Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T06:48:03.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

29 - Sign Language Standardization

from Part V - Standardization in Late Modernity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2021

By
Ronice Müller de Quadros  and
Christian Rathmann
Edited by
Wendy Ayres-Bennett  and
John Bellamy
Wendy Ayres-Bennett
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
John Bellamy
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

This chapter addresses issues related to sign language standardization, a topic that has been approached from many different perspectives. To some members of the Deaf communities, language standardization represents a form of outsider oppression meant to ‘fill in gaps’ with the establishment of a ‘standard’ sign language that is ‘more consistent’. In this sense, there is a resistance in some Deaf communities against dictionaries or glossaries proposed for educational purposes or for teaching sign language. On the other hand, others in the Deaf communities discuss how to standardize their language(s) considering different motivations that are more inclusive, such as the recognition of the diverse varieties of a sign language and how to deal with them. These points are discussed considering the complex factors that are involved in the tentative language standardization processes of sign languages in many different countries. We present and discuss the different experiences and motivations of various language planning projects that include proposals of sign language standardization. We conclude that a successful language standardization process needs to include Deaf professionals as the protagonists.

Keywords

sign languageslanguage standardizationlanguage promotionlanguage planningdeaf communitiesdeaf educationresistance
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization , pp. 765 - 788
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adam, R. (2015). Standardization of sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 432–45.Google Scholar
Al-Fityani, K. (2010). Deaf People, Modernity, and a Contentious Effort to Unify Arab Sign Languages. Doctoral thesis. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Al-Fityani, K. & Padden, C. (2010). Sign languages in the Arab world. In Brentari, D., ed., Sign Languages (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 433–50.Google Scholar
Basso, I. (2003). Educação de pessoas surdas: novos olhares sobre as questões do ensinar e do aprender a língua portuguesa. Dissertação de Mestrado. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S. & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–81.Google Scholar
Bhabha, H. (1994). The Location the Culture. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boon, E. D. (2014). Heritage Welsh: A Study of Heritage Language as the Outcome of Minority Language Acquisition and Bilingualism. Doctoral thesis. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boyes-Braem, P. & Rathmann, C. (2010). Transmission of sign languages in Northern Europe. In Brentari, D., ed., Cambridge Language Surveys: Sign Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
De Meulder, M. (2016). The Power of Language Policy: The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages and the Aspirations of Deaf Communities. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Printing House.Google Scholar
De Meulder, M., Murray, J. J. & McKee, R. (2019). The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, J. (1997 [1967]). Of Grammatology. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Eichmann, H. (2008). ‘Hands off our Language!’ Deaf Sign Language Teachers’ Perspectives on Sign Language Standardisation. Doctoral thesis. University of Central Lancashire.Google Scholar
Eichmann, H. (2009). Planning sign languages: promoting hearing hegemony? Conceptualizing sign language standardization. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(3), 293–307.Google Scholar
Geers, A. E., Mitchell, C. M., Warner-Czyz, A., Wang, N.-Y. & Eisenberg, L. S. (2017). Early sign language exposure and cochlear implantation benefits. Pediatrics, 140(1), e20163489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geraci, C. (2012). Language policy and planning: the case of Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), 494–518.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. I. (1972). The Ecology of Language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, J. (2013). Language ideologies, policies, and attitudes toward signed languages. In Bayley, R., Cameron, R. & Lucas, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Hoffman, E. G. (2008). Standardization beyond Form: Ideologies, Institutions and Semiotics of Napali Sign Language. Doctoral thesis. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Hohenhaus, P. (2002). Standardization, language change, resistance and the question of linguistic threat: 18th-century English and present-day German. In Linn, A.R. & McLelland, N., eds., Standardization: Studies from the Germanic Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 153–76.Google Scholar
Hornberger, N. (2006). Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In Ricento, T., ed., An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudgins, C. V. & Numbers, F. C. (1942). An investigation of the intelligibility of the speech of the deaf. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 25, 289–392.Google Scholar
Hult, F. M. & Compton, S. E. (2012). Deaf education policy as language policy: a comparative analysis of Sweden and the United States. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), 602–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Jo Napoli, D., Padden, C. & Rathmann, C. (2013). The right to language. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(4), 872–84.Google Scholar
Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Jo Napoli, D., Padden, C. & Rathmann, C. (2014). Ensuring language acquisition for deaf children: what linguists can do. Language, 90(2), 31–52.Google Scholar
Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G. et al. (2012). Language acquisition for deaf children: reducing the harms of zero tolerance to the use of alternative approaches. Harm Reduction Journal, 9, 16.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. E, Liddell, S. & Erting, C. (1989). Unlocking the curriculum: principles for achieving aces in deaf education. Department of Linguistics and Interpreting of Gallaudet University Working Paper, 89(3). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED316978.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, H., Hoffmeister, R. & Bahan, B. (1996). A Journey into the Deaf World. San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. C. (1986). Parameter Setting: Evidence from Use, Acquisition, and Breakdown in American Sign Language. Doctoral thesis. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Lin, C. M.-C., de García, B. G. & Chen-Pichler, D. (2009). Standardizing Chinese Sign Language for use in post-secondary education, Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(3), 327–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machado, R. N. (2016). Empréstimos linguísticos na Libras: primeira turma do curso de letras libras da UFSC. Master’s thesis (Dissertação de Mestrado). Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis.Google Scholar
Marschark, M., Tang, G. & Knoors, H. (2014). Bilingualism and Bilingual Deaf Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayberry, R. I. (2010). Early language acquisition and adult language ability: what sign language reveals about the critical period for language. In Marschark, M. & Spencer, P., eds., Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education, Vol. II, pp. 281–91.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I., Chen, J.-K., Witcher, P., & Klein, D. (2011). Age of acquisition effects on the functional organization of language in the adult brain. Brain and Language, 119, 16–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayberry, R. I., del Giudice, A. A. & Lieberman, A. M. (2010). Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: a meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(2), 164–88.Google ScholarPubMed
Muñoz, A. G. B. & Robayo, C. A. (2016). Neologismos en lengua de señas colombiana (LSC): desafios entorno a la planificación lingüística en comunidades sordas. GLOTTOPOL Revue de sociolinguistique en ligne, 27, 65–80.Google Scholar
Padden, C. & Humphries, T. (1998). Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Parisot, A.-M. & Rinfret, J. (2012). Recognition of Langue des Signes Québécoise in eastern Canada. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), 583–601.Google Scholar
Preston, P. (1994). Mother Father Deaf: Living between Sound and Silence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. (1997). Educac¸a˜o de surdos: aquisic¸a˜o da linguagem. Porto Alegre: Editora ArtMed.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. (2006). Políticas lingüísticas e educação de surdos em Santa Catarina: espaço de negociações. Cadernos do CEDES (UNICAMP), 26, 141–62.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. (2009). Políticas lingüísticas e bilingüismo na educação de surdos brasileiros. In Lingu¨ı´stica lusobrasileira. Madrid: Iberoamericana Editorial Vervuert, Vol. I, pp. 215–35.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. (2012). Linguistic policies, linguistic planning, and Brazilian Sign Language in Brazil. Sign Language Studies, 12, 543–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quadros, R. M., ed. (2014). Letras Libras: ontem, hoje e amanha˜. Editora Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Retrieved from https://libras.ufsc.br/letras-libras-ontem-hoje-e-amanha/Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. (2017). Lı´ngua de heranc¸a: Libras. Porto Alegre: Editora Penso.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. (2018). Bimodal bilingual heritage signers: a balancing act of languages and modalities. Sign Language Studies, 18, 355–84.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. & Paterno, U. (2007). Políticas lingüísticas: o impacto do decreto 5626 para os surdos brasileiros. Espac¸o (INES), 1, 19–25.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M. & Hoffmeister, R. (2019). The politics of L1 sign language pedagogy. In Rosen, R. S., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Sign Language Pedagogy. London: Routledge, pp. 129–42.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M., de Strobel, K. L. & Masutti, M. L. (2014). Deaf gains in Brazil: linguistic policies and network establishment. In Bauman, H. L. & Murray, J. J., eds., Deaf Gain: Raising the Stakes for Human Diversity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 341–55.Google Scholar
Quadros, R. M., Neves, B. C., Schmitt, D., Lohn, J. T. & Luchi, M. (2019). Lı´ngua Brasileira de Sinais: Patrimoˆnio Linguı´stico Brasileiro. Florianópolis: Editora Garapuvu.Google Scholar
Quer, J. (2012). Legal pathways to the recognition of sign languages: a comparison of the Catalan and Spanish Sign Language Acts. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), 565–82.Google Scholar
Quer, J. & Quadros, R. M., eds. (2012). Language Planning and Policies for Sign Languages. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), Special issue.Google Scholar
Quer, J. & Quadros, R. M. (2015). Language policies and planning in Deaf communities. In Schembri, A. C. & Lucas, C., eds., Sociolinguistics and Deaf Communities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 120–45.Google Scholar
Reagan, T. (2010). Language Policy and Planning for Sign Languages. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
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), 272–92.Google Scholar
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.Google Scholar
Schermer, T. (2003). From variant to standard: an overview of the standardization process of the lexicon of sign language of the Netherlands over two decades. Sign Language Studies, 3(4), 469–86.Google Scholar
Schermer, T. (2012). Sign language planning in the Netherlands between 1980 and 2010. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), 467–93.Google Scholar
Skliar, C. B. & Quadros, R. M. (2004). Bilingual deaf education in the south of Brazil. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 368–82.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (2014). Language beliefs and the management of endangered languages. In Austin, P. K. & Sallabank, J., eds., Endangered Languages: Beliefs and Ideologies in Language Documentation and Revitalisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 407–22.Google Scholar
Stamp, R., Schembri, A., Fenlon, J., Rentelis, R., Woll, B. & Cormier, K. (2014). Lexical variation and change in British Sign Language. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94053.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers, 8.Google Scholar
Stumpf, M. R., de Oliviera, J. S. & Miranda, R. D. (2014). O glossário letras-libras como instrumento para estudo de unidades terminológicas em libras. In Stump, M., de Quadros, R. M. & de Arantes, L. T., eds., Estudos da lı´ngua brasileira de sinais II. Florianópolis: Editora Insular, Vol. II, pp. 145–64.Google Scholar
Sutton, V. (1999). Lessons in SignWriting – Textbook and Workbook, 2nd edn. La Jolla: Deaf Action Committee for SignWriting.Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, R. & Quadros, R. M. (2005). Sign language poetry and Deaf identity. Sign Language Linguistics, 8(1/2), 177–212.Google Scholar
Svartholm, K. (1993). Bilingual education for the deaf in Sweden. Sign Language Studies, 81, 291–332.Google Scholar
Svartholm, K. (2010). Bilingual education for deaf children in Sweden. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(2), 154–74.Google Scholar
Svartholm, K. (2014). 35 Years of Bilingual Deaf Education – And Then? (Edição especial n. 2/2014). Curitiba: Editora UFPR, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Van Herreweghe, M. & Vermeerbergen, M. (2009). Flemish Sign Language standardisation, Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(3), 308–26.Google Scholar
Wanderley, D. C. (2017). A classificação dos verbos com concordância da língua brasileira de sinais: uma análise a partir do SignWriting. Doctoral thesis. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.Google Scholar
World Federation of the Deaf (2009). WFD statement on the unification of Arab Sign Languages. Retrieved from http://wfdeaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Statement-on-the-Unification-of-Arab-Sign-Languages-FINAL-091.pdfGoogle Scholar
World Federation of the Deaf (2011). Bilingualism as a basic human right for deaf children in education. Retrieved from https://wfdeaf.org/news/bilingualism-as-a-basic-human-right-for-deaf-children-in-educationGoogle Scholar
World Federation of the Deaf (2017). The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages. Retrieved from https://wfdeaf.org/news/resources/infographics-legal-recognition-sign-languages-type-legislation/Google Scholar
Xavier, A. N. (2014). Uma ou duas? Eis a questão! Um estudo do parâmetro número de mãos na produção de sinais da língua brasileira de sinais (libras). Doctoral thesis. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×