|
|
|
|
Political, Social and Demographic FactorsStarting with Table A (page 60). Not all of the points apply to Deaf people. The obvious point is that Deaf people do not have a homeland - so many of the points of language shift do not apply. Hearing people lose their languages because of invasion or immigration, or because they live far from their homeland. This condition is permanent for Deaf people as there is no homeland. However, there are some points which are applicable. One of the first is the issue of users of the language living together. A vital factor in maintaining the language is the fact that people who use it are in close proximity. Where they are dispersed the language becomes weakened. Not surprisingly, Deaf people move to places where the language is used more - so they tend to move towards the towns. It is said that Rochester in New York State has the highest percentage of Deaf people in the USA, because there are all the services set up and Deaf people when they come to study, stay on to work. Another important factor is that the language is maintained when the people can work in the language. This means that they can carry out their work using their own language. Few Deaf people can. Only in places like the CDS is there a commitment to using BSL for everyday communication. But it is vital. Where people have to switch languages for work - where they have to use a majority language in particular, then their own language is at risk. This is mainly because it becomes a lower status language. There is one interesting factor in the table which seems rather complex: Low level of education to restrict social and educational mobility but educated and articulate community leaders loyal to their language community This is an interesting point. Where the community is highly mobile and can obtain any type of job, they tend to become mixed with other social classes and the majority culture takes over. Where they are restricted to certain types of jobs and conditions, the language is contained. But in order to maintain this, there have to be leaders who remain loyal to the community. If we apply this to deafness we can see some of the parallels. In the USA, where there has been good education and people can go to University and choose their jobs, then the language has begun to fade. Deaf people have been using less ASL and more signed English or PSE. This form of signing became acceptable in the 1970's and many hearing people began to use it. It was the language form used in Gallaudet until recently. What has happened is that ASL has been rediscovered and new Deaf leaders have begun to emerge. This was a major feature of the Gallaudet revolution. In Britain, another aspect of this has been seen. The strength of oralism has meant that young Deaf people have been creamed off to go to three schools - Mary Hare, Burwood Park and Boston Spa. Something like the top 15% of the ability range of Deaf people go to these schools. Since they were all oral, the children could only succeed in speech and so sign had to be abandoned if formal learning was to take place. Even those from Deaf families had to accept a regime which made sure that sign was of little value. It would normally be the case that the most intelligent of a community would become its leaders. But if 15%, one in 6, were taken away and these were the group who are most likely to provide the leaders then the community suffers a great loss. Not only are there no people who are successful who are able to represent the community, but the Deaf parents of Deaf children were willing to give up their own language heritage in order to achieve what seemed like success for their children. It is still happening. Baker sets it out clearly in the column of factors encouraging loss. Potential community leaders are alienated from their language community by education. This is precisely what the selective school system has done. Mainstreaming is taking this further. |
Back to MLEDC
homepage |
