Ideologies behind the scoring of factors to rate sign language vitality

Webster, Jennifer; Safar, Josefina

doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2020.06.003

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This impacts the issue of language ownership. In this regard, the concept of "native" user of the language differs for sign and spoken language users (Webster and Safar, 2020). Therefore, based on the profiles of deaf Singaporeans described earlier on, SgSL is an endangered language because it is not being passed down to the younger generations.…”

Section: Speak Mandarinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is essential to get an insight into the multilingual ecology of Singapore and the interplay of language ideologies first, to understand the ecology of the deaf community. Language ideologies comprise people's covert and overt thoughts, ideas, attitudes, and beliefs about languages and varieties in terms of the value assigned to them, whether they are perceived as superior or inferior, and the language practices they employ (Webster and Safar, 2020;Woolard, 2021). This publication details how bi-and multi-lingualism in Singapore give rise to language ideologies which influence both hearing and deaf Singaporeans' interactions, communication, and evaluation of their own and others' language practices in Singapore in two main related sections: 1) the linguistic ecology of multilingual Singapore society and 2) the linguistic ecology of the Singapore deaf community.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting the Past to Understand the Present: The Linguistic Ecology of the Singapore Deaf Community and the Historical Evolution of Singapore Sign Language (SgSL)

Tay

2022

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Singapore, a young nation with a colonial past from 1819, has seen drastic changes in the sociolinguistic landscape, which has left indelible marks on the Singapore society and the Singapore deaf community. The country has experienced many political and social transitions from British colonialism to attaining independence in 1965 and thereafter. Since independence, English-based bilingualism has been vigorously promoted as part of nation-building. While the roles of the multiple languages in use in Singapore feature prominently in the discourse on language planning, historical records show no mention of how these impacts on the deaf community. The first documented deaf person in archival documents is a Chinese deaf immigrant from Shanghai who established the first deaf school in Singapore in 1954 teaching Shanghainese Sign Language (SSL) and Mandarin. Since then, the Singapore deaf community has seen many shifts and transitions in education programming for deaf children, which has also been largely influenced by exogeneous factors such as trends in deaf education in the United States A pivotal change that has far-reaching impact on the deaf community today, is the introduction of Signing Exact English (SEE) in 1976. This was in keeping with the statal English-based bilingual narrative. The subsequent decision to replace SSL with SEE has dramatic consequences for the current members of the deaf community resulting in internal divisions and fractiousness with lasting implications for the cohesion of the community. This publication traces the origins of Singapore Sign Language (SgSL) by giving readers (and future scholars) a road map on key issues and moments in this history. Bi- and multi-lingualism in Singapore as well as external forces will also be discussed from a social and historical perspective, along with the interplay of different forms of language ideologies. All the different sign languages and sign systems as well as the written/spoken languages used in Singapore, interact and compete with as well as influence each other. There will be an exploration of how both internal factors (local language ecology) and external factors (international trends and developments in deaf education), impact on how members of the deaf community negotiate their deaf identities.

show abstract

Section: Speak Mandarinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting the Past to Understand the Present: The Linguistic Ecology of the Singapore Deaf Community and the Historical Evolution of Singapore Sign Language (SgSL)

Tay

2022

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It can be precarious for institutions to base their research on the endangerment paradigm without accounting for language contact and the immense pressures caused by beliefs in individualism, pragmatism and materialism, especially in the context of abandonment. This is because users may not realize the implications of their language-shifting, and may subjectively assess their language as having a higher vitality than more empirical scoring suggests (McKee & McKee, 2020;Webster & Safar, 2020; see also Snoddon & De Meulder, 2020, on language shift working differently for deaf people than for hearing people).…”

Section: The Language Users' Views Are Not Representedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is no version of the questionnaire available in any sign language. This may create a barrier for sign language users and make it less likely that their views will be represented in the survey results (Webster & Safar, 2020). Berezkina (2018) gives a list of several different reasons that institutions select certain languages over others, including legal, economic, functional, pragmatic, moral, conventional, and technical reasons.…”

Section: The Language Users' Views Are Not Representedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research on language vitality frequently focuses on the economic and political spheres including government policy, for example on the use of the language in education, the media, and revitalization programs. There are fewer questions about local culture, nature and the environment (Webster & Safar, 2020). Methodologically, this contributes to a somewhat circular kind of reasoning where political aspects of language use are reinforced while environmental and cultural aspects are increasingly relegated to the margins.…”

Section: Institutional Attitudes Are Self-reinforcingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mitigating Institutional Attitudes toward Sign Languages: A Model for Language Vitality Surveys

Webster

2021

The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is about attitudes toward sign languages. The paper presents an idea to help make sign language surveys better in the future. In 2018, UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) published a sign language survey and a spoken language survey together for the first time. This was very important to show that spoken languages and signed languages are equal. But the sign language survey has some weaknesses. The idea presented in this paper says that: when people make sign language surveys, they should be aware of discrimination and negative attitudes; they should give signers access to the survey in sign language; and they should help signers decide what actions they can do to protect their sign language.

show abstract

The Vulnerability of Emerging Sign Languages: (E)merging Sign Languages?

Jaraisy

Stamp

2022

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emerging sign languages offer linguists an opportunity to observe language emergence in real time, far beyond the capabilities of spoken language studies. Sign languages can emerge in different social circumstances—some in larger heterogeneous communities, while others in smaller and more homogeneous communities. Often, examples of the latter, such as Ban Khor Sign Language (in Thailand), Al Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (in Israel), and Mardin Sign Language (in Turkey), arise in communities with a high incidence of hereditary deafness. Traditionally, these communities were in limited contact with the wider deaf community in the region, and so the local sign language remained relatively uninfluenced by the surrounding signed language(s). Yet, in recent years, changes in education, mobility, and social communication patterns have resulted in increased interaction between sign languages. Rather than undergoing language emergence, these sign languages are now facing a state of “mergence” with the majority sign language used by the wider deaf community. This study focuses on the language contact situation between two sign languages in Kufr Qassem, Israel. In the current situation, third-generation deaf signers in Kufr Qassem are exposed to the local sign language, Kufr Qassem Sign Language (KQSL), and the dominant sign language of the wider Israeli deaf community, Israeli Sign Language (ISL), both of which emerged around 90 years ago. In the current study, we analyzed the signing of twelve deaf sign-bilinguals from Kufr Qassem whilst they engaged in a semi-spontaneous task in three language conditions: (1) with another bilingual signer, (2) with a monolingual KQSL signer, and (3) with a monolingual ISL signer. The results demonstrate that KQSL-ISL sign-bilinguals show a preference for ISL in all conditions, even when paired with a monolingual KQSL signer. We conclude that the degree of language shift in Kufr Qassem is considerable. KQSL may be endangered due to the risk of social and linguistic mergence of the KQSL community with the ISL community in the near future.

show abstract

Ideologies behind the scoring of factors to rate sign language vitality

Cited by 4 publications

References 58 publications

Revisiting the Past to Understand the Present: The Linguistic Ecology of the Singapore Deaf Community and the Historical Evolution of Singapore Sign Language (SgSL)

Revisiting the Past to Understand the Present: The Linguistic Ecology of the Singapore Deaf Community and the Historical Evolution of Singapore Sign Language (SgSL)

Mitigating Institutional Attitudes toward Sign Languages: A Model for Language Vitality Surveys

The Vulnerability of Emerging Sign Languages: (E)merging Sign Languages?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About