Abstract
Linguistic imperialism—a term used to conceptualize the dominance of one language over others—has been debated in language policy for more than two decades. Spolsky (Language policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004), for example, has questioned whether the spread of English was a result of language planning, or was incidental to colonialism and globalization. Phillipson (Lang Policy 6(3):377–383, 2007) contests this view, arguing that linguistic imperialism is not based on ‘conspiracy’, and is underpinned by evidence of explicit or implicit language policy that aims to intentionally advantage some languages at the expense of others. This paper analyses Irish Sign Language policy, or lack thereof, in terms of linguistic imperialism. It does this by presenting evidence within a conceptual framework of linguistic imperialism to explore how discrimination and inequality occurs in relation to Irish Sign Language users in Ireland. The findings highlight many policies and practices that fit the linguistic imperialism paradigm including linguicism, audism, and the denial of linguistic rights. The paper, therefore, challenges some views in language policy that linguistic imperialism lacks credibility by highlighting a current case of minority language (ISL) users under imperialistic-like control of policy geared towards a dominant language (English).
Highlights
This paper analyses Irish Sign Language policy, or lack thereof, in terms of linguistic imperialism. It does this by presenting evidence within a conceptual framework of linguistic imperialism to explore how discrimination and inequality occurs in relation to Irish Sign Language users in Ireland
This paper aims to apply the notions of linguistic imperialism—a term that has been used to criticize English-speaking nations’ oppression of other languages—to the treatment of Irish Sign Language (ISL)
In the context of Ireland, we see the existence of linguistic imperialism as being far less disputable, which we aim to show through the historical and current treatment of ISL in comparison to the more dominant language of English
Summary
This paper aims to apply the notions of linguistic imperialism—a term that has been used to criticize English-speaking nations’ oppression of other languages—to the treatment of Irish Sign Language (ISL). Spolsky (2004) and Ferguson (2006) take a bottom-up perspective, seeing that the advantages afforded to English speakers were not part of organized language policy, but were a consequence of the spread of British and American power, through colonization and globalization Such dichotomization of top down and bottom up forces are simplifications of the complex processes in shaping language attitudes in society; as Phillipson (2009: 18–19) notes, there are ‘‘supply and demand, push and pull factors’’, manifested in both the structures and ideologies of societies and nations. We aim to show intent along similar lines to Skutnabb-Kangas (2016a, b) and SkutnabbKangas and Dunbar (2010), who argue intent can be proven in the continuation of policies and practices despite an awareness of their sociolinguistic, sociological, psychological, political, and educational harm to linguistic communities
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
