Signed languages and globalization

Author(s): ANJA HIDDINGA and ONNO CRASBORN

Source: Language in Society, Vol. 40, No. 4 (September 2011), pp. 483-505
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23011849
Accessed: 24-10-2019 19:03 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23011849?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Language in Society

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Language in Society 40, 483-505.
doi:!0.1017/S0047404511000480

Signed languages and globalization

A N J A HIDDINGA

University of Amsterdam, Department of Social and Behavi

Oudezijds Achterburgwal 185, 1012 DK Amsterdam
The Netherlands
H.J.Hiddinga @ uva.nl

ONNO CRASBORN

Radboud University Nijmegen, Centre for Lang

P.O. Box 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen
The Netherlands
o. eras bo [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Deaf people who form part of a Deaf community comm

sign language. When meeting people from another l
they can fall back on a flexible and highly context-d
munication called international sign, in which shared
own sign languages and elements of shared spoken lan
with pantomimic elements. Together with the fact th
sign languages, this leads to a very different global l
deaf people as compared to the situation for spoken l
people as analyzed in de Swaan (2001). We argue that
in communication and the resulting global commun
the core of deaf culture and a key component of th
deaf people as "visual people." (Globalization, sign lan
sign, Deaf culture, language contact, multilingualism)

INTRODUCTION

Imagine the following: a seventeen year old sit

bedroom in Amsterdam, big grin on his face, signi
out, he and some four friends from Denmark, Spa
Germany are chatting together via Oovoo, a vide
They can all see each other at the same time. The
Deaf camp in Finland and now, back in their own cou
national sign, not having a shared sign language t
483
© Cambridge University Press, 2011 0047-4045/11 $15.00

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANJA HIDDINGA AND ONNO CRASBORN

sometimes trying out signs and mouthing words, making certain

across. They are all young and happy and proud to be Deaf.

This is the reality of Deaf culture, with a capital D, a notion that evo
forty years and to which deaf people from various countries have co
ideas.1 A core part of Deaf culture is the use of a sign language. S
have been the object of research for some fifty years.2 Work of l
Bernard Tervoort and William Stokoe in the 1950s and '60s has bee
in treating signed languages as real languages instead of primitive w
simple messages in predictable circumstances and structured setti
current way of thinking (Tervoort 1953; Stokoe 1960). Since then,
tion of this research has yielded special departments, chairs, and rese
in universities all over the world, and international journals that
demic citation indexes (e.g. Sign Language & Linguistics, Sig
Studies, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education). The field h
one could say, and in this process, much attention has been given to
between signed and spoken languages. In all of this, most research h
to the linguistic characteristics, the specifics of lexicon and gram
relation to the auditory versus visual modalities of speech and sig
Aside from the general use of a signed language within the local
munity, Deaf culture can also be characterized by the possibility of a
communication that is used when meeting deaf people who u
language. The latter is often referred to as international sign. It
lished contact language, but a mode of communication that arise
which combines elements of the sign languages of the people invo
of shared spoken languages, and the intensified use of iconic or pa
tures that are already inherent to various extents in any sign languag
Webb & Supalla 1994; Allsop, Woll & Brauti 1995; Supalla &
Monteillard 2001; Rosenstock 2004; Crasborn 2006). The aim o
not to provide empirical evidence on the precise nature of inter
even though it has been seriously understudied. We realize that so
ments are tentative, and we hope that this article will stimulate furt
this area. Our own focus is on the existence of signed and spoke
gether with the possibility of transnational communication in t
and the relation between them.

This broader perspective on sign languages in the world that we aim to sketch in
this article arises from a particular characterization of the global linguistic situation
among hearing people, who together speak more than 6,000 different languages.
Many of these spoken languages are faced with serious endangerment or even
extinction in the coming decades, while others grow, typically with the economic
impact of their communities (Hale, Krauss, Watahomigie, Yamamoto, Craig,
Jeanne & England 1992; Nettle & Romaine 2000; Skuttnab-Kangas 2000;
Tsunoda 2005). The model we examine in order to get a better grip on the situation

484 Language in Society 40:4 (2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIGNED LANGUAGES AND GLOBALIZATION

of signed languages in the world is that of de Swaan (2001), who

language system with different layers. In sociolinguistics, the atte
communication between different speech communities has focu
(socio)linguistic consequences of increased mobility and global d
(Trudgill 1986; Milroy 2002). However, as Blommaert argues, glo
sociolinguistics to unthink its classical distinctions in which a fo
ation, on local distribution of varieties, on stratified language cont
been dominant (Blommaert 2010:1). De Swaan, with a backg
sociology, indeed approaches the global linguistic situation from
spective. If we adopt such a perspective, new questions arise: how
communication between deaf people be characterized? Can we si
sign languages to de Swaan's global language model, or do w
model for deaf communication?

We begin by introducing the issue of language and globalization and discuss the
language model of de Swaan in the next section. We then discuss the situation of
deaf communication and sign languages in the world, briefly characterizing the
nature of international sign on the basis of the few studies that have been published
and our discussions with international sign interpreters and Deaf people who have a
lot of international experience. Next we propose a model that characterizes the com
munication between deaf people in the world on the basis of de Swaan's spoken
language model. Finally, we discuss some of the implications of the proposed
model and offer concluding remarks.

THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE IN

TRANSNATIONAL COMMUNICATION

The priority of the role that language plays in the ex

may seem obvious, but in discussions on globalization
have been very limited. This is the case even in ling
most appropriate for studying the role of language, t
in this context. In the host of studies and debates ab
two decades, work from almost every disciplinary a
the light, but contributions from the side of linguis
Coupland, referring to the scarce attention to this
that "sociolinguists have been late getting to the pa
and in the same issue of the Journal of Sociolinguist
colleagues "to start developing a sociolinguistics of g
2003:623). In his recent book Blommaert has start
trying to work out a new theoretical approach to
mobile resources, framed in terms of trans-contextu
ments" (Blommaert 2010:1). The challenge he feels w
an understanding of society through an understandin

Language in Society 40:4 (2011) 485

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANJA HIDDINGA AND ONNO CRASBORN

The fact that processes of globalization are bound up with tr

language and identity in many different ways has been noted in
where social theorizing about global changes in modern states
some twenty years ago.4 The considerations of sociologists, h
focused foremost on subjects bound up with economic changes
of global markets, while languages as such have barely figured
discussions about globalization.
The work of de Swaan is an exception. In his study, Words of th
tigates what he calls "the global language system." Taking a t
tive, he conceptualizes a dynamic system in which all of the lan
can be ordered. Drawing his theoretical inspiration both from
and political economy, he sees the world's languages as interc
another through multilingual speakers. The groups of interco
thus formed are in unequal competition with one another. At the
archical pattern can be distinguished in the groups of languages, t
petition process of centuries intimately bound up with developm
sociopolitical constellation.
With his study of the system of world languages and the ways
nected, de Swaan wants to understand the evolving transnation
people from a different vantage point than most sociologists. It is
in which people communicate across traditional borders of lan
nations that the circulation of ideas, cultural goods, and practic
in the first place. For scholars interested in globalization, then,
tional constellations of languages constitutes an important resea
de Swaan concludes that the evolution of these constellations, th
tation between language groups, and the way in which they ope
people in a transnational context, has not been given much the
His study is innovative and his conceptualization of a world sy
based on a number of case studies, provides a fresh perspective
hardly entered by linguists. His book was deemed "important
careful attention" by Morris (2004) in Language in Society, an
guists have been receptive to his ideas.5
In de Swaan's global language system of today, languages ar
ordered in four categories: peripheral, central, supercentral an
Figure 1).
The central category includes some one-hundred widely used languages, spoken
by about 95% of the people. These are usually the official national languages, which
typically have a written form and are taught in primary schools. For example, Dutch
is considered a central language, connecting together people speaking Frisian,
Flemish, and Lower-Saxon, among others.
There are only twelve different languages in the supercentral category, interna
tionally connecting together people over much larger distances. These languages
enable speakers of central languages to connect internationally and over long

486 Language in Society 40:4 (2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIGNED LANGUAGES AND GLOBALIZATION

Hypercentral (1) English

Supercentral (12) Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Hindi,

Japanese, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish,
and Swahili

Central (±100) Dutch,...

Peripheral (1,000s)
Frisian, Flemish,

FIGURE 1. The global language system consisti

distances and are spoken by large numbers

example, English, French, Hindi, and Chine
The hypercentral category includes only
together central languages, but also superc
are supercentral languages, used by speaker
when an Arabic speaker meets a Malay speak
be in English. In terms of languages used, de
ation of societies through the spectacular grow
and media takes place in English.
The last category consists of the periphera
sands of other languages spoken on the globe
connect different speech groups and are usu
munication in multilingual encounters. For
learn these languages as foreign languages.
In addition to the conceptualization of this
Swaan developed a means of measuring any
ations, the so-called Q-value.7 He argues tha
another language if they perceive a com
example, they will be able to speak with m
own community. They gain access to a g
bound cultural products, such as official doc
formances and media culture. Thus, people s
inclined to learn a central language, because it
better education, to find jobs, and so on. Lear
such possibilities on a transnational level. En
does this most of all. From a linguistic point o
intimately bound up with the spread of Eng
different parts of the world. The fact that in
uncommon to grow up with more than one m
picture. It is sometimes estimated that the m
lingual from childhood, speaking more than
(Romaine 1995; Grosjean 2010).

Language in Society 40:4 (2011) 487

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANJA HIDDINGA AND ONNO CRASBORN

In de Swaan's book, signed language receives no attention at all.

prise, since these languages form a relatively new and unknown su
even within linguistics, let alone for scholars outside this field.
discuss below, interesting questions can be raised about the role of
in the international communication of deaf people. Do these langu
language system like that of de Swaan, and if so, where would they b
system?
How do deaf people world-wide overcome the problem of communication
across community boundaries? Could it be that sign languages form a world
sign-language system distinct from that of the spoken languages, with their own
peripheral, central, supercentral, and hypercentral languages? Or is there some
role for spoken languages in the transnational exchange of ideas between deaf com
munities? These are the questions that we address in the rest of this article. To best
answer these questions, we must first sketch some background on deaf commu
nities, before turning to the nature of signed languages.

SIGN LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD

Background: Deaf people in a historical and cult

perspective

Communities of deaf people have existed in all times and places (Lane 1984;
Monaghan 2003), but until quite recently these communities were typically fairly
isolated both from one another and from the hearing world around them. Although
deaf people have come together for international activities in the realm of sports and
leisure for over a century now (Haualand 2007; Murray 2008), it is only in the
course of the last fifty years or so that contact between deaf people from different
communities has grown substantially, within as well as between countries. For
the deaf too, the world "has become smaller" through growing possibilities for
travel and through new communication technologies. Increased contact between
communities fostered a growing awareness of transnational group interests resulting
in the establishment of a number of international organizations looking after the in
terests of the deaf. The World Federation of the Deaf (founded in 1951)8 and Euro
pean Union of the Deaf (founded in 1985)9 are important marking points in this
process. In the present day, various international organizations, be they aimed at
sports and leisure or at the furthering of common interests, meet regularly and
draw large numbers of deaf people from many different countries.
From a historical point of view, deafness in terms of hearing loss has been the
first denominator for deaf people to organize themselves. This is no surprise,
since world-wide, deaf people share a history of social exclusion and marginaliza
tion as a result of their handicap. In the course of the last decades, however, in some
parts of the world the focus on a deficit has made a place for an awareness of positive
communalities in backgrounds and experiences, for a more culturally inspired view

488 Language in Society 40:4 (2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIGNED LANGUAGES AND GLOBALIZATION

on deafness. One notion has been accepted as central to this awar

deaf people together is not merely a handicap—hearing loss—bu
culture in which interaction takes place through one or anoth
(Padden & Humphries 1988; Ladd 2003; Bahan 2008). In this
of deafness, national communities of deaf people form cultural
own countries, and, at the same time, shared experiences and a s
munication are taken to be the essence of a global, cultural co
people. Use of the capital D has become symbolic for this new
Woodward 1972).
Contrary to what people often think, signed language is not i
Ethnologue, the world's reference source of languages, currently l
sign languages (Gordon 2005). We can safely assume this figure t
research on the existence of different sign languages is scarce, and
world remain blank spots in this respect. Some of the sign lang
are related, but they are not mutually intelligible (Woll, Sutton
2001). So how do people at these international gatherings com
another? Are there common languages that serve as a vehicle
ideas? And does this situation relate to the hypothesized situa
languages in de Swaan's global language system? In order to an
tions, we must first look into the nature of signed languages.

The nature of signed languages

The sign languages listed in the Ethnologue have not all arisen
source, in contrast to the spoken languages of the world that ar
from a common great-grandparent spoken by early humans. Rat
are known to arise in communities when there are a sufficient num
living together. While in the western world, educational situatio
important role in bringing deaf people together and thus prom
ment of visual communication, sign languages are assumed to
their life in a small-scale setting like the family, as soon as tw
growing up together. The home sign systems that can be obse
can develop into rich languages when more and more people par
munication, up to the point where new generations of deaf people
the surrounding home sign as a true first language.10
In the second half of the twentieth century, linguists presented
languages should be seen as "proper" languages in the linguistic
and not as mere means of instruction in deaf education (Tervo
1960). It was demonstrated that different countries had differe
and more recently linguists started to systematically study the
among signed languages in the world (e.g. Zeshan 2004a,b). Even
munity itself, the idea that their communication in sign was to be
was novel.

Language in Society 40:4 (2011) 489

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANJA HIDDINGA AND ONNO CRASBORN

Apart from linguistic similarities, signed languages appeare

spoken languages in terms of their social functioning. Sig
slowly develop over time, creating language families—even
depth is very limited as far as we know (appr. 250 years f
languages), and true linguistic relatedness is hard to establish
Kennedy 2000). Further, there are dialectal variations between
differences in language use between social groups and age gro
signed languages are acquired by children in the same way as
(Morgan & Woll 2002).
Given this similarity, we believe that the application of de
possible and fruitful, offering a new perspective on the modes
between deaf people from different sign language communities

Signed languages and de Swaan's global system

When trying to characterize signed languages in terms of one

categories, a position among the world's peripheral languages a
Our arguments for this claim are outlined below.
In a few western countries the national sign languages may ha
istics of a central language, for example, in terms of their ins
national educational systems, their standardization by lexicogr
and their being recorded in national dictionaries. However, this
very few countries. Further, and, most importantly, like mos
languages, sign languages have no written form. Although ther
to create writing systems for signed languages in the past dec
1992; Miller 1994,2001), no system has received wide acclaim in
nity at large.1' Currently, modern technological possibilities of
and their distribution through websites like YouTube seem to
an alternative video culture for deaf communities that adopts som
of written cultures.
Thus, even though it seems a contradictio in terminis, one co
terize the speech communities of deaf people as oral cultures,
fact.12 This constitutes a major problem for the wider excha
bound cultural products in any of the sign languages. In the gl
Swaan, connecting languages in the central, supercentral, and
egories almost by definition have a written form. Moreover, th
lingual speakers—in this model a prerequisite for the existenc
communications-seems problematic where it concerns signed
The role of multilingual signers in making connections betw
language communities is very limited. Only in the last two d
few western countries, educational programs in their own nati
have come off the ground. However, there are very few deaf
in the world that offer a foreign sign language in their curricu

490 Language in Society 40:4 (2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIGNED LANGUAGES AND GLOBALIZATION

contrasts with education for hearing people in Western countries, where

least one foreign language is the norm. For deaf people, thorough kn
foreign sign language could only be acquired by attending a (deaf) scho
country or by an extensive stay in the community there. In practi
University in the US, the only university for the deaf in the world,
role of some importance in this respect, allowing deaf students from
world to come and study there and providing them with the possibil
courses in American Sign Language (ASL) before entering the progr
an exceptional situation, which is not paralleled on a similar scale by d
programs in universities in Rochester (US) or Bristol (UK), for exampl
programs especially oriented to deaf students.
By contrast, deaf and hearing people have played a key role in
languages such as ASL to Africa and other parts of the world, often
to spread the word of the Bible (Nyst 2010). In recent decades, missio
ing on smaller spoken languages (such as people active for the Summe
Linguistics (SIL) and similar groups) have spent more attention on d
languages hitherto not described (ultimately with the aim of creating
lation). At the same time, missionaries targeting deaf groups typic
given local sign languages the same attention, not yet recognizing th
and cultural richness embedded in local ways of communicating. Her
is little empirical study on the exact nature of the influence of AS
signed languages or the use of ASL in other countries: only lexical
and the use of the ASL hand alphabet are easy to recognize without ac
Irrespective of the actual languages used at specific events, the mos
point that arises from the above discussion is that until now there
been a single sign language that has functioned as a central language
of de Swaan's model, let alone as a supercentral or hypercentral lan
ASL is clearly learned most often as a second language later in
foreigners going to study or work in the US, it has not become th
language of choice for any kind of international exchange. Moreover
tacts other than planned academic or other kinds of meetings, it will to
on the background of the individuals whether ASL plays any role at all.
the creation of a sign language lexicon with a selection of signs from fo
sign languages in the 1970s has not had much of an impact in any co
world or at any deaf event.14
These considerations lead to a signed language version of de Swaan'
presented in Figure 2.
Given this situation, and given the fact that signed languages are
down and texts in sign language are virtually nonexistent, and
signers are few, how—under what circumstances and condition
travel among sign-language users across the world? Are signed langua
intelligible after all? Or is there some role for spoken languages in t
communication? These questions have been barely touched upon
491
Language in Society 40:4 (2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANJA HIDDINGA AND ONNO CRASBORN

Hypercentral 0

Supercentral 0

Central 0

Peripheral ASL BSL NGT VGT LSQ LSF AdaSL etc.

FIGURE 2. A global language system of sign languages.

work. We believe that any attempt to answer them should take into account impor
tant sociolinguistic differences between the average signed language and the
average spoken language. These differences lie first of all in the lack of native
signers in the environment of many (western) deaf children: often true signed
language input does not start until kindergarten or even later. Moreover, there is
the omnipresence of a spoken language for any sign-language user in any part of
the world. There are no deaf communities that have developed in isolation from a
larger, hearing community around them. This has left its marks in the lexicon
and structure of signed languages, and, important for our argument, the high
status of the spoken language(s) in any community has contributed to the commu
nicative flexibility and creativity of the average deaf person. We would like to put
forward the hypothesis that it is not merely the "bimodal bilingualism" of many
deaf people (who master both a signed and a written variant of a spoken language),
but also these enhanced communicative skills that contribute to the international
communication patterns that we describe below. Of central importance in our
argument is the existence of international sign, a phenomenon we further discuss
below.

International sign

We use the term international sign for the visual communication between deaf
people from different countries who do not have a shared sign language. In this
characterization, the functional properties of international sign prevail over
specific structural features (cf. Rosenstock 2004, who, like many authors on
international sign, focuses only on conference interpreting). There has been very
little research in this domain, yet it is a natural phenomenon for deaf people to be
able to communicate "across national boundaries," be it with more or less effort de
pending on various contextual factors, likely including the "distance" between the
sign languages and pre-existing knowledge of each other's language and of the
subject of conversation. The few studies on this phenomenon include Allsop
(1993), Allsop et al.(1995), Monteillard (2001), McKee & Napier (2002) and Ro
senstock (2004).15 Irrespective of language backgrounds, deaf people from

492 Language in Society 40:4(2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIGNED LANGUAGES AND GLOBALIZATION

different countries typically manage to communicate throug

versally accessible. According to Rosenstock, international si
"a language, pidgin, Creole or koine, ... it is a communicati
purpose to convey meaning, be it by a presenter or throug
(2004:50). Although deaf people report different levels of s
efficacy and communicative depth of international sign, tim
to come about spontaneously and is reasonably effective.16 Fr
ings to workshops lasting several days, international sign ap
mode of interaction.17 Although there is of course a likely d
complexity of the exchange between these extremes, the ver
sign at conferences and academic gatherings is the "hardest"
that it provides a possibility for communication at any leve
want to define international sign in terms of structural feat
this area shows that some characteristics are present in all
Iconic or shared lexical items from the source languages ar
with mouth articulations of spoken words, pointing to objec
environment, and pantomime (McKee & Napier 2002; Rosen
At a number of international deaf gatherings, linguistic wo
meetings of Deaf Academics in the last few years, internationa
as the standard code, rather than ASL or the local sign langua
international meetings of the WFD and EUD.18 While some
ation of specialized lexicon typically takes place at such eve
ation appears to be always restricted to the lexicon (not cove
does not cover all possible words that might be used du
signing. The basis for the possibility of such cross-languag
in three main factors: the presence of a minimal amount of r
tual knowledge, the optimal use of the iconic resources present
(including not only lexicon but also constructed action and
shared knowledge of a spoken language, typically English (of
eracy in some language to begin with). Using these three sour
can also be agreed upon during the interaction. In academic m
knowledge of ASL or other sign languages likely plays a furthe
can rarely be assumed to be shared by all participants (Ros
hypothesized above, it may also be the case that a general comm
and creativity of deaf people is an important factor that allows
national sign encounters.
Opinions of deaf people on the nature and value of interna
Some claim that it cannot be taken seriously, arguing that o
depth in the interaction if one cannot use a true sign lang
people, however, international sign appears to be not only a fru
action in language-contact situations, but its mere possibilit
visual and communicative strength and creativity that all me
nities possess.

Language in Society 40:4 (2011) 493

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANJA HIDDINGA AND ONNO CRASBORN

As international sign is what happens when signers of differ

communicate, its form will be different every time. This is the re
it with initial capitals here: it is not a name for a specific varia
refers to a highly variable phenomenon, defined by its use rather
The addressee(s) in a given situation will determine how a sig
utterance. International sign is thus unlikely to reach a set of s
infrequent use and variable users from all over the world.
Future research will have to focus on the questions of what
cation can be reached in international sign, what the strategies
all deaf people are equally skilled at this type of communicat
their cultural and language background. For now, we suggest
where it does appear to work, the communicative flexibility an
deaf signers in question forms part of their Deaf identity, w
feature of Deaf culture that is unparalleled by any hearing form
be it the use of the hypercentral English or the use of pidgin l
evolved over many years.

Communication at international meetings of deaf people

In the past century, the number of large international deaf eve

creased.19 For the conferences before the 1980s, there is no goo
erature on what the official languages of these conferences were.
was no official language policy at many meetings, and it was m
stood among the participants that international sign would be
munication.20 The possibility of international sign may implic
of the properties of the international deaf community to celebrate
Moreover, deaf people have begun to participate more and mor
national academic conferences devoted to signed language, deaf
study of deafness. At all of these events, interpreters play a key
distance between users of different sign languages.
For the regular meetings, it is important to realize that deaf par
slowly been increasing over the years. In general, the possibilit
cation are still limited for Deaf people in most countries. The l
participants in scientific conferences is mirrored in the use of co
the conference typically arranges for interpreters to transla
English and the national sign language, individual deaf partic
countries sometimes bring their own interpreter to translate
English and their own sign language, often leading to the pre
more sign languages at large scientific conferences.21 In order t
ation, the use of international sign as a means of communicat
people from various countries has grown.
While the use at international meetings appears to imply that
is a standardized code or way of communicating, its form

494 Language in Society 40:4 (2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIGNED LANGUAGES AND GLOBALIZATION

and remains dependent on the background knowledge a

participants—interpreters as well as their audience. On som
deaf or hearing interpreters interpret between a spoken lang
sign, there has been a short preconference meeting to establish
the lexicon used for specific technical terminology, but such
cover only a small part of the lexicon that is used at the mee

A GLOBAL LANGUAGE SYSTEM OF

SIGN LANGUAGES

As argued in the previous sections, there are few dea

languages, and international contacts rather take place
this section, we propose a new global system for dea
to incorporate both national sign languages, interna
spoken (written) languages play for deaf people.
We offer four explanations for the lack of central, s
sign languages. First, most obviously, social and edu
an important effect. In the Western world, limitatio
have led to a situation where deaf people do not sys
sign language, quite unlike the situation for spoken
no situations known to us where there is a long h
contact between sign languages on a local scale, so t
lingual signers and one of the sign languages has s
central language. Quinto-Pozos (2008) reports on
Mexican Sign Language (LSM) and ASL of Mexi
to the US. While the Mexican signers in question h
clear sign of systematic contact between two langua
gual ASL-LSM signers play a clear bridging role.22
At Gallaudet University in Washington, DC, a trul
people, both from within and from outside the US,
language of choice for common use. After completi
the foreign students return to their own countrie
signing their native local sign language. The group o
laudet campus is thus always fluid and temporary.
foreign students pass through Gallaudet in the cou
their knowledge of ASL, its use as a second langua
wide-spread.
Second, the current absence of a writing system that is commonly taught and
widely used for any sign language, together with the absence of dedicated teaching
materials, has made it difficult to learn foreign sign languages. The development of
video and Internet technology is only slowly reaching a state where people can
easily record and share video recordings of sign language use, which would poten
tially provide an alternative for the use of writing systems. This development,

Language in Society 40:4 (2011) 495

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANJA HIDDINGA AND ONNO CRASBORN

however, is at the moment mostly limited to affluent western cou

writing systems are commonly acquired by deaf people in many
in their acquisition of the local spoken language in schools has
situation where these spoken languages have received most at
lives. These spoken languages have thus played an important ro
nities, and English has what one might compare to a supercen
national contacts between deaf people as de Swaan descri
communities: it transcends local language contact, and plays a r
national level.23 Here, too, this characterization certainly does
part of the world (or perhaps even the majority of signers): in
there is no education for deaf children at all, and they are thus
and write the spoken language used by people around them. An
nities, of course, both deaf and hearing people are illiterate and
cation. Thus, in the sense that English only plays a role in the
some deaf communities but not others, its role is more compara
tral than to the hypercentral level in de Swaan's terminology.
Third, we suggest that neither ASL nor any other sign langu
functioned as a hypercentral language, because international sig
on most occasions. The fact that signed-language users can comm
mode of communication has pre-empted the need for a shared
cases. Finally, as already noted in passing above, deaf people ar
to the presence of interpreters. Signed-language interpreters are
interactions between hearing and deaf people, translating betw
spoken language; but in the recent past, we have seen the incr
of deaf interpreters at large international events, translating b
language and international sign. This has made international s
as a vehicle for communication to all members of the local deaf
over, the omnipresence of English as a hypercentral spoken l
national deaf meetings has created many interpreting chains
language A > spoken English > sign language B"—two hearing
iating a translation from one sign language to the other. Thus, pre
language are not watched directly by users of another sign lan
Altogether, a picture emerges of the language situation of
world, given in Figure 3.24
Just as not every hearing individual in the world is multilingua
deaf people who do not know any spoken language and use no
cation system than their own peripheral sign language. For dea
learned to read and write in a given language, that language ma
ing central language enabling communication beyond their own
language. International sign, however, is by definition accessi
signer. Although some signers will have more skill and experien
with deaf signers from other communities, sign languages all
being creatively adapted to communicate cross-culturally. The s

496 Language in Society 40:4 (2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIGNED LANGUAGES AND GLOBALIZATION

Hypercentral
international sign
Supercentral English

Central Various spoken languages

English Dutch French

AAA
Peripheral ASL BSL NGT VGT LSQ LSF AdaSL etc.

FIGURE 3. A global model of communication strategies used by deaf people.

between cultures, the larger the chances will be that there are shared norms and me
taphors, familiar objects, and so on that can be involved in creating new signs or
descriptions on the spot, thus facilitating interaction, and in doing so, generating
what is known as international sign.

DISCUSSION

We have proposed in this article that language conta

different forms for hearing people and for deaf peo
that was proposed by de Swaan to characterize pow
languages cannot be directly transferred to deaf
cation patterns. International communication betw
by a number of properties that call for a parallel ve
properties are the use of written (and spoken)25 v
the rich possibilities of international sign.
Not only is the deaf community intimately conn
signed languages are also intimately connected w
the omnipresence of spoken language, by virtue of
nonnative hearing signers (educators, interpreters
and because of the high status of spoken languag
ones, signed languages have often undergone inf
spoken languages (cf. the papers in Boyes Braem
Similarly, deaf as well as hearing people have co
several Western sign languages over the world, ei
or because of the participation in educational pro
to be slowly acquiring a dominant position in int
and, in de Swaan's terms, has a relatively high Q-
in the world, it does not occupy a central (let alon
position, as it does not serve to connect whole lang

Language in Society 40:4 (2011) 497

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANJA HIDDINGA AND ONNO CRASBORN

rejection of ASL as the sole language of choice by deaf participa

meetings is one token of this situation; another is the fact that s
English seems to serve a role as a supercentral language simil
realm of spoken languages and hearing people. Note that we b
to claim to be exhaustive here: it may well be that other spoken l
serve a supraregional function for deaf people. On a global scale
would appear to have the highest Q-value for deaf people as we
It is not fruitful simply to fit signed languages into de Swaan
ticular set of peripheral languages. The relative scarcity of mult
the very inaccessibility of spoken languages for the majority of d
cations for this. Signed languages are not only special because o
tributions. The creativity and flexibility in communicative ski
allowing advanced communication across sign language comm
the opposite direction. To us, the most convincing argument t
languages of the world as forming a different parallel system
availability of international sign. It appears that the very pro
languages, including their young age, their overall similarity,
use of iconicity in both lexicon and grammar, allow for this f
communication that is unparalleled in the world of spoken lang
search, we would therefore like to further explore the implicatio
terconnected sign languages as separate from, but not indepe
system of spoken languages. What do these interconnections en
forces influencing them? The developments in technologies o
cation that now seem at hand might rapidly change the const
here. Other influences, like growing political awareness of deaf
wide or pressures to further integrate deaf people in education, w
into hearing societies, may pull the connections between the
model in one or other, sometimes opposite, directions.
Spoken languages play an important role in the lives of many
in non-Western countries where deaf education has not e
languages as much (possibly because of the total absence of ed
deaf), almost any deaf person on the globe has daily interacti
people. This is expressed by the central and supercentral role o
in the model we propose.26
Looking at current developments in globalization and the gr
technologies, we have to consider that a form of internationa
develop into something more systematic than what we currently
meetings. While ASL has been relatively dominant among hig
people because of international participation in higher educatio
Gallaudet University and the Rochester Technical Institute for
of webcams and broadband Internet facilitating long distance co
crease the relative dominance of ASL world-wide in the comin
small this dominance may have been. The enormous popularit

498 Language in Society 40:4(2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIGNED LANGUAGES AND GLOBALIZATION

video platform and similar technologies can add to such in

and unconsciously promote standardization in internatio
Such developments will not affect the fact that internatio
between any two deaf persons in the world remain possibl
not have any knowledge of a particular standard. They may,
possibility of a less ad hoc interchange between a certain s
younger and higher educated members) of deaf communitie
Finally, we would like to emphasize that any concept of a s
whether taking sign languages into account or not, will have
Social and economic changes can lead to changes in the role
languages. For the coming decades, we expect to see esp
changes in the roles played by different languages in deaf c
by rapidly increasing education level and increasing internat
communities, by the rising status of sign languages both in
communities, and by the rapidly evolving medical technolo
implants (see e.g. Johnston 2004, Blume 2010). Some h
concern about the future existence of sign languages under the
on deaf communities to engage with the hearing world (John
respect, it is interesting to see how Deaf-studies scholars ha
the positive experiences of deafness in a somewhat differe
Rather than stressing the use of signed language as an attr
the community, in more recent work the "visuality" of deaf
(Baynton, Gannon, & Lindquist Bergey 2007; Bahan 2008; H
rally, the visual-spatial modality of signed languages is intim
quality, but there is more to it. The centrality of seeing in
people' tries to do justice to the structural possibilities deaf
ence and express meaning in space.
These very possibilities may lead deaf people in quite a diff
investing in learning a second or third language. In terms o
prospective signers may be more inclined to learn a second
spoken language, depending on where they feel they have
hearing world remains relatively inaccessible for or even h
have different, visual bodies, some deaf people at least may
towards the cultural experiences and products that the internat
has to offer. While international sign is a flexible medium that
if the interlocutors share a lot of general cultural and situation
knowledge, it is not likely that the same communication spe
when using a shared sign language. Thus, the acquisition of a
would contribute to one's international potential. However, i
that English as a language of choice is a better investment, off
ing language repertoire than the spoken language of the coun
depending on a person's goals and possibilities. The importa
the world, expressed by its hypercentral position in de Sw

Language in Society 40:4 (2011) 499

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANJA HIDDINGA AND ONNO CRASBORN

and the supercentral position in our proposal for a global view

cation, entails that acquiring knowledge of English is a go
anyone, whether for cultural, scientific, or other professional aim
Whatever the choices of deaf people will be, in our opinion,
international sign demonstrates the unique potential of deaf
community gaps and cross language boundaries in a way
languages. In that sense, deaf people can form a true globa
international sign, however variable it may be, can be its glo
munication. This situation opens up a wide range of questions
search that have not been addressed so far in various fields,
economic potential to psychosocial impact on national deaf
to its (socio)linguistic characteristics.

NOTES

*This article started its life as a joint presentation in early 2007 with Gerdi
world's best known sign language interpreters working between English
would like to warmly thank Gerdinand for his contribution to the develo
some of the historical facts he was able to collect. We further thank Corrie T
reviewers for their helpful comments. The writing of this article was partly
276-70-012 and ERC grant 210373 awarded to the second author.
'The distinction between lowercase "deaf' (deafness as an audiological def
(deafness as a cultural group) was first used in the literature by Woodward
this article we only use the spelling Deaf to emphasize the cultural bond
2We use the term "signed language(s)" in opposition to "spoken language
when referring to a concrete or specific language.
3Although it is too early to see an effect of Blommaert's call, a conf
Netherlands) in September 2006, entitled Language Contact in Times
sign that linguists are taking this issue seriously (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~d
Kerswill (2006).
4The work of Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck especially has inspired m
ging modern society (cf. Giddens 1990, 1991; Beck 1992; Bauman 1997
5The review of de Swaan's book was written by Morris (2004). By early
cited in scientific journals, primarily in linguistics and sociology (source:
6"AU these languages, except Swahili, have more than one hundred millio
to connect the speakers of a series of central languages" (de Swaan 2001:5)
7De Swaan introduces the Q-value in order to indicate any language'
multilingual situations. It indicates the perceived communicative advan
who acquire it, in other words, the degree of social profit that compensate
of effort invested in learning it. The Q-value is found by multiplying the
language within a group of languages with the number of multilingual sp
that group of languages.
8"The WFD is an international, non-governmental central organisation o
Deaf people, with a current membership of associations in 130 countrie
wfdeaf.org/about.html, retrieved on Feb. 28, 2011).
9"Our mission statement is to promote, advance and protect the rights of
people in the European Union. Emancipation and equal opportunities are k
towards achieving an equal position in society with recognition of Deaf peop
right" (http://www.eud.eu/EUD-i-14.html, retrieved on Feb. 28, 2011).

500 Language in Society 40:4 (2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIGNED LANGUAGES AND GLOBALIZATION

10The most famous case of the development from various home sign systems
over generations was documented in Nicaragua (Senghas 1995; Polich 2000; S
2004). There are also more and more reports of "village sign languages" wh
that have never been exposed to contact with other deaf people elsewhere in
Branson, Miller, & Marsaja 1996; Nonaka 2004; Sandler, Meir, Padden, &
Marsaja 2008).
1 'One current effort entitled SignWriting, derived from a mix between a dance notation system and
linguistic categories, has received some increasing attention in the past decade (Sutton 1999). While there
is a group of enthusiastic proponents of SignWriting in several countries, it has not yet become a standard
in any one country, nor is it common practice to write sign language in any deaf community in the world,
as far as we know.

12Just as in the case of spoken languages, language-bound cultural products and practices of commu
nities of deaf people foremost consist of stories, jokes, poetry, and theatrical performances (cf. Lane,
Hoffmeister, & Bahan 1996).
I3There are very few references to these practices. Pritchard (2005) reported on British Sign Language
being taught in Norway as a tool to teach children English. American Sign Language is said to be taught
in Japan in order to permit deaf students to go to Gallaudet University. A current European project,
Signs2Go, aims for an Internet course teaching BSL to deaf people in various European countries
(see http://www.signs2go.eu).
14Gestuno (World Federation of the Deaf 1975) is the best known artificial "language," but it only
comprises a lexicon and has not been known to have had an actual impact on language users.
15It is important to highlight that the two most in-depth empirical studies among these (McKee &
Napier 2002; Rosenstock 2004) focus on interpreting between a spoken language (typically English)
and international sign at organized meetings. This does not necessarily overlap with the way deaf
people from different language backgrounds interact.
^Variation can be large. Rosenstock (2004) shows the problems of part of the audience at the Deaf
Way II meeting (2002) in understanding the interpreters in international sign. In such situations,
interpreters face the challenge of interpreting for a highly varied (and partly unknown) audience, imply
ing that it will be difficult to assume shared linguistic (or even lexical) knowledge.
17We have discussed this subject intensively with two international sign interpreters and several deaf
people who regularly attend international scientific conferences. All emphasized that to their judgment,
there is no special variant or pidgin that would have appeared at these conferences over the years. This
goes against the assumptions of Rosentock's (2004) study, who looks in depth at interpreting at one
specific conference as representative of what she calls International Sign (with initial capital), without
discussing the broader issue of international communication between deaf people.
18See especially the deaf workshops and lectures at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
(http://www.mpi.nl/world/SignLang/WEB-FINAL/news.htm), continuing in the SIGN conference
series (http://www.uclan.ac.uk/ahss/research/islands/sign4announce2009.php) and the Deaf academics
meetings (http://www.deafacademics.org). The websites of the EUD and WFD use signed movies
with international sign.
19A list of events, with both academic conferences and nonacademic meetings targeted at sociocul
tural exchange and sports should include:
• International sports events like the Deaflympics, first organized in 1924
• Four yearly meetings of the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) since 1951
• Meetings of smaller organizations, such as the European Union of the Deaf (EUD) since 1985
• Large sociocultural conferences on deafness, primarily featuring deaf presenters, such as Deaf Way I
(1988) and Deaf Way II (2002)
• Triennial international conferences on Deaf History, since 1991
• Workshops of a global network of deaf people active in academia, e.g. Deaf Academics workshops
(Austin, Texas, 2002; Gallaudet, Washington DC, 2004; Stockholm, 2006; Dublin, 2008)
• Internet forums such as the Deaf Academics mailing list

Language in Society 40:4 (2011) 501

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANJA HIDDINGA AND ONNO CRASBORN

20Elderly deaf people who attended international deaf sports events in the past fifty
participants from different countries used international sign to communicate with one a
a national sign language that was shared between them.
21 Discussions around this theme in 2000 led to the distribution of the "Amsterd
which three deaf researchers make explicit that the participation of deaf researcher
sions on signed languages should be secured by a thoughtful selection of conferen
ing ASL, BSL, and the local sign language (Rathmann, Mathur, & Boudreault 200
22Anecdotally, contact between deaf people from various regions in countries lik
zerland, which are known for their institutionalized multilingualism, typically
through multilingual people, according to linguists working in those countries (Pe
Switzerland, p.c.; Mieke van Herreweghe, Belgium, p.c.). Rather, the differen
these countries already share a large amount of common lexicon and grammar, an
takes the form of ad hoc mixing of the two different codes without large commu
Note that in these countries, deaf people, like hearing people, are typically educat
more shared spoken languages, which can be integrated in the communication; in
French and Dutch; in Switzerland these are French, German, and sometimes Italian
23At the 2010 WFD meeting in Durban, South Africa, for example, the conferen
English, South African Sign Language, and international sign. In the same year, at
on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) in Indiana (US) the con
were English, ASL, and international sign.
24The spoken languages referred to in this model are sometimes used in their spo
ticulation and lip reading) and sometimes in their written form (writing or fingersp
25Deaf people in many countries are accustomed to accompanying their sign l
ponents of the spoken language—typically without sound when communicatin
people. The extent to which these spoken components, also called mouthings, form
language itself is a matter of ongoing debate (Boyes Braem & Sutton-Spence 200
shared spoken language can thus also be used for international communication.
26These languages also form the most common bridge between deaf people and
ing communities they also live in, together with hearing people who master both t
spoken language (including not only interpreters, but also hearing family members
people).
27In 2006, the journal Sign Language Studies organized a whole issue around Trevor Johnston's
(2004) thought-provoking article about the future of the Australian Deaf community and its sign
language, Auslan. Apart from the reprinted article, the issue contains the reactions and comments of a
number of scholars and activists from Australia, the United States and Europe and a final statement by
Johnston. (See Sign Language Studies 6(2), 2006.)

REFERENCES

Allsop, Lorna (1993). The international sign project. In Renate Fis

Collage: Works on international deaf history, 21-28. Hamburg: Sign
; Bencie Woll; & Jon Martin Brauti (1995). International sign: The
deaf community and sign language. In Heleen Bos & Trade Schermer
1994, 171-88. Hamburg: Signum.
Bahan, Benjamin (2008). Upon the formation of a visual variety of
L. Bauman (ed.), Open your eyes: Deaf studies talking, 83-99. Minne
Press.

Bauman, Zygmunt (1997). Postmodernity and its discontents. London:

Baynton, Douglas; Jack Gannon; & Jean Lindquist Bergey (2007). Thro
history of an American community. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Univ
Beck, Ulrich (1992). The risk society: Toward a new modernity. Lon

502 Language in Society 40:4 (2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIGNED LANGUAGES AND GLOBALIZATION

Blommaert, Jan (2003). Commentary: A sociolinguistics of globalization. Jo

(4):607-23.
(2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge U
Blume, Stuart (2010). The artificial ear: Cochleair implants and the c
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Boyes Braem, Penny, & Rachel Sutton-Spence (eds.) (2001). The hands are th
mouth as articulator in sign languages. Hamburg: Signum.
Branson, Jan; Don Miller; & I. Gede Marsaja (1996). Everyone here speaks
village in Bali, Indonesia. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Multicultural issues of socioli
nities, 39-60. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Castells, Manuel (2000). The information age: Economy, society and cultu
Coupland, Nikolas (2003). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and globalization. Jo
7(4):465-72.
Crasborn, Onno (2006). International contacts between deaf people: What is
presented at the 1st conference on Language Contact in Times of Globa
Netherlands, September 2006.
de Swaan, Abraham (2001). Words of the world: The global language system
University Press.
Giddens, Anthony (1990). The consequences of modernity. Berkeley, CA: Univ
Giddens, Anthony (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.) (2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the world.
International.

Grosjean, Francois (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Cambridge, MA: Harva
Hale, Ken; Michael Krauss; Lucille J. Watahomigie; Akira Y. Yamamot
Masayesva Jeanne; & Nora C. England (1992). Endangered languages.
Haualand, Hilde (2007). The two-week village: The significance of sacred o
munity. In Benedicte Ingstad & Susan R. Whyte (ed.), Disability in local an
Berkeley: University of California Press.
———(2008). Sound and belonging: What is a community? In H.-DirksenL
eyes: Deaf studies talking, 111-23. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota P
Johnson, Robert E. (1991). Sign language, culture and community in a tradit
Sign Language Studies 73: 461-74.
Johnston, Trevor (2004). W(h)ither the Deaf community? Population, genetic
(Australian Sign Language). American Annals of the Deaf 148:358-75.
Kerswill, Paul (2006). Migration and language. In Klaus Mattheier, Ulrich
(eds.), Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik: An international handbook of th
society, vol. 3, 2nd edn., 2271-85. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Ladd, Paddy (2003). Understanding deaf culture: In search of deafhoo
Matters.

Lane, Harlan (1984). When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York
; Robert J. Hoffmeister; & Benjamin Bahan (eds.) (1996). A journey in
Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Press.
Marsaja, I. G. (2008). Desa Kolok: A deaf village and its sign language in B
Ishara Press.

McKee, David, & Graeme Kennedy (2000). Lexical comparison of signs from American, Australian,
British and New Zealand Sign Languages. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), The signs of
language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 49-76. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McKee, Rachel Locker, & Jemina Napier (2002). Interpreting into international sign pidgin: An analysis.
Sign Language & Linguistics 5(l):27-54.

Language in Society 40:4 (2011) 503

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANJA HIDDINGA AND ONNO CRASBORN

Miller, Christopher (1994). A note on notation. Signpost 7(3):191-202.

(2001). Some reflections on the need for a common sign notation. Sign
4(1/2): 11-28.
Milroy, Lesley (2002). Introduction: Mobility, contact and language change - Working with contempor
ary speech communities. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(1):3-15.
Monaghan, Leila (2003). A world eye's view: Deaf cultures in global perspective. In Leila Monaghan,
Constanze Schmaling, Karen Nakamura, & Graham H. Turner (eds.), Many ways to be deaf:
International variation in deaf communities, 1-25. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Monteillard, Nathalie (2001). La langue des signes Internationale. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue
Etrangere 15:97-115.
Morgan, Gary, & Bencie Woll (2002). Directions in sign language acquisition. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Morris, Michael A. (2004). Review of de Swaan (2001). Language in Society 33:620-24.
Murray, Joseph J. (2008). Coequality and transnational studies: Understanding deaf lives. In H.-Dirksen
L. Bauman (ed.), Open your eyes: Deaf studies talking, 100-10. London: University of Minnesota
Press.

Nettle, Daniel, & Suzanne Romaine (2000). Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world's languages.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, Angela M. (2004). The forgotten endangered languages: Lessons on the importance of remem
bering from Thailand's Ban Khor Sign Language. Language in Society 33(5):737-67.
Nyst, Victoria (2007). A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language. Amsterdam: University of
Amsterdam dissertation.

(2010). Sign languages in West Africa. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 405-32.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Padden, Carol A., & Tom Humphries (1988). Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Polich, Laura (2000). The search for proto-NSL: Looking for the roots of the Nicaraguan deaf commu
nity. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Bilingualism and identity in deaf communities, 255—306. Washington, DC:
Gallaudet University Press.
Pritchard, Pat (2005). Teaching Norwegian deaf pupils English as a foreign language in bilingual
schools: Can deaf primary school pupils acquire and understand a foreign sign language as a first
step in FLL? Paper presented at the Instructional Technology and Education of the Deaf Symposium,
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester, New York, June 2005.
Quinto-Pozos, David G. (2008). Sign language contact and interference: ASL and LSM. Language in
Society 37(2): 161-89.
Rathmann, Christian; Gaurav Mathur; & Patrick Boudreault (2000). Amsterdam Manifesto. Das Zeichen
14:654-55.

Romaine, Suzanne (1995). Bilingualism. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rosenstock, Rachel (2004). An investigation of international sign: Analyzing structure and comprehen
sion. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University dissertation.
Sandler, Wendy; Irit Meir; Carol A. Padden; & Mark Aronoff (2005). The emergence of grammar:
Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102
(7):2661—65.
Senghas, Ann (1995). Children's contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cambridge,
MA: MIT dissertation.

; Sotaro Kita; & Asli Ozyiirek (2004). Children creating core properties of language: Evidence
from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science 305(5691):1779-82.
Skuttnab-Kangas, Tove (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or world-wide diversity and human
rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stokoe, William C. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of
the American deaf. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.

504 Language in Society 40:4(2011)

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIGNED LANGUAGES AND GLOBALIZATION

Supalla, Ted, & Rebecca Webb (1995). The grammar of international sig
languages. In Karen Emmorey & Judy S. Reilly (eds.), Language, g
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sutton, Valerie (1999). SignWriting: On the occasion of the 25th annivers
Language & Linguistics 2(2):271-82.
Tervoort, Bernard (1953). Structurele analyse van visueel taalgebruik binne
Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.
Thoutenhoofd, Ernst (1992). Trans-scribing and reading: What constitutes a
(2):39—51.
Trudgill, Peter (1986). Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tsunoda, Tasaku (2005). Language endangerment and language revitalization. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Webb, Rebecca, & Ted Supalla (1994). Negation in international sign. In Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman,
& Mary Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from the 5th International
Symposium on Sign Language Research, Vol. 1, Salamanca, Spain, 25-30 May 1992, 173-86.
Durham, NC: ISLA.
Woll, Bencie; Rachel Sutton-Spence; & Francis Elton (2001). Multilingualism: The global approach to
sign languages. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), The sociolinguistics of sign languages, 8-32. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Woodward, James (1972). Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf. Sign Language
Studies 1:1-7.

World Federation of the Deaf (1975). Gestuno: International sign language of the deaf/Langage gestuel
internaional des sourds. Carlisle: The British Deaf Association.
Zeshan, Ulrike (2004a). Hand, head, and face: Negative constructions in sign languages. Linguistic
Typology 8:1-58.
(2004b). Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Cross-linguistic perspectives.
Language 80:7-39.

(Received 6 January 2010; revision received 30 July 2010;

accepted 12 August 2010; final revision received 28 February 2011)

Language in Society 40:4'(2011) 505

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.241 on Thu, 24 Oct 2019 19:03:35 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms