Linguistics: Applied Linguistics C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Discrimination C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cykresge (article contribs).

Good work. Nice to see such great pages here. --Bhadani (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC) should the Quebec language law and the issues francophones historically had in Canada here? Tydoni (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Written language only" is viable option for deaf or HoH who cannot or do not want to sign or read lips. I am legally deaf (severe hyperacusis). Officials coming to my residence ignored door sign requesting written language only. I cannot understand otherwise. I insist that officials coming on official business use written language not oral language. The defense attorney tried to force us to have an "oral" argument and I objected. The judge ruled that in order for us to be on "equal footing" we would have 100% written language, because I indicated that is a primary language pursuant to 42 USC §12182(b) (2) (A) (iii). The US Department of Justice has litigated this issue in the context of ASL and native languages, not written languages. See language litigation for my work on this topic. -- Abby Jo Ovitsky --98.246.178.146 (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally false that Basque, Catalan and Galician were prohibited in Spain under Franco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.129.9 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a heavy focus on the linguistic discrimination against users of spoken languages, while the linguistic discrimination against d/Deaf and Hard of Hearing people who use sign languages seems to be underrepresented. The belief that spoken languages are superior to sign languages has dominated society for years, resulting in the isolation and language deprivation of numerous d/Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals. For years, doctors discouraged parents from allowing their deaf kids to learn American Sign Language. Schools for the Deaf, in addition, banned the use of American Sign Language in favor of oralism. Forced to speak and read lips at home and at school, young d/Deaf and Hard of Hearing children faced communication barriers, unable to fully understand others and unable to fully express themselves. American Sign Language was not recognized as a true, complete language until the 1960's, and today, there is still debate among high schools and colleges as to whether it should count for foreign language credit. The effects of linguistic discrimination on the education and livelihood of d/Deaf and Hard of Hearing people should be sufficiently explained. --Cykresge (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]