Deaf where is thy sting? An exploration into the perceptions of deaf-related terms and phrases of three Communities of Practice (Deaf, Hard of Hearing and Hearing) by Rachel Fearon A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of MA (by Research) at the University of Central Lancashire February 2014 1 2 Acknowledgements This MA by research acknowledges the input of The University of Central Lancashire of my supervisors, Professor Dawn Archer, for her expertise, advice and continued support and Robert Lee. Thank you, Robert, for your expert guidance when devising Phase 2 of the Research Process. I would also like to thank the following people for their contribution in the research process of this thesis: Lynne Barnes – Divisional Co-ordinator BSL & Deaf Studies. University of Central Lancashire – for her time and input to this research. Nicola Nunn – Senior Lecturer in BSL & Deaf Studies. Thank you for your invaluable support, advice, especially with the BSL signed photographs. Gail Cauderelier – BSL/English Interpreter, University of Central Lancashire for her advice, input and fantastic interpreting skills employed in the semi-informal interviews. Nick Palfreyman as a friend and colleague – for his advice and continued support. Francois Nel - Director: Journalism Leaders Programme. Director: Media and Digital Enterprise (MADE) project, a winner of the International Press Institute’s News Innovation Contest. Co-convenor: Digital Editors Network, UK. University of Central Lancashire for his advice and input to my research. Jane Cordell - a Trustee for Manchester Deaf Centre and for Disability Rights UK, Chair, DaDa Fest, Coach and public speaker and runs a company called ‘Getting Equal’ – for her important contribution to my research. The 31 interviewees from the Communities of Practice - Hearing, Hard of Hearing and Deaf Communities - who helped immensely with the research of this thesis for their participation, without who, my study would not be complete... In addition, I would like to acknowledge the input of The University of Central Lancashire LIS services that helped with my technology requirements and advice in order to carry out my research: Mark Pentler – Multimedia Developer, LIS Digital Services, University of Central Lancashire for his essential contribution and support with DVD technology – for his invaluable support in respect of my DVD recordings and the transfer of recorded materials. North Hub equipment loan services (equipment needed for interviewing) – Harrington Building, University of Central Lancashire. LIS computer support for advice and their ability to improvement my computer skills. Thank you to my friends and family for their continued support and encouragement, especially, my son Max. 3 ABSTRACT The question, ‘Deaf where is thy sting?’ occurs in Lodge’s (2008:62) novel Deaf Sentence and provides us with a striking example of how the word deaf can be used readily in everyday literal and non-literal language. This MA thesis seeks to ascertain different Communities of Practice’s (henceforth CofPs) perceptions of the non-literal use of the word deaf and associated terms and phrases such as to turn a deaf ear, it fell on deaf ears, are you deaf? deaf and dumb, stone deaf, deaf as a post, deaf-mute, hard of hearing and hearing impaired. The CofPs investigated are the Hearing, Hard of Hearing and the Deaf communities. The project combines concepts and ideas drawn from corpus linguistics, sociolinguistics and sign linguistics. It also draws on concepts which transcend different linguistic approaches: those of semantic prosody, lexical priming, collocation and framing. As Lakoff (2004:4) states, ‘framing is about [using] language that fits your worldview. [Hence] it is not just language. The ideas are primary – and language carries those ideas, [and] evokes those ideas’. Implicit within this statement is the idea that membership of a given CofP is likely to shape our understanding of certain words, terms and phrases. This research assesses the neutral, negative and positive prosodies of the above-mentioned terms from the representatives of the three CofPs. Questions addressed include: Are such language terms problematic for them all and, if so, why? Are they (ever) used or interpreted consciously they are used by the media and /or in literature texts? If so, why? If not, why not? The main findings from this research project are that the terms deaf and dumb and deaf-mute tend to be perceived as descriptive labels for deafness. It is revealed that these terms are not used much nowadays because they can be somewhat derogatory in terms of their association between deafness and being dumb or mute. The term Hard of Hearing is a preferred term over the term Hearing impaired - a categorisation which is deemed derogatory by the Deaf CofP. The phrases to turn a deaf ear and it fell on deaf ears are perceived to convey a negative semantic prosody and representatives of the three CofPs separately recommended an alternate way of phrasing the concept of ignoring someone or something. 4 Contents Page Page Number Acknowledgements 3 Abstract 4 Chapter One: Introduction 1. Introduction -‘Deaf where is thy sting?’ 12 1.1 The aims and objectives of the research 16 1.2 Approach taken 17 1.3 Structure of MA thesis 18 Chapter Two: Deaf Terminology and Identity 2 Introduction 20 2.1 Definitions 20 2.2 Diversity amongst Terminology 22 2.3 Othering and Difference 29 2.4 Social, Medical and Cultural Influences 32 2.5 Communities of Practice 35 Chapter Three: Sociolinguistic means of capturing perception 3. Introduction 38 3.1 Semantic Prosody 38 3.2 Collocation 41 3.3 Lexical Priming 44 3.4 Framing – Our expectations and perceptions 47 Chapter Four: Approaches adopted in this thesis 4. Introduction 49 4.1 Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches 50 4.1.1 Corpus Linguistic Research – Phase 1a and Phase 1b – 51 BNC and Nexis Research datasets 4.2 Methods of Sampling – Phase 2 53 4.3 Qualitative Sampling – Definitions 54 4.4 The use of Interpreters in Interpreting the Deaf CofP 55 4.5 Qualitative Approach – Phase 2 57 4.6 Considerations for the Semi-informal Interviews 65 5 Chapter Five: Corpus Linguistic (BNC and Nexis) Qualitatitive Data findings - analysis and discussion 5. Introduction 67 5.1 Research finding sections are inclusive of BNC and Nexis results for each term and phrase 68 5.2 Summary of findings 94 Chapter Six: Semi-informal interview data analysis and discussion 6. Introduction 98 6.1 Analysis and discussion of Section One of the Semi-informal interview 99 6.2 Section Two of the Semi-informal interviews – Analysis and discussion 117 6.3: Section Three of the Semi-informal Interview – Analysis and discussion Each section is inclusive of the Hearing, Hard of Hearing and Deaf Community of Practice perceptions 129 6.3.1 -6.4.4 -Articles of Section Three and DVD footage of Section Four 130 6.5 Concluding perceptions of the Semi-informal interviews 151 6.6 Overall Summary of Findings for Chapter Six 154 6.6.1 Introduction 6.6.2 Summary Findings Table for the Hearing Community of Practice 156 6.6.3 Summary Findings Table for the Hard of Hearing Community of Practice 157 6.6.4 Summary Findings Table for the Deaf Community of Practice 158 Chapter Seven: Research findings and discussion 7. Introduction 160 7.1. The Representatives of the Hearing, Hard of Hearing, 161 and Deaf CofPs - analysis of the terms and phrases 7.2 Summary of findings for the value responses – Table 30 173 7.2.2 Explanation of Summary Table 176 7.3 Expansion of the Gradable Antonymy Model 177 7.4 A further perception of media-led use of language 177 7.5 Social, Medical, Cultural linguistic and Media-led language Prototypes 178 7.6 Expanded Baker and Cokely Model 184 7.7 Summary Flow Charts 190 Chapter Eight: Conclusion 8. Introduction 193 8.1 Limitations of the study – strengths and weaknesses 194 8.2. Research Findings 195 6 8.3. Future Research Recommendations 199 8.4. Concluding reflections 201 7 List of Graphs, Figures, Diagrams, Flow Charts, Articles and Tables Graphs Graph 1 An ameliorated response for the word deaf Graph 2 Section One of the Interview Results – Hearing CofP Graph 3 Section One of the Interview Results – Hard of Hearing CofP Graph 4 Section One of the Interview Results – Deaf CofP Graph 5 Section Two of the Interview Results – Hearing CofP Graph 6 Section Two of the Interview Results – Hard of Hearing CofP Figures Fig 1 The BSL sign for lowercase ‘h’ hearing Fig 2 The BSL sign for Hard of Hearing Fig 3 The BSL Sign for uppercase ‘H’ Hearing Fig 4 1: The BSL sign for lowercase ‘d’ deaf 2: The BSL sign for uppercase for ‘D’ Deaf Fig 5 The BSL sign for uppercase ‘D’ Deaf Identity Fig 6 Avenues to membership in the Deaf community Fig 7 The BSL sign to ignore/ to take no notice Fig 7a The BSL sign - to ignore/to take no notice – his sign shows more intensity Fig 7b The BSL for ‘I’m not listening/I am ignoring you/ I am not acknowledging you Fig 8 The BSL sign for the metaphor “In one eye and out the other” Fig 9 The BSL sign - “to deliberately ignore” Fig 10 The BSL sign for – “I’m not listening - I’m taking no notice” - demonstrating an indifference Fig 11 The BSL sign - “are you deaf?” Fig 12 The BSL sign - “are you just acting deaf?” Fig 13 The BSL sign - “I am Deaf” Fig 14 The BSL sign for a strong Deaf Identity 8 Fig 15a-b The BSL sign to denote an intensity in Deaf Identity Fig 16 The BSL sign for Hearing Impaired Fig 17 The BSL sign for Hard of Hearing Diagrams Diagram 1 Intensity Continuum for the phrases: is deaf to..