Public Debates and our Possible Roles”

This panel is scheduled for

Saturday, December 1, 1:45--3:00 p.m.,

in Virginia Suite B.

WORKING DRAFT

Abstract

This paper discusses a number of anthropolitical issues regarding Deaf language policies in the United States and Ireland. In particular, it addresses how, when, and in what contexts language policies emerge regarding the languages and forms of language used by Deaf people. The paper links language policy issues to the role of language ideologies in historical contexts. It explores specific language policy controversies which are particular to Deaf communities, and those which are shared with other language minority groups within the U.S. and Ireland. Particular attention is given to anthropolitical language issues that are specific to Deaf people living in the United States or Ireland, and those which may apply to all Deaf groups, attending to patterns which may transcend national boundaries. For example, it considers issues of when a language variety becomes “worthy” of public discussion, or of how Deaf signed languages gain recognition and governmental support, or of how Deaf signed languages become viable commodities for the marketplace. And lastly, this paper addresses the issue of whether, when, and in what contexts expert opinions are invoked or discounted. Of particular interest is to explore how the linguistic anthropologist, as a part of the academy, may influence public debates. It will consider the potential roles for active political engagement by linguistic anthropologists, or by other members of the academy, in the United States and elsewhere, in this case, in the Republic of Ireland.

Patterns of Minority Language Policy-Making

Linguistic anthropologists have long been involved with language policy issues, whether implicitly or explicitly through their intimate work with various language communities. Sometimes they serve as cultural brokers between minority communities and larger systems. Sometimes their studies inform policymakers and/or language activists/advocates. And sometimes linguistic anthropologists serve to establish language policy themselves. However, it is not generally the case that language policy makers seek the advice of, or research produced by linguistic anthropologists in their policymaking processes. We have to ask ourselves why.

As linguistic anthropologists on this panel, we have been asked to both consider how language policy works for minority languages, and what our role has been, or can be as professionals in these language policy-making processes. In essence, as linguistic anthropologists involved with language policy issues, we have to consider the political economy of minority languages in juxtaposition to majority or other minority State-recognized languages (see Jaffe 1999, Gal 1989, Bourdieu 1977, 1999). Jaffe describes the political economy of language in a quite useful way:

The study of the political economy of language is thus by definition concerned with (1) the process of domination: how, precisely, language is associated with the processes that generate a particular distribution of authority and enable certain groups to exercise domination/hegemony, and the relationship between language and power (Grillo 1989:5); (b) how “deeply held conceptions that mediate between identity and speech” are a “part of political struggles,” and finally; (c) how and whether dominant discourses may be challenged or resisted. These “deeply held conceptions” are language ideologies; they are, as Wollard puts it, “a mediating link between social structures and forms of talk” (Woolard 1992: 235). (in Jaffe 1999:16)

An integral aspect of language policy-making concerns how languages attract notice from policy-makers. We have to ask ourselves which languages become visible to policy makers (in the sense of State-sponsored, or State-recognized language of which Bourdieu writes). We have to ask ourselves how and when minority languages emerge as relevant candidates for policy-making. We have also to ask ourselves who the relevant policy-making gatekeepers are, and about our own role(s) in those gatekeeping processes.

When considering establishing language policies for signed languages, we must start with recognition of them as a language, let alone worthy of policy formation about them. Drawing from specific language-policy controversies particular to Deaf communities in the U.S. and Ireland, I have come up with six relevant aspects or, possibly stages, of policy formation. These six aspects of policy formation may be relevant to all minority language policy formations. When we think about language policies, we have also to consider their impact or potential impact on the communities affected. Would the people affected by these policies approve of them? Language ideologies are key in these processes. (Of course, as this is a very preliminary draft, I welcome all comments, and relevant citations.)

Here are the six relevant aspects or stages of policy formation briefly listed. We will revisit them after addressing some specific examples of American Sign Language (ASL) and Irish Sign Language (ISL) and their relevant histories.

When does the minority language get “on the map?”

Sign as a language. Sign as different from English (majority contact language).

Getting a foot hold...which method will work, and who can be effective? Considerations of power and access to institutions.

Working within the system. Radical approaches.

Once the language is “on the map,” how does it reach the stage of legitimacy where efforts to have it recognized through policy making are even possible?

1.) Laws.

2.) National or Official language status.

3.) Nod from existing authority (e.g., school language, church language).

Using the foot hold... “new” voices can emerge, changes in direction are possible. Perhaps multiple voices are possible, but most likely, there will be continued restrictions on what can be said and on who can say it.

Anyone can play.

Authorities and types of resistance from mainstream look-alikes to radical changes.

How do multiple voices exist simultaneously in the midst of policy-making?

Policy making and the role of the academic, or the possible roles of linguistic anthropologists in policy making.