Bilingual education and Sign language as the mother tongue of Deaf …tove-skutnabb-kangas.org/pdf/Tove_Skutnabb_Kangas... · 2019-03-11 · Bilingual education and Sign language

Bilingual education and Sign language as the mother tongue

of Deaf children

TOVE SKUTNABB-KANGASUniversity of Roskilde, Denmark, and

Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finlandwww.Tove-Skutnabb-Kangas.org

[email protected]

http://www.tove-skutnabb-kangas.org

List of contents 1

1. The future of languages?

2. Why have languages become extinct or seriously endangered? Old ideologies of homogenisation as a road to unity and prevention of disintegration?

3. “Agentless” neo-imperialistic control as a context for Linguistic Human Rights

2

List of contents 2

4. Who/what can have language-related rights? Terms used when rights are granted: own language, minority language, mother tongue5. Definitions of “mother tongue” - can one have a mother tongue that one does not know?6. Compensation for loss of the mother tongue?7. Concluding remarks

3

List of contents 1




4

Over half of the world’s languages are Indigenous

•Of the world’s almost 7,000 spoken languages (the Ethnologue, 15th edition) at least some 4,500 are Indigenous (Oviedo & Maffi 2000; Terralingua, www.terralingua.org)

5

http://www.terralingua.org


6



Endangered languages 1

• Over 50% of the world’s almost 7000 languages are endangered

7

Endangered languages 2• “96% of the world's 6000 languages

are spoken by 4% of the world's population.

• 90% of the world's languages are not represented on the Internet.

• One language disappears on average every two weeks.

• 80% of the African languages have no orthography” (UNESCO).

8

9

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=8270&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html




If 90-95% of the world’s languages disappear before 2100, most Indigenous languages will go

There may be only 300 to 600 oral languages left in 2100 as unthreatened languages, transmitted by the parent generation to children. These would probably include most of those languages that today have more than one million speakers, and a few others. Almost all languages to disappear would be Indigenous, and most of today’s Indigenous languages would disappear, with the exception of very few that are strong numerically (e.g., Quechua, Aymara, Bodo, Mapuche) and/or have official status (e.g., Māori, some Saami languages).

10

Endangered languages 3

• What about Sign languages?• How many Sign languages are

there?• What is their future?

11

The future of Sign languages? 1

• How many Sign languages are there• NOBODY KNOWS!!!!!

• The World Federation of the Deaf’s Fact Sheet on Sign language(s) does not mention any figures:

• http://www.wfdeaf.org/documents.html - it only says (downloaded 18 June 2007):

• “There are currently about 4,000 recorded spoken/written languages in the world – if more countries recognise sign languages as well, this number would go up dramatically.”

•12

http://www.wfdeaf.org/documents.html


The future of Sign languages? 2Sadly, there are several errors in this sentence. Firstly, the number of recorded spoken/written languages (provided the WFD means spoken languages, regardless of whether they are written or not, and all are not) is almost 7,000 (see above), not 4,000 (and there are 114 Sign languages included). Secondly, each country that has so far recognised ”sign languages”, has recognised one and one only. Since there are somewhat over 200 states in the world, the number of the world’s languages would not go up by more than around 100 more.

13

The future of Sign languages? 3In fact, there may be as many Sign languages as spoken languages in the world. Every society has deaf people, and they have developed sign languages everywhere, with many dialects. When Deaf organisations become stronger, maybe we learn how many Sign languages there are – unless most of them are extinct at that point.

14

The future of Sign languages? 4What is happening to Sign languages? Many of them are disappearing, and we can predict that there will be even fewer Sign languages left than spoken languages around the year 2100. Why?

15

The future of Sign languages? 5There are two main reasons and both are, paradoxically, connected to more rights to Deaf people

1. States grant rights to only ONE Sign language, if at all. The other Sign languages may disappear.

2. If cochlear implants are used subtractively, instead of in addition to Sign languages, Sign languages may disappear.

16

The future of Sign languages? 6Sign languages recognized in the Constitution, according to the World Federation of the Deaf, are

Brazil, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa and Uganda

(Fact Sheet on Sign language(s): http://www.wfdeaf.org/documents.html, downloaded 18 June 2007).

17





The future of Sign languages? 7There is, (ibid.) some recognition in terms of legislation and/or policy in the following additional countries: Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, some German states (Länder), Greece, Iceland, Iran, Latvia, Lithuania, Mozambique, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, USA, Uruguay and Zimbabwe.

18


The Sign language is, in addition, officially recognised by the government in the United Kingdom, Cuba and Mauritius.

19


There is thus some kind of recognition of Sign languages in alltogether 38 states, i.e. fewer than 20% of the world’s states.

20

The future of Sign languages? 10 Japan is not on the list. Is this correct? If so, what are you doing about it? Languages that are completely invisible are not going to make it. Is your school a first positive sign towards formal recognition of Sign languages in Japan? Or are there others too?

21

The future of Sign languages? 11The second reason for Sign languages disappearing is cochlear implants. Users of cochlear implants should obviously in most cases be granted the same right to learn and use Sign languages as non-users of implants. Cochlear implants are probably good if they are additive (used in addition to Sign languages) but can be disastrous if they are subtractive, used instead of Sign languages.

22

The future of Sign languages? 12Cochlear implants cannot replace Sign languages if we want Deaf people to have LHRs. Unfortunately there is a lot of wrong information around which tries to convince people that implant users do not need Sign languages.But implants do not change Deaf children into hearing children.

23

List of contents 1




24

The old false claim: linguistic assimilation furthers integration of a state through a common language. LHRs prevent it. ✴Many of the fears that prevent states from

guaranteeing LHRs originate from the old false claim that granting LHRs and thus maintaining linguistic diversity will prevent the integration of a state through a common language.

✴ A special type of language policy goal, namely linguistic assimilation of minorities, is said to further this integration.

25

"the indivisible integrity of the state with its territory and nation"

The Turkish Constitutions have since the 1920s, Mustafa Kemal's (Atatürk's) times stressed "the indivisible integrity of the state with its territory and nation".

26

Old ideologies of homogenisation as a road to unity and prevention of disintegration 1“Language is one of the essential characteristics of a nation. Those who belong to the Turkish nation ought, above all and absolutely, to speak Turkish. […] Those people who speak another language could, in a difficult situation, collaborate and take action against us with other people who speak other languages” (Mustafa Kemal, “Atatürk”, 1931).

27

Old ideologies of homogenisation as a road to unity and prevention of disintegration 2

The USA president Theodore Roosevelt expressed in 1919, three days before his death, sentiments similar to Atatürk’s, in a letter to the next president.

28

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American

and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality

with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any

such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an

American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says

he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is

the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

(Theodore Roosevelt, 1919)

Theodore Roosevelt

29

Old ideologies die hard...• Turkey still sees any official use of Kurdish as

a threat to this unity - it is legally forbidden to use Kurdish as a teaching language or to teach it as a subject in schools.

• The attempts in the USA to make English the only official language and to ban the use of other languages from schools as much as possible speak to the same (unfounded) fears.

30

Nice phrases - and assimilationThere are thousands of examples of similar quotes from the 1860s onwards all over the world.

The question is: why do these attitudes still linger on, under all the nice phrases about linguistic and cultural diversity?

Can one see them in the relative lack of funds and rights for educational programmes using Indigenous and minority children’s (including Deaf children’s) mother tongues as the main teaching languages?? Even in the best of situations?

31

A global phenomenon: Subtractive assimilation still mostly required from Indigenous peoples for full human rights

In India the term “backward tribes” is still in official use - they are “backward” until they are subtractively assimilated. The phenomenon is global: assimilation through linguistic genocide is in many cases still required from Indigenous peoples and minorities for full linguistic and other human rights.

See Skutnabb-Kangas 2000. See also http://www.samiskhs.no/eng/ToveSkutnabbKangas.htm for some literature.

32

http://www.samiskhs.no/eng/ToveSkutnabbKangas.htm




33



Deaf education? 1• Is this true for Deaf people too? Of

course.• All education based on orality only,

education that forbids the use of Sign languages, all education of the Deaf which does not use a Sign language as the main teaching language, is subtractively assimilationist.

34

Deaf education? 2• Even education where the use of Sign

language is allowed informally, and even if Sign language is taught as a subject but is not the main teaching language, is subtractively assimilationist.

• It tries to replace the Deaf children’s mother tongue, a Sign language, with a spoken language, and make Deaf children as much like hearing children

35

Deaf education? 3

• Cochlear implants can do this too, if they are used instead of teaching through Sign language. If cochlear implants are used in an additive way, in addition to teaching the children good Sign language skills, using Sign language as the main teaching language, then they can be useful for many children.

36

Deaf education? 4

• Subtractive assimilationist teaching of Deaf children is linguistic genocide, and does not respect children’s linguistic human rights.

37

List of contents 1




38

The role of human rights? 1If we want Deaf children to be able to develop their capacities fully, what role can human rights play?For most Indigenous peoples and Deaf people, political, economic and social rights are extremely important. They are weak or lacking today. Their achievement often seems to be the first priority. It might seem for some that linguistic human rights and other cultural rights come only AFTER basic material needs have been satisfied at least to some extent. The two types of right are often, erroneously, seen as exclusive.

39

The role of human rights? 2In fact, LHRs are a necessary prerequisite for both demanding and enjoying all the other rights. Understanding and analysing the connections between language, culture, ethnicity, identity, land and water, philosophy of life, presupposes language - one’s own language, as well as other languages.Without analysis and understanding, planning strategies and action may be futile or take a direction leading to assimilation.The vogue denying the connections and belittling the role HRs and especially LHRs is destructive.

40

Hearing people “helping” the Deaf

There has been and is still massive paternalism towards the Deaf – they are often seen as helpless victims, and in need of “help” from hearing people (rather than justice and human rights).

41

Not helpless victims but actors

I see the Deaf as active agents in their own lives, in the sense of the British sociologist Anthony Giddens: “Actors are knowledgeable and competent agents who reflexively monitor their action”. In other words, speakers of languages that are subject to linguistic imperialism are not helpless victims, but are in a more complex relationship with the forces propelling a dominant language forward, at the cost of a dominated language (Phillipson, in press).

42

Glorification, stigmatisation, rationalisation 1

But actors can also act in ways, which may be harmful to them. Some of the “help” that Deaf people got earlier from hearing people can be identified as part of patriarchal control: the hearing people claimed that they knew best what was good for the Deaf. At the same time as this “help” was given, it also hierarchised the hearing and the Deaf. In order to “help” somebody, you first have to create the ones you are helping as helpless (see Gronemeyer 1992), meaning weaker and less OK than you yourself.

43

Glorification, stigmatisation, rationalisation 2

Speakers of the dominated languages can become complicit in the weakening of their own languages when they accept/receive this “help”. This has happened and may still happen through three processes: glorification, stigmatization and rationalization. Through the processes of glorification, the dominant language (what it “is”, “has” and “does for you”) is made to seem modern and useful. Through stigmatising the dominated language, it is made to seem backward and useless.

44

Glorification, stigmatisation, rationalisation 3Rationalising the relationship between them makes

leaving the dominated language behind and learning the dominant language at the cost of it, subtractively, seem both good, and the only possibility (either/or). And those who “help” you in this analysis, are then made to seem as if they are doing something good for the dominated group (see Skutnabb-Kangas 2000).

This was how Deaf people were – and often still are – made to believe that orality was best for them and that learning and using Sign language was not useful and could even be harmful, and that in any case Sign languages were not real languages and not fit for being used as teaching languages in schools.

45

Linguistic imperialism as part of modern ”agentless” neoimperialistic control? 3

This modern “agentless” neoimperialist control creates subjectivities FOR Indigenous peoples and minorities that divide them, so that those who support the revival of old traditions and philosophies of life, the reversal of language shift, and revitalisation of languages and cultures are constructed as anti-modern, backword, while those who are constructed as “modern” are the ones despising the linguistic maintenance of the group and seeing mother-tongue-based multilingual education as romantic but unrealistic.

46


There might be similar processes going on in relation to the Deaf, both vis-à-vis cochlear implants and education through the medium of Sign languages.

47


In fact, of course, what the modern world needs is exactly those philosophies of life and traditions and cultures and knowledges that Indigenouas peoples may still have, philosophies of life which (without romanticising them as representing noble ecological “savages”) have many of the keys to sustainable, holistic life.

48

The context of Linguistic Human Rights

This “agentless” neoimperialistic control is the context within which I look at (the lack of) linguistic human rights, especially in education. I claim that demands for LHRs must be based on historical and present-day analysis of why languages need regenesis in the first place and what kind of structures, ideologies and practices keep them down. The analysis must also look into the future (what are the alternative scenarios) and plan arguments and strategies accordingly.

✦I also claim that if more and proper rights are granted NOW, it saves the state from later court cases and large compensations. Thus it is also in the interest of states to grant proper Human Rights NOW.

49

List of contents 2


50

Who or what can have rights? Individuals, collectivities, or languages 1

Languages themselves may have rights to be used, developed and maintained.

Alternatively, individuals or collectivities of people (individuals, groups, peoples, organizations, or states) may have rights to use, develop and maintain languages or duties to enable the use, development or maintenance of them.

51

Who or what can have rights? Beneficiaries?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child grants rights to the individual child.

Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities grants rights to (national) minorities, i.e. groups/collectivities.

Council of Europe’s European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages grants rights to languages, not speakers of the languages concerned.

52

Terms for beneficiaries?

But if we want to look at to what extent the existing fairly few binding rights

can be and are being applied to Sign languages and their users, we need to examine what the terms used in various HRs instruments are when individuals or collectivities or languages are being granted rights? Are they defined, and if so, how?

53

Which language? Terms used when rights are granted: own language, minority language, mother tongue 1

What are the terms used in various HRs instruments when individuals or collectivities or languages are being granted rights? Are they defined? How? Some examples:

UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 27 http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm

In those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language (emphasis added).

54

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm


55




UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, 1992, Art. 4.3.: www2.ohchr.org/english/law/minorities.htm States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons belonging to minorities have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue (emphases added).

56

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/minorities.htm

57

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_minori.htm

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/minorities.htm


The Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, 1998 http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/157.htm, Art. 10.2:

In areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities traditionally or in substantial numbers, if there is sufficient demand, the parties shall endeavour to ensure, as far as possible and within the framework of their education systems, that persons belonging to those minorities have adequate opportunities for being taught in the minority language or for receiving instruction in this language (emphases added).

58

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/157.htm




59



The most often used terms are“their own language”

“their own indigenous language”

“their mother tongue”

“the minority language”60

These terms are not defined legally in the human rights instruments (except when “immigrant languages” or “dialects” are excluded from “minority languages”).We need to define them.

61

List of contents 2


62

Definitions of mother tongueCriterion DefinitionORIGIN The language learned first

IDENTIFI-CATION

a. Internal (own)b. External (by

others)

a. The language one identifies withb. The language one is identified as

a native speaker of by others

Competence The language one knows best

Function The language one uses most

63

Mother tongue of linguistic majorities

For linguistic majorities (e.g. speakers of Japanese in Japan) all the

definitions usually converge. They have learned Japanese first, they

identify with Japanese, are identified by others as native speakers of

Japanese, know Japanese best and use Japanese most.

64

A combination of all can be usedCriterion DefinitionORIGIN The language learned first

IDENTIFI-CATION


others)





65

Mother tongue of linguistic minorities 1

• If linguistic minorities live and work where the majority language dominates, the majority language mostly becomes their most used language in most formal domains and often also informally.

• Therefore it is not fair to use a mother tongue definition by function - they have not chosen freely to use the majority language most.

66

What does “fair” mean here?

• The expression “not fair” here means that the definition does not respect linguistic human rights, and here especially the right to choose freely what one’s mother tongue is. The red in the next Table thus shows that we exclude the mother tongue definition by function – using it would not show respect for the LHRs of linguistic minorities.

67

67


IDENTIFI-CATION


others)





68

Mother tongue of linguistic minorities 2

• If linguistic minorities get their education in submersion programmes (through the medium of the majority language), the majority language often becomes the language they know best in most more formal domains.

• Therefore it is not fair to use a mother tongue definition by competence either.

69


IDENTIFI-CATION


others)





70

Often a combination of mother tongue definitions by origin and by internal

identification is a good mother tongue definition for linguistic minorities.

71


IDENTIFI-CATION


others)





72

But there are exceptions where not even this (origin plus internal

identification) is a good, fair and respectful definition of a mother

tongue. One important exception is forcibly assimilated Indigenous or

minority children

73

If the forcible assimilation has happened already for the parent or

grandparent generation, it is not fair to use a mother tongue definition by

origin either, because the parents have not spoken (or have not been able to speak) the mother tongue (e.g. Ainu, Saami or Maliseet) to the children.

74


IDENTIFI-CATION


others)





75

In this case a mother tongue definition by internal identification

can be the only possible fair definition.

76


IDENTIFI-CATION


others)





77

Another important exception is the Deaf. 90-95% of Deaf children are

born to hearing parents. If the children were to get a good education, they would learn Sign language early

on, and get most of their education through a Sign language.

In this case, children and parents do not have the same mother tongue.

78

For most Deaf children the most fair mother tongue definition is:

The language that they identify with (often, at least later on, also in combination with an external

identification: the language that they are being identified as native speakers

of by others).

79

For Deaf children, a Sign language is the only language that they can

express themselves fully in. They cannot do this in any spoken

language, except in writing. Therefore we can, for them, also add a modified

definition by competence: The mother tongue is the language that they identify with and that they can

express themselves fully in. 80


IDENTIFI-CATION


others)



Competence The language one can express oneself best in


81

But if the child is unfortunate?

• But what if a Deaf child (or an Indigenous child) is NOT one of those fortunate ones where parents have used the mother tongue by identification from the very beginning, and where the child has had most of her education through this mother tongue. What if the child does not know the mother tongue by internal identification?

82

82

My claim is:

It is possible to identify with a language that one does not know.

It is possible to have a mother tongue that one does not have (any or “full”)

competence in.

83

It is possible to identify with a language that one does not know.

It is possible to have a mother tongue that one does not have (any or “full”) competence in.

If this were to be accepted in international law (and it has not yet been tried in court), those

few rights that exist to mother tongue medium education and to learning the mother tongue as

a subject, would also apply to Indigenous children in various revitalisation programmes,

and to Deaf children.84

Conclusion for regenesis• When forcible assimilation has led to a language

being seriously endangered (“dying”, “moribund”, in need of revival) or “neglected” (endangered, in need of revitalisation), the strategy could (should?) be to use ONLY a mother tongue definition by internal identification, when demanding full Linguistic Human Rights for individuals and collectivities, regardless of whether the individuals are receptive or productive users or non-users.

• The same might apply to Deaf children.• At the same time, claims for compensation for

mother tongue loss should be raised in courts.85

85

List of contents 2


86

Some examples of court cases

87

Compensation for an education lost because of language? 1

• ”The Federal Court of Australia has found that the Queensland government discriminated against a 12-year old boy by not providing him with a sign language interpreter at school. The boy who, according to Deaf Children Australia, has the academic skills of a six-year old was awarded $ 64,000 in compensation for future economic losses as a result of his inadequate education. The implications of this finding could prove to be a landmark decision for Deaf education in Australia as it establishes firmly deaf children’s right to an AUSLAN [Australian Sign Language] interpreter in school.” Source: SIGN Matters, June 2005, quoted from Branson & Miller, in press.

88

Compensation for loss of mother tongue? 1

• ”Some residential school victims may eventually recover damage awards for their language loss.

• (Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General) [2005] 1 C.N.L.R. 8)”. The court case still continues - it started in 1992.

• Quoted in Leitch, David (2005). Canada’s Native Languages: Wrongs from the Past, Rights for the Future. Paper given at the conference First Nations, First Thoughts, University of Edinburgh, Centre of Canadian Studies, 5-6 May 2005. Available at www.cst.edu.ac.uk/2005conference/archiveA-M.html

89

http://www.cst.edu.ac.uk/2005conference/archiveA-M.html




Compensation for loss of mother tongue? 2

• (Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General) • 65 O.R. (3d) 492• [2003] O.J. No. 2698• Court File No. 1267• Ontario Superior Court of Justice• Divisional Court• Gravely, Valin and Cullity JJ.

• June 23, 2003. http://www.turtleisland.org/news/cloud2.htm

90

http://www.turtleisland.org/news/cloud2.htm




Canadian $1.9-billion court settlement 2006 on residential schools recognizes: all students suffered through loss of culture and language

Residential schools were originally an extension of the missionary work of European religious settlers who sought to convert aboriginals to Christianity. The federal government became involved in joint ventures with the churches in 1874 and took over the schools completely in 1969. The last residential school closed in 1996.

While specific lawsuits dealing with sexual and physical abuse continue, the $1.9-billion settlement recognizes that all students suffered through loss of culture and language and by being forcibly removed from their homes to live at the schools. The $1.9-billion settlement was officially approved by the courts last month.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070102.NATIVESCHOOLS02/TPStory/?query=aboriginal

91

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070102.NATIVESCHOOLS02/TPStory/?query=aboriginal




List of contents 2


92

Concluding remarks: summing upIf more and proper rights are granted NOW, it saves the state from later court cases and big compensations. Proper rights include really extensive revitalisation programmes, even reversal, for those Indigenous peoples who have lost their mother tongue. It should be accepted that where the parents or grandparents have been forcibly assimilated and have therefore not been able to speak the Indigenous language, for instance Saami, to their children, Saami is still the children's mother tongue if they identify with it, even if they don't know the language. Therefore, people can demand that they have the right to mother tongue medium education in Saami.

93

Concluding remarks

There is still a gap between nice phrases and the realities which are not so nice. Low-intensity warfare still prevails against Indigenous peoples. It is succeeding, more or less, all over the world, as also shown by the fate of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.But there is also new awareness, resistance, and even emerging action, legal and educational, that is succeeding.

94

Indigenous peoples and minorities (including the Deaf) themselves must be key actors

The Deaf should insist that Sign languages (with the possible exception of ASL, American Sign Language) are endangered and should be included in all endangered languages programmes. But this is obviously not enough. The Deaf must, just like Indigenous peoples, themselves be key actors. Despite a lot of knowledge and negotiation skills, the Deaf did not, for instance, manage to get nearly as much into the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as would be required for proper education (http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml).

95

http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml




Indigenous examples of civil society action

In Orissa, India, a project has started where Indigenous children from 10 groups of peoples will be instructed through the medium of their mother tongues in 200 schools. (Contacts: professor Ajit Mohanty, dr. Mahendra Kumar Mishra)In Nepal, a project has started where all Indigenous children (around 100 groups) will be instructed through their own languages (Contacts: dr. Lava Deo Awasthi, professor David Hough).There are many other examples in all parts of the world, including all Americas.

96

Will you start?I would like to see lists of all educational projects for/by both Indigenous peoples and the Deaf on the web, with descriptions of the set-up, strategies used to get started, results, and contact people. This would be a start. The Japanese project would be in a good position to start such a website for Deaf education and Deaf Linguistic Human Rights. Will you start?

97

Documents

Bilingual education and Sign language as the mother tongue of Deaf …tove-skutnabb-kangas.org/pdf/Tove_Skutnabb_Kangas... · 2019-03-11 · Bilingual education and Sign language