语言学复兴--探索法语手语中的象征意义

IF 0.5 Q3 LINGUISTICS
Christian Cuxac
{"title":"语言学复兴--探索法语手语中的象征意义","authors":"Christian Cuxac","doi":"10.1353/sls.2024.a920118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Linguistic Resurgence—Exploring Iconicity in French Sign Language <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Christian Cuxac (bio) </li> </ul> <p>I<small>t was in</small> 1975 that I first met the Deaf world. As a student in linguistics, I was asked to give introductory courses in linguistics to future teachers of deaf students at the National Institute for Young Deaf People (INJS) in Paris. Like most other naive people who had had the opportunity to see deaf children, teenagers, and adults communicating in signs in public, I had assumed wrongly that this mode of communication (this language?) was used in the classrooms. I discovered at the INJS that it was not the case.</p> <p>At this institute, sign communication between students was tolerated in living areas other than classrooms, where students were only supposed to speak. Thus, in the corridors, the playground, the dining room, and the dormitories, we saw only that: thousands of signs. When asked \"Why don't you use signs with your students?\" the \"specialists\"—teachers, speech therapists, educators, all necessarily hearing—answered that it was not a language (even if they themselves had no knowledge of it) and that, consequently, it would be detrimental to learning French. However, observation of the students' exchanges clearly revealed all the features of a language. In the playground, students signed to each other, played, told stories, <strong>[End Page 390]</strong> argued, laughed, gave advice, just as hearing students do with their vocal language.</p> <p>Indeed, in France in the middle of the 1970s, the oralist ideology reigned supreme in the education of deaf children and teenagers. Very quickly, I understood that what characterized this method during these school years was not only the aim of giving the deaf child access to the oral language of this country (who would not want this?), but also doing this in a way that subordinated an aim of giving access to a broad range of knowledge to that of simply acquiring a preliminary knowledge of the vocal language, this being deemed the only language fit to convey broader information.</p> <p>The result of this oralist-only approach was to delay deaf children's progress in their ten years of elementary school behind that of their hearing counterparts, as access to a vocal language involved methods very difficult for deaf children (i.e., \"démutisation\" through hearing-aid devices and lipreading). Signing (at the time, there was no designation such as \"langue des signes\") was forbidden in the classroom, and many specialized institutions even went so far as to forbid gestural communication between students in all places connected with the institution. The list of occupations available to deaf adults coming from these schools was drastically limited to a few manual jobs. There was also, at that time, no professionally trained corps of interpreters; only a handful of volunteers (mainly Codas [children of deaf adults]) provided the occasional intercommunity link.</p> <p>Some deaf people, but also some hearing people (educators, teachers, researchers in the humanities) were revolted by this discriminatory policy. The main trigger for the worldwide movement that came to be called the \"Deaf Awakening\" took place that same year, 1975, at the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) meeting in Washington, DC.</p> <p>In the United States, the situation at that time was quite different from that in France. The practice of sign language was, contrary to all of Europe, not totally forbidden in all schools for the deaf following the Milan Congress but was present at some level in most schools. American deaf adults assumed a range of social roles unimaginable in France. For the European participants at the Washington WFD meeting, it was easy to posit a causal link between the mode of education <strong>[End Page 391]</strong> and opportunities for deaf adults (i.e., that in the United States, the absence of a general ban on sign language in schools seemed to be an important factor for the successful sociocultural integration of the deaf population).</p> <p>During the 1975 WFD meeting, a small group of participants was formed in order to set up an alternative to the discriminatory educational policy toward young deaf people in France. It included deaf members of associations, a few hearing professionals, and a sociologist, Bernard Mottez. Like several other people, I quickly joined this...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":21753,"journal":{"name":"Sign Language Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Linguistic Resurgence—Exploring Iconicity in French Sign Language\",\"authors\":\"Christian Cuxac\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/sls.2024.a920118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\\n<p> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> Linguistic Resurgence—Exploring Iconicity in French Sign Language <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Christian Cuxac (bio) </li> </ul> <p>I<small>t was in</small> 1975 that I first met the Deaf world. As a student in linguistics, I was asked to give introductory courses in linguistics to future teachers of deaf students at the National Institute for Young Deaf People (INJS) in Paris. Like most other naive people who had had the opportunity to see deaf children, teenagers, and adults communicating in signs in public, I had assumed wrongly that this mode of communication (this language?) was used in the classrooms. I discovered at the INJS that it was not the case.</p> <p>At this institute, sign communication between students was tolerated in living areas other than classrooms, where students were only supposed to speak. Thus, in the corridors, the playground, the dining room, and the dormitories, we saw only that: thousands of signs. When asked \\\"Why don't you use signs with your students?\\\" the \\\"specialists\\\"—teachers, speech therapists, educators, all necessarily hearing—answered that it was not a language (even if they themselves had no knowledge of it) and that, consequently, it would be detrimental to learning French. However, observation of the students' exchanges clearly revealed all the features of a language. In the playground, students signed to each other, played, told stories, <strong>[End Page 390]</strong> argued, laughed, gave advice, just as hearing students do with their vocal language.</p> <p>Indeed, in France in the middle of the 1970s, the oralist ideology reigned supreme in the education of deaf children and teenagers. Very quickly, I understood that what characterized this method during these school years was not only the aim of giving the deaf child access to the oral language of this country (who would not want this?), but also doing this in a way that subordinated an aim of giving access to a broad range of knowledge to that of simply acquiring a preliminary knowledge of the vocal language, this being deemed the only language fit to convey broader information.</p> <p>The result of this oralist-only approach was to delay deaf children's progress in their ten years of elementary school behind that of their hearing counterparts, as access to a vocal language involved methods very difficult for deaf children (i.e., \\\"démutisation\\\" through hearing-aid devices and lipreading). Signing (at the time, there was no designation such as \\\"langue des signes\\\") was forbidden in the classroom, and many specialized institutions even went so far as to forbid gestural communication between students in all places connected with the institution. The list of occupations available to deaf adults coming from these schools was drastically limited to a few manual jobs. There was also, at that time, no professionally trained corps of interpreters; only a handful of volunteers (mainly Codas [children of deaf adults]) provided the occasional intercommunity link.</p> <p>Some deaf people, but also some hearing people (educators, teachers, researchers in the humanities) were revolted by this discriminatory policy. The main trigger for the worldwide movement that came to be called the \\\"Deaf Awakening\\\" took place that same year, 1975, at the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) meeting in Washington, DC.</p> <p>In the United States, the situation at that time was quite different from that in France. The practice of sign language was, contrary to all of Europe, not totally forbidden in all schools for the deaf following the Milan Congress but was present at some level in most schools. American deaf adults assumed a range of social roles unimaginable in France. For the European participants at the Washington WFD meeting, it was easy to posit a causal link between the mode of education <strong>[End Page 391]</strong> and opportunities for deaf adults (i.e., that in the United States, the absence of a general ban on sign language in schools seemed to be an important factor for the successful sociocultural integration of the deaf population).</p> <p>During the 1975 WFD meeting, a small group of participants was formed in order to set up an alternative to the discriminatory educational policy toward young deaf people in France. It included deaf members of associations, a few hearing professionals, and a sociologist, Bernard Mottez. Like several other people, I quickly joined this...</p> </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sign Language Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sign Language Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2024.a920118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sign Language Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2024.a920118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要: 语言学的复兴--探索法国手语中的象征性 Christian Cuxac(简历 1975 年,我第一次接触聋人世界。作为语言学专业的学生,我应邀为巴黎国立青年聋人学院(INJS)未来的聋人教师开设语言学入门课程。和其他大多数有机会看到聋哑儿童、青少年和成年人在公共场合用手语交流的天真之人一样,我错误地以为这种交流方式(这种语言?我在国家聋人研究所发现情况并非如此。在这所学校里,学生之间的手语交流在教室以外的生活区是被允许的,因为在教室里学生只能说话。因此,在走廊、操场、餐厅和宿舍,我们看到的只有:成千上万的手势。当被问及 "你们为什么不对学生使用手语?"时,"专家 "们--教师、语言治疗师、教育工作者--都回答说,手语不是一种语言(即使他们自己也不懂手语),因此不利于法语学习。然而,通过观察学生们的交流,可以清楚地看到语言的所有特征。在操场上,学生们互相打手势、玩耍、讲故事、争论、大笑、提建议,就像听力好的学生用他们的母语一样。事实上,在 20 世纪 70 年代中期的法国,口语主义思想在聋哑儿童和青少年的教育中占据着至高无上的地位。很快,我就明白了,这种教育方法的特点不仅在于让聋哑儿童学习这个国家的口语(谁不希望这样呢?这种只讲口语的方法导致聋哑儿童在小学十年的学习进度落后于健听儿童,因为对聋哑儿童来说,学习发声语言的方法非常困难(即通过助听器和唇语进行 "变声")。手语(当时还没有 "手语 "这样的名称)在课堂上是被禁止的,许多专门机构甚至禁止学生在与机构有关的所有场所进行手势交流。从这些学校毕业的成年聋人所能从事的职业被严格限制在少数体力工作中。当时也没有经过专业培训的口译员队伍;只有少数志愿者(主要是 Codas(聋人子女))偶尔提供社区间的联系。一些聋人和一些听人(教育工作者、教师、人文科学研究人员)对这一歧视性政策深恶痛绝。同年,即 1975 年,在华盛顿特区举行的世界聋人联合会(WFD)会议上,引发了被称为 "聋人觉醒 "的世界性运动。在美国,当时的情况与法国截然不同。与整个欧洲不同的是,在米兰大会之后,所有聋人学校并没有完全禁止手语练习,而是在大多数学校中都有一定程度的手语练习。美国成年聋人承担了一系列在法国无法想象的社会角色。对于参加华盛顿世界聋人联合会会议的欧洲与会者来说,他们很容易在教育模式 [第 391 页完] 和成年聋人的机会之间建立起因果关系(即在美国,学校不全面禁止手语似乎是聋人成功融入社会文化的一个重要因素)。在 1975 年的世界聋人联合会会议期间,成立了一个由与会者组成的小组,目的是制 定一项替代法国对年轻聋人的歧视性教育政策的方案。小组成员包括聋人协会成员、一些听力专业人士和社会学家贝尔纳-莫特兹。和其他一些人一样,我也很快加入了这个组织。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Linguistic Resurgence—Exploring Iconicity in French Sign Language
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Linguistic Resurgence—Exploring Iconicity in French Sign Language
  • Christian Cuxac (bio)

It was in 1975 that I first met the Deaf world. As a student in linguistics, I was asked to give introductory courses in linguistics to future teachers of deaf students at the National Institute for Young Deaf People (INJS) in Paris. Like most other naive people who had had the opportunity to see deaf children, teenagers, and adults communicating in signs in public, I had assumed wrongly that this mode of communication (this language?) was used in the classrooms. I discovered at the INJS that it was not the case.

At this institute, sign communication between students was tolerated in living areas other than classrooms, where students were only supposed to speak. Thus, in the corridors, the playground, the dining room, and the dormitories, we saw only that: thousands of signs. When asked "Why don't you use signs with your students?" the "specialists"—teachers, speech therapists, educators, all necessarily hearing—answered that it was not a language (even if they themselves had no knowledge of it) and that, consequently, it would be detrimental to learning French. However, observation of the students' exchanges clearly revealed all the features of a language. In the playground, students signed to each other, played, told stories, [End Page 390] argued, laughed, gave advice, just as hearing students do with their vocal language.

Indeed, in France in the middle of the 1970s, the oralist ideology reigned supreme in the education of deaf children and teenagers. Very quickly, I understood that what characterized this method during these school years was not only the aim of giving the deaf child access to the oral language of this country (who would not want this?), but also doing this in a way that subordinated an aim of giving access to a broad range of knowledge to that of simply acquiring a preliminary knowledge of the vocal language, this being deemed the only language fit to convey broader information.

The result of this oralist-only approach was to delay deaf children's progress in their ten years of elementary school behind that of their hearing counterparts, as access to a vocal language involved methods very difficult for deaf children (i.e., "démutisation" through hearing-aid devices and lipreading). Signing (at the time, there was no designation such as "langue des signes") was forbidden in the classroom, and many specialized institutions even went so far as to forbid gestural communication between students in all places connected with the institution. The list of occupations available to deaf adults coming from these schools was drastically limited to a few manual jobs. There was also, at that time, no professionally trained corps of interpreters; only a handful of volunteers (mainly Codas [children of deaf adults]) provided the occasional intercommunity link.

Some deaf people, but also some hearing people (educators, teachers, researchers in the humanities) were revolted by this discriminatory policy. The main trigger for the worldwide movement that came to be called the "Deaf Awakening" took place that same year, 1975, at the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) meeting in Washington, DC.

In the United States, the situation at that time was quite different from that in France. The practice of sign language was, contrary to all of Europe, not totally forbidden in all schools for the deaf following the Milan Congress but was present at some level in most schools. American deaf adults assumed a range of social roles unimaginable in France. For the European participants at the Washington WFD meeting, it was easy to posit a causal link between the mode of education [End Page 391] and opportunities for deaf adults (i.e., that in the United States, the absence of a general ban on sign language in schools seemed to be an important factor for the successful sociocultural integration of the deaf population).

During the 1975 WFD meeting, a small group of participants was formed in order to set up an alternative to the discriminatory educational policy toward young deaf people in France. It included deaf members of associations, a few hearing professionals, and a sociologist, Bernard Mottez. Like several other people, I quickly joined this...

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sign Language Studies
Sign Language Studies LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Sign Language Studies publishes a wide range of original scholarly articles and essays relevant to signed languages and signing communities. The journal provides a forum for the dissemination of important ideas and opinions concerning these languages and the communities who use them. Topics of interest include linguistics, anthropology, semiotics, Deaf culture, and Deaf history and literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信