, 90. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty & Staff Scholarship at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. languages Article Constructed Action in American Sign Language: A Look at Second Language Learners in a Second Modality Kim B. Kurz 1,*, Kellie Mullaney 1 and Corrine Occhino 2 1 Department of American Sign Language & Interpretation Education, Rochester Institute of Technology, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester, NY 14623, USA; [email protected] 2 Center on Cognition and Language, Rochester Institute of Technology, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester, NY 14623, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 April 2019; Accepted: 31 October 2019; Published: 12 November 2019 Abstract: Constructed action is a cover term used in signed language linguistics to describe multi-functional constructions which encode perspective-taking and viewpoint. Within constructed action, viewpoint constructions serve to create discourse coherence by allowing signers to share perspectives and psychological states.
    [Show full text]
  • Buttering Their Bread on Both Sides?
    Buttering their bread on both sides? The recognition of sign languages and the aspirations of deaf communities Maartje De Meulder and Joseph J. Murray University of Namur / Gallaudet University In the past two decades, a wave of campaigns to recognise sign languages have taken place in numerous countries. These campaigns sought official recognition of national sign languages, with the aim of enhancing signers’ social mobility and protecting the vitality of sign languages. These activities differ from a long his- tory of sign language planning from a ‘language as a problem’ approach largely used by educators and policymakers to date. However, the instrumental rights and social mobility obtained as a result have thus far been limited with educa- tional linguistic and language acquisition rights especially lacking. This article identifies two reasons for this situation. First, a view of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) from a medical perspective has led to confusion about the meaning of linguistic rights for them and led governments to treat sign language planning differently than that for spoken languages. Furthermore, SLPs political participa- tion is hindered by recognition being offered by governments without substantial commitments to financial resources, changes in government practices or greater inclusion of sign languages in public life. One exception to this trend are sign language planning bodies, but even these face challenges in the implementation phase. Going forward, we argue that sign language recognition legislation should centre on deaf communities’ concerns regarding sign language vitality. In addi- tion to a need to ensure acquisition for deaf signers, we contend that while the expansion of hearing (and deaf) new signers can be interpreted in terms of lan- guage endangerment it can also be seen as strengthening sign languages’ vitality.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Committee on Icelandic Sign Language, 7Th June 2015
    Report of the Committee on Icelandic Sign Language, 7th June 2015 Conclusion Icelandic Sign Language (ÍTM, íslenskt táknmál),1 the one traditional minority language in Iceland, is endangered as all those who are fluent in ÍTM as their mother tongue are disappearing and there are no new recruits to take their place. The Committee on Icelandic Sign Language considers this a very serious matter and urges the government to do all in its power to turn this development around without delay. The most important factor in maintaining the viability of a language2 is that it is inherited from one generation to another. This cannot happen unless young users of the language learn it in the critical period for language acquisition. As to ÍTM, the basis is that all hard of hearing, deaf, and deaf-blind children, as well as those who are born of Deaf3 parents,4 shall have unhindered access to ÍTM and its community. Other important factors which decide whether a language shall live or become extinct are: (a) the range of use of the language (it is important that it is possible to use the language in all situations where it is warranted), (b) the attitude of the community toward the language, (c) the quantity and quality of data about and in the language, (d) the total number of those who understand the language and first and foremost consider it their own native language, and (e) government policy (whether the government supports and stands behind the community of language speakers, lets it go its own way, or even works against it).
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Maritime Sign Language
    THB UNIVBRSITY OF MANITOBA FACULTY OF GRADUATB STUDIES COPYRIGHT PBRMISSION Canada's Maritime Sign Language By Judith Yoel A Thesis/PI'acticum submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the clegree of Doctor of Philosophy Judith YoelO2009 Permission has been grantecl to the University of Manitoba Libraries to lend a copy of this thesis/practicum, to Library and Archives Canarla (LAC) to lencl a copy of this thesiiþracticum, and to LAC's agent (UMI/ProQuest) to microfilm, sell copies and to publish an abstract of this thesis/practicum. This reprocluction or copy of this thesis has been macle available by authority of the copyright olvner solely for the purpose of private stucly and research, and may only be reproducetl antl copied as permitted by copyright laws or lvith express written authorization from the copyright ownór. Canada's Maritime Sign Language by Judith Yoel A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of tvïanitoba in partial fulfilment of the requireri',ents of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Linguistics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Copyright O 2009 by Judith Yoet Abstract: Canada's Maritime Sign Language (MSL) This research undertakes the first comprehensive, academic study of Maritime Sign Language (MSL), a signed language used by elderly Deaf people in Canada's Maritime Provinces. Although the majority of Canada's Deaf population currently uses American Sign Language (ASL), some Deaf people continue tc use MSL, which is thought to stem from British Sign Language (BSL).
    [Show full text]