{"title":"作为“母语孤儿”的手语:对新加坡种族语言多元文化的挑战","authors":"Timothy Y. Loh","doi":"10.1111/aman.28088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article examines the contested status of “sign language” in Singapore by exploring deaf people's experiences of the “Mother Tongues”—the state's designation for the official languages of Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil—with a particular focus on the relationships that deaf Chinese Singaporeans have with Mandarin. The term “sign language” in Singapore simplifies a complicated linguistic ecology that includes signing varieties that range from styles that follow English grammar and structure more closely to styles that are more visually and conceptually accurate. Under Singapore's bilingual education policy, all Singaporeans must learn English as well as their “Mother Tongue”; however, deaf people are exempt from this policy. Because sign language in Singapore defies ethnic categorization, it presents a challenge to the state's raciolinguistic claims to multiculturalism, which conflate ethnicity with language. Sign language is thus rendered ideologically suspect: a “mother tongue orphan,” uncomfortably located in the state's language schema. Interlocutors express a sense of alienation from both the “Mother Tongues” and from Singapore Sign Language (SgSL), although in recent years more deaf Singaporeans are coming to reclaim SgSL as their own. This case demonstrates how raciolinguistic ideologies might be reinforced even through those to whom such language policies are not meant to apply.</p>","PeriodicalId":7697,"journal":{"name":"American Anthropologist","volume":"127 3","pages":"517-528"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aman.28088","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sign Language as “Mother Tongue Orphan”: A Challenge to Raciolinguistic Multiculturalism in Singapore\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Y. Loh\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aman.28088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article examines the contested status of “sign language” in Singapore by exploring deaf people's experiences of the “Mother Tongues”—the state's designation for the official languages of Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil—with a particular focus on the relationships that deaf Chinese Singaporeans have with Mandarin. The term “sign language” in Singapore simplifies a complicated linguistic ecology that includes signing varieties that range from styles that follow English grammar and structure more closely to styles that are more visually and conceptually accurate. Under Singapore's bilingual education policy, all Singaporeans must learn English as well as their “Mother Tongue”; however, deaf people are exempt from this policy. Because sign language in Singapore defies ethnic categorization, it presents a challenge to the state's raciolinguistic claims to multiculturalism, which conflate ethnicity with language. Sign language is thus rendered ideologically suspect: a “mother tongue orphan,” uncomfortably located in the state's language schema. Interlocutors express a sense of alienation from both the “Mother Tongues” and from Singapore Sign Language (SgSL), although in recent years more deaf Singaporeans are coming to reclaim SgSL as their own. This case demonstrates how raciolinguistic ideologies might be reinforced even through those to whom such language policies are not meant to apply.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Anthropologist\",\"volume\":\"127 3\",\"pages\":\"517-528\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aman.28088\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Anthropologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aman.28088\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Anthropologist","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aman.28088","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Sign Language as “Mother Tongue Orphan”: A Challenge to Raciolinguistic Multiculturalism in Singapore
This article examines the contested status of “sign language” in Singapore by exploring deaf people's experiences of the “Mother Tongues”—the state's designation for the official languages of Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil—with a particular focus on the relationships that deaf Chinese Singaporeans have with Mandarin. The term “sign language” in Singapore simplifies a complicated linguistic ecology that includes signing varieties that range from styles that follow English grammar and structure more closely to styles that are more visually and conceptually accurate. Under Singapore's bilingual education policy, all Singaporeans must learn English as well as their “Mother Tongue”; however, deaf people are exempt from this policy. Because sign language in Singapore defies ethnic categorization, it presents a challenge to the state's raciolinguistic claims to multiculturalism, which conflate ethnicity with language. Sign language is thus rendered ideologically suspect: a “mother tongue orphan,” uncomfortably located in the state's language schema. Interlocutors express a sense of alienation from both the “Mother Tongues” and from Singapore Sign Language (SgSL), although in recent years more deaf Singaporeans are coming to reclaim SgSL as their own. This case demonstrates how raciolinguistic ideologies might be reinforced even through those to whom such language policies are not meant to apply.
期刊介绍:
American Anthropologist is the flagship journal of the American Anthropological Association, reaching well over 12,000 readers with each issue. The journal advances the Association mission through publishing articles that add to, integrate, synthesize, and interpret anthropological knowledge; commentaries and essays on issues of importance to the discipline; and reviews of books, films, sound recordings and exhibits.