What's happening? Ongoing imperialism and all the other systemic oppressions in #signlanguages#linguistics
Since 2020, at least three hearing scholars in Europe have been awarded substantial + prestigious grants to research the phonology and morphology of signed languages
All have purportedly benevolent intentions to advance the field, to contribute to our understanding how languages work, to promote signed languages, to facilitate comparison with spoken and written languages and many other noble causes
Some also state they want to provide opportunities for deaf PhD and postdocs, positioning themselves as allies who are sympathetic to the constant agitation for human rights for deaf signing peoples. Some have also contributed extensively to these areas.
However, when it comes to research questions, designing research projects and actually getting the funding, none seem to realise:
1 Their research questions are a direct consequence of their specific histories and positionalities (including and especially linguistic theory), not the questions that deaf people and communities have repeatedly and insistently argued are relevant to our lives and futures
2 There is actually no obligation to hire deaf candidates, and no accountability for how this happens and/or when this does not happen. If one manages to "catch one in the wild", it's a bonus that makes one look good. Unfortunately, it's usually hard to catch one (see point 1)
3 These positions typically require deaf candidates to relocate away from their home communities, learn a new signed language, and contribute the new local deaf community, all while trying to build relationships with local interpreters so that we might sometimes be understood
4 If the candidate is not white, is disabled and/or from a developing country, all of the above is compounded +++ in so many ways that are consistently and violently invisible to most people and will likely remain so
Why is this happening?
The upshot is that there will be virtually no positive change, no advancement for deaf signing peoples. Some individuals will get a PhD. And then what? Work as a postdoc under a hearing scholar? Get a job teaching hearing students? Go home?
If you look at how energies from within and outside deaf communities are directed, most of it is for hearing people: signed language classes, interpreter training, university courses, etc. These are important, but there needs to be more focus on what deaf people need and want.
TLDR: If you participate in the academic system of signed language linguistics, you must recognise that this is the pipeline you are participating in. Writing a grant? Reviewing a grant? Understand your role in this system. Know it. We do. #DeafTwitter
Out today: “The semiotic diversity of doing reference in a deaf signed language” bit.ly/2Ed8YUL Lindsay Ferrara @NTNU, @bananabull@hvl_no and I looked at the different strategies signers use to introduce, maintain or reintroduce humans, animals and inanimate referents..
We analysed the usual suspects (eg conventional signs, pointing, enactment) but also oft-neglected English mouthing and invisible surrogates (where a confluence of indexing actions enables signers to imagine an entity in the signing space and behave as if it were present)...
In this dataset, choice of strategy most strongly motivated by activation status: new referents expressed with more conventionalised forms (eg manual signs and English mouthing); maintained and reintroduced referents involved fewer and more improvised, context-dependent stuff...