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
d
emonstrates 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.
...
