![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
In light of the absence of a codified standard variety in British Sign Language and German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache) there have been repeated calls for the standardization of both languages primarily from outside the Deaf community. The paper is based on a recent grounded theory study which explored perspectives on sign language standardization among Deaf sign language teachers in Germany and the UK. The data which were generated over the course of 17 in-depth interviews indicate that participants perceived hearing educators and second language learners as key promoters and beneficiaries of sign language standardization and the very subject matter as posing a potential threat to languages and community. As calls for standardization from hearing people were perceived as a continuation of unequal power relations between Deaf and hearing people fighting over the sign language domain, it will be argued that the subject matter presents a case of ‘territorial rivalry’. Consequently, sign language planning initiatives need to be critically examined in the context of potential violation of Deaf community rights.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported through funding from the Department of Social Work of the University of Central Lancashire. I would like to thank my participants for insights into their perspectives as well as my supervisory team, Professor Nicky Stanley, Professor Bogusia Temple and Professor Graham H Turner for their support throughout this study. I also wish to thank Professor Jens Hessmann and Dr Onno Crasborn, as well as the two reviewers, for their supportive comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Notes
The link between standardization and political recognition is, however, by no means unique to the Netherlands. Zeshan reports about ‘a standardization project at the National Institute for the Hearing Handicapped in Mumbai […] which is expected to lead to official recognition of Indian Sign Language and to its wider implementation in deaf educational [sic]’ (posting by Zeshan on [slling-l] on 29 July 2005).
As there may be a number of indigenous language communities in Japan, the absence of a referential frame of ‘ethnic multi-culturalism’ arguably reflects the state's attitudes towards minority languages rather than the existence of indigenous languages per se.
In Germany, sign language interpreter training is primarily facilitated by Fachhochschulen which holds a similar status to institutions formerly labelled Polytechnics in the UK.
These figures are estimates provided through personal communications with Clark Denmark (UK) and Horst Ebbinghaus (Germany).
Also see the situation of signing communities, for example, in northern Nigeria, where indigenous sign languages are threatened by the influence of a Deaf education system that favours more documented sign languages such as ASL over local, indigenous sign languages (cf. Schmaling, Citation2003).
For an in-depth discussion of differing linguistic notions of standardization, see Eichmann Citation(2008).
