Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:08:46.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Language attitudes in Deaf communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Joseph C. Hill
Edited by
Adam C. Schembri  and
Ceil Lucas
Joseph C. Hill
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Adam C. Schembri
Affiliation:
La Trobe University, Victoria
Ceil Lucas
Affiliation:
Gallaudet University, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In May 2011, a major controversy erupted in Italy regarding the official recognition of the sign language used by Italian Deaf people (see Nassisi 2010; La protesta 2011; LIS Subito! n.d.; Searls 2011). Since the 1980s, this sign language has been recognized in the Italian Deaf community as Lingua dei Segni Italiana (conventionally abbreviated as LIS, not LSI, which would follow the conventions of spoken and written Italian) which is translated as Italian Sign Language, but the name of the language is not widely known among hearing people in Italy. Leaders of the Italian Deaf community had been working to achieve the official recognition of LIS to affirm its language status and its essential role in supporting for Deaf people's access to information in education, employment, and service. The leaders were close to getting official recognition when one house of the Italian Parliament, the Senate of the Republic, approved the bill in recognizing LIS and it only needed approval from the other house of the Italian Parliament, the Chamber of Deputies, in order to pass the bill (La protesta 2011). In May 2011, the Chamber of Deputies revealed a change in the bill in calling what they thought was a more accurate name for the sign language: Linguaggio Mimico-Gestuale (LMG) (Searls 2011). The English translation of the name is “language of mime and gesture” with the meaning of language as a particular communication activity (e.g., baby talk or technical jargon) rather than a full-fledged linguistic system. The former name had reflected and affirmed the linguistic status of the sign language, but the new name was an implicit rejection of that status. The Parliament was willing to pass the bill with the new name, but the Deaf community refused to accept the name and called for keeping the former name which reflected the actual nature of LIS (LIS Subito! n.d.). Despite the intervention by the leaders of the Italian Deaf community and academics and researchers in LIS- and Deaf-related fields, the call for retaining the former name went unheard; instead, the Parliament drafted a new bill with the support of medical professionals that required speech and hearing interventions for deaf children, including the use of cochlear implants, in order to ensure proper educational and language developments for them (LIS Subito! n.d.).

Type
Chapter
Information
Sociolinguistics and Deaf Communities , pp. 146 - 174
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

La protesta dei sordomuti, la lingua dei segni deve avere la stessa dignità di quelle parlate (2011) La Repubblica, May 30. Online:
Baer, A. M., Okrent, A., and Rose, M. (1996) Noticing variation in ASL: Metalinguistic knowledge and language attitudes across racial and regional lines. In Byers, L. and Rose, M. (eds.), Communication Forum, School of Communication, Student Forum (pp. 1–33). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Department of ASL.Google Scholar
Barnes, S. L. (2003) The Ebonics enigma: An analysis of attitudes on an urban college campus. Race Ethnicity and Education 6(3) (2003): 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baugh, J. (2007) Attitudes towards variations and ear-witness testimony: linguistic profiling and voice discrimination in the quest for fair housing and fair lending. In Bayley, R. and Lucas, C. (eds.), Sociolinguistic Variation: Theories, Methods, and Applications (pp. 338–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baynton, D. C. (1996) Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign against Sign Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, H., Saulnier, K. L., and Hamilton, L. B. (1983) The Comprehensive Signed English Dictionary. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, K. (2009) The nature of sociolinguistic perception. Variation and Change 21: 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croneberg, C. G. (1965) Sign language dialects. In Stokoe, W. C., Casterline, D. C., and Croneberg, C. G. (eds.), A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles (313–319). Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. and Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. and Chaiken, S. (2007) The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition 25: 582–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterbrooks, S. R. and Baker, S. (2002) Language Learning in Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Multiple Pathways. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1997) Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 151–167). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Evans, B. E. (2002) An acoustic and perceptual analysis of imitation. In Long, D. (ed.), Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology (vol. II, pp. 95–112). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fant, L. J. (1972) Ameslan: An Introduction to American Sign Language. Acton, CA: Joyce Media Inc.Google Scholar
Fenn, A. (1992) A pilot study on sign language attitudes, unpublished thesis, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Flowers, D. A. (2000) Codeswitching and Ebonics in urban adult basic education classrooms, Education and Urban Society 32(2): 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fordham, S. (1999) Dissin’ ‘the Standard’: Ebonics as Guerrilla Warfare at Capital High. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 30: 272–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazer, T. C.Attitudes toward regional pronunciation. Journal of English Linguistics 20(1): 89–100.CrossRef
Gallaudet Research Institute (2011) Regional and National Summary Report of Data from the 2009–2010 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth. Washington, DC: GRI, Gallaudet University. Retrieved March 4, 2012, from Google Scholar
Garrett, P. (2010) Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeslin, J. D. (2007) Deaf bilingual education: a comparison of the academic performance of deaf children of deaf parents and deaf children of hearing parents, unpublished dissertation, Indiana University.
Geraci, C., Battaglia, K., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., Donati, C., Giudice, S., and Mereghetti, E. (2011) The LIS corpus project: A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies 11(4): 528–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. and Mylander, C. (1994) The development of morphology without a conventional language model. In Volterra, V. and Erting, C. J. (eds.), From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children (pp. 165–177). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Green, L. J. (2002) African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustason, G. and Zawolkow, E. (1993) Signing Exact English. Los Alamitos, CA: Modern Signs Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Hill, J. (2012) Language Attitudes in the American Deaf Community. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. E. and Erting, C. (1989) Ethnicity and socialization in a classroom for Deaf children. In Lucas, C. (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community (pp. 41–83). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kannapell, B. (1985) Language choice reflects identity choice: a sociolinguistic study of deaf college students, unpublished dissertation, Georgetown University.
Kannapell, B. (1989) An examination of deaf college students’ attitudes toward ASL and English. In Lucas, C. (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community (pp. 191–210). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kannapell, B. (1994) Deaf identity: An American perspective. In Erting, C., Johnson, R. C., Smith, D. L., and Snider, B. D. (eds.), The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture (pp. 44–48). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Karchmer, M. A. and Mitchell, R. E. (2003) Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In Marschark, M. and Spencer, P. E. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education (pp. 21–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, , , H. (2002) Do Deaf people have a disability?Sign Language Studies 2(4): 356–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., and Bahan, B. (1996) A Journey into the DEAF-WORLD. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press.Google Scholar
Leigh, I. (2009) A Lens on Deaf Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K. (2003) Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LIS Subito! [n.d.] retrieved September 13, 2011 from Movimento Lingua dei Segni Italiana Subito! Online:
Lucas, C., Bayley, R., and Valli, C. (2001) Sociolinguistic Variation in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, C. and Valli, C. (1992) Language Contact in the American Deaf Community. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCaskill, C., Lucas, C., Bayley, R., and Hill, J. (2011) The Hidden Treasure of Black ASL: Its History and Structure. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
McKee, D., McKee, R., and Major, G. (2011) Numeral variation in New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 12(1): 72–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKee, R. and McKee, D. (2011) Old signs, new signs, whose signs? Sociolinguistic variation in the NZSL lexicon. Sign Language Studies 11(4): 485–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, J. (2001) Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(4): 530–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. E. and Karchmer, M. A. (2004) When parents are deaf versus hard of hearing: Patterns of sign use and school placement of deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 9(2): 133–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, R. E. and Karchmer, M. A. (2005) Parent hearing status and signing among deaf and hard of hearing students. Sign Language Studies 5(2): 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. E. and Karchmer, M. A. (2006) Demographics of deaf education: More students in more places. American Annals of the Deaf 151(2): 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaghan, L. (2003) A world's eye view: Deaf cultures in global perspective. In Monaghan, L., Schmaling, C., Nakamura, K., and Turner, G. H. (eds.), Many Ways to Be Deaf: International Variation in Deaf Communities (pp. 1–24). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Nassisi, S. (2010) Lingua dei segni, ancora ritardi la legge è ferma in commissione, La Repubblica, December 27. Online:
Niedzielski, N. (1999) The effect of social information on the perception of sociolinguistic variables. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18: 62–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogbu, J. U. (1999) Beyond language: Ebonics, proper English, and identity in a black-American speech community. American Educational Research Journal 36(2): 147–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padden, C. and Humphries, T. (1988) Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, C. and Humphries, T. (2005) Inside Deaf Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Power, E. and Leigh, G. (2011) Curriculum: Cultural and communicative contexts. In Marschark, M. and Spencer, P. E. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education, 2nd edn (vol. I, pp. 32–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. (1996) Where the worst English is spoken. In Schneider, E. W. (ed.), Focus on the USA (pp. 297–360). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, D. R. (2002) Language with an attitude. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (pp. 40–66). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reagan, T. G. (2010) Language Policy and Planning for Sign Languages. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, R. (2010) American Sign Language curricula: A review. Sign Language Studies 10(3): 348–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searls, D. B. (2011) A commentary on the recent controversy to recognize Lingua dei Segni Italiana. June 1. Online:
Shin, Hyon B. and Kominski, Robert A. (2010) Language Use in the United States: 2007. American Community Survey Reports, ACS-12.
Stokoe, W. C., Casterline, D., and Croneberg, C. (1965) A Dictionary of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.Google Scholar
Tevenal, S. and Villaneuva, M. (2009) Are you getting the message? The effects of SimCom on the message received by deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students. Sign Language Studies 9(3): 266–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thumann-Prezioso, C. (2005) Deaf parents’ perspectives on deaf education. Sign Language Studies 5(4): 415–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward Trotter, J. (1989) An examination of language attitudes of teachers of the deaf. In Lucas, C. (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community (pp. 211–228). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, W. and Schilling-Estes, N. (2006) American English, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×