JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 301 Maartje De Meulder The Power of Language Policy The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 301 Maartje De Meulder The Power of Language Policy The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities Esitetään Jyväskylän yliopiston humanistisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi Historica-rakennuksen salissa H320 joulukuun 16. päivänä 2016 kello 12. Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by permission of the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Jyväskylä, in building Historica, auditorium H320, on December 16, 2016 at 12 o’clock noon. UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2016 The Power of Language Policy The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 301 Maartje De Meulder The Power of Language Policy The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2016 Editors Ritva Takkinen Department of Languages, University of Jyväskylä Pekka Olsbo, Annikki Järvinen Publishing Unit, University Library of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities Editorial Board Editor in Chief Heikki Hanka, Department of Art and Culture Studies, University of Jyväskylä Petri Karonen, Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä Paula Kalaja, Department of Languages, University of Jyväskylä Petri Toiviainen, Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä Tarja Nikula, Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä Epp Lauk, Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä URN:ISBN: 978-951-39-6876-2 ISBN 978-951-39-6876-2 (PDF) ISSN 1459-4331 ISBN 978-951-39-6875-5 (nid.) ISSN 1459-4323 Copyright © 2016, by University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä University Printing House, Jyväskylä 2016 ABSTRACT De Meulder, Maartje The power of language policy: The legal recognition of sign languages and the aspirations of deaf communities Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 2016, 134 p. (+ included articles) (Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities) ISSN 1459-4323; 301 (nid.) ISSN 1459-4331; 301 (PDF) ISBN 978-951-39-6875-5 (nid.) ISBN 978-951-39-6876-2 (PDF) This thesis explores Sign Language Peoples’ aspirations for the legal recognition of sign languages, with specific focus on Finland and Scotland. It highlights the timely need to strengthen (in practice) and scrutinize (academically) the legal measures that have been achieved as well as their implementation – and to measure all this against the challenges of endangerment and sustaining vitality. The theoretical framework for this study is centred in language policy and planning and political theory. The research methodology draws on principles of the ethnography of language policy and uses two traditional qualitative research methods, that is, interviews and participant observation, plus desk research. Sign Language Peoples’ campaigns for recognition seek a differentiated citizenship – a form of group representation rights which can accommodate their communities’ particular needs and practices. The study identifies five categories of recognition legislation and demonstrates that most legislation remains symbolic: while some legislation grants instrumental rights to sign languages, legislation establishing or protecting educational linguistic and language acquisition rights remains scarce. This is especially problematic given the complex combination of demographic, political, economic, social and educational pressures facing Sign Language Peoples’ communities. The study further identifies both common ground with other linguistic and cultural minorities and one significant difference – that Sign Language Peoples are also perceived and administered as people with disabilities and, as such, manifest dual category membership. While this should not in theory be problematic, in fact the policies which govern their lives traditionally frame them within only one category – as people with disabilities. The study demonstrates how this has negatively impacted the recognition of sign languages and signing communities. It goes on to analyse the highly politicized nature of sign language planning, especially in relation to discourses around the linguistic rights of deaf children. It also critically evaluates the mixed rationales for sign language rights and the justifications on which these rights are based. The evidence suggests that sign language legislation and the arguments for sign language rights are subject to a very particular set of discourses, which expose them to a degree of scrutiny not experienced by discourses for spoken minority language rights and legislation. Comparison of these discourses leads the author of this thesis to argue that it is essential that the protection and promotion of sign languages should include recognition of the multilingual practices of signing communities, and of their group rights. To conclude, it is argued that recognition legislation should specifically address the issue of vitality and the factors and strategies needed to ensure this vitality, including ways in which sign languages can create new generations of users without relying solely on intergenerational transmission. Keywords: language policy, language planning, critical language policy, ethnography of language policy, sign languages, deaf, Finland, Scotland, vitality, language legislation. Author’s address Maartje De Meulder Department of Languages De Braekeleerstraat 12, 2018 Antwerpen [email protected] Supervisors Prof. Ritva Takkinen Department of Languages University of Jyväskylä Dr. Verena Krausneker University of Vienna Dr. Paddy Ladd Independent researcher Reviewers Professor Pirkko Nuolijärvi Professor Rachel McKee Opponent Professor Pirkko Nuolijärvi DEDICATION Voor Lief, die alles wilde weten. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This doctoral dissertation has been written over the course of almost five years - even more, since I was already thinking about the subject of this dissertation long before I effectively started it. During those five years, I have often been in great doubt about the very thing I was doing: writing a dissertation on the recognition of SLPs’ languages, cultures and identities when all around me I saw that very recognition slipping away. I saw deaf people giving up or having a very hard time raising their child bilingually, I saw deaf people giving up on pursuing higher education, I saw deaf parents reverting to mainstreaming their child be- cause of the absence of sign bilingual education for their children, I saw the value of sign language in the education of deaf children being questioned (all over again), I saw deaf people struggling to live a respectable life as a deaf person eve- ry single day. Often, I felt almost guilty merely writing about it and not doing any- thing more active, accepting some practical responsibility. Over the years I have learned, though, that this scholarly piece of work might very well help with this recognition as well, by documenting SLPs’ aspirations, their desire for recogni- tion, and the barriers they are confronted with, and sharing this information with the wider academic world and the world beyond. For this, I have been lucky to have a constant group of supporters around me, both near and far, who have guided me through this process of hope, doubts, joy and fears – sometimes all in one single day. Three people who have been at the forefront are of course my supervisors: Ritva Takkinen, Verena Krausneker and Paddy Ladd. I wouldn’t even have dreamed of this dissertation if it weren’t for my year in Bristol, UK, where I studied for an MSc in Deaf Studies at the (unfortunately now defunct) Centre for Deaf Studies, and that is in big part thanks to Paddy. He was the first person who told me I could do this before the thought of study- ing for a PhD had even crossed my mind, he has supported me all the way through, and he has deeply informed my ways of thinking and seeing the world. After finishing my MSc, I got a scholarship from the University of Bristol for doctoral research, but after long consideration I decided to turn this down and return to Belgium and work for the Flemish Deaf Association for a year. The planned one year became five years, which have been very important to me. They have not always been easy, though, and Paddy, having himself gone along a similar path, understood this as no one else did and was there at every step of the way. Also when, after five years, I returned to academic life and started this research, he was there and continued his guidance. Thank you. I wish every PhD student could have a supervisor like Verena. She is kind, understanding, challenging, honest, and supportive. She accompanied me on this journey, was there when I needed her and let go when it felt right. She al- lowed me to grow up academically, claim my own position, and pushed me forward intellectually. Thank you. Ritva’s support has been invaluable in navigating through the Finnish ac- ademic and administrative system, especially in the early stages when every- thing was new to me. She was always there and when I came to Jyväskylä she welcomed me with that warm hospitality of hers which makes you feel instant- ly at ease. Thank you for guiding and mentoring me. A very special thanks and a warm hug go to two people, academic peers and, above all, friends, who have given me invaluable support in the last few years, literally almost every single day, although we