As we’ve learned in this sign language series, sign is far from the same everywhere. In fact, it’s just as diverse as the rest of the world’s languages! However, just as Esperanto was created to be an international spoken language, universal sign language could exist. But how successful has this initiative been, and should it even be a project at all?
The Globalization of Signed Communication
The cultural and linguistic divides that have separated sign languages around the world run deep. Whether due to the structuring of ideas and priorities or the concepts that are unique to specific cultures, sometimes moving between two sign languages can be a challenge.
American Sign Language (ASL), British Sign Language (BSL), Chinese Sign Language (CSL), and Indo-Pakistani Sign Language (IPSL) are some of the most commonly spoken, with IPSL taking the crown for the most used. Is it possible to unify all these (and the more than 300 other unique sign languages) into a single, universal variant?
Universal Sign Language in History: International Sign
We already have a basis for a universal sign language. When the World Deaf Congress formed in 1951, they quickly knew that some form of standardized sign language would be valuable for communication with people from around the world. Thus, Gestuno was born.
While Gestuno is usually just referred to as International Sign (IS), it is a unique take on sign language that has selected almost 1500 of the most common gestures and concepts. These ideas, which are often similar across multiple sign languages, are collected in the vocabulary book Gestuno: International Sign Language of the Deaf. The goal was to establish a foundation for communication among signers worldwide.
Could We… and Should We?
Unfortunately, International Sign quickly found its challenges, and they’re the same sticking points that make any attempt at a ubiquitous sign language a challenge:
- It’s impossible to make universally understood signs for every word, including some common concepts
- A single sign language cannot encapsulate unique cultural ideas or terminology
- Depth and breadth of conversation are limited, so speakers cannot necessarily communicate their true thoughts
- Grammatical construction varies enough that speakers coming from significantly different grammatical backgrounds have a hard time parsing meaning
Of course, these are just the logistical concerns about the potential for a universal sign language. There are also important considerations about whether we should pursue a single global sign language in the first place.
The main critique that proponents of International Sign face is cultural erasure. By creating a single system, unique cultural features (both of Deaf culture in specific places and community culture in general) are easy to lose. How can a Japanese person communicate their relational speaking through honorifics, which represent essential information baked directly into the language, in another language without these features? The Japanese speaker loses all ability to relate themselves to others in the manner used within their own culture, which impacts not only meaning but identity.
How does a culture with an essential name for God cope with swapping this term for a more generic one (e.g., many Middle Eastern languages)? How does one group manage when their directional concepts (e.g., using solely cardinal directions, as in Kuuk Thaayorre, an Australian Aboriginal language) fail to align with common concepts (left and right)? It is not just essential information that is being lost; it is cultural identity built on location, relationships, values, and more.
The Future of One Sign Language
Given the failure of Gestuno (no one could understand each other the first time the congress convened after its creation!), progress on a universal sign language waned. Signs around the world were simply deemed too different. While the greater connection could bring people from anywhere together in joint understanding, the process of getting there seems an impossible hurdle.
Still, options remain. The recent advent of AI could provide opportunities for real-time translation, allowing someone using ASL to speak directly with an IPSL signer. Studies show that those who use sign language are typically much better than those using spoken language at understanding meaning and communicating successfully with someone who doesn’t speak the same language. So in this sense, some form of universal sign (a sort of pidgin) already exists!
However, it’s unlikely that a true international sign language will develop with any level of success. Research shows that languages are much more likely to diverge into dialects when they are not written down because standardization is more difficult. Since sign is a language of motion rather than words, it would likely take no time at all for this perfected, “universal” sign to split apart into just as many unique variants as we already have!
