Ideological Framing of Sign Languages and Their Users in the South African Press
Saved in:
| Title: | Ideological Framing of Sign Languages and Their Users in the South African Press |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Carmel Carne, Marcelyn Oostendorp, Anne Baker |
| Source: | Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication. 2024 43(4):525-552. |
| Availability: | De Gruyter Mouton. Available from: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. 121 High Street, Third Floor, Boston, MA 02110. Tel: 857-284-7073; Fax: 857-284-7358; e-mail: service@degruyter.com; Web site: http://www.degruyter.com |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 28 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Information Analyses |
| Descriptors: | Foreign Countries, Sign Language, Deafness, News Media, Mass Media Role, Attitudes toward Disabilities, Imagery, Ideology, Disabilities, Social Bias, Stereotypes, News Writing, Disability Discrimination, Tokenism, Language Minorities, Newspapers, African Culture |
| Geographic Terms: | South Africa |
| DOI: | 10.1515/multi-2023-0040 |
| ISSN: | 0167-8507 1613-3684 |
| Abstract: | This exploratory study provides an overview of prominent themes pertaining to portrayals of sign languages (SLs) and Deaf people in the South African press (2011-2019), as well as an analysis of a subset of articles to illustrate the discursive constructions of each of the prominent ideological framings. The findings of the paper suggest that many ways of representing South African Sign Language (SASL) and their users align with international trends. The two most prominent ideological framings are the medical/disability model and the linguistic minority model. Within the medical model, SLs are seen as inferior means of communication used by a disabled minority. Within the linguistic minority framework SLs are regarded as natural, legitimate languages deserving equal status to spoken languages. The paper also identifies an ideological framing that is not predicted by the international literature, coined here as 'diversity tokenism'. Diversity tokenism is when SL is mentioned only to increase perceived diversity, where diversity is a commodity that holds social capital. This portrayal of SASL seems to be increasing and holds a warning: although SASL users have received official recognition and rights through the recent declaration of SASL as an official language, it might not be the end of the battle to ensure that users of SASL can live out their linguistic citizenship. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1430113 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | This exploratory study provides an overview of prominent themes pertaining to portrayals of sign languages (SLs) and Deaf people in the South African press (2011-2019), as well as an analysis of a subset of articles to illustrate the discursive constructions of each of the prominent ideological framings. The findings of the paper suggest that many ways of representing South African Sign Language (SASL) and their users align with international trends. The two most prominent ideological framings are the medical/disability model and the linguistic minority model. Within the medical model, SLs are seen as inferior means of communication used by a disabled minority. Within the linguistic minority framework SLs are regarded as natural, legitimate languages deserving equal status to spoken languages. The paper also identifies an ideological framing that is not predicted by the international literature, coined here as 'diversity tokenism'. Diversity tokenism is when SL is mentioned only to increase perceived diversity, where diversity is a commodity that holds social capital. This portrayal of SASL seems to be increasing and holds a warning: although SASL users have received official recognition and rights through the recent declaration of SASL as an official language, it might not be the end of the battle to ensure that users of SASL can live out their linguistic citizenship. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0167-8507 1613-3684 |
| DOI: | 10.1515/multi-2023-0040 |
