Abstract
AbstractThis paper focuses on issues related to sign language policies in Higher Educational Institutes (HEIs) in Europe. Drawing on the analytical framework proposed by Darquennes/Du Plessis/Soler (2020, i. e. this volume), which serves to address HEI language planning issues at macro, meso and micro levels, we carry out an inventory of how these issues play out for sign languages across Europe. Our investigation reveals the scarcity of information about sign language policies in HEIs, relating to both sign language as a language of instruction and as a subject of study. What becomes clear is that language planning activities (sign language acquisition, sign language status and corpus planning) are taking place in many countries but tend to go undocumented and unresearched. Given the increase in formal recognition of sign languages across Europe, coupled with the ratification of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) by all EU member states, it would seem logical to expect that the status and prestige of sign languages would rise, with greater visibility of, and planning for, incorporation of sign languages in HEIs. However, the reality of the situation is unclear, suggesting the need for coordinated effort, supported by key pan-European bodies like the Council of Europe, the European Centre for Modern Languages and the European Commission, to ensure that sign language policy is on the agenda as parts of a rights-based response to deaf communities and the sign languages of Europe. Equally important is the need for European HEIs to embrace sign languages and ensure that they are part of the linguistic landscape. This will support and promote the status planning of sign languages and open up access to HEIs for deaf communities, a group that remains under-represented in academia.
Highlights
The development of policies to support teaching and learning of/in sign languages in higher education is a relatively new phenomenon
Darquennes/Du Plessis/Soler tell us that languages are used essentially in five ways in universities: (i) they are taught as subjects; (ii) they are the language or languages of instruction used in the teaching of other, non-linguistic subjects; (iii) they are used by academic staff in research; (iv) they are used by the university in its administrative operations; (v) and they are used by the university in its external communication
Perhaps these challenges are best articulated by a deaf scholar who said that they always prefer for content to be delivered in a sign language by the author of a piece of work rather than via interpretation (Leeson/Sheikh/Vermeerbergen 2015)
Summary
The development of policies to support teaching and learning of/in sign languages in higher education is a relatively new phenomenon. In Europe, we have less clarity regarding the position of sign languages in higher education across the continent though there has been increased recognition of sign languages across both European Union (EU) and Council of Europe (COE) territories (Timmermans 2005; Tupi 2019; Wheatley/Pabsch 2012). E. this volume) present a provisional matrix that seeks to take account of the transversal, multilayered, multiple goal-oriented and multidimensional nature of language policy at university level Against this backdrop, we set out to consider how sign languages fare with respect to the key thematic areas that Darquennes/Du Plessis/Soler (this volume) outline, providing examples from institutions we know, and in particular, Trinity College Dublin (TCD).
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
