Standardizing Sign Languages: Pros, Cons, and Consequences

Vlog | Destiny Yarbro | March 4, 2026 | 19 min watch

Do you know that South Africa has 14 sign languages?

Recently in 2022, one sign language was approved to be the standard sign language for the country.

Many Deaf were ecstatic with the news, some were not.

That process of choosing one sign language to be THE sign language of a country is called "standardization"

In this video, I'm going to be focusing on this: the pros and the cons of standardization

What is Standardization?

I'm going to sign "standardization" as this [signed in video as "same across the board"] and I think the sign matches the concept well.

The language becomes the same, while diverse signs are weeded out.

Two Types of Language Standardization

Now, keep in mind that standardization happens for two reasons:

Natural Standardization

Meaning, it occurs naturally as language grows, adapting and changing over time, usually years. That's natural standardization.

For example, if I sign tomato like this and you sign tomato as that (signed "red apple") We have different signs for this concept. But if more and more people use "red apple," I'm probably going to change to adopt your sign. So y'all's sign becomes the more common sign, the standard. Does that make sense?

Formal Standardization

is when someone sets up through policy or order one sign language which becomes the standard language for all. That's formal standardization.

So natural is from the bottom up, the people themselves change and adapt over time.

Formal is from the top down, a leader or community makes the decision to standardize.

The Pros and Cons of Formal Standardization

Identity

One's label or identity. It's important to understand that in most countries signers make up about 1% of the population (or less).

Some countries have 2% or even 3% because of war conditions which results in more deafness. But most of the time, it's around 1 %. That's it.

Which means that standardization that can help a community become more unified, working hand-in-hand under one shared linguistic identity.

But if that small 1% is made up of many different sign languages, it's not cohesive enough to work hand-in-hand.

People who promote standardization warn that unity and comradery in the community is vital.

So standardization helps us as a community, as a signing community, come together under one identity.

Which also means that outsiders will be more apt to recognize the community as a linguistic minority.

Thus standardization leads to recognition inside the community and outside the community.

Which is most certainly a pro for standardization. 

Cons of Standardization in Identity

The cons of this are, well, if you choose one language, one sign language to be the main language, what happens to the others?

They are disheartened. Those who know the standardized sign language feel elite or important. "We have the right sign language. We are right, thus you have the wrong one."

The minority sign languages feel less than. "Our language must not be important" or "my language is wrong, I need to change my signs to match the standardized sign language."

Also, parents feel increasing pressure feeling like they can't teach their cultural heritage, linguistic heritage, because they have to prioritize their children learning the standardized language so they can succeed in life.

So to reiterate, standardization means one language is chosen usually to the exclusion of the others. The other languages are inferior while the one language is elevated. "Our language is right, your language is wrong."

Communications

You've seen these before: interpretation for the White House, for the news, for natural disaster announcements.

These are possible because of standardization. Definitely a pro to standardization is accessibility.

Really, the goal of standardization is "all understand together". That's the goal.

Recently in a viral news story, the White House didn't want to provide an official ASL interpreter. The discussion has become very heated with the Deaf community saying, "We need an interpreter!"

That discussion is heated, it's tough.

It's hard enough to get one interpreter, imagine if we had 14 sign languages. Which one do you pick for interpretation?

Who becomes the "official White House interpreter?" There would be too many sign languages to provide all so it just wouldn't happen.

Standardization means that you might eventually get at least one interpretation. For the news, for emergency preparations, for emergency announcements.

So again, their goal is "we all understand together."

Cons of Standardization in Communications

The cons are the following. That idea that we all understand together, that idea is a false assumption. It can't happen.

Typically it results in the people who know the standard sign language understand everything, they have full accessibility while the others, those who know the minority sign languages don't.

They lack accessibility, they struggle to understand what is being signed, they miss information.

So those who set up standardization assume "now everyone understands!" but if you know say, Black ASL or if you know one of the indigenous sign languages, if you only know one of these then you don't understand what is being signed.

Law

Standardization is a plus for legal reasons. For example, it can help when it comes to establishing disability laws.

It helps attain recognition as a language identity so that they can set up accessibility options and services for that group, that one group.

So it's makes sense that disability law upholds standardization. It makes legal recognition possible.

It can also help the community come together to fight for rights.

It can also help to have one kind of interpreters, meaning you can have an ASL interpreter for everything.

If an interpreter knows the standard language, that means ease for accessibility. It means interpreters can be provided for any event, any doctor's appointment, anything.

That interpreter can show up and interpret without the struggle of the client having different sign language needs.

Cons of Standardization in Law

But on the con side, that idea of "one kind of interpreter", that this one standard language can easily meet the all the needs of their clients, that idea is false.

We already have this issue here in the USA and we don't have 14 sign languages like South Africa. We have still have many sign languages here, yes, but not like South Africa.

But we have many different kinds of interpreters like CDIs, Protactile, Oral Transliteration, Cued Speech Interpreters.

Standardization here in the US hasn't fixed this "problem"

Education

This is a big one, education. There are a lot of pros to standardization for education.

People who agree with standardization say that education is impossible if every teacher knows a different sign language.

I'm talking different sign languages, not just different accents. Different languages entirely would be impossible.

And they have a point.

Suppose your school staff was made up of 14 different sign language users. Your students would somehow have to learn through 14 different sign languages.

It would be impossible.

Also, ASL student curriculum benefits from standardization. For example, ASL 101, 102. Proponents point out that there needs to be a standard ASL because how else would you test these students? How do you know who passed or failed if you don't have an established standard?

Also, dictionaries. Typically when countries approve a standard sign language the first thing they do is publish a dictionary.

And that can help people learn ASL for example. It can help with education.

Also, standardization benefits interpreter certification. When testing interpreters, how do you decide who passes and who fails without a standard?

Standardization helps resolve that problem.

Remember back when South Africa had the funeral for Nelson Mandela? And a fake interpreter stood up and "interpreted" (really, gestured awkwardly) the entire time?

I remember the whole world watching him, saying, "What?! How does something like this even happen?"

But you see, that they didn't have interpretation certification or examinations at the time. They didn't have an interpreter standard so they couldn't declare whether someone was certified or not. There was no standard at the time.

Well, that event sparked South Africa's Deaf rights revolution and march which eventually led to the standardization of SASL.

So those are the pros for standardization for education. The cons are a little complicated.

Cons of Standardization in Education

Like the dictionaries I mentioned. Their foundation is the written language. For example, English. You look up a word in English and then it gives one sign as it's "translation"

It implies that one word = one sign which is simply not the case.

And it also means that if I sign tomato this way, and you sign tomato that way, which gets put into the dictionary as the official standard sign for tomato from here on out? Which one?

Another con is that the interpreter examinations become, well, bland, surface level, sterile because other diverse sign languages are not included. So diverse signs can get weeded out.

And interpreters become the same. Again, this seems great in theory, but remember that here in the USA, signers come with a variety of linguistic needs. One interpreter, one kind of interpreter, is not going to match all these needs. And that's a problem.

So if you as an interpreter know the standardized language well, you'll pass the exam. But even if you're absolutely fluent in a minority sign language, it doesn't matter, you'll fail. Because you know the "wrong" language. Does that make sense?

Now I think some states have been trying to improve this, trying to adjust their tests to meet a greater set of needs but most, which sign language you know will determine whether you pass or fail.

From What I Observe

As I look at the pros and cons, it seems that those who are promote standardization, who encourage it, their focus is on recognition and on ease of application.

Those who are against standardization, who are concerned about standardization, their focus is on linguistic diversity and true accessibility.

Standardization Is Not New

The process of standardization is not new that has occurred in recent years. No, it has happened through all of time, throughout history again and again.

Any time one group has conquered another land, their language has become the new lengua franca. Inevitably, it happens again and again.

Language Power Dynamics

The power dynamics between languages skew in favor of the conquering language, the ruling language. For example, this occurred between English and Welsh.

The power dynamics did not favor Welsh which almost completely disappeared, was an endangered language as a result and almost became a "dead" language. But thankfully in recent years, they've tried to teach Welsh in schools again.

And honestly, that's vital. I think in education is where standardization is typically enacted.

For example, around the middle of the 1800s was when English became more and more standardized. Why? Well, school teachers needed to teach their students how to write and how to spell English.

Over time, English became more and more standardized so that nowadays? English is very strict. If you're writing English, there is a right way and a wrong way. There's a correct way to spell a word and a wrong way to spell it with no inbetween anymore. English is quite strict that way now.

But does that occur only with hearing, written languages? Not at all. It has happened with sign languages too.

American School for the Deaf

For example, when the American School for the Deaf was established, what did they do?

When Deaf Native American children showed up signing their sign languages like PISL and many others, they were immediately taught French Sign Language.

As they were taught French Sign Language, they thought that their sign language was wrong and set those signs aside.

Also, when Deaf students from Martha's Vineyard arrived, they were taught to sign French Sign Language only, as that was the correct sign language.

Though some researchers say that modern ASL has some French Sign Language signs, some Martha's Vineyard Sign Language, and some PISL makes up ASL today.

But still, French Sign Language for a time was the "right" language and the others were "wrong" and thus used less and less. And now, Martha's Vineyard Sign Language has gone completely extinct.

Desegregation

And that occurrence happened again when Deaf white schools and Black Deaf schools which had been segregated were desegregated. Which meant what, can you guess? White ASL was prioritized.

Many Black Deaf teachers were fired and white teachers taught their ASL. The power dynamics had shifted with white ASL taught rather than Black ASL and that continues still today.

Schools in Africa

Another example of standardization in education was when a good man named Andrew Foster noticed that there were no Deaf schools in Africa and thus no education for Deaf children.

So he went to Africa and set up many schools that taught in what sign language? Not the local languages, but taught ASL in a way. Really it was very Signed English and that still continues to be taught to this day.

Again, this was good education reasons, very good but the local sign languages disappeared.

Deaf Villages

We see this again and again in the cases of Deaf Villages. Their local sign language will flourish and grow until a Deaf school is established in the village, then the number of users shrinks quickly and the usually the local sign language disappears completely. This happens again and again.

So we're kind of stuck. Is standardization a good thing or a bad thing? It's hard to know in this situation.

My Experience With Language Power Dynamics

My last example today is my own experience. I had traveled to the African continent to a country though I'd rather not say which but when I arrived in the country, we made our way to a kind of isolated Deaf school. When I came, the teachers were all hearing and no one signed.

So I show up with my group of friends and we had so much fun chatting with the children, such cute kids! Anyways, as we're chatting, the children are signing using local sign languages, home signs, and made up signs which was so cool to observe. We were loving learning their signs for concepts.

But I remember standing there and watching my friend, who was an adult right? She was an adult signing with the kid and he saw a sign that she used and the sign he had been using up to this point, his local sign, he immediately abandoned it for his new ASL sign and he used that ASL sign from then on out.

I'm watching the dynamics between this adult and child.

When I see this, I'm immediately sick to my stomach. His sign was tossed out in a heartbeat. As soon as I realized what was happening I wanted to shout, "Stop signing! Everybody just stop signing!" I was heartsick. 

This experience helped me decide to build InterSign University. I want to find teachers for every sign language including every local dialect!

Who Decides?

Today I've attempted to present both the pros and cons for standardization in a fair way. But please understand that I myself am opposed to standardization. Not for every situation but certainly for most. 

This is because I thoroughly enjoy language diversity and I want to do my best to help preserve these sign languages for future generations. I don't want to see them die off so there's only a few national standardized sign languages left.

My problem with standardization is the question: who decides?

Who decides which sign language should be the standard sign language?

Who decides which sign language should lead in education, law, communications, identity? Who decides?

Well, typically those who decide are the people who are in power. Which means that most of the time, hearing people are making the decisions.

They think "it's just so much easier for accessibility, so let's standardize one sign language"

They think, "It's confusing that there's so many sign languages, it'll be so much better if there's just one sign language" not remembering that there are thousands of spoken sign languages around the world.

They think, "why do they have so many sign languages?"

So again, who decides?

And even if Deaf people decide, typically they are the ones who know the majority sign language and want to see their sign language wide-spread, right? They assume, "My sign language is the correct one."

CEU Course

As you can tell, I feel very strongly about this topic which is why I've been building a CEU course for interpreters so they can learn about standardization and how they can support minority sign languages. If you're interested and want to take this course, please let me know in the comments below or pre-register here: https://intersign-university.thinkific.com/courses/standardizing-sign-languages

I've been building it for some time now but haven't published it yet so I thought this video and your comments could help me decide if I should go ahead and make it available for CEU credit.

Please remember to subscribe and like. And if you're interested in learning more about Plains Indian Sign Language, I recommend the video below.

My Videos