Cover not available

Article published In: Language Problems and Language Planning
Vol. 41:2 (2017) ► pp.136–158

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Buttering their bread on both sides?

The recognition of sign languages and the aspirations of deaf communities

 | University of Namur
 | Gallaudet University
Published online: 27 October 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.41.2.04dem
Abstract
In the past two decades, a wave of campaigns to recognise sign languages have taken place in numerous countries. These campaigns sought official recognition of national sign languages, with the aim of enhancing signers’ social mobility and protecting the vitality of sign languages. These activities differ from a long history of sign language planning from a ‘language as a problem’ approach largely used by educators and policymakers to date. However, the instrumental rights and social mobility obtained as a result have thus far been limited with educational linguistic and language acquisition rights especially lacking. This article identifies two reasons for this situation. First, a view of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) from a medical perspective has led to confusion about the meaning of linguistic rights for them and led governments to treat sign language planning differently than that for spoken languages. Furthermore, SLPs political participation is hindered by recognition being offered by governments without substantial commitments to financial resources, changes in government practices or greater inclusion of sign languages in public life. One exception to this trend are sign language planning bodies, but even these face challenges in the implementation phase. Going forward, we argue that sign language recognition legislation should centre on deaf communities’ concerns regarding sign language vitality. In addition to a need to ensure acquisition for deaf signers, we contend that while the expansion of hearing (and deaf) new signers can be interpreted in terms of language endangerment it can also be seen as strengthening sign languages’ vitality.
Abstract (Dutch)
Van twee walletjes eten? De erkenning van gebarentalen en de aspiraties van dovengemeenschappen
De laatste twintig jaar hebben er in heel wat landen campagnes plaatsgevonden om gebarentalen te erkennen. Deze campagnes streefden naar de officiële erkenning van nationale gebarentalen met als doel de sociale mobiliteit van gebarentaligen te doen stijgen, en de vitaliteit van gebarentalen te beschermen. Ze verschillen van een lange geschiedenis van gebarentaalplanning, voornamelijk door onderwijskundigen en beleidsmakers, vanuit een ‘taal als probleem’-aanpak. Desondanks zijn de instrumentele rechten en sociale mobiliteit als gevolg van deze campagnes beperkt gebleven, waarbij vooral het ontbreken van onderwijstaalrechten en taalverwervingsrechten opmerkelijk is. Dit artikel identificeert twee redenen voor deze situatie. Ten eerste heeft de medische visie op gebarentaligen geleid tot verwarring over de betekenis van taalrechten voor deze groep, en als gevolg gehad dat overheden gebarentaalplanning anders benaderden dan planning voor gesproken talen. Daarenboven wordt de politieke participatie van gebarentaligen verhinderd door overheden die erkenning aanbieden zonder substantiële financiële inspanningen, veranderingen in overheidspraktijken en zonder toenemende inclusie van gebarentalen in het openbare leven. Eén uitzondering op deze trend zijn organen die aan gebarentaalplanning doen, maar zelfs zij krijgen te maken met uitdagingen wanneer wetgeving geïmplementeerd moet worden. Dit gezegd hebbende argumenteren we dat gebarentaalerkenningswetgeving zou moeten focussen op bezorgdheden van dovengemeenschappen omtrent de vitaliteit van gebarentalen. Aanvullend op de noodzaak aan het verzekeren van gebarentaalverwerving voor dove kinderen en jongeren argumenteren we dat de toename van horende “nieuwe gebaarders” van gebarentalen zowel geïnterpreteerd kan worden in termen van taalbedreiging als in termen van een versterking van de vitaliteit van gebarentalen.
Resumo
Buterumi la panon je ambaŭ flankoj? Rekonado de gestolingvoj kaj la aspiroj de surdulaj komunumoj
En la pasintaj du jardekoj, ondo de kampanjoj por rekono de gestolingvoj ekaperis en multaj landoj. Tiuj kampanjoj serĉis oficialan rekonon de naciaj gestolingvoj, cele al plifortigo de la socia moveblo de gestantoj kaj protekto de la vivipovo de gestolingvoj. Tia agado malsimilas la longan historion de gestolingva planado surbaze de “lingvo kiel problemo” ĝis tiam larĝe aplikatan de edukistoj kaj politikoformulantoj. Tamen, la instrumentaj rajtoj kaj socia moveblo ĝis nun atingitaj estas nur limigitaj, kaj aparte mankas lingvoedukaj kaj lingvoakiraj rajtoj. La artikolo distingas du kialojn de tiu situacio. Unue, identigo de Gestolingvaj Popoloj (GLP) el medicina perspektivo kreis konfuzon pri la signifo de lingvorajtoj por tiuj grupoj kaj igis registarojn trakti gestolingvan planadon alimaniere ol ili traktas parolajn lingvojn. Krome, la politika partopreno de GLP-oj estas malhelpata de la realoj, ke registaroj ofte proponas rekonon sen samtempe doni signifajn financajn resursojn, ke registaraj praktikoj ŝanĝiĝas, kaj ke gestolingvoj estas pli ofte enkadrigitaj en la publika vivo. Unu escepto al tiu emo estas instancoj por gestolingva planado, sed eĉ tiaj instancoj frontas defiojn en la realiga stadio. Ni argumentas, ke, estontece, leĝfarado pri rekono de gestolingvoj centriĝu je la zorgoj de surdulaj komunumoj pri la vivipovo de gestolingvoj. Aldone al la neceso garantii akiron al surdaj gestantoj L1, ni pretendas, ke, kvankam ekspansio de la nombro de aŭdkapablaj gestolingvaj uzantoj L2 estas interpretebla en la kunteksto de lingva endanĝerigo, oni povas ankaŭ konsideri ĝin indiko de gestolingva vivoforto.
Article outline
  • Language planning and sign language recognition
  • Desired outcomes of sign language recognition
  • Barriers to successful sign language recognition legislation
    • The deficit frame
  • Political participation
  • Ways forward: The vitality of sign languages
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (83)
References
Adam, R. (2015). Standardization of Sign Languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 432–445. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baldauf, R., & Kaplan, R. (2003). Who are the actors? The role of (applied) linguists in language policy. In P. Ryan & R. Terborg (Eds.), Language: Issues of Inequality (pp. 19–40). Mexico City: CELE/ Autonomous National University of Mexico.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Batterbury, S., Ladd, P., & Gulliver, M. (2007). Sign Language Peoples as indigenous minorities: implications for research and policy. Environment and Planning, 391, 2899–2915. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bickford, J. A., Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2014). Rating the vitality of sign languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36(5), 513–527. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bryan, A., & Emery, S. (2014). The Case for Deaf Legal Theory Through the Lens of Deaf Gain. In H. -D. L. Bauman & J. J. Murray (Eds.), Deaf Gain: Raising the Stakes for Human Diversity (pp. 37–62). University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Committee on the Icelandic Sign Language (2015). Report of the Committee on Icelandic Sign Language. 7 June 2015. Retrieved from [URL]
Conama, J. B. (2013). Situating the socio-economic position of the Irish Deaf community in the equality framework. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: an International Journal, 32(2), 173–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deaf Sector Partnership. (2015). Scottish Government announces plans to recruit Deaf BSL users to the British Sign Language (BSL) National Advisory Group (NAG) [Press release]. Retrieved from [URL]
de Bres, J. (2015). The hierarchy of minority languages in New Zealand. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36(7), 677–693. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Meulder, M. (2012). Het decreet houdende de erkenning van de Vlaamse Gebarentaal: een evaluatie [The decree on the recognition of the Flemish Sign Language: an evaluation]. In G. De Clerck & R. Pinxten (Eds.), Gebarentaal zegt alles (pp. 56–70). Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Promotion in Times of Endangerment: the Sign Language Act in Finland. Language Policy, 16(2), 189–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015a): Sign language recognition: tensions between specificity and universalism in international deaf discourses. In A. Kusters & M. Friedner (Eds.), It’s Small World. Inquiries into International Deaf Spaces (pp. 160–172). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 498–506. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015c). A Barking Dog That Never Bites?: The British Sign Language (Scotland) Bill. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 446–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). The influence of deaf people’s dual category status on sign language: The British Sign Langauage (Scotland) Act (2015). Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(2), 215–232. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. (2006). Is There a Duty to Legislate for Linguistic Minorities? Journal of Law and Society, 33(1), 181–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eichmann, H. (2009). Planning sign languages: promoting hearing hegemony? Conceptualizing sign language standardization. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(3), 293–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emery, S. (2011). Citizenship and the Deaf Community. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erlenkamp, S., Gjøen, S., Haualand, H., Kvitvær, H. B., Peterson, P. R., Schrøder, O., & Vonen, A. M. (2007). Begrunnelser for å gjøre norsk tegnspråk til offisielt språk [Reasons for making Norwegian Sign Language an official language]. Norges Døveforbund.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
European Union of the Deaf (2011). Sign Languages’ status under threat in Denmark and the Netherlands? [Press release]. Retrieved from [URL]
Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geraci, C. (2012). Language Policy and Planning: The Case of Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), 494–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, D., Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2015). Enrollment in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education Fall 2013. Retrieved from Modern Language Association website: [URL]
Hauser, P., & Kartheiser, G. (2014). The Advantages of Learning a Sign Language. In H. -D. L. Bauman & J. J. Murray (Eds.), Deaf Gain: Raising the Stakes for Human Diversity (pp. 133–145). University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoyer, K. (2004). The Sociolinguistic Situation of Finland-Swedish Deaf People and Their Language, Finland-Swedish Sign Language. In M. Van Herreweghe & M. Vermeerbergen (Eds.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities (Vol. 101, pp. 3–23). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Human Rights Commission (2013). A New Era in the Right to Sign: He Houhanga Rongo te Tika ki te ReoTuri. Report of the New Zealand Sign Language Inquiry. Retrieved from [URL]
Humphries, T. (1977). Communicating across Cultures (Deaf-Hearing) and Language Learning (Doctoral dissertation, Union Institute and University, Cincinnati, OH). Retrieved from [URL]
Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D. J., Padden, C., Rathmann, C., & Smith, S. R. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: Reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9(1), 16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Language Choices for Deaf Infants: Advice for Parents Regarding Sign Languages. Clinical Pediatrics, 55(6), 513–517. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Institute for Language and Folklore (2016). About the Institute for Language and Folklore. Retrieved from [URL].
Johnston, T. (2006). W(h)ither the Deaf Community? Population, Genetics, and the Future of Australian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 6(2), 137–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jousma, C. (2009). Van warme woorden en “gave” gebaren [Of warm words and “whole” signs]. Leeuwarden/Ljouwert: in opdracht van het Fries Centrum voor Doven en Slechthorenden.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kisch, S. (2008). Deaf discourse: The social construction of deafness in a Bedowin Community in the Negev. Medical Antropology, 27(3), 283–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knoors, H., & Marschark, M. (2012). Language Planning for the 21st Century: Revisiting Bilingual Language Policy for Deaf Children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(3), 291–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krausneker, V. (2000). Sign Languages and the Minority Language Policy of the European Union. In M. Metzger (Ed.), Bilingualism & Identity in Deaf Communities (pp. 142–158). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Has something changed? Sign Languages in Europe: the case of minorised minority languages. Deaf Worlds, 19(2), 33–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Ideologies and Attitudes towards Sign Languages: An Approximation. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 411–431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Moreland, C. J., Napoli, D. J., Osterling, W., Padden, C., & Rathmann, C. (2010). Infants and Children with Hearing Loss Need Early Language Access. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 21(2), 143–154.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kusters, A. (2015). Deaf Space in Adamorobe: An ethnographic study in a village in Ghana. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Language Council of Norway (2016). Om Oss [About us]. Retrieved from [URL]
McKee, R. (2008). The construction of deaf children as marginal bilinguals in the mainstream. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(5), 579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Action Pending: Four Years on from the New Zealand Sign Language Act. VUW Law Review, 42(2), 277–298.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Assessing the vitality of New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 17(3), 322–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKee, R., & Manning, V. (2015). Evaluating Effects of Language Recognition on Language Rights and the Vitality of New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 473–497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
May, S. (2003). Rearticulating the Case for Minority Language Rights. Current Issues in Language Planning, 4(2), 95–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Language and minority rights. Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language (2nd ed.). NY and London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. E., & Karchmer, M. A. (2004). Chasing the Mythical Ten Percent: Parental Hearing Status of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in the United States. Sign Language Studies, 4(2), 138–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. E., Young, T. A., Bachleda, B., & Karchmer, M. A. (2006). How Many People Use ASL in the United States? Why Estimates Need Updating. Sign Language Studies, 6(3), 306–335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murray, J. J. (2007). “One touch of nature makes the whole world kin”: the transnational lives of Deaf Americans, 1870–1924 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from [URL].
(2015). Linguistic Human Rights Discourse in Deaf Community Activism. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 379–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Niemela, J. (2011). Danish Sign Language as an endangered language? Presented at the WFD-EUD conference “Sign Languages as Endangered Languages,” Ål, Norway, 7 November 2011.
Nonaka, A. M. (2014). (Almost) everyone here Spoke Ban Khor Sign Language – until they started using TSL: Language shift and endangerment in a Thai village sign language. Language and Communication, 381, 54–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nover, S. (2000). History of Language Planning in Deaf Education: the 19th Century (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from [URL]
O’Rourke, B., Pujolar, J., & Famallo, F. (2015). New speakers of minority languages: The challenging opportunity – Foreward. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2311, 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, C. & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America. Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Punch, R., & Hyde, M. B. (2011). Communication, Psychosocial, and Educational Outcomes of Children with Cochlear Implants and Challenges Remaining for Professionals and Parents. International Journal of Otolaryngology, 41, 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quer, J. (2012). Legal pathways to the recognition of sign languages: A comparison of the Catolan and Spanish Sign language acts. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), 565–582.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reagan, T. (2010). Language Policy and Planning for Sign Languages (Vol. 161). Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Ideological Barriers to American Sign Language: Unpacking Linguistic Resistance. Sign Language Studies, 11(4), 606–636. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (2006). Planning for the survival of linguistic diversity. Language Policy, 5(4), 441–473. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rubio-Marín, R. (2003). Language Rights: Exploring the Competing Rationales. In W. Kymlicka & A. Patten (Eds.), Language Rights and Political Theory (pp. 52–79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE: The Journal for the National Association for Bilingual Education, 8(2), 15–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sarivaara, E., Uusiautti, S., & Määttä, K. (2013). How to Revitalize an Indigenous Language? Adults’ Experiences of the Revitalization of the Sámi Language. Cross-Cultural Communication, 9(1), 13–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schermer, T. (2012). Sign Language Planning in the Netherlands between 1980 and 2010. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), 467–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2014). British Sign Language (BSL) Bill – Government Memorandum. Retrieved from [URL]
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2010). Language rights. In J. Jaspers, J-O Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatic highlights. Society and Language Use (Vol. 71, pp. 212–232). John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Aikio-Puoskari, U. (2003). Exclusion or inclusion – linguistic human rights for a linguistic minority, the Deaf Sign language users, and an indigenous people, the Saami. In P. Lee (Ed.), Many voices, one vision: The Right to Communicate in Practice (pp. 59–88). London: Southbound.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (2003). Reassessing Mãori regeneration. Language in Society, 32(4), 553–578. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. In Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers (No. 8). Buffalo: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suomen viittomakielten kielipoliittinen ohjelma. (2010). [The Language Policy Programme for the National Sign Languages in Finland] Helsinki: Kuurojen Liitto ry & Kotimaisten kielten tutkimuskeskus. Retrieved from [URL]
Tallroth, P. (2012). Multilingualism in Finland: A Legal Perspective. Language & Law, 11. Advance online publication. [URL].
Tervoort, B. (1953). Structurele analyse van visueel taalgebruik binnen een groep dove kinderen [Structural analysis of visual language use within a group of deaf children]. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgeverij.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tollefson, J. (2001). Language policy/planning and disadvantages. In R. Kaplan (Ed.) Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 415–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, G. H. (2003a). On policies and prospects for British Sign Language. In G. Hogan-Brun & S. Wolff (Eds.), Minority Languages in Europe: frameworks, status, prospects (pp. 173–191). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003b). Government recognition and £1 million boost for British Sign Language. Deaf Worlds, 19(1), 74–78.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UNESCO. (2013). UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Herreweghe, M., De Meulder, M., & Vermeerbergen, M. (2015). From Erasure to Recognition (and Back Again?): The Case of Flemish Sign Language. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language Research, Policy and Practice (pp. 45–61). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, X., Spotti, M., Juffermans, K., Cornips, L., Kroon, S., & Blommaert, J. (2014). Globalization in the margins: toward a re-evalution of language and mobility. Applied Linguistics Review, 5(1), 23–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wheatley, M. & Pabsch, A. (2010). Sign Language Legislation in the European Union. Brussels: European Union of the Deaf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Sign Language Legislation in the European Union (2nd ed.). Brussels: European Union of the Deaf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wheeler, A., Archbold, S. M., Hardie, T., & Watson, L. M. (2009). Children with cochlear implants: The communication journey. Cochlear Implants International, 10(1), 41–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. & De Vos, C. (2012). Sign Languages in Village Communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights. Sign Language Typology Series No. 4. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (33)

Cited by 33 other publications

Angelini, Robin, Katta Spiel & Maartje De Meulder
2025. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sharma, Abhimanyu
2025. India’s language policy for deaf and hard-of-hearing people. Language Policy 24:3 ► pp. 451 ff. DOI logo
Wilks, Rob & Rachel O'Neill
2025. Integrating British Sign Language into deaf education. The Language Learning Journal ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Chegovo, Reward, Martin Musengi & Mary Runo
2024. Sign language policy implementation in special schools for the deaf in Zimbabwe. Deafness & Education International 26:2 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Cooper, Audrey C., Michele L. Cooke, Kota Takayama, Danielle F. Sumy & Sara McBride
2024. From alert to action: earthquake early warning and deaf communities. Natural Hazards 120:14 ► pp. 13573 ff. DOI logo
Cunneen, Robyn & Maria Rieder
2024. A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of language ideologies in parliamentary debates about the recognition of Irish sign language. Critical Discourse Studies ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
De Meulder, Maartje & Joseph J. Murray
2024. The illusion of choice in inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education 28:6 ► pp. 753 ff. DOI logo
Duggan, Nora & Ingela Holmström
2024. Deaf migrants in Sweden: exploring linguistic and bureaucratic challenges through the lens of Crip Theory and Crip Linguistics. Multilingua 43:5 ► pp. 667 ff. DOI logo
Løkken, Marita
2024. Døve kvinners merarbeid i møte med barselomsorgen. Tidsskrift for omsorgsforskning 10:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Løkken, Marita
2024. A standardised practice of language and understanding: When deaf parents and their babies meet paediatric nurses in Norwegian health centres for routine postnatal consultations. Language and Health 2:2 ► pp. 100026 ff. DOI logo
Løkken, Marita
2025. Gaze Direction as Framing for Interaction in Sign Language–Interpreted Routine Postnatal Visits. Communication & Medicine DOI logo
Schembri, Adam, Kate Rowley & Lorraine Leeson
2024. Sign Languages in Britain and Ireland. In Language in Britain and Ireland, ► pp. 439 ff. DOI logo
Duggan, Nora
2023. “Why the long nose?”: A sociolinguistic analysis of deaf migrants’ language learning experiences in adult education. Linguistics and Education 78 ► pp. 101243 ff. DOI logo
Faingold, Eduardo D.
2023. Language Rights and the Law in Iceland. In Language Rights and the Law in Scandinavia, ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Klyuchnikova, Olga, Marina Alyaeva, Lev Melnikov, Konstantin Tsapko, A. Muratov & S. Khasanov
2023. Sustainable development of facilities based on modeling and optimization of organizational solutions. E3S Web of Conferences 371 ► pp. 03006 ff. DOI logo
Rowley, Katherine & Kearsy Cormier
2023. Attitudes towards age variation and language change in the British deaf community. Language & Communication 92 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Snoddon, Kristin
2023. Inclusive education and deaf learners. In International Encyclopedia of Education(Fourth Edition), ► pp. 480 ff. DOI logo
Sommer Lindsay, Mette, Audrey Cameron & Jemina Napier
2023. Deaf People in the Workplace. In Intercultural Issues in the Workplace, ► pp. 241 ff. DOI logo
McKee, Rachel & Anna-Lena Nilsson
2022. Interpreters as agents of language planning. Translation and Interpreting Studies 17:3 ► pp. 429 ff. DOI logo
De Meulder, Maartje & Hilde Haualand
2021. Sign language interpreting services. Translation and Interpreting Studies 16:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Demchenko, Valentina, Natalia Lutsenko, Olga Gaibaryan, Yulia Khoroshevskaya, D. Rudoy, A. Olshevskaya & N. Ugrekhelidze
2021. The author's strategies of the communicative paradigm in the medieval romance. E3S Web of Conferences 273 ► pp. 11046 ff. DOI logo
Holmström, Ingela & Sangeeta Bagga-Gupta
2021. Patient or Citizen? Participation and Accessibility for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing People in the Context of Interpretation in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 23:1 ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Stone, Christopher & Jenny Köhring
2021. Sensory ecologies and semiotic assemblages during British Sign Language interpreted weather forecasts. International Journal of Multilingualism 18:2 ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo
Moriarty, Erin
2020. “Sign to me, not the children”: Ideologies of language contamination at a deaf tourist site in Bali. Language & Communication 74 ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Snoddon, Kristin & Maartje De Meulder
2020. Introduction: Ideologies in sign language vitality and revitalization. Language & Communication 74 ► pp. 154 ff. DOI logo
De Meulder, Maartje, Verena Krausneker, Graham Turner & John Bosco Conama
2019. Sign Language Communities. In The Palgrave Handbook of Minority Languages and Communities, ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
De Meulder, Maartje, Annelies Kusters, Erin Moriarty & Joseph J. Murray
2019. Describe, don't prescribe. The practice and politics of translanguaging in the context of deaf signers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 40:10 ► pp. 892 ff. DOI logo
Haualand, Hilde & Ingela Holmström
2019. When language recognition and language shaming go hand in hand – sign language ideologies in Sweden and Norway. Deafness & Education International 21:2-3 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Leeson, Lorraine
2019. Ophelia, Emma, and the beast from the east effortful engaging and the provision of sign language interpreting in emergencies. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 29:2 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Meulder, Maartje De
2019. “So, why do you sign?” Deaf and hearing new signers, their motivation, and revitalisation policies for sign languages. Applied Linguistics Review 10:4 ► pp. 705 ff. DOI logo
Snoddon, Kristin & Erin Wilkinson
2019. Problematizing the Legal Recognition of Sign Languages in Canada. The Canadian Modern Language Review 75:2 ► pp. 128 ff. DOI logo
Young, Alys, Jemina Napier & Rosemary Oram
2019. The translated deaf self, ontological (in)security and deaf culture. The Translator 25:4 ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2024. Multilingualism in Britain and Ireland: Minority Languages. In Language in Britain and Ireland, ► pp. 371 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue