International Sign Language does not exist: yet we use it, teach it, interpret it, research it
Temas
Detalles
Recently, I encountered several expert declarations that International Sign Language (IntSL) is “not a language.” They were presented neither as a theoretical position nor as a research question, but were pronounced ex cathedra as unquestionable truth. Apparently, the debate has often been settled and then reignited. And the following questions bubbled up in me: By whom? On the basis of which definition? And against which empirical evidence? My concern is therefore twofold: whether IntSL is recognized as a language, and how unequal institutional and geopolitical power determines who may produce authoritative knowledge about it. I decided to take a little journey through this landscape and set out my angle of view in the following paragraphs. Thus, my selection of sources is necessarily selective rather than exhaustive, and I prioritize scholarship and institutional statements that have been particularly influential in constructing, reproducing, or challenging claims about the linguistic status of International Sign/International Sign Language. Language cannot be reduced to a fixed, standardized grammatical system conveniently modelled on national sign languages, predominantly Western sign languages, owing to their academic visibility and institutional force. Its sociolinguistic functions, recurring users, conventionalized resources and empirically attested interactional patterns also matter. When these dimensions are excluded in advance, the conclusion that IntSL is “not a language” becomes remarkably easy to reach: the definition has already done the work.