SASL Newsletter - Spring 2018 Issue Issue 9 - Spring 2018 | 页面 12

By Samuel J. Supalla
Citation
Reffell, H., & McKee, R. L. (2009). Motives and outcomes of New Zealand Sign Language legislation: A
comparative study between New Zealand and Finland. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(3),
272-292.
Abstract
The medicalized interpretation of deafness has until recently seen the rights and protections of sign
language users embedded in disability law. Yet the rights and protections crucial to sign language users
centre predominantly on matters of language access, maintenance and identity. Legislators, motivated by
pressure from sign language communities and in response to international human rights laws, have begun
to enact statutes that include provisions pertaining to sign language. The New Zealand Sign Language Act
2006 (NZSL Act 2006 hereafter) made NZSL an official language but created minimal enforceable rights or
obligations. This paper explores the significance of this legislation both in New Zealand, in comparison with
the Maori Language Act 1987, and internationally, in comparison with the legislative situation in Finland.
Finland is considered to be a leader in sign language user rights. Similarities between New Zealand and
Finland such as geography, population size, type of government and economy provide for a comparative
study. This paper considers whether the NZSL Act 2006 fulfilled the intention of Parliament and the desire
of the Deaf community to make a material difference to accessing citizenship through NZSL, particularly in
education, or whether there were possible non-community motives for the NZSL Act 2006 that prevented it
from fulfilling its potential.
(5 ¾ minutes long)
The Power of ASL
12
Spring 2018 – Issue 9