Complexity and Diversity of SiLs

In short: Basically, we respect the diversity and complexity of communities and their languages and encourage you to do the same. 

—

What we are sharing here in our position is not new. Many people have said what we will be stating as our position here. This is inspired by many people’s work, please be sure to review who we’ve cited or included as resources.

We want to begin with a quote from our dear and departed colleague, a Deaf linguist – Jon Henner said, “How you language is beautiful. Don’t let anyone tell you your language is wrong. Your languaging is the story of your life.”

This is exactly our position.

People and communities are extraordinarily complex, and language reflects as well as (intentionally) marks that. Both spoken languages and signed languages show a lot of sociolinguistic variation (Lucas, Bayley, and Valli 2003). This variation can be based on many factors, such as region, age, gender, race, ethnicity, level of education, and register, among others.

In line with the LSA statement on linguistic rights in 1995 and the SLLS ethics statement for sign language research in 2016, we believe that individuals should be able to express themselves in any language of their choice. It is essential to respect the individual linguistic variation within communities, including deaf communities, as the variation reflects the diverse biographies of the individuals.

Accordingly, per the LSA statement on linguistic diversity in 1994, we support the documentation and analysis of the full diversity of the languages in their current form because they “provide insight into the nature of “humanness” through the investigation of the structure of human language.”

Basically, we respect the diversity and complexity of communities and their languages and encourage you to do the same. 

There are certain contexts where people will naturally make up new words. Several factors predict whether a new word will stay in the language, e.g. frequency of use, unobtrusiveness, diversity of users and situations, generation of other forms and meanings and endurance of the concept (Metcalf 2002). Recent examples from sign languages include the signs for ‘coronavirus’ (source) and the namesigns for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (source).

Sidenote: While people have created languages (conlangs) such as Esperanto and Klingon, for various purposes, such languages have not found as much widespread use as new words (Okrent 2002).

Making up new words is a natural process, in contrast to the process of determining which words are considered “standard”. In the context of sign language work, as noted by the WFD Statement on Standardized Sign Language, “some researchers or organisations around the world have attempted to standardize sign languages by producing dictionaries which only have one sign for one concept and ignoring the other variations of the sign or concept.” In a survey of Deaf sign language teachers in the UK and Germany, they perceive “hearing educators and second language learners as key promoters and beneficiaries of sign language standardization” (Eichmann 2009). The notion of a “standard” is a racist, classist, and ableist construct (Flores & Rosa 2015), as discussed by D’Arcy and Bender (2023). As an example, there is overrepresentation of whiteness in the publication of ASL dictionaries and textbooks, the formalized training of ASL teachers, and the formal ASL assessments for those using ASL in teaching and service professions, and academic ASL is white-based (Hill 2012, Hill 2022). In line with this overrepresentation of a certain group (white people), there’s also an overrepresentation of “normal” language use, “normal” acquisition where the reality is actually variation (Namboodiripad and Henner 2022). Moreover, peeves about certain language usages (such as double negatives) may seem trivial but often belittle those who diverge from perceived “standard” usage, and “such peeves can become a referendum on the people themselves rather than “just” their language” (Curzan et al 2023, p.18).

Per the WFD Statement on Standardized Sign Language, “any sign language work should reflect all the different signs used by a language community. Therefore, sign language dictionary work should always document all the different signs and their variations that deaf people in a community or area use.” Quadros and Rathmann (2001) point out that some in 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” and they argue that “a successful language standardization process needs to include Deaf professionals as the protagonists,” a position that we fully support. As noted by Johnston (2003), “the Internet provides a means of recording and displaying signed language lexicons in widely dispersed signing communities in a way that may facilitate language standardization in a grassroots manner, rather than being imposed on the community in the form of a prescriptive publication.” Occhino et al (2021) note various documentation efforts that share similar goals: “to increase representation of underrepresented varieties in the documentation of ASL, to raise awareness of varieties used in these communities, and to create sustainable and accessible language repositories for future generations of ASL signers to appreciate the signs of a diverse language community.” Exactly that.

References

Adam, R. (2015). Standardization of sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 432–45. (link)

Curzan, A., Queen, R. M., VanEyk, K., & Weissler, R. E. (2023). Language standardization & linguistic subordination. Daedalus, 152(3), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02015 

D’Arcy, A. and Bender, E. M. (2023). Ethics in Linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics, 9(1), 49–69. (link)

Eichmann, H. (2009). Planning sign languages: Promoting hearing hegemony? Conceptualizing sign language standardization. Current Issues in Language Planning 10(3): 293–307.

Flores, N. and Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review 85, 2149–2171.

Hill, J.C. (2012). Language attitudes in the American Deaf Community. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 

Hill, J. C. (2022). Overrepresentation of whiteness is in sign language as well: A commentary on “Undoing competence: Coloniality, homogeneity, and the overrepresentation of whiteness in applied linguistics.” Language Learning, 73(S2), 312-316. (link) 

Hudley, Anne H. Charity, Christine Mallinson, and Mary Bucholtz (eds), ‘Dedication’, in Anne H. Charity Hudley, Christine Mallinson, and Mary Bucholtz (eds), Decolonizing Linguistics (New York, 2024; online edn, Oxford Academic, 30 Apr. 2024), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197755259.002.0004

Johnston, T. (2003). Language standardization and signed language dictionaries. Sign Language Studies, 3(4), 431–468. (link)

Lucas, C., Bayley, R., & Valli, C. (2003). What’s Your Sign for PIZZA?: An Introduction to Variation in American Sign Language. Gallaudet University Press.

Metcalf, A. (2002). Predicting New Words. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Namboodiripad, S., & Henner, J. (2022). Rejecting competence – essentialist constructs reproduce ableism and white supremacy in linguistic theory: A commentary on “undoing competence: Coloniality, homogeneity, and the overrepresentation of whiteness in applied linguistics.” Language Learning, 73(S2), 321-324. (link)

Occhino, C., Fisher, J., Hill, J., Hochgesang, J. A., Shaw, E., & Tamminga, M. (2021). Report on On-going Research: New Trends in ASL Variation Documentation. Sign Language Studies, 21(3), 350–377. (link)

Okrent, A. (2009). In the Land of Invented Languages. New York, NY: Spiegel & Grau.

Quadros, R. and C. Rathmann. (2021).  Sign language standardization. In W. Ayres-Bennett and J. Bellamy (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 765-788. 

Resources

World Federation of the Deaf Statement on Standardized Sign Language.

LSA 1994 Statement on the Need for the Documentation of Linguistic Diversity

LSA 1995 Statement on Language Rights

LSA 2025 Statement Against Designating English as the Official Language 

SLLS Ethics Statement for Sign Language Research (last updated August 2016)

Do sign languages have accents?

How Sign Language Evolves as Our World Does – New York Times (2022) 

‘It’s Who I Am’: Why Name Signs Matter in ASL – The New York Times 

 Crash Course Linguistics Playlist 

 Otherwords 

“The Weird History of Invented Languages” 

How Sign Languages Deal with New Words

How to cite this position statement

Gallaudet Linguistics Department. (2025). Respecting the diversity and complexity of communities and their languages – Gallaudet Linguistics Department Position Statement. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29014301