Conference Agenda

Language policy formation is characteristically driven and shaped by multiple intersecting – and not necessarily congruent – agendas, especially pragmatic and symbolic.

Pragmatic agendas aim at affordably enabling access to services for minority language speakers; symbolic agendas typically recognize the status of specific historic minorities within the society. Both pragmatic and symbolic agendas inescapably involve inclusion and exclusion, but on different and not necessarily congruent criteria.

This presentation examines minority language inclusion and exclusion in three jurisdictions (then) recognizing 11 official languages (OLs): the Northwest Territories of Canada (NWT) (2003–), South Africa (1993–), and the European Union (EU)(specifically 1995–2004).

In each jurisdiction, OL expansion has been driven by both pragmatic and symbolic agendas.

In both the NWT and South Africa, prior to the 1990s, two colonial~settler languages held official status: English and French, and Afrikaans and English, respectively. In two very differently triggered postcolonial turns, each jurisdiction then extended statutory recognition to (coincidentally) 9 of their indigenous languages.

Selecting and defining the indigenous languages is not straightforward, however, as they are dialect continua with limited standardization. Moreover, South Africa did not grant OL status to the non-Bantu (KhoiSan) indigenous languages. Neither the NWT nor South Africa recognized other (immigrant) heritage languages.

In the EU, OL status is accorded to the OLs of all Member States, unless a national government requests otherwise. With expansion, the number of OLs has steadily increased: from 6 in 1957, to 11 between 1995 & 2004, and 24 today. If further expansion occurs, the number of OLs will continue to rise.

Making use of census and other empirical data, I will examine and compare inclusion and exclusion in each jurisdiction from both symbolic and pragmatic perspectives.

In February 2020, language rights advocates from around the world met in Washington, DC to mark the 40th Language Advocacy Day in the United States. One month later, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic, and public health orders went into place in nearly every jurisdiction internationally. In the following weeks and months, deficiencies in equitable access to public health information for minority language speakers became apparent across Canada, affecting newcomers, minority Official language communities, and Indigenous people in urban and rural settings. At the height of the pandemic, public health communications were failing to meet the basic requirements of emergency communication in both official languages, causing significant information gaps for those who did not speak a dominant language. Timely and culturally appropriate dissemination of information is critical to preventing pandemic spread, compliance with public health restrictions, and access to vital medical care, such as vaccination and testing. Various organizations worked tirelessly to address language access inequality through community projects, political advocacy, knowledge dissemination, and engaging with minority language communities. In response to this crisis of language access, language advocates from various organizations in Canada, primarily in the Greater Toronto Area, came together to form the Language Access Coalition of Canada and host the first-ever Language Advocacy Day on February 22, 2021. This paper examines the impetus of this grassroots organizing, and how the inequity of language access in Canada has spurred activism in the COVID and post-COVID world. The future of Language Advocacy Day will be considered, with thought given to the successes and deficiencies of the current approach and where the Coalition can and should go from here in terms of organizing and activism in the current climate of language rights in Canada.

Dans le contexte du multilinguisme sourd canadien (Parisot & Rinfret, 2012) où les langues des signes (LS) sont en situation de diglossie par rapport aux langues officielles (Dubuisson & Nadeau, 1993), nous nous intéressons au rôle et statut de ces langues dans les politiques d’accès et à la perception des citoyens sourds canadiens concernant un accès équitable à l’information. Nous posons les questions suivantes : i) peut-on assurer une programmation accessible et exempte d’obstacles pour les citoyens sourds sans exiger l’utilisation d’une LS ?, et ii) quelle est la perception des citoyens sourds canadiens d’un accès équitable à l’information ? L’analyse menée sur les perceptions et le vécu de l’accès à l’information de citoyens sourds canadiens (7 groupes de discussion, 13 entrevues) montre qu’un accès adéquat est défini par i) le respect des engagements politiques, ii) l’établissement de normes d’accessibilité impliquant le libre choix de langue, iii) le contrôle personnalisé des paramètres techniques, iv) la reconnaissance des expertises sourdes, et v) l’exigence de formation et de qualification. Cette analyse montre que le modèle actuel de représentation sociale du sourd que sous-tendent les lois canadiennes sur l’accessibilité (ex. LC 2019 ; LC 2023 ; OPHQ, 2007, 2019) est avant tout basé sur la déficience et vise l’adaptation pour le handicap, pour le manque, alors que les citoyens sourds demandent davantage une reconnaissance de leur spécificité culturelle et linguistique, une reconnaissance de leur autonomie et de leur expertise concernant leur langue, leur culture et les questions d’accès à l’information. En ceci, l’objectif canadien de transformer le Canada en un pays exempt d’obstacles au plus tard le 1^er janvier 2040 concernant l’accès à l’information (L.C. 2019, ch. 10, article 5), pourra se faire en développant une politique d’aménagement linguistique pour les LS, qui implique une obligation de respecter les droits linguistiques des citoyens sourds canadiens.

Ethiopia is a multilingual country where more than 53 languages are currently promoted in mother tongue (MT) education. However, the status of Ethiopian Sign Language (EthSL), which is the only signed form of language in Ethiopia, and the MT of deaf children is uncertain. The deaf community’s discontent with the matter was expressed in different ways. In contrast, many educators and policymakers argue that EthSL is in use, citing the attempts to employ signed communication in some schools. To settle this ongoing debate and provide researched evidence for future policy formulation, this study examined how EthSL was promoted in pertinent policy documents and practices in schools with the MT education frame. Qualitative methods such as policy document analysis, classroom observations, and in-depth interviews with teachers, principals, and government officials were utilized.

The findings of the study revealed that there is no legislation that recognizes and promotes EthSL as a fully-fledged language and MT for deaf children. Unlike other minority Ethiopian languages, It is not explicitly acknowledged and supported in education. The practices of employing EthSL in primary education were also found to be unguided and inconsistent. There is no curriculum, textbooks, allotted periods, or other necessary inputs to teach EthSL as a language subject (L1) and employ it as a medium in the schools. None of the teachers were trained in EthSL, and more than half did not use the natural EthSL. There is no system in the schools to control the actual inclusion of deaf children through sign language, except allowing them physical access. The study also found that the inclusive educational approach practiced in schools and supported by national policies did not consider the specific sociolinguistic needs of deaf students. Consequently, deaf students are practically excluded and deprived of their linguistic human right to MT education.

The aim of the paper is to investigate India’s language policy for its deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) community. Although India’s language policy has been examined in great detail in existing research, policies for deaf and hard-of-hearing have received little attention by scholars. In light of the scarcity of debate and research on policies for deaf and hard-of-hearing people, the paper addresses four key issues. First, it takes a critical view of the neglect of deaf and hard-of-hearing at various levels, including academic, social and political. Second, it discusses negative social attitudes towards deafness such as misconceptions and stigma and the negative impact of such attitudes on the self-esteem and educational success of deaf people. Third, the paper examines policy legislation in two domains (media and education) along with certain recent initiatives and their implementation, with the purpose of analysing to what extent recent policy changes have addressed, in these two domains, the linguistic needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing people. Methodologically, the paper relies here on close reading of policy texts. Finally, the paper discusses the drawbacks of the oralist teaching method practiced in Indian schools. The discussion of these issues is followed by certain policy recommendations, one of which is to recognise the Indian Sign Language as one of the official languages of India so that a more inclusive policy for deaf and hard-of-hearing can be devised.

Keywords: Language policy, India, deaf, hard of hearing, Indian Sign Language, Policy legislation, Oralism