Educating Students Without
Language Power:
Linguistic Genocide
Magen Otwell
Gallaudet University
EDU 885 Dr. Kuntze
• Linguistic-minority students’
language[s] should never be
sacrificed, since it is the only means
through which they make sense of
their own experience in the world.
•
(Donald Macedo, 2006, p. 128)
•
•
•
What will be offered in this presentation is the
possibility of choosing a different, but valid,
perspective of education for Latino deaf students.
There is no one explanation of how deaf students
should be educated that that is adequate or
complete, but it is key not to ignore the significance
of languages other than English in the classroom.
Examining the current conditions of deaf education
and of language use and language instruction
assists in understanding Latino deaf students school
achievement, or lack thereof.
Questioning Language Instruction in Deaf Education
•
•
•
Native language (i.e. American Sign Language) and home
language (i.e. Spanish) instruction will benefit students more than
English-Only language instruction and failure to include Spanish
instruction might, under certain circumstance, be considered
linguistic genocide.
Argument for trilingual or multilingual education
At the very least, integrating the students’ languages in the
classroom; “for example, during language instruction, introduce
words and signs from different languages (Mommy-Mami, DaddyPapi, Garndpa-Abuelito, Grandma-Abuelita)”
•
(Sass-Lehrer, Gerner de Garcia, and Rovins, 1997, p. 5)
• Society has language preferences
• Preference is for dominant language English (not ASL or Spanish)
• Oppression - Language preferences
lead to language exclusion
• Linguistic Genocide - affects student
achievement
• It is subtractive dominant language
learning ... that kills other
languages...That is a starting point
for action for diversity.
•
(Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000, p. xxxiii)
Why the need for trilingual education?
•
~30% of Deaf and Hard of Hearing students are
Latino.
•
•
(Gallaudet Research Institute, 2011)
They may arrive at school with “some abilities in
each of three languages, Spanish, English, and sign,
yet [they] are viewed primarily as deficient because
[they are] not fluent in any of these languages.”
•
(Gerner de Garcia, Morocco, Mata-Aguilar, n.d., p.8)
• Skutnabb-Kangas (2003) supports
linguistic human rights, stating that
those who have two mother tongues
and live in a country where none of
them is an official language have the
right to become trilingual.
•
A ‘mother tongue’ fits any of the following criteria: (1) a language learned first, (2) a
language an individual/person identifies with, or (3) a language a person chooses to use
most. To emphasize the term ‘chooses’ in the last line, is to remind society that forcing
English on students in school without the option for Spanish is a choice-less choice.
Further, “An individual can have at least two, possibly three mother tongues.”
•
•
(Skutnabb-Kangas, 2008, p. 86)
62% of Latino deaf students have some proficiency in Spanish.
•
•
(Struxness, 2000)
Native language skills are typically easily transferred to second and third languages, thus
literacy and academic achievement are supported by fostering the languages students
bring to school
•
(Wiley, 2005)
•
•
•
•
•
What about deaf students who don’t know any Spanish?
“It is possible to identify with a language that one does not
know” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2008, p. 14). The same holds true for ASL.
What about literacy?
The word ‘English’ is absent from most definitions of literacy.
It’s important to consider what forms of literacy are valued.
The more consistent ... home and school cultures are, ...,
more successful students will be.
•
(Nieto & Bode, 2012, p. 262)
LINGUICISM
•
These deficit language views that prioritize one language over
another or negatively characterize one’s language abilities (as
is often the case with deaf immigrants) is referred to as
linguicism.
•
•
(Gerner de Garcia et al, n.d., p.12)
When schools for the deaf exhibiting a preference for English
language instruction and a marginalization of Spanish
language instruction they are practicing linguicism. For these
students, Spanish may be eradicated, thus taking linguicism a
step further.
LINGUISTIC GENOCIDE
• Linguistic genocide involves the killing of
languages, not people.
•
•
•
•
•
(Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000)
Resolution that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in
1948, Articles 2b and 2e state:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts…
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
• At its most basic level, the term
bilingual education refers to the use
of two (or more) languages of
instruction at some point in a
student’s school career.
•
(Jim Cummins, 2009, p.19)
• Latino deaf students who are oral have
the option of bilingual (Spanish/English)
instruction.
• While Latino Deaf signers are not
afforded the same luxury.
• Example of the hegemony of spoken
language.
Why not leave it up to the parents to teach them
Spanish at home?
•
•
•
What if the same question were posed, substituting Spanish with ASL?
Linguistic priority- learning English for survival
Only 23-29% of families with deaf children ever learn to sign, including deaf
families
•
•
(Gallaudet Research Institute, 2011)
“[Latino] Deaf children are less likely than white Deaf children to have a sign
language used at home. Therefore, they have less opportunities for
communication” (Lane et al., 1996, p. 164). Few Spanish speaking families learn to
sign due to the fact that they are not fluent in English, the language in which the
sign class is offered (Allen, 2002).
Funds of Knowledge
• Based on language
•
Moll, Amanti, Neff & Gonzalez (2001)
• Come to know the students and their
home experiences (including language)
for academic benefit
Won’t this hinder English?
•
The fear that bilingual education will not lead to English
proficiency and without English proficiency opportunities for
success decrease is without warrant
•
•
English fluency does not, in fact, guarantee academic success
•
•
(Macedo, 2006, pp. 128-129)
(Adams, Astone, Nunez-Wormack, & Smodlaka, 1994)
Successful multilingual environment, in Kenya, where students
with disabilities learned three languages with fluency equal to
natives
•
(Candelaria-Greene, 1996, as cited in Cummins, 2000)
• When two languages are used in the
school to affirm the experiences and
culture of the students and
communities who speak those
languages, this in itself challenges
the discourse of superiority and
devaluation that characterize social
relations between these communities
and wider society.
•
(Cummins, 2000, p. 10)
Questions?
•
References
Adams, D., Astone, B., Nunez-Wormack, E., & Smodlaka, I. (1994). Predicting the academic achievement of Puerto Rican and
Mexican-American ninth-grade students. The Urban
Review, 26(1), 1-14.
•
Allen, B. M. (2002). ASL-English bilingual classroom: The families’ perspectives. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 1-20.
•
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
•
•
•
Cummins, J. (2009). Fundamental Psycholinguistic and Sociological Principles Underlying Educational Success for Linguistic
Minority Students. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A.K. Mohanty, & M. Panda (Eds.), Linguistic Diversity and Language
Rights: Social Justice Through Multicultural Education (p. 19-34). New York: Multilingual Matters.
Gallaudet Research Institute (2011). Regional and National Summary Report of Data from the 2009-10 Annual Survey of Deaf and
Hard of Hearing Children and Youth. Washington, DC: GRI, Gallaudet University.
Gerner de Garcia, B., Morocco, C., & Mata-Aguilar, C. (n.d.) The home language and literacy environment of the Latino deaf/hard
of hearing child. Adapted from: Literacy for Latino Deaf and Hard of Hearing English Language Learners. Unpublished article.
•
Hornberger, N. (1989). The continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 271- 296.
•
Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R., & Bahan, B. (1996). A journey into the deaf world. San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press.
•
Macedo, D. (2006). Literacies of power: What Americans are not allowed to know. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
•
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D. and Gonzalez, N. (2001). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect
homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, XXXI, 2, 132-141.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nieto, S. & Bode, P. (2012). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. 6th edition. Boston :
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Sass-Lehrer, M., Gerner de Garcia, B., and Rovins, M. (1997). Creating a multicultural school climate for deaf children and
their families. Washington, DC: Pre-College National Missions Programs, Gallaudet University.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education- or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2003). Linguistic genocide and the Deaf. Retrieved from
http://www.deafzone.ch/file/file_pool/action/download/file_id/1379/
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2008). Bilingual education and Sign language as the mother tongue of Deaf children. In Kellett Bidoli,
Cynthia J. & Ochse, Elana (eds). English in International Deaf Communication. Bern: Peter Lang, 75- 94.
Struxness, K. (2000). School support services for Hispanic Deaf children and families in southern California school settings. In
Christensen (Ed.), Deaf plus: A multicultural perspective (pp. 199-220). United States: DawnSignPress.
United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Convention of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. Resolution
260 (III). Retrieved from http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html.
Wiley, T.G. (2005). Literacy and language diversity in the United Staes (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.