从教聋哑儿童到挪威的手语研究

IF 0.5 Q3 LINGUISTICS Sign Language Studies Pub Date : 2024-02-27 DOI:10.1353/sls.2024.a920122
Marit Vogt-Svendsen
{"title":"从教聋哑儿童到挪威的手语研究","authors":"Marit Vogt-Svendsen","doi":"10.1353/sls.2024.a920122","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 --> From Teaching Deaf Children to Sign Language Research in Norway <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Marit Vogt-Svendsen (bio) </li> </ul> <h2>Introduction</h2> <p>The motivation for starting with sign language research probably started in my childhood in the 1950s and early 1960s. I was born in Italy where my father was a vicar in the Norwegian seamen's church in Genova, but we came home to Norway when I was two years old. Then, I grew up in Oslo at a home for deaf and deafblind adults with special needs, the Home for the Deaf (Hjemmet for Døve, today called Signo, Conrad Svendsen Centre), where my father was assistant to the director. Since my father was also a vicar for the deaf, my brothers and I occasionally followed him when he gave sermons in the deaf church or visited associations and schools at Christmas, bazaars, etc. As a youth, I occasionally joined the youth club for deaf people in Oslo. In all these environments where deaf children, youngsters, and adults were gathered, I saw the same thing: Deaf people communicated and understood each other very well. I never doubted that sign language was language on an equal footing with spoken language. My childhood experiences gave me an intuitive understanding for free.</p> <p>At the Home for the Deaf, as I remember, there was a basic respect for sign language. Through discussions I witnessed, I eventually understood that there were disagreements between this institution and the <strong>[End Page 452]</strong> schools for the deaf when it came to the acceptance of sign language. I was upset. How could anyone think that sign language was poor and primitive, not a proper language, and should not be used in schools when it was that language deaf persons had access to in normal communication contexts? To me, the debate seemed incomprehensible. I remember discussing this with my father as an early teenager He completely agreed with my arguments. The very first incentive for working with deaf people and sign language was founded.</p> <h2>Becoming a Teacher for Deaf Children</h2> <p>Although I grew up at the Home for the Deaf, my sign language skills were limited. I knew some signs and could make myself understood in simple conversations, but I did not understand all conversations between deaf people. When deaf people signed to me, they adapted their language to my limitations and used a combination of sign and speech. I experienced the same with the pupils at the school for deaf children in Oslo, Skådalen school, where I started as a teacher in 1972, just after finishing my general teacher training. At that time, the job required no sign language competence. I was told to speak and point and use as few signs as possible during the lessons. It must be added that the school for the deaf in Trondheim was probably more sign language-friendly than the one in Oslo. At the Skådalen school, if I had to use a sign, it had to be simultaneous with the spoken word, so that \"the pupils could learn Norwegian.\" They had to lipread. Likewise, the education of teachers of the deaf had a strong emphasis on the spoken language and a lack of information about sign language as a full-fledged language. This was also the policy at the Norwegian Institute of Special Education, also called the Advanced Teacher Training College of Special Education (Statens spesiallærerhøgskole), where I studied when on leave from Skådalen from 1973 to 75. There was no sign language training, but we did receive a limited number of hours where we learned some single signs.</p> <h2>Experiences with Signed Norwegian</h2> <p>Beyond the 1970s, it was obvious that the pupils did not learn Norwegian well enough, either orally or in writing, by using mainly Norwegian in the classroom. Like in several countries, an attempt <strong>[End Page 453]</strong> was made to make spoken language visible by adding signs to all the words. Teachers and the Norwegian Association of the Deaf (Norges Døveforbund, henceforth NDF) agreed to build a system that followed the spoken language word for word. This so-called \"new sign language\" was eventually called Signed Norwegian (tegnspråknorsk). It deviated from Norwegian Sign Language (henceforth NSL) with...</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\":\"From Teaching Deaf Children to Sign Language Research in Norway\",\"authors\":\"Marit Vogt-Svendsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/sls.2024.a920122\",\"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 --> From Teaching Deaf Children to Sign Language Research in Norway <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Marit Vogt-Svendsen (bio) </li> </ul> <h2>Introduction</h2> <p>The motivation for starting with sign language research probably started in my childhood in the 1950s and early 1960s. I was born in Italy where my father was a vicar in the Norwegian seamen's church in Genova, but we came home to Norway when I was two years old. Then, I grew up in Oslo at a home for deaf and deafblind adults with special needs, the Home for the Deaf (Hjemmet for Døve, today called Signo, Conrad Svendsen Centre), where my father was assistant to the director. Since my father was also a vicar for the deaf, my brothers and I occasionally followed him when he gave sermons in the deaf church or visited associations and schools at Christmas, bazaars, etc. As a youth, I occasionally joined the youth club for deaf people in Oslo. In all these environments where deaf children, youngsters, and adults were gathered, I saw the same thing: Deaf people communicated and understood each other very well. I never doubted that sign language was language on an equal footing with spoken language. My childhood experiences gave me an intuitive understanding for free.</p> <p>At the Home for the Deaf, as I remember, there was a basic respect for sign language. Through discussions I witnessed, I eventually understood that there were disagreements between this institution and the <strong>[End Page 452]</strong> schools for the deaf when it came to the acceptance of sign language. I was upset. How could anyone think that sign language was poor and primitive, not a proper language, and should not be used in schools when it was that language deaf persons had access to in normal communication contexts? To me, the debate seemed incomprehensible. I remember discussing this with my father as an early teenager He completely agreed with my arguments. The very first incentive for working with deaf people and sign language was founded.</p> <h2>Becoming a Teacher for Deaf Children</h2> <p>Although I grew up at the Home for the Deaf, my sign language skills were limited. I knew some signs and could make myself understood in simple conversations, but I did not understand all conversations between deaf people. When deaf people signed to me, they adapted their language to my limitations and used a combination of sign and speech. I experienced the same with the pupils at the school for deaf children in Oslo, Skådalen school, where I started as a teacher in 1972, just after finishing my general teacher training. At that time, the job required no sign language competence. I was told to speak and point and use as few signs as possible during the lessons. It must be added that the school for the deaf in Trondheim was probably more sign language-friendly than the one in Oslo. At the Skådalen school, if I had to use a sign, it had to be simultaneous with the spoken word, so that \\\"the pupils could learn Norwegian.\\\" They had to lipread. Likewise, the education of teachers of the deaf had a strong emphasis on the spoken language and a lack of information about sign language as a full-fledged language. This was also the policy at the Norwegian Institute of Special Education, also called the Advanced Teacher Training College of Special Education (Statens spesiallærerhøgskole), where I studied when on leave from Skådalen from 1973 to 75. There was no sign language training, but we did receive a limited number of hours where we learned some single signs.</p> <h2>Experiences with Signed Norwegian</h2> <p>Beyond the 1970s, it was obvious that the pupils did not learn Norwegian well enough, either orally or in writing, by using mainly Norwegian in the classroom. Like in several countries, an attempt <strong>[End Page 453]</strong> was made to make spoken language visible by adding signs to all the words. Teachers and the Norwegian Association of the Deaf (Norges Døveforbund, henceforth NDF) agreed to build a system that followed the spoken language word for word. This so-called \\\"new sign language\\\" was eventually called Signed Norwegian (tegnspråknorsk). It deviated from Norwegian Sign Language (henceforth NSL) with...</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.a920122\",\"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.a920122","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: 从教聋哑儿童到挪威的手语研究 玛丽特-沃格特-斯文森(Marit Vogt-Svendsen)(简历) 引言 开始从事手语研究的动机可能始于20世纪50年代和60年代初我的童年。我出生在意大利,父亲是热那亚挪威海员教堂的牧师,但在我两岁时我们回到了挪威。之后,我在奥斯陆一家为有特殊需要的成年聋人和聋盲人开设的聋人之家(Hjemmet for Døve,现名Signo,康拉德-斯文森中心)长大,父亲是那里的主任助理。由于父亲也是聋人牧师,当他在聋人教堂布道或在圣诞节、集市等活动中拜访协会和学校时,我和兄弟们偶尔会跟着他。年轻时,我偶尔会参加奥斯陆的聋人青年俱乐部。在所有这些聋哑儿童、青少年和成年人聚集的环境中,我看到了同样的事情:聋哑人之间的交流和理解非常融洽。我从未怀疑过手语是与口语同等重要的语言。童年的经历让我免费获得了直观的理解。在我的记忆中,聋人之家对手语有着基本的尊重。通过目睹的讨论,我最终明白,在接受手语的问题上,该机构与[第 452 页完]聋人学校之间存在分歧。我很生气。既然手语是聋人在正常交流中可以使用的语言,怎么会有人认为手语是贫乏的、原始的,不是一种合适的语言,不应该在学校使用呢?对我来说,这场辩论似乎无法理解。他完全同意我的观点。从此,我开始了与聋人和手语打交道的第一份工作。成为聋哑儿童的教师 虽然我是在聋人之家长大的,但我的手语技能有限。我知道一些手语,在简单的对话中也能让别人听懂,但我并不能听懂聋人之间的所有对话。当聋人向我打手语时,他们会根据我的局限性调整他们的语言,并结合使用手语和语言。1972 年,我刚刚结束普通师范教育,就到奥斯陆的斯卡达伦聋哑学校担任教师。当时的工作不需要手语能力。我被告知在上课时要边说边指,尽量少用手语。必须补充的是,特隆赫姆的聋哑学校可能比奥斯陆的聋哑学校对手语更友好。在斯卡达伦学校,如果我必须使用手语,手语必须与口语同步进行,这样 "学生们才能学到挪威语"。他们必须读唇语。同样,聋人教师的教育也非常强调口语,而缺乏关于手语作为一种正式语言的信息。这也是挪威特殊教育学院的政策,该学院又称特殊教育高级师范学院(Statens spesiallærerhøgskole),1973 年至 1975 年,我在斯卡达伦休假时就读于该学院。当时没有手语培训,但我们确实接受了一定课时的手语培训,学习了一些单一的手语。手语挪威语的经验 70年代以后,学生们在课堂上主要使用挪威语,显然无法很好地学习挪威语,无论是口头还是书面。与其他一些国家一样,挪威尝试在所有单词后面加上手势,使口语变得清晰可见。教师和挪威聋人协会(Norges Døveforbund,以下简称 "NDF")一致同意建立一种逐字逐句遵循口语的系统。这种所谓的 "新手语 "最终被称为挪威手语(Signed Norwegian)。它偏离了挪威手语(以下简称NSL),...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From Teaching Deaf Children to Sign Language Research in Norway
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • From Teaching Deaf Children to Sign Language Research in Norway
  • Marit Vogt-Svendsen (bio)

Introduction

The motivation for starting with sign language research probably started in my childhood in the 1950s and early 1960s. I was born in Italy where my father was a vicar in the Norwegian seamen's church in Genova, but we came home to Norway when I was two years old. Then, I grew up in Oslo at a home for deaf and deafblind adults with special needs, the Home for the Deaf (Hjemmet for Døve, today called Signo, Conrad Svendsen Centre), where my father was assistant to the director. Since my father was also a vicar for the deaf, my brothers and I occasionally followed him when he gave sermons in the deaf church or visited associations and schools at Christmas, bazaars, etc. As a youth, I occasionally joined the youth club for deaf people in Oslo. In all these environments where deaf children, youngsters, and adults were gathered, I saw the same thing: Deaf people communicated and understood each other very well. I never doubted that sign language was language on an equal footing with spoken language. My childhood experiences gave me an intuitive understanding for free.

At the Home for the Deaf, as I remember, there was a basic respect for sign language. Through discussions I witnessed, I eventually understood that there were disagreements between this institution and the [End Page 452] schools for the deaf when it came to the acceptance of sign language. I was upset. How could anyone think that sign language was poor and primitive, not a proper language, and should not be used in schools when it was that language deaf persons had access to in normal communication contexts? To me, the debate seemed incomprehensible. I remember discussing this with my father as an early teenager He completely agreed with my arguments. The very first incentive for working with deaf people and sign language was founded.

Becoming a Teacher for Deaf Children

Although I grew up at the Home for the Deaf, my sign language skills were limited. I knew some signs and could make myself understood in simple conversations, but I did not understand all conversations between deaf people. When deaf people signed to me, they adapted their language to my limitations and used a combination of sign and speech. I experienced the same with the pupils at the school for deaf children in Oslo, Skådalen school, where I started as a teacher in 1972, just after finishing my general teacher training. At that time, the job required no sign language competence. I was told to speak and point and use as few signs as possible during the lessons. It must be added that the school for the deaf in Trondheim was probably more sign language-friendly than the one in Oslo. At the Skådalen school, if I had to use a sign, it had to be simultaneous with the spoken word, so that "the pupils could learn Norwegian." They had to lipread. Likewise, the education of teachers of the deaf had a strong emphasis on the spoken language and a lack of information about sign language as a full-fledged language. This was also the policy at the Norwegian Institute of Special Education, also called the Advanced Teacher Training College of Special Education (Statens spesiallærerhøgskole), where I studied when on leave from Skådalen from 1973 to 75. There was no sign language training, but we did receive a limited number of hours where we learned some single signs.

Experiences with Signed Norwegian

Beyond the 1970s, it was obvious that the pupils did not learn Norwegian well enough, either orally or in writing, by using mainly Norwegian in the classroom. Like in several countries, an attempt [End Page 453] was made to make spoken language visible by adding signs to all the words. Teachers and the Norwegian Association of the Deaf (Norges Døveforbund, henceforth NDF) agreed to build a system that followed the spoken language word for word. This so-called "new sign language" was eventually called Signed Norwegian (tegnspråknorsk). It deviated from Norwegian Sign Language (henceforth NSL) with...

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.
期刊最新文献
Topical Influence: Reiterative Code-Switching in the Kufr Qassem Deaf Community A Reappraisal of the Ties Between Martha's Vineyard Sign Language and Other Sign Languages Experiences of Deaf Students in Chile: A Contribution to Social Justice Exploring Signed Literacy in Elementary Deaf Students Through Evidence-Based Instructional Methods Antonymy in Ethiopian Sign Language
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1