Reassessing Minority Language Empowerment from a Deaf perspective: The other 32 Languages
Paddy Ladd, Mike Gulliver, Sarah Batterbury
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Mercator First International Symposium on Minority Languages and Research - European Minority Languages and Research: Shaping an Agenda for a Global Age”, 08/04/2003 – 10/04/2003, Aberystwyth
[email protected] ,
[email protected] ,
[email protected]
Dr Paddy Ladd & M.Gulliver Centre for Deaf Studies University of Bristol 8 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TN, United Kingdom,
Dr S.C.E. Batterbury Evaluation Institute University of Glamorgan Pontypridd CF37 1DL Wales United Kingdom
ABSTRACT The paper begins by outlining the linguistic basis for conceiving Deaf communities primarily as language minorities rather than disability groups, and delineates their history and the linguistic oppression they have experienced. It then describes the recent developments towards partial recognition within the European scene and their present limitations. The paper argues for Deaf 'ownership' of their own agenda and for non-Deaf peoples' participation as allies towards the accomplishment of this agenda. The paper discusses two main Deaf agendas for change. The first is concerned with internal reconstruction, the re-building of Deaf communities by Deaf people, and the need for educational provision in sign language to be made available to Deaf children. The second is concerned with external liaison enabling access and building genuine social inclusion of Deaf people, a marker of a truly civil society. The paper ends with
the need for hearing people to re-examine the current academic and policy environments in the light of historical Oralism and respond by supporting Deaf ownership of the research and policy fields.
REASSESSING MINORITY LANGUAGE EMPOWERMENT FROM A DEAF PERSPECTIVE: THE OTHER 32 LANGUAGES “the discourses of language and minority rights are prime sites where … power relations are articulated and outworked” (May 2001, p.xiii)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This paper outlines the need for a Deaf-led research and policy agenda in the area of European minority language policy. It details this Deaf-led agenda illuminating some of the key demands and areas for research and policy support as well as issues for Deaf communities themselves. The paper begins by summarising evidence that demonstrates that European sign languages are genuine indigenous and autochthonous languages, and briefly discusses the legacy of Oralism in seeking to eradicate sign languages. This wide-spread mistaken conception of Deaf communities as disability formations rather than language minorities has been a driver for the linguistic oppression that has been experienced over centuries. This mistaken view continues today creating a policy context that results in many policy organisations and researchers failing to engage with the reality of Deaf communities as genuine linguistic minorities. (EBLUL 2002a, EUD 2001, May 2001). The paper discusses the need for the European Minority language research agenda to include policy relevant solutions to help promote and encourage Europe’s indigenous sign languages. We suggest that the research community needs to ensure that there is space and support for a Deaf-led research agenda to adequately understand and address policy questions surrounding this group of European minority languages. The main part of this paper examines some of the key substantive areas of a Deaf-led research and policy agenda. It is only by engaging with this agenda that the policy and research world can adequately understand and respond to legitimate demands by Deaf people for appropriate recognition and linguistic protection of Deaf languages and communities. Although in the past few weeks there is some evidence of attitude shift in the European policy arena (Bruce 2003) we suggest that there is still considerable room for improvement, achievable only by consulting Deaf people about what is needed. As the result European minority language policy has, so far, consistently failed Deaf people. There are two main Deaf agendas for change. The first is concerned with internal reconstruction, the re-building of Deaf communities by Deaf people The second is
concerned with external liasion. In the case of internal reconstruction, European policy does have a role to play supporting Deaf-led initiatives to end damaging mainstreaming practice and enabling the education of Deaf children in their native sign languages. Additional Deaf-led community initiatives are concerned with gaining ownership of their own organizations, of sign languages, and the rebuilding their cultural patrimony. Appropriate European policy responses are also required to ensure external liasion with Deaf communities. Here, it is important to address the need for legal safeguards for full citizenship & participation by Deaf people, the building of relevant infrastructure (interpreters etc), the provision of literature in sign languages as well as written texts, and Deaf involvement in research funding decisions. The paper concludes with a brief examination of the way in which hearing researchers and policy makers can ensure they help promote the Deaf agenda without falling into a trap of empire building and neo-colonialist practice. Research into the promotion and revitalisation of sign languages must therefore be spearheaded by a Deaf agenda. More than a century of Deaf exclusion from policy decisions about sign languages has been responsible for wide-scale social exclusion of Deaf people resulting in educational under-achievement as a direct result of mistaken and ill-informed hearing language policies (Ladd 2003, Lane 1999, 1989). This imbalance needs to be redressed not just at the policy level but also in shaping future research. At a time when we reflect on the future research agenda for European minority languages we suggest that it is imperative that we include sign languages and Deaf people in this debate to ensure that the mistakes of the Twentieth century are not replicated in the Twenty First.
2.0 SIGN LANGUAGES AS AUTOCHTHONOUS LANGUAGES
GENUINE
INDIGENOUS
AND
Deaf communities and their languages are the same as, and different from hearing communities. Oxymoronic though this statement may be, it probably best represents the way that the hearing academy thinks about Deaf people. Whilst the Deaf community and Deaf people’s use of sign language is now generally accepted as an empirical academic truth, even by non Deaf-Studies scholars (Reagan 2002), reservations still remain for many people in the real-life application of this theory. One of the main reasons for this head versus heart dichotomy is confusion around the linguistic status of Deaf people. The reason for this is that little time is taken to unpack their language situation. If we do this, we find, not only that Sign Languages are indeed full, natural human languages, but that Deaf communities can help us to a much deeper understanding of linguistic issues that we often take for granted. Sign Languages as full, natural languages In considering Sign Languages, the first thing to say is that they demonstrate all the features of Charles Hockett’s natural language features (Stokoe 1960, Hockett 1968, Sutton-Spence & Woll 1999a).
Physically, languages are broadcast through a medium that decays immediately leaving the channel open for further use. In the case of sign language, the medium is light rather than sound. Because of the broadcast nature of the communication, both the sender and receiver are required to use cognitive operations to determine their role in the exchange. In addition, they are required to process the signal both at the level of encoding and decoding without the physical signal still being present. The encoded meaning of the sign language signal is built through the use of discrete and, in of themselves, meaningless phonological segments i.e. handshapes, locations and movements that can be combined according to agreed conventions to create morphological units of meaning (Deuchar 1984). These units of meaning can then be further combined to communicate a potentially infinite number of utterances according to rules defined within the language (Brennan 1990, Brennan & Turner 1991). In common with all languages, these utterances can either be previously experienced, or completely novel and can be used to construct messages about concrete and non-concrete things, including things that are made up. Lastly, Sign Languages can be used to talk about themselves (Sutton-Spence & Woll, 1999b). This last point is reflected by the proliferation of research into the linguistics of sign languages carried out since the publication of Stokoe’s seminal Sign Language Structure (Stokoe 1960). Sign language acquisition In terms of acquisition, Sign Languages are naturally passed on to children within a culture and are acquired by children in the same way as spoken language. Stages moving from free babbling, through mirrored babbling to lexical production occur in the same way as they do for spoken languages (Deuchar 1984). Hearing children born into Deaf families often learn Sign Language as their first language and exhibit the same interference features as other bilingual children upon meeting their second language (Bailey 2002). One feature of sign language acquisition, operating as it does mostly amongst Deaf children of hearing parents, is the “late learner” characteristic that many Deaf people show. A number of studies have shown that the effect of only achieving access to sign language in the first years of school has a deleterious effect on mastery of the language leading to a possible “recreolization” of the language in each generation of learners especially amongst Deaf children of hearing families (Schlesinger and Namir 1978). Effects have also been found on cognitive development (Conrad 1979) and even on the eventual mastery of various forms of spoken language (Deuchar op cit.). Sign language variation We have already seen how the path to acquisition of sign language and family background can affect the form that the language takes. However, the adult community of Sign Language users that these children eventually form also shows features of language use that are in common with spoken language communities. Social demarcations of gender, social class, regional identity, age and ethnicity etc.
are re-enforced through purposeful language variation. Discourse study of Deaf communities shows that speech act elements such as politeness and turn taking etc. also take place according to conventionalised rules (Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999a). The language-is-sound effect Given the clear evidence for Sign Language’s linguistic status, it is perhaps hard to see why there is such difficulty in accepting Deaf people as a linguistic group. This brings us back to face our earlier question of head versus heart knowledge. In truth, many people still consider sign languages to be simply a form of spoken language “on the hands”. This confusion is partly due to our preconceptions of language as sound based, but also owes something to the plethora of sign systems that have been artificially constructed. Indeed the literature on Sign Language is rife with forms of manually coded language; Manually Coded English (MCE), Signing Exact English (SEE), Sign Supported English (SSE) etc. These are not natural Sign Languages and have been artificially constructed, largely for the purpose of teaching an oral language or by hearing teachers who misunderstand the adequacy of Natural Sign Languages. Possibly the most striking feature of these created sign systems is that, although they borrow a full syntactic structure from spoken languages, this syntactic system appears to break hitherto undefined features of medium dependency within Universal Grammar, rendering the language unable to function naturally. Acquisition data on children brought up with artificially created sign languages shows how they transform the spoken language-based grammatical information held within these languages without any exposure to natural sign languages and nativize it to produce fully functioning features of natural Sign Languages (Lane, Hoffmeister & Bahan 1996). It therefore appears that special care needs to be taken in order to ensure that the overwhelming hegemony that spoken language research has over the formalisation of linguistic theory does not exclude a careful consideration of the evidence available from non-oral linguistic groups. In the same vein, neither is it reasonable to assume that influences from surrounding spoken languages are an inevitable indicator of linguistic deficiency. Given the historical situation regarding Sign Language communities, particularly in the Western world, they usually share their living space with comparatively powerful spoken languages. In common with other oppressed language groups, this situation has had a detrimental effect on what could be described as their linguistic “self-esteem”. It is almost inevitable, therefore, that they too have at some point taken on board aspects of the surrounding majority language. However, these are clearly either borrowings, obeying the origin language’s rules, or have been fully loaned into Sign Language taking on Sign Language grammatical behaviour (Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999a). The Sign languages of Europe Having, therefore, established that sign languages are legitimate languages capable of standing up to and adjusting academic scrutiny the final justification for their
autochthonous status must be the historical evidence offered by the differences between the geopolitical distribution of spoken and sign languages. Several examples exist within Europe of situations where two or more spoken languages occupy the same geographical space as a single sign language. Belgium, for example, has only one sign language and although two regional dialects of this language exist which roughly follow the geographical divide formed by the Flemish/Walloon language boundaries, they are closer to each other than they are to either French or Dutch sign languages (SIL 2002). There are also situations where two indigenous sign languages have occurred inside a single political boundary. Sometimes, nationalist boundaries are duplicated, as in Catalonia where an indigenous sign language exists in opposition to Spanish Sign Language. However, this can also occur as it has in the city of Lyons, France, where a different, indigenous sign language exists without any corresponding political boundary (SIL op cit). Sometimes, these boundary issues pass unnoticed. However, in other situations, Deaf people’s linguistic identities can clash with those of the spoken language communities. One example of this is found in the Basque country where Deaf Basques living in France and Spain use two mutually incomprehensible sign languages and have little contact with each other (Gulliver 2002). In other situations, as in Catalonia, the Deaf nationalist movement can re-enforce the spoken language situation (Gulliver op cit). This evidence shows that, not only are sign languages autochthonous and indigenous, but that their development and the development of the communities that use them are influenced by, but different from those of the spoken language communities that surround them. Therefore, it is important to understand the historical evolution of the European Deaf community and their languages.
3.0 EUROPEAN SIGN LANGUAGES AND HISTORY
In order to understand the early emergence of natural Sign Languages, we need to redefine the limits of our concept of historical continuity to include, not only geographically based language communities, but also genetically predisposed ones (Lane, Pillard, and French 2002). It is very probable that 'home-sign' systems were created around single incidences of deafness, and that localised sign languages existed in village communities where intermarriage was a feature and where travel opportunities were minimal. Moreover there is emerging evidence from Ancient Greek, Jewish and Roman societies that Deaf communities existed in both tribal and early urban areas as individual Deaf people migrated to regional or national capitals, and from there began to network (Bulwer 1648, Lane 1984, Van Cleve and Crouch 1989, Plann 1993). It appears that these sign languages were respected without necessarily being taken up by the rest of the community.
However, perhaps the most important indicator of the historical evolution and continuity of Sign Languages through ancient times rests with families who show a high incidence of congenital deafness (Groce 1985). To give a simple contemporary example, the authors of this paper know families whose Deafness extends back nine generations, i.e. nearly two hundred years, and may well extend further, since the 1820s seem to be as far as historical records have been traced. When this is accepted, it is possible to see how Deaf communities have developed and grown, not simply around a geographical locus but around core families who make up the linguistic bloodline of the Deaf community. It is important to stress that all of these communities included hearing people - children of Deaf parents, parents of Deaf children, aunts, uncles, nieces and cousins who knew both Sign Language and spoken language, and who contributed to its maintenance. Even today, as many as a third of all sign language native speakers are hearing people, chiefly those born to Deaf parents. Moreover, there are also communities where the incidence of Deaf people has been high enough to ensure that everyone used sign language in daily life. These are thought to date back to the very earliest times - for example 40,000 years in the case of Australian Aborigines. Some of the more modern forms of these communities, notably Martha's Vineyard in the USA, did so for more than 300 years (Groce 1985), and contemporary examples still exist in the Yucatan (Johnson 1994) - who use what is thought to be Mayan Sign Language -, in Nigeria (Schmaling 2000), in Bali (Branson, Miller, Marsaja and Negara 1996), and among the Bedouin (Kisch 2001). In these examples, the sign languages exist effectively as one of the two 'recognised' native languages of those societies. Monastic communities with Deaf members seem to have carried some sign languages into the Middle Ages (Truffaut 1993), and by the Enlightenment there are a host of examples where the languages and their users were viewed with respect, whether in the fine art domains of Spain and Italy, as Goya and Da Vinci's examples attest (Mirzoeff 1995), or in literature as Defoe and Pepys confirm. Perhaps the most remarkable example of all comes from the Ottoman Empire, where between 1500 and 1900 successive Sultans, especially Sulieman the Great accorded sign language greater prestige than speech in certain crucial aspects of the life and business of the Court. As many as 200 Deaf people were employed to teach the language and take up other posts over successive generations (Miles 2000). During the Enlightenment many philosophers focused on the (then) well-known existence of Deaf people in order to posit fruitfully about the nature of Man and language. These include Descartes, Montaigne, Diderot and Leibniz (Ree 1999). Deaf people are also known to have participated in the French Revolution and to have been known to leaders such as Danton and Robespierre (Mirzoeff 1995). It was during this period that Deaf schools were first established (several of which still exist today), and by bringing together Deaf children, enabled the languages to grow exponentially throughout the 19th century, where they continued to earn respect from writers like Victor Hugo and Dickens. From America to Australia, numerous schools were actually founded by Deaf people themselves, and significant numbers also became teachers (Lane 1984). The numbers of Deaf clubs founded during this time were even
higher; they covered every major town in the UK and in much of Europe.
4.0 ORALIST COLONIALISM AND ITS LEGACY.
The 1880s are a significant time for many minority languages. The burgeoning concepts of nationhood and colonialism, the rapid development of scientism, medicine and Social Darwinism all contributed to the oppression of language minorities, and it is very relevant for the purposes of this paper that it was during this same period that sign languages came under attack. By the 1880s a philosophy known as Oralism, developed by the wealthy sectors of societies, gained hegemony. The central tenets of Oralism are claimed to be based on a desire for Deaf children to learn to speak the national languages. Ironically, Deaf people themselves had no quarrel with being taught to master whatever degrees of speech were appropriate, so long as this did not interfere with the business of education - namely the transmission of thinking skills and knowledge. For them, bilingualism and indeed biculturalism was a perfectly reasonable goal. However, the real intent of the ideology of Oralism was to remove sign languages and Deaf teachers from the education system, so that the system could be placed entirely in non-Deaf hands (Lane 1984). For 20 years until 1900, Deaf communities and their non-Deaf allies fought hard to resist this Europe-wide oppression, establishing national organisations, holding international conferences, petitioning monarchs and lobbying governments, but with limited success in the face of the wealth and power of the Oralist discursive system. The effects of Oralism on Deaf literacy were immediate and disastrous. Almost all Deaf children were rendered illiterate, so that once the formerly literate leaders of the communities died out around the 1920s, there were very few Deaf people capable of leadership and organisation. Although there were around 250 Deaf clubs in every major town throughout the UK, control of these clubs gradually fell into the hands of missioners and charities (Ladd 2003). For the next 50 years, this situation grew steadily worse, so that by 1979 the first comprehensive study in the UK by Conrad was reporting that the average Deaf school-leaver had a reading age of 8¾, sufficient only for the headlines of a tabloid newspaper, with many not even registering on the bottom of the literacy scale (Conrad 1979). Research conducted in the decades since have reported other negative effects of Oralism, including a rate of acquired mental illness twice the national average (Hindley and Kitson 2000). These effects were even felt within Deaf arts, which fell from their former 19th century heights and in many countries all but disappeared. From the mid 1970s a pendulum swing began, which has lasted through to the present day. Ladd (2003) identifies eight stages in what he terms the Deaf Resurgence, where Deaf people and their allies began a three-pronged development. The first was to reestablish sign languages, the second to rebuild a Deaf political movement, and the
third to re-introduce sign languages and Deaf teachers to the education system. The recognition by linguists that sign languages were bona-fide languages was an immense conceptual step forward, leading to the development of the language minority concept and to the bilingual education movement which has gained hegemony in every Scandinavian country. The Deaf political movement was strongest in the UK, leading to a rapid growth in sign language television and the work of Harlan Lane and others in the USA led to a rediscovery of Deaf history, the affirmation of the existence of Deaf cultures, and the growth of the discipline of Deaf Studies. A by-product of these developments was a rapid growth in the numbers of Deaf professionals and the founding of the profession of sign language interpreters, and in many respects these two proceeded hand in hand. However, throughout this time Oralism has continued to resist the Resurgence. As fast as Deaf schools changed to incorporate sign languages, the philosophy of mainstreaming has attempted to deprive those schools of new generations of children, leading to widespread closures (Lee 1991). The development of experiments on Deaf children known as cochlear implants, again impelled and funded by the wealthy sectors of societies, has given new life to the Oralist movement, and this is being reinforced by the funding directed towards genetic engineering. This association with disability has been damaging for Deaf people as it provides policy makers and education ‘specialists’ with an excuse to focus on individuals and their perceived ‘impairment’ rather than recognising the intrinsic cultural value of Deaf communities and supporting and protecting their languages. It also fails to understand the unique linguistic and cultural community which frames the lives of Deaf people (Lane 1993).
5.0 THE EUROPEAN POLICY CONTEXT: MOVING TO A MORE INCLUSIVE AGENDA?
Given this historical backdrop it perhaps unsurprising that the policy word has also failed Deaf communities, neither listening to their concerns not acknowledging the published evidence that recognises the linguistic status of Sign Languages as natural languages. It is only in the last few weeks that significant strides forward to recognise the inadequacies and discriminatory nature of current European policies have been made. Too early for us to say whether these preliminary developments (Bruce 2003) will be sustainable long term. We argue, however, that it is not possible for hearing policy makers to respond appropriately to the needs of sign language users without taking on board the Deaf agenda and engaging in an active dialogue with Deaf communities. Previous history and policy behaviour in more recent times attests to this. European Institutions: a policy response?
The Council of Europe is a case in point, having inadequately addressed the challenge of listening to the Deaf agenda until recent moves to remedy this problem (Bruce 2003). The Council of Europe set up the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages without taking into consideration the need to include Sign Languages in this definition. As the result, the Charter does not explicitly recognise or include the sign languages of Europe. This has provided ammunition for the European countries and for the EU to continue to ignore the Deaf agenda in policy formulation. This is now under review with recent debates taking place (01/04/03) with a report to the Council of Europe Committee advocating that European Sign Languages finally be granted the same legal protection as the other Regional or Minority Languages covered by the Charter (Bruce 2003). The report advocates inclusion of European sign languages through the addition of a Protocol and would pave the way for protection Sign Languages under the European Court of Human Rights if agreed. The report makes a case for the securing of a number of rights including the recognition of sign languages, the right to education in Sign Language for deaf children, the right for spoken language TV programmes to be made fully accessible with subtitling in Sign Language, and better provision of Sign Language teaching and interpreter training. Moreover it: “acknowledges the importance of a detailed study of requirements, necessarily preceding the framing of any policy on sign languages. It stresses the need to involve users of these languages in the process” (Bruce 2003) [authors’ emphasis]
For the European Community a similar scenario has occurred. Although the European Parliament agreed to recognise sign languages in 1988 (and again in 1998), the Member States of the did not respond to this initiative. Finland, Portugal and Greece have made progress towards partial recognition of Sign Languages following the European Parliament’s resolutions (EUD 2002), but BSL has been recognised only last month (18/03/03) following a lengthy campaign by Deaf people for example. The response of different Member States across the EU to recognising sign languages has been patchy. Krausneker (2000) has noted the limited legal support available to sign languages from the Member States; in 2000 only seven of the fifteen Member States had in place any form of legal or educational protection. This situation reflects the prevailing tendency in the policy world to inappropriately relegate sign languages to a category of disability issues. Ladd has noted how the discourse of disability has been used to constrain access for Deaf communities to full linguistic rights equal to those offered to speakers of other, non-signed, minority languages (2003). A majority of hearing people have accepted this view as they generally find it difficult to understand that it is possible to not be hearing or to speak and yet still have language and a culture. We need to challenge this misconception as a matter of urgency to make it possible for (hearing) policymakers to put in place a supportive and inclusive minority language programmes that support the Deaf agenda and the development and protection of Europe’s many sign languages.
On 18 March 2003, the UK government finally recognised BSL as a language in its own right, thereby sewing some seeds of hope for a change in attitude at policy level. 1 Until this point the UK government advanced the argument that there is no need to recognise British Sign Language (BSL) as no other languages are officially recognised in the UK. However, in spite of this position the UK government nevertheless gave protected language status to six other indigenous UK languages including Welsh, Scots, Ulster Scots, Scottish and Irish Gaelic and most recently Cornish (Sunday Telegraph 2002, ODPM 2003, BBC 2003). Failure to include BSL in this list has financial, educational, and resource implications for British Sign Language (BSL) 2 and for the continued social exclusion of Deaf people from education, employment, and social and economic opportunities. This problem is replicated to different degrees across the EU area. The European Bureau of Lesser Used Languages (EBLUL) is one of the organisations that would benefit from following the lead now set by the UK government (and as of 01/04/2003 the Council of Europe). It currently lists more than 40 spoken minority European languages. However their database of minority and lesser used languages does not include Sign Languages. Although they have excluded sign languages from their remit (EBLUL 2002a, EUD 2001), their published definition of a lesser used language does not exclude European sign languages (2002b). This states: The European Bureau of Lesser Used Languages defends the interests of two types of speakers: - the speakers of languages the use of which decreases and/or tends to disappear. The number of speakers diminishes, the language is not or less transmitted to new generations and in the long term the language itself risks becoming extinct. - the speakers of a language that has been granted no rights, or not enough - for example a minimum degree of co-officiality - in the territory where it has been traditionally spoken. (sic) [emphasis in original document] (EBLUL 2002b, no page)
The case of Europe’s sign languages would fit well with both these definitions. This is especially the case following attempts over more than a century to eradicate sign language use first through oralist teaching, and more recently through cochlear implantation and mainstreaming. In spite of this, EBLUL noted in 2001 that: “1) dialects of the official languages of the state; 2) the languages of migrants; 3) sign languages; 4) artificial languages cannot be viewed as regional or minority languages” [emphasis added] (EUD 2001). 3
The failure of EBLUL to include any sign languages in their database of minority and lesser used languages confirms their inaccurate and mistaken definition of sign languages as somehow not real autochthonous European languages. The recent decision of the European Parliament to set aside one million Euro for promotion and safeguarding of lesser-used languages in the area of education and youth policy 1
We might expect this to be as the result of the government having to fulfil its own newly created rhetoric rather than genuine attitude shift, however a policy space has opened up which can be utilised to lever additional changes 2 There are currently between 60,000 –200,000 users of BSL ( figures vary according to the source). 3 Reiterated in private email correspondence in May 2002 (EBLUL 2002a)
demonstrates the resource implications involved and the seriousness with which we need to regard the EBLUL’s current position (EUD 2003). Safeguarding Europe’s Different Cultures For the EU the absence of competencies in education and in language policy means that Member States each have responsibility for the way in which policies address the distinctive needs of national sign languages and of other (oral) minority languages. We argue however that the provisions to safeguard Europe’s different cultures do confer an obligation on the EU to act in the interests of its Deaf communities. In spite of its restricted jurisdiction in the field of language policy, the European Commission is developing a strategy for ways to improve language learning and linguistic diversity and has indicated a desire to promote regional and minority languages, including sign languages (CEC 2003b, p.17). 4 It recognises the importance of linguistic diversity and is engaged in promoting a multilingual Europe. In addition, on 11 October 2002, the Conference on Creating a Common Structure for Promoting Historical Linguistic Minorities within the European Union, DG Education and Culture stated that: Respect for diversity is one of the founding principles of the European Union. This is now explicitly recognised in Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which tells us that: “The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity”. Already, the founding fathers of the European Community had a very ambitious vision. They wanted to create - for the first time in history an economic and political space in which no single culture or language would dominate. Rather, they wanted Europe to be a place where a multiplicity of languages and cultures could flourish in a climate of mutual respect. To help us achieve this, article 151 of the EC Treaty gives the European Community the task of contributing to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity. It also commits the EC to taking cultural aspects into account in all its actions (CEC 2002a)
Ladd (2003) has noted that the use of the term ‘Deaf Culture’ has generated some controversy. Article 151 of the Treaty (CEC 2003a) therefore raises the stakes for those resisting the idea that Deaf culture exists. 5 This quite ludicrous suggestion appears to be based on the inability of most (hearing) researchers to conceive of a world where language employs a non-oral modality and where cultural traditions are intrinsically linked to a language many hearing people have not encountered. Accordingly, work by both Ladd (2003) and Lane (1999, 1989) has particular importance in showing that Deaf culture exists. This therefore places an obligation on the EU to take this culture into account in its actions. 6
4
The European Commission has requested the EBLUL to undertake the project Support for Minority Languages in Europe (SMILE). This project aims to inform the Commission’s language strategy, due out in 2003. 5 See for example comments by Knight in the recent Council of Europe sitting: Protection of Sign Languages in Member States of the Council of Europe (eleventh sitting) Tuesday 1 April 2003 (2pm). 6 Article 151 (ex Article 128) 1. The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore. Treaty establishing the European Community
Although the rhetoric of linguistic diversity suggests a theoretical willingness by the EU to engage with Deaf communities and cultures, reality however shows that the policy world is largely unaware of the existence of Deaf Communities and the long history of the emergence of the different signed languages in Europe (EBLUL 2002a, EUD 2001, Lane 1989). It is therefore timely that we break through these barriers by bringing Europe’s sign languages and the views of Deaf people into the policy environment in Brussels where these issues are being decided on. We argue for inclusive policies that accept linguistic diversity and put in place measures to support the use of these languages. This is fundamental as we know that questions of power, resources, access to education, and social inclusion are intrinsic to acceptance of the use of sign language for Deaf communities. In the case of sign languages it is also imperative that the Deaf agenda is fully understood and respected. This can only be achieved by letting Deaf people into policy debates and by ceasing to mis-categorise these languages as a ‘disability issue’. Failure by Member States to respond appropriately to sign languages is shaped by wide-spread ignorance about Deaf Culture and languages, and by on-going power relations which inhibit and constrain the ability of Deaf communities in Europe to access their rights as users of minority European languages. We know, from minority language studies, the significance of power in determining the status of minority languages and indeed their continuation as living entities. May has written powerfully about this. His comment has particular resonance in the Deaf community: “Language loss is not only, perhaps not even primarily, a linguistic issue – it has much more to do with power, prejudice, (unequal) competition and, in many cases, overt discrimination and subordination” (May 2001, p.3-4)
The evolution of a language strategy for the European Union is important and presents an opportunity for a re-balancing of the current (hearing) hegemony that thrives on the ‘invisibility’ of Deaf people. This invisibility perpetuates on-going social exclusion and denial of education and of language. Together, Europe’s Deaf communities form one of Europe’s most socially excluded groups, they have consistently lobbied for recognition of sign languages in order to ensure resources are 2. Action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action in the following areas:improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples;- conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance;- noncommercial cultural exchanges;- artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector. 3. The Community and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations in the sphere of culture, in particular the Council of Europe. 4. The Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of this Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures. 5. In order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this Article, the Council:- acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt incentive measures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States. The Council shall act unanimously throughout the procedure referred to in Article 251;acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt recommendations. (CEC 2003a)
made available for access to education, employment, health care etc. The emergence of an inclusive polity recognizing the centrality of linguistic issues in determining power dynamics and access to resources, will be, arguably, a marker of a true civil society.
6.0 THE DEAF AGENDA The conceptual gains made by the Deaf Resurgence have been considerable; however the numerous impressive changes disguise an important fact - that they have been achieved by a relatively small number of able Deaf and non-Deaf people. It is not realistic to expect a swift restoration of full working 'health' in communities which have experienced 120 years of unremitting attack on their languages. Thus it is all the more important to establish a formal Deaf agenda for moving from Resurgence to Reconstruction. Conceptual Categories for Minority Language Agendas Before we begin to delineate this agenda, it is worth reminding ourselves that there at least 3 'types' of linguistic and cultural oppression : (i) Certain European minority languages such as Catalan or Welsh where there already exists a substantial professional class, whose goals are thwarted primarily by the limitations of their political power. (ii) Certain colonised languages where a reasonably sized professional class exists, with a substantial 'underclass', such as African American, South African etc. (iii) Other colonised languages where there is a minimal professional class and where the native language and culture has been brought close to extinction, such as Native American and Aborigine. In each type of situation the liberation agenda is radically different. The position of Deaf communities lies somewhere between (ii) and (iii). Although sign languages themselves are not in danger of extinction, the range of social usages and registers of those languages have been severely restricted. Their cultures continue to exist, but again have been severely distorted by colonisation. In types (ii) and (iii), colonisation has severely damaged these communities abilities to think and reason in their native tongues in a harmonious relationship with their own culture. Thus defining and understanding themselves in holistic terms is profoundly disrupted, and redefining themselves according to the majority language and culture is highly problematic. Because of their biological differences, Deaf communities do not have the luxury of replacing their own visuo-gestural languages by auditory-based ones. These can only be learned effectively as second, written languages. Thus, proscribing of sign
languages delays intellectual development. Although Deaf communities 'catch up' socially once they are able to use their own languages with each other, their literacy in the majority, spoken languages does not, and thus their access to professional positions is profoundly hampered. Thus during the Resurgence, most of the new domains in which sign language is utilised, such as education, sign linguistics, Deaf Studies, interpreting, Deaf television and so on, have been established or have continued to be run by non-Deaf people. In some respects this is a form of neo-colonialism, but it also reflects the absence of a qualified Deaf professional class in those fields (though this is slowly changing). The effect has been that although Deaf communities have made significant forays into numerous new domains, they have not been able to sustain them. This is also due to the quality (and in some cases the penury) of their own national organisations, which are still operating with the limited vision derived from colonisation. It is also ironic that because of the new emphasis on Deaf self-government, most of the more 'conscientious' non-Deaf people stepped back from Deaf organisations at a time when careful harnessing of their skills to sustain those inroads was most needed. This is particularly noticeable in the language minority arena. The first initial push resulted in recognition of European Union sign languages in 1988 as mentioned above. Since this recognition was not statutory but voluntary, a sustained movement was required to build on these gains. This was not forthcoming and it was not until the late 1990s that new radical Deaf groups such as the FDP (Federation of Deaf People) in the UK took the first steps towards revitalising the campaign for recognition by a series of marches from 1999 onwards. One of the more notable effects of the campaign was to draw large numbers of young Deaf people into the movement. The campaign has recently achieved some success - on March 18th 2003, the British Government formally recognised the existence of British Sign Language as an indigenous language of the United Kingdom. The success of the campaign thus far urgently requires that the implications of language recognition should be thoroughly explored. Which domains should be covered by such recognition ? What are the implications for consequent praxis? What might be the resource implications of that praxis? If these issues are not thought through, there is every danger that the UK and other governments will attempt to grant either mere symbolic recognition, or limited recognition in those domains which suit their purposes. This limited recognition could moreover be 'hi-jacked' by existing colonialist institutions. Indeed in the UK, the first attempts by the Deaf community to dialogue with the government were speedily disrupted by colonialist bodies such as the Royal National Institute for the Deaf (RNID), who set up their own private meetings and used their own contacts to ensure that the Deaf agenda was reduced simply to 'the need for more sign interpreters', and that they themselves should receive the funding for the task. As well as the desire for personal organisational gain, the hijacking served to deflect attention away from Deaf education, where the RNID wished to continue to promote oralist policies.
The 'Authorised' Deaf Agenda. There are two aspects to an authorised Deaf agenda centred around both language planning and de-colonisation - Internal Community Reconstruction and External Liason. •
Internal Community Reconstruction.
The first item on the Deaf agenda is ownership of sign languages - namely that all matters concerning these languages should be governed by Deaf people themselves. Alker and Turner discuss this in some detail (in this volume). Training in BSL and assessment of BSL skills for teaching, interpreting, parenting and socialisation purposes is seen as the first step. There is a consequent urgent requirement for many more Deaf people to be trained in BSL teaching and assessment and for many more interpreters - all of which have important resource implications. This Deaf governing process should be centralised in each national democraticallyelected organisation of the Deaf. In the UK this would be the British Deaf Association, as opposed to the colonialist charities (supposedly) for the Deaf like the RNID. It should be noted that Deaf communities can of course expect severe and sustained opposition from those who maintain their colonising positions. It should also be clear from the paper so far that education is the primary goal of Deaf organisations pressing for sign language recognition - that Deaf education be run according to a Deaf agenda, nationally conceived and executed. This does not preclude the continued participation of non-Deaf people, provided that the agenda is adhered to and the training of sufficiently high quality. This agenda must also address the questions of language planning. These include a national structure which embraces all the geographical realities in each area, the need for Deaf model schools, and an end to mainstreaming in its present form. Again, there are profound resource implications, and Deaf communities can also expect even more entrenched opposition to this part of the agenda. It is also important that both European and national governments seek to understand the Deaf agenda for education and support this through policies which ensure adequate resources are made available in quick time. The domains above represent the foundations for a future where sufficient numbers of Deaf professionals can be created to enable community self-sufficiency. This can be achieved only in the mid-to-long-term. Ownership of sign languages also impacts on social, welfare, legal and mental health services. Deaf children and adults' needs in these services must be addressed by persons with appropriate sign language skills, and assessment criteria designed to be appropriate for Deaf persons, rather than the continued imposition of non-Deaf models. These could be accomplished in the short-to-mid term. Moreover, given the emotional damage and delimiting of employment possibilities incurred under Oralism for the last 120 years, there may be a strong case for compensation claims which in turn could lead to the case being made for reparations. The recent example from Vancouver indicates a precedent for awarding these
damages - for child abuse - to the community rather than the individuals. It remains to be seen how this plays out in terms of community regeneration. Finding ways to redress the damage done by the oralist legacy are important aspects of the achievement of a genuine civil society that places inclusion rather than exclusion at its core. No culture is fully functional without a healthy artistic community. Sign languages need to be able to widen their register from functionalism to creative and artistic registers once more. Sign language performing arts, such as poetry, theatre, storytelling and cabaret need to be redeveloped, which again requires resources and training. Television programmes in sign language need to have their existence guaranteed by law or statute, with a mandatory minimum of transmission hours for each channel whether terrestrial or satellite, and to be produced and directed by Deaf people. Another path might be to establish sign language TV channels. For either or both, resources and training are again required. •
External Liason.
External Liason issues can be also be perceived as Access issues, where the goal is to enable full citizenship, full participation in majority society, and any barriers which obstruct this to be declared illegal. This concept of illegality must be extended to cover the infrastructure of access. It is not enough to say that an event is accessible if no moves have been made to train and engage appropriately skilled interpreters, for example. Another example - all literature produced in the spoken languages must be made available in sign language forms, again produced and directed by Deaf people. This refers not only to Government literature but to that produced by private companies. This also has implications for the Internet. Further examples of external liason are implicit in our discussion of Internal Community Reconstruction above. For example, the role of television in community regeneration proceeds in tandem with sign language access to non-Deaf programming. •
The Deaf Agenda and Academic Communities
The Deaf agenda cannot be fulfilled without a major change in the nature and quality of academic research 'on' Deaf communities, since Deaf-centred praxis cannot be identified without such research. This requires a profound shift in the administration of funding bodies so that Deaf people are part of the refereeing system, and adequate funds are specifically set aside for such research. At present, funding of the search for miracle cures and genetic engineering run into the tens of millions of dollars research into Deaf communities based on Deaf agendas is measured in tens of thousands - at best. This research, being governed by the national Deaf communities, would of course be centred on the concept of community empowerment through research. If the agendas are stated and delineated with appropriate clarity, both Deaf and non-Deaf persons
can bring their skills to the work. This now brings us to issues concerning the involvement of hearing people in the field.
7.0 THE HEARING ROLE - WAYS OF RESPONDING Accepted current theories in the areas of; linguistics, policy studies, ethnicity, multilingualism, bi-culturalism, minority studies, diasporic studies, colonialism and geography (to name but a few) are ill-equipped to adequately explain the evidence from Deaf people. Deaf research, therefore, offers the academic world an almost unprecedented opportunity for theoretical revision. This exciting possibility, however, brings inherent dangers resembling those of the proverbial bull in (someone else’s) china shop. Hearing researchers need to question their role and potential contribution to the areas of Sign Language research and Deaf Studies. To some extent this state of on-going questioning is healthy and a process which helps guard against the assumption that accepted ways are always right. Whilst the hearing allies of today cannot be held personally responsible for historical Oralism, there is a need to be aware of the current academic situation within which work is carried out and the way in which this continues to restrict the activities of Deaf people. Allowing this to continue shows the same ignorance and prejudice as before. It is imperative that this legacy be recognised and that hearing people seek to put in place safeguards against their ignorance of Deafhood as a way to avoid the provocation of new additional tyrannies against Deaf people in the future. It is not enough, therefore, to simply include Deaf people and their perspectives into hearing-led research. The ultimate aim must be to forcibly exorcise the mindset, which, hitherto, has denied Deaf people their right of self-direction. We would suggest that whilst there is a place for hearing-led research, it is imperative that Deaf people be involved. However, this emic-interpretation and advisory role can only be valid for situations where the research has no implementational effect on Deaf people. Research effecting Deaf people and their lives must be Deaf-led; originating with Deaf people, coordinated by Deaf people and disseminated by Deaf people for the empowerment of the Deaf community. Any other level of involvement, especially within an academy whose stated aim is the attainment of “full knowledge” simply renders the research invalid. This is not to say that hearing people should abdicate any involvement in Deaf research but that they need to recognise that their role, as allies and invited guests is one of support and not one of control. For the world of policy these reflections also apply. How can (hearing) policy makers influence and design policies which materially effect sign languages without engaging with Deaf communities who use and create these living languages of Europe? In this regard it is imperative that policy makers enter into dialogue with Deaf communities to open their policy minds to the other, and to produce policies that work with the strengths and characters of these communities rather than in ignorance
of their existence and idiosyncrasies. Not to access the experts (Deaf people themselves) in designing policies would be an act of folly which carries with it intrinsic risks and dangers for Deaf communities still reeling from a succession of mistaken policies over the last 120 years which did precisely that. As Ladd has argued above, we can afford to be more radical than merely accessing this expertise however. Deaf communities should be involved in leading policy formulation and designing research agendas. In doing so hearing people are likely to have a better understanding of the issues while still participating as allies in the pursuit of knowledge.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS.
Deaf communities are best understood as language minorities rather than a group of disabled people. Deaf communities have experienced a savage form of linguistic oppression which has sought to replace their languages but which has also, often, deprived Deaf communities of access and literacy, access to education, to knowledge about shared collective history and culture. Sign Languages have endured in spite of this oppression, which has fostered in its turn a strong community spirit and collective identity. The European policy world must seek to understand this history, accept the linguistic evidence of the beauty and validity of these natural languages and try to ensure by engagement and dialogue with Deaf communities that any policies they make are Deaf-led and relevant, avoiding the pitfalls of mistaken policies that have prevailed throughout the last 123 years. As experts on Deaf affairs, Deaf communities must own their own agenda. This will entail some necessary (and probably troubling) adjustment by both academic and research communities alike. Neither academic nor research communities are very good at collective decision making nor enabling access for communities rather than the elite few. Yet this is essential if our world is to become socially inclusive rather than have a myriad of glass ceilings and walls which do not permit access to decision making structures. This paper has sought to provoke increased policy awareness of the importance of supportive action from the EU policy arena. The current European policy context is in flux and there are many gains to be achieved by prompt and timely research and engagement with Deaf people in this area. In the world of research changes are also needed. Research into sign languages has already proved to have radical implications for mainstream linguistics and neurology (Sacks 1990), and for anthropology and cultural studies (Ladd 2003). The time has come for the study of languages, and of language planning and policy, to incorporate these implications into their own disciplines. We feel that this process will have significant mutual benefit. By engaging with Deaf researchers, the hearing-dominated research world will have better research which will inform the policy world in a way which benefits all and safeguards the rich linguistic heritage of Europe’s diverse citizens.
The Deaf world currently faces change internally but at the same time has to constantly engage with and negotiate with the mainstream hearing world. The process of internal reconstruction of Deaf communities is twinned with external liasion challenging discriminatory practice that routinely excludes. Hearing people cannot sit back and do nothing. They need to make changes to their understanding and cultural mindset to welcome difference and remove hidden barriers. By so doing they will be enriched through a deeper understanding of the human condition. In the world of policy we need to seek out Deaf opinion to learn about the appropriateness of policies and whether things will have unintended consequences better avoided. Ignorance is not an excuse.
REFERENCES Alker, F.D., Turner, G.H., (2002), Merely rearranging their prejudices? The revitalisation and promotion of British Sign Language on both sides of the millennium, Paper presented at the Mercator First International Symposium on Minority Languages and Research - European Minority Languages and Research: Shaping an Agenda for a Global Age”, 08/04/2003 – 10/04/2003, Aberystwyth BBC, (2003), Back from the dead: UK's new language, on the internet, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2206191.stm, accessed 12.03.03 Bailey A. (2002). Personal communication Branson, J. Miller, D. Marsaja, I. and Negara, I (1996), Everyone here speaks sign language too : A Deaf village in Bali, Indonesia. In Lucas, C [ed] Multicultural aspects of sociolinguistics in deaf communities (pp 39-57) Washington DC : Gallaudet University Press. Brennan, M., (1990) Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm : University of Stockholm Brennan M. & Turner G. eds. (1991). Word-order issues in sign language :working papers : presented at a workshop held in Durham, 18-22 September 1991 /edited by. Durham : International Sign Linguistics Association Bruce, M., (2002), Report to the Council of Europe on the Protection of Sign Languages: Protection of sign languages in the member states of the Council of Europe, Summary on the internet (accessed 01/04/03), http://www.britishdeafassociation.org.uk/news/latest.php?id=80 Bulwer, J., (1648) Philocophus: Or the deaf and Dumbe Mans Friend, London : Humphrey Mosley Commission of the European Communities (CEC), 2002a, "The future of regional and minority languages in the European Union", Viviane Reding, 11.10.02, Conference on creating a common structure for promoting historical linguistic minorities within the European Union – Helsinki. On the web http://europa.eu.int/futurum/documents/offtext/sp111002_en.htm (accessed 18/11/02) CEC, (2003), Consolidated version of the treaty establishing the European Community, on the internet at http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:sGIkRJm9Y7AC:europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/treaties/dat/ec_cons_treaty_en.pdf+treaty+of+rome&hl=en&ie=UTF-8, accessed 10/03/03
CEC, (2003b), Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity consultation, Commission Staff Working paper, SEC (2002), 1234, Brussels 13.11.2002, http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/languages/consult/consult_en.pdf, accessed 13/03/03 Conrad R. (1979) The Deaf Schoolchild :language and cognitive function, London : Harper & Row Deuchar, M., (1984), British Sign Language, London:Routledge European Bureau of Lesser Used Languages correspondence with EBLUL, 15 May 2002
(EBLUL),
(2002a),
email
EBLUL, (2002b), What is a minority language?, published on the EBLUL web site http://www.eblul.org/wow/rannvro-sz.htm , accessed 02/01/03 European Union of the Deaf (EUD), (2001), EUD Update, Special Issue to commemorate EUD Sign Languages Day, 06/12/2001, Vol. 5, no 5, Special issue December 2001 EUD, (2003) EUD Update: What’s up for Deaf People in the European Union??, Vol 6, No 5, Jnauary 2003, mimeo. Groce, N., (1985), Everyone here spoke Sign language. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press Gulliver, M., (2002), Unpublished Field Journal, Research carried out in Spain on the attitudes of Deaf groups within the autonomous regions of: Galicia, The Basque country and Catalonia. Hockett, C., (1968) The state of the art, The Hague, Mouton Hindley, P. and Kitson, N [eds] (2000) Mental Health and Deafness. London : Whurr Kisch, S. (2001) Deafness among a Bedouin tribe in southern Israel. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University. Krausneker V., (2000), Sign Languages of Europe – Future Chances , paper presented at the EUD Celebratory Conference, Gent, Belgium, April 2000, published on the internet at http://www.ea.nl/EUDmail/v.krausneker.htm, accessed 10/03/03 Ladd, P., (2003), Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Lane , H. 1984) When the Mind Hears: A History of the Deaf, New York: Random House Lane, H. (1993), The Mask of Benevolence. New York: Random House.
Lane, H., (1999), The Mask of Benevolence, New York: Random House Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R. & Bahan, B. (1996) A journey into the deaf-world. San Diego, California, DawnSignPress. Lane, H. Pillard, R. and French, M. (2002) Origins of the American Deaf-world : assimilating and differentiating societies and their relation to genetic patterning. In Kimmory, K. and Lane, H. [eds] The signs of language revisited. (pp 77 –100). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lee, R., (ed.), (1991) Deaf liberation, London: National Union of the Deaf May, S., (2001), Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language, London: Longman Miles M., (2000), Miles, Signing at the Seraglio : mutes, dwarfs and jesters at the Ottoman Court ,2000 1500 – 1700, in Disability and Society, Vol 15, No 1, pp 115 – 134 [www.independentliving.org/LibArt/mmiles2html]. Mirzoeff, N., (1995), Silent Poetry : Deafness, Sign and Visual Culture in Modern France, Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), (2003), Cornish language to receive official status, News Release 116:5 November 2002, on the inetrnet at http://www.odpm.gov.uk/news/0211/0116.htm, accessed 12.03.03 Plann, S. (1997), A Silent Minority – Deaf Education in Spain 1550 – 1835. Berkeley CA : University of California Press. Reagan, T., (2002), Toward an "Archeology of Deafness": Etic and Emic Constructions of Identity in Conflict, Journal of Language, Identity and Education: Volume: 1 Number: 1 Page: 41 – 66 Ree, J., (1999), I See a Voice - a philosophical history of language, deafness and the senses, London : Harper-Collins. Sacks, O., (1990), Seeing Voices, London: Picador SIL (2002), Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 14th Edition: SIL International Schlesinger and Namir (1978), Psychological, Linguistic and Sociological Perspectives, New York, Academic Press. Schmaling, C. (2000), Maganar hannu ; “ Language of Hands.” A descriptive analysis of Hausa Sign Language. Hamburg : Signum Verlag. Stokoe, W., (1960), Sign Language Structure, Silver Spring, Md.:Linstok Press
Sunday Telegraph, (2002), Kernewek re be grontys dewhelans, (Cornish has been granted a comeback), article by Francis Elliot, November 17, 2002, p.3) Sutton-Spence, R., B. Woll, (1999a), The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction, Cambridge:CUP Sutton-Spence, R., B. Woll, (1999b), Video: The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction, CACDP Truffaut, B., (1993), Etienne de Fay and the history of the Deaf. In Fischer,R. and H.Lane, (eds.), 1993 Looking Back. Hamburg : Signum-Verl. Van Cleve, J.V. and Crouch, B.A., (1989), A Place of their Own, Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.
