To the Lexicon and Beyond: Sociolinguistics in European Deaf Communities

The Path toward Bilingualism: Problems and Perspectives with Regard to the Inclusion of Sign Language in Deaf Education

The Path toward Bilingualism: Problems and Perspectives with Regard to the Inclusion of Sign Language in Deaf Education Carolina Plaza Pust Language attitudes and planning play a prominent role in the extent to which educational institutions promote rather than hinder bilingualism at both the individual and societal levels (Grosjean 1982; Romaine 1996). In the case of deaf communities, such external factors have often led to critical conflict situations and severely undermined their path toward bilingualism (Burns, Matthews, and Nolan-Conroy 2001; Fischer 1998; Reagan 2001). Prejudices against bilingualism, for example, predicting potential negative effects of sign language on the acquisition of spoken language, have been especially persistent in educational institutions with deaf students. Thus, until recently, sign-language contact was artificially banned in classrooms (Bochner and Albertini 1988; Grosjean 1992; Lucas 1994; Leuninger, Plaza Pust, and Hohenberger 2002). Certainly, the educational framework is crucial to the accessibility, establishment , and promotion of any language. For the acquisition and use of sign languages, the educational framework is significant in view of the fact that the majority of deaf children born to hearing parents do not have access to sign language as a mother tongue. In recognizing the relevance of sign language for the linguistic and cognitive development of the deaf child, the bilingual/bicultural approach marks a change in the history of deaf pedagogy (Grosjean 2001; Johnson, Liddell, and Erting 1989; Prillwitz 1991). However, as the present status of sign language shows, the bilingual option continues to be the exception rather than the norm in many European countries. Thus, the question arises about the remaining circumstances that work against a more generalized consensus with respect to the inclusion of sign language in deaf education. 141 By assumption, many of the issues that are still open to debate could be settled on the basis of an evaluation of the bilingual/bicultural education programs implemented thus far. To date, there is no systematic comparison of the programs that are currently running in Europe. The data collected in the context of this study allow for the identification of some of the variables that distinguish these programs. Differences in the didactic conceptions suggest that bilingual-education programs differ in the type of bilingualism they envisage. The implications of this variation are discussed in relation to the more general framework of the complex interplay of the internal and external factors that determines the path toward bilingualism in deaf communities. METHOD The data collection referred to here was begun in July 2000. It is part of a larger investigation of bilingualism and deafness in Europe that focuses on language contact in the bilingual acquisition of sign language and oral/written language (Plaza Pust 2000a). Because it constitutes a base for a more comprehensive investigation involving additional methods , the survey technique was chosen despite its well-known limitations. The aim of the study was to obtain an insight into the present status of sign languages in Europe as it relates to the implementation of bilingual/ bicultural education programs. For this purpose, a questionnaire was developed to elicit the following information: • the official status of the national and regional sign languages • the institutions involved in the teaching of and research on sign language and Deaf studies • the status of sign language in the education of deaf students • key data on current bilingual-education programs • the appreciation of bilingual/bicultural-education programs • service provision The questionnaire included yes/no and multiple-choice questions. Some sections provided space for individual responses. Space for additional , general comments was included at the end of the questionnaire. The countries included in this study are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland , France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, 142 : c a r o l i n a p l a z a p u s t Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.1 The questionnaire was sent with a cover letter to the following key institutions: • national, regional, and cultural associations of deaf people • academic and other institutions that offer sign language and Deaf studies • schools with deaf students that include sign language in their curriculum • other institutions involved in deaf education The questionnaire was supplied in English. German and Spanish versions were provided in individual cases. Institutions offering bilingualeducation programs with deaf students were asked to address additional questions about some of the key aspects of their program. So far, the total number of questionnaires sent out is...