Discussing the word "sign language-centric."

*****
Summary:

It's good to see the word "sign language-centric" spreading amongst organizations. I'm glad for the positive approach that can come from this concept, however I feel there needs to be a couple clarifications.

"Sign Language" as a word tends to be used in a pro-English signing context or to mean ASL to the exclusion of other languages. Organizations that wish to use this word need to be clear on which language they are referring to -- are they truly speaking several sign languages, which would be the most appropriate usage of this word? If they are, those languages need to be named out of respect to the cultures that bear them.

There are some people who purposefully avoid "American Sign Language" because they believe that ASL is an imperialist language. The question we ought to be asking in this situation is "Which ASL?" Often the misbehaving form of ASL is the English-dominant one (otherwise known as "Gallaudet" or "intellectual" ASL). I question whether that version of ASL is truly a culturally-centered authentic one, because of the overwhelming English contents. It would not be healthy for us to throw out ASL and all its variations altogether because of this. We need to be aware of language attitudes and their effects.

It is important for all of us and our communities to consider the meaning of "sign language-centric" as we move forward. What are your thoughts?

*****
Facebook link: Link

*****
Want more videos? Please support my artwork at:

Link

*****
Curious about written ASL?

Link

*****
Keep in touch!

WEBSITE: Link
TWITTER: Link
FACEBOOK: Link
INSTAGRAM: Link