Abstract
Languages are dynamic and change over the years. Changes in sign languages have been usually initiated to accommodate the needs of the local Deaf community. With the increase in smartphone use, sign languages are influenced not only by the local Deaf community, but also by foreign Deaf people on the other side of the screen, regardless of their location. Smartphones influence the sign language itself and the Deaf community by connecting different communities of Deaf people through messages, shared information and experiences, and news delivery. The popularity of this technology among Deaf communities is a social phenomenon emerging from Deaf people themselves. Smartphones may promote the globalization of sign language, shortening distances between Deaf communities around the world.
Technology shapes the lives of Deaf people, creating a new social phenomenon in the Deaf community. (The Maloes, https://www.facebook.com/Themaloesshow/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLkmiZ8JYJk)
Languages are changing constantly in every aspect. For example, each generation speaks differently (Trask Citation2010). Changes over time may include an increase or decrease in the use of words, the replacement of idioms, and the flexibility of syntax. Globalization also influences languages. One example we were able to witness in our countries of origin (Chile and Argentina) is the Spanish language. Today, viewers can watch the same film in two different versions of Spanish: Latin American (‘Latino’) or Spanish (‘Español’ or ‘Castellano’). We hypothesize that this split in the language of delivery stemmed from cable television in the late 1990s. Until then, the same television programs were transmitted to Latin American countries without a language ‘adaptation’ for each one, excluding Spain. These programs exposed the majority of the population in Latin America to variations in each other’s language, resulting in the split of the language as evident in the currently available film versions. Notwithstanding, local variations of Spanish still characterize each country. Resemblances to the Latino language development can be found in today’s sign language in our smartphone era.
Sign language is not a universal language. Thus, my own identity as a Chilean hearing child of a deaf adult (CODA) (Mand et al. Citation2009; Pizer, Walters, and Meier Citation2013) was not sufficient to understand, participate, and research sign language in another country. Most countries have established their own official sign language (Harris Citation1995; Kehl and Gartner Citation2010; McAleer Citation2006). There are countries that even have two official sign languages, according to the region where the Deaf population lives (Muñoz-Baell et al. Citation2011). In addition, every Deaf community has variations in their sign language, depending on factors such as the age of the Deaf person, his or her Deaf community, and their area of residence. However, today’s extensive use of smartphones, including social media, redefines social interaction and communication (Leykin, Aharonson-Daniel, and Lahad Citation2016). Smartphones allow more access to sign language communication than in the past and play a prominent role in our daily life (Van Dam and Van De Velden Citation2015). This change affects thousands or millions of Deaf people around the globe, who follow this information on their own screens. Thus, technology shapes the lives of Deaf people, creating a new social phenomenon in the Deaf community.
In early 2013, global sales of smartphones surpassed those of regular cell phones (Flosi Citation2013; Gatnerr and Gartner Citation2013), opening up different channels of social media such as social networks, photo sharing, forums, and blogs (Leykin, Aharonson-Daniel, and Lahad Citation2016). Thus, smartphones triggered the globalization of sign language, facilitated by six factors:
| (1) | Unlike telephones, this technology is especially suited for Deaf people, because hearing is not needed in order to use it. The individual can express, transmit, and share information and opinions in a visual way. | ||||
| (2) | Information accessibility. Deaf people no longer have to wait to receive messages in sign language. Smartphones have reduced the dependence on television news with sign language translation and on sign language information in Deaf clubs. | ||||
| (3) | The use of smartphones is relatively simple. | ||||
| (4) | It only takes one smartphone to connect to other smartphone users around the globe. | ||||
| (5) | The communication is original content produced by Deaf people for Deaf people, free of the norms or rules of the hearing world. | ||||
| (6) | Smartphones fulfill a Deaf person’s need for knowing and navigating outside the local Deaf community. They allow the Deaf to reflect on their personal situation vis-à-vis other, unfamiliar Deaf people. | ||||
In the beginning of the smartphone era, a few Deaf people uploaded digital videos using social media. They were followed by people who understood their sign language. These videos have diffused globally. We propose two explanations for this diffusion:
| (a) | Identification: the person on the smartphone screen is a Deaf person like myself. I received a message, a notice, or information in ‘my Deaf way and meaning.’ It is not ‘hearing’ information in sign language. | ||||
| (b) | Being part of the global community: receiving the message or sharing it symbolizes the Deaf person’s connection to the Deaf community. Actively sharing and liking this information makes this person a dynamic member of the global Deaf community, contributing to its strengthening in an easy way. | ||||
The globalization of sign language facilitated by smartphones began with the exposure to sign language from other countries and with the frequent use of foreign signs according to the individual Deaf person’s preference. Therefore, smartphones are not only a platform to learn a new sign language, but they also allow local Deaf communities to expand their sign language repertoire while enriching the sign language in the international Deaf community.
In the smartphone era, the sign language used on the screens is ‘street’ language, including slang, and is not governed by the rules of language taught in Deaf or translation schools. Nor is it the language of Deaf organizations or Deaf community representatives. It is a language in process and varies depending on who uploads the visual materials. It should be noted that not all of the content on social media can be understood by Deaf people in different countries. Nevertheless, despite an incomplete understanding of the messages, these materials may shape the local sign language and impact the local Deaf community.
Since 2013, a growing number of Deaf people have been using smartphones (Lyall, Clamp, and Hajioff Citation2016; Maiorana-Basas and Pagliaro Citation2014; Mielke and Brueck Citation2015), more visual materials in sign language are uploaded and shared, and more Deaf people are followed in social media. Unlike previous communication technologies such as fax and email, Deaf people of all ages use this communication platform. Various groups of elderly Deaf people from different countries are members of Facebook groups, share digital videos using WhatsApp, and upload others to YouTube. Social media empower Deaf people from age groups previously marginalized due to technological barriers.
There are a number of famous Deaf people from different countries and of different age groups on social media. Examples include a Deaf young man from France, a Deaf adult couple from Argentina, and a Deaf girl from the United States. All of them have uploaded a number of digital videos on various topics that went viral in the global Deaf community. These famous Deaf people communicate with different sign languages, and their followers are from different countries. These Deaf celebrities shape sign languages worldwide. They are agents in the process of building a global sign language and may also contribute to a future universal sign language.
The globalization of sign language emerges from Deaf signers independently of hearing people, thus empowering the Deaf community and sign language. The globalization of sign language using smartphones and social media is changing the social world of Deaf people.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
- Flosi, Stephanie. 2013. “ComScore Reports May 2013 U.S. Smartphone Subscriber Market Share.” ComScore MobiLens. https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/6/comScore_Reports_May_2013_U.S._Smartphone_Subscriber_Market_Share.
- Gatnerr, Janessa Rivera, and Rob Van Der Meulen Gartner. 2013. “Gartner Says Smartphone Sales Accounted for 55 Percent of Overall Mobile Phone Sales in Third Quarter of 2013.” Barcelona, Spain, November 14. https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2623415.
- Harris, Jenifer. 1995. “Boiled Eggs and Baked Beans – a Personal Account of a Hearing Researcher’s Journey through Deaf Culture.” Disability & Society 10 (3): 295–308. Taylor & Francis Group. doi:10.1080/09687599550023543.
- Kehl, Karen A., and Constance M. Gartner. 2010. “Can You Hear Me Now? The Experience of a Deaf Family Member Surrounding the Death of Loved Ones.” Palliative Medicine 24 (1) SAGE Publications: 88–93. doi:10.1177/0269216309348180.
- Leykin, Dmitry, Limor Aharonson-Daniel, and Mooli Lahad. 2016. “Leveraging Social Computing for Personalized Crisis Communication Using Social Media.” PLoS Currents 8 (Disasters). doi:10.1371/currents.dis.b2c5870adf1b7a77af82e7d5552aabe7.
- Lyall, F. C., P. J. Clamp, and D. Hajioff. 2016. “Smartphone Speech-to-Text Applications for Communication with Profoundly Deaf Patients.” The Journal of Laryngology & Otology 130 (01): 104–106. doi:10.1017/S0022215115003151.
- Maiorana-Basas, Michella, and Claudia M. Pagliaro. 2014. “Technology Use among Adults Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing: A National Survey.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 19 (3): 400–410. doi:10.1093/deafed/enu005.
- Mand, Cara, Rony E. Duncan, Lynn Gillam, V. Collins, and Martin B. Delatycki. 2009. “Genetic Selection for Deafness: The Views of Hearing Children of Deaf Adults.” Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (12): 722–728. 10.1136/jme.2009.030429
- McAleer, Monica. 2006. “Communicating Effectively with Deaf Patients.” Nursing Standard 20 (19): 51–54. doi:10.7748/ns2006.01.20.19.51.c4044.
- Mielke, Matthias, and Rainer Brueck. 2015. “Design and Evaluation of a Smartphone Application for Non-Speech Sound Awareness for People with Hearing Loss.” In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBS, 2015–November: 5008–5011. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319516.
- Muñoz-Baell, Irma M., María Teresa Ruiz-Cantero, Carlos Álvarez-Dardet, Emilio Ferreiro-Lago, and Eva Aroca-Fernández. 2011. “Deaf Communities: Patients or Citizens?” Gaceta Sanitaria 25 (1) Ediciones Doyma, SL: 72–78 doi: 10.1590/S0213-91112011000100012.
- Pizer, Ginger, Keith Walters, and Richard P. Meier. 2013. “‘We Communicated That Way for a Reason’: Language Practices and Language Ideologies among Hearing Adults Whose Parents Are Deaf.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 18 (1): 75–92.
- Trask, R. L. 2010. Why Do Languages Change? New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Van Dam, Jan Willem, and Michel Van De Velden. 2015. “Online Profiling and Clustering of Facebook Users.” Decision Support Systems 70: 60–72. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2014.12.001.