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

So what does "standardization" mean? Let's read this quote first:

"Standardization may occur as a natural development of a language in a speech community or as an effort by members of the community to impose one dialect or variety as a standard." - Richard Nordquist

I'm going to sign "standardization" as this and I think the sign matches the concept well.

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

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

I'm now going to present 4 pros for formal standardization and 4 cons to 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. 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."

Communication

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 recognizing 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. 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 this video.

1. AI is doing amazing things with 3D models and I've seen AI avatars signing - so aren't we basically there?

Yes, it's true that AI has made truly amazing leaps and bounds, but have you seen these before? They're funny right? But I think they show how much AI would still struggle with signing. Sign languages are 3D languages. They're not spoken, written, or heard, they're signed and understood through sight. So yes, AI, has made significant improvements since, but I think it's important to understand that producing signs and understanding signs are different skills, right? Which means that AI might be super close to making models, fake people, sign. But understanding sign languages? That's a whole different ballgame. It requires understanding the airspace around someone. Let me explain this with an example. This handshape, you might think AI can easily register this handshape, but let me show you what this one shape can do.

[Video of me signing 4 signs using 1 handshape]

1 handshape made 4 signs. But really, 1 handshape can make thousands of signs. It depends on largely these 5 parameters.

1. Handshape
   
   

2. Orientation (the direction your palm is facing)
   
   

3. Location (where on the body the sign is)
   
   

This handshape could be used on the face or it could be used on the body but their meanings are very different: GIRL on the face and STERNUM SURGERY on the body.

4. Movement (a sign's direction, frequency, whether it's signed fast or slow)
   
   

5. Non-Manual Markers (meaning facial expressions, body movement, and posture)
   
   

All five of these impact what a sign means. The thing is that sign languages don't just have 3D movement, but even their grammar is 3D. Which is a huge challenge for living breathing ASL students, let's alone AI.

2. Sure, sign languages are a little different, but they're still languages, right? So what's the difference?

Second, it's important to recognize that there is no written form of sign languages. A few people have tried building written systems like these but there are no widely accepted transcription formats. Because sign languages in general are visual and gestural and utilize the airspace around them, and that airspace is where expression, conversation, and grammar are done, AI struggles with the concept of a completely visual language with very few limits to how that language is expressed. Spoken languages and signed languages are very different - for MANY reasons - but one difference is that sign languages include a lot of non-signed information. Let me show you an example. Deaf poetry. You can have an entire Deaf poem signed, in a beautifully visual way, and not have one formal sign. Not one. That's impossible in English. English poetry is limited to words. So again, AI struggles to understand that.

Another example, back in college I attended a class called Visual Gestural Communication (VGC). I absolutely loved it. My dad called it my "mime class." Anyway, the point of that class was to communicate without formal ASL signs and use gestural communication instead without any official signs or words. It was so cool! I fell in love with the class instantly. Now, would that class be possible for English? To disconnect from English words, to disconnect from English letters? No. It would be impossible. But with sign, communication is totally possible without formalized signs. And that skill, I've used constantly in the years following that VGC class as I've traveled and met Deaf around the world. I've been able to communicate without relying on English words or fingerspelling.

And that leads to the third question. 

3. AI learns from online data, right? There's ASL content online, why can't AI just train on those?

With written languages, AI has gathered tons of information to make a Large Language Model, right? If you google a topic like "finance" you will get an innumerable list of results that seem to go on forever. That is what AI uses to answer our questions. AI needs data. And written languages, English for example, has an incredible amount of records spanning hundreds and hundreds of years for AI to pull from. With sign languages, it's different. The ability to record ASL is such a recent thing, 100 to 120 years at the very most, which started with the invention of cameras and film. Because that is such a recent invention, ASL records are limited. And that's ASL where the USA had access to this technology first (or almost first). First access to filming and first access to the Internet. So ASL has the most data of any other sign language out there. Others have much fewer records. So AI can't pull from an arsenal of records with sign languages, the pickings are very slim, there is very little what they call, "training data" for LLMs. Back in the day, when the World Wide Web was first established AIs would have been impossible. Yes, because the technology wasn't advanced enough, but also because there was no arsenal of data to pull from. So it wasn't until more than 30 years that blogs, articles, online magazines, and library archives were transcribed (and Reddit, let's be honest) that finally the creation of large language models was possible. Another problem is that if you search "sign language" online, you'll get tons of results, sure, but most of those results will be written articles, written blogs, written sources, which means they're all in English. And the videos that pop up in the results? They're from the most popular YouTubers like Baby Sign channels, which are not accurate representations of Deaf signing variation. So there's not a lot of data for AI to compare. So if AI only has a few signers online to pull from, it might think it can understand all of a sign language when really it can't. And we have to keep in mind that other sign languages, like Korean Sign Language, Nepali Sign Language, Kenyan Sign Language, have even less data to pull from.

Quick interruption. If you're curious as to what other sign languages look like around the world, check out InterSign University where Deaf teachers teach each of their sign languages like Korean, Nepali, and Mexican—30 other sign languages!

4. So if AI eventually has enough data and learns all of the signs, it should be able to understand everyone, right?

The reason why I decided to sit down and make a video about this topic is that someone commented under one of my videos. I had taught how to sign "flower" and she had learned a different variation of the sign: "flower" with closed fingers. She said when she first started learning ASL she had to come face to face with her own rigidity and become more fluid, flexible with language. And that's true. Sign languages in general are really "fluid." Remember the Deaf poem? Where the entire piece has not one formal sign? Remember that? It's "fluid." And AI, as we all know, struggles with fluid concepts. Abstract is not an LLM’s strength so it doesn't understand fluid languages. So sign languages themselves are fluid but you have to understand that each user, each signer, is different. Other languages don't have variance to this degree, they just don't. The Deaf community is unique because someone might sign from birth, or might try to speak from birth, or might be born and have no access to language in any way. None. This unfortunately does happen. Which means that each user of American Sign Language, each user of Korean Sign Language, their signing will look completely different from other users. This creates a variance to a degree that is just not found in hearing languages. I talk about this a lot on my channel but you might have three people. The first learned a sign language at age 20—they had language deprivation until the age of 20. The second maybe learned at the age of 12, past the point of natural language acquisition, but still relatively young. Maybe the third learned to sign from birth with parents who signed from day one. Each of their language backgrounds are different and if you were to watch each person sign, would their signing look the same? Not at all. This sentence might be super English-y for one person, more of a mix of English and ASL for the second, and a slangy ASL for the third. It's the same sign language, true, but each of their signing is COMPLETELY different. So again, do spoken languages have that variance? No. Another variance might be "flower" vs. "flower," another is that some people sign (pronunciate) super clear and some sign blurrily—they mumble in sign. They might sign "mom" and "dad" like this and not with stiff precise hands: "mom" "dad." And where they grew up, which school they went to, and personal preferences lead to a wide variance as well.

So, how close is AI to actually becoming fluent in sign languages? In my opinion? Not close. I think we'll have to wait until there is enough training data to create a SLLM, a large SIGN language model.

If you enjoyed this video, maybe check out this next one where I answer the most common questions about sign languages. Also, remember to like, comment, and subscribe. Thank you!

My Videos