statistics on official recognition of SLs?

[Tom Humphries]

What seems clear is it's better not to strive for one number that is
meaningful in all contexts. I think we have an obligation to use accurate
numbers with accurate definitions of the numbers.  There are consequences
in different contexts.  When language programs in colleges and universities
need or use these numbers, for example, it may be that they are interested
in the number of signers, the number of learners, and the number of people
who have completed ASL courses.  That would yield specific numbers.  In
another context, in K-12 education, for example, the number might be
different and might include only school age deaf/Deaf signers and possibly
their parents and be more flexible in including signed English varieties.
 For Linguists, the number may be native or near native signers of ASL.
 Context does matter and there are consequences quite serious to the
hopes,aspirations, and safety of deaf/Deaf people (there are many ways
under or over reporting numbers of users in various contexts can do harm).

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Barbara Gerner De Garcia <
barbara.gerner.de.garcia at gallaudet.edu> wrote:

> Interesting - the 2005 article lists ASL as the 3rd most used language-
> but Wikipedia has it as the #1.
> Barbara
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Christopher Greene-Szmadzinski <
> christopher.blue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Additionally, here's a research study that explains the numbers behind
>> ASL users and why it is problematic to determine "rank" of language
>> use when it come to ASL especially in the United States:
>>
>> http://research.gallaudet.edu/Publications/ASL_Users.pdf
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Barbara Gerner De Garcia
>> <barbara.gerner.de.garcia at gallaudet.edu> wrote:
>> > Yes, most certainly :)
>> > Barbara
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Mark A. Mandel <mamandel at ldc.upenn.edu
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> May I have your permission to quote that paragraph, attributed to you,
>> as
>> >> a citation on the article's Discussion page for deleting that sentence?
>> >> -- Mark
>> >>
>> >> On 12.01.31, at 2:30 PM, Barbara Gerner De Garcia wrote:
>> >>
>> >> American Sign Language is the most used minority language yet almost
>> the
>> >> only minority language which lacks official government
>> recognition.[citation
>> >> needed]
>> >>
>> >> I just taught a course on language rights Fall semester and this
>> statement
>> >> is totally inaccurate. First of all, ASL is not the most used
>> "minority"
>> >> language. According to the US Census publication Language Use in the
>> US 2007
>> >> (Shin & Kominsky, 2010), over 34 million residents age 5 and over speak
>> >> Spanish at home.  When we cite statistics for ASL "users" we tend to
>> include
>> >> hearing people who have learned ASL (high school and college
>> students). If
>> >> we add those groups to the number of people in the US who "use"
>> Spanish, you
>> >> can see that the number easily would exceed the number of those who
>> "use"
>> >> ASL.  Second, the phrase "official government recognition" is vague.
>> In the
>> >> U.S., there is no official language, period. We do have protections in
>> the
>> >> U.S. against discrimination based on the language a person uses, but
>> there
>> >> are no "affirmative" or "positive" language rights that guarantee a
>> person
>> >> the right to use their language. The WFD has linguistic human rights
>> for
>> >> sign language users at the core of its positions, and the UNCRPD - UN
>> >> Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also expresses
>> sign
>> >> language rights as the core issue for people who are Deaf and Deaf
>> >> education.
>> >>
>> >> Barbara Gerner de Garcia
>> >> p.s. Although I am guilty of often using Wikipedia, this statement
>> helps
>> >> illuminate why my university suggests that faculty include a statement
>> on
>> >> their syllabi that the use of Wikipedia is prohibited for student work
>> (BTW,
>> >> I do not have such a statement on any of my syllabi).
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Mark A.Mandel <mamandel at ldc.upenn.edu
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> The Wikipedia article "Minority languages" includes the paragraph
>> >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_language#Controversy)
>> >>>
>> >>> ---
>> >>> Signed languages are often not recognized as true natural languages
>> even
>> >>> though they are supported by extensive research. In the United
>> States, for
>> >>> example, American Sign Language is the most used minority language yet
>> >>> almost the only minority language which lacks official government
>> >>> recognition.[citation needed]
>> >>> ---
>> >>>
>> >>> How accurate are these statements? Can the paragraph and the article
>> be
>> >>> improved with reliable and recent data?
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Mark A. Mandel
>> >>> Linguistic Data Consortium
>> >>> University of Pennsylvania
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Dr. Barbara Gerner de Garcia, Professor and Chair
>> >> Department of Educational Foundations and Research
>> >> Gallaudet University
>> >> 800 Florida Ave NE
>> >> Washington, DC 20002-3695
>> >>
>> >> Phone: 202-651-5207
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dr. Barbara Gerner de Garcia, Professor and Chair
>> > Department of Educational Foundations and Research
>> > Gallaudet University
>> > 800 Florida Ave NE
>> > Washington, DC 20002-3695
>> >
>> > Phone: 202-651-5207
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Barbara Gerner de Garcia, Professor and Chair
> Department of Educational Foundations and Research
> Gallaudet University
> 800 Florida Ave NE
> Washington, DC 20002-3695
>
> Phone: 202-651-5207
>



-- 
Tom Humphries
Associate Professor &
Vice Chair
Department of Education Studies
&
Associate Professor
Department of Communication
University of California, San Diego
thumphries at ucsd.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20120131/4ad53cad/attachment.htm>