ROBERT ADAM Standardization of Sign Languages

Abstract Over the years attempts have been made to standardize sign lan- guages.This form of language planning has been tackled by a variety of agents, most notably teachers of Deaf students, social workers, government agencies, and occasionally groups of Deaf people them- selves. Their eforts have most often involved the development of books with lists of signs in alphabetical order (as distinct from sign language principles) and more recently as CD- ROMs, DVDs, or websites.With regard to the all-important question about language standardization, Karin Hoyer asks, “Who is behind the efort?” and goes on to say that “standardization actions (often with the aim of reducing lexical variation) have frequently been undertaken with the strong support of the hearing-run education system—from outside, often without any support from the language users themselves” (2012, 32). Today, sign language planning is still carried out largely by hearing professionals; thus, that standardiza- tion still needs to be examined in relation to “language ownership” (Eichmann 2009).

Robert Adam is the coordinator of the WFD Expert Group on Sign Language and Deaf Studies, as well as director of Continuing Professional Development, Deafness Cognition, and Language Research Centre, University College London. This article is based on a presentation I gave at the announcement of the new WFD Statement on the Standardization of Sign Languages in Moscow on May 20, 2014.This statement was prepared by members of the Expert Group on Sign Lan- guage and Deaf Studies: Robert Adam, Ulrike Zeshan, Melissa Dragnac-Hawk,Verena Krausneker,Tatiana Davidenko, and Sam Lutalo-Kiingi.We are grateful for the input provided by Professor Emerita Ceil Lucas of .

432 Sign Language Studies Vol. 15 No. 4 Summer 2015 Standardization of Sign Languages | 433

Sign Languages Why would one want to standardize sign languages? To answer this, I would like to briefy review the history of Deaf people and sign language and consider several instances of the oppression of sign languages and the very recent recognition of them as bona fde lan- guages.Although Deaf people have used sign languages for millennia (Woll and Adam 2012), both sign languages and Deaf communities have variously experienced systematic oppression by the wider com- munity. Beginning with the Paris school for the Deaf (Lane 1984), the establishment of formal instruction for Deaf people around the world launched the “golden age” of Deaf education. During this era Deaf people were taught in their natural sign language, especially by Deaf people (Ladd 2003, 502), and modern sign languages began to take their current form; it was not until Deaf people came together for formal schooling that sign languages came into being as they are today. Prior to the advent of these schools, it was unlikely that Deaf people were able to socialize with each other (Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999). Because sign languages were later discontinued and Deaf children were educated using spoken language, the 1880 Milan Con- gress is often considered a milestone in the devaluing of sign languages in education (Ladd 2003, 502; Padden and Humphries 1988). Sign languages were not seen as fully fedged languages until re- cent times. During the 1950s, Bernard Tervoort at the University of Amsterdam investigated Deaf schoolchildren’s own esoteric commu- nication system (Tervoort 1953). He concluded with this advice for teachers:“[I]f you want deaf children to learn your language, you frst have to learn theirs” (Knoors 2007).The frst to discuss sign language was William Stokoe, then a professor of English at Gallaudet College, a liberal arts institution for Deaf people in Washington,DC, who sug- gested that Deaf people did not use a substandard form of English in their signing but an actual sign language with its own phonological and grammatical system. In 1965 he and two colleagues published a dictionary (Stokoe, Casterline, and Croneberg 1965), which included a sociolinguistic description of the Deaf community of the United States. Later, James Woodward (1973) provided sociolinguistic discus- sions of the sign languages of Deaf people in the United States, and 434 | Sign Language Studies

Klima and Bellugi (1979) conducted the frst neuroscientifc research on Deaf people. Thus, in comparison to spoken language research, sign language research, which has now been carried out in numerous countries, is a relatively new feld. The frst dictionary of Australian Sign Language (Auslan) was published in 1989 (Johnston 1989), and the frst dictionary of British Sign Language was published in 1992 (Brien 1992). Yet during this time, individuals and organizations around the world have attempted to standardize sign languages by producing dictionaries that ofer only a single sign for a concept and ignore variations.These are used to teach sign language, to train interpreters, and to serve as a record of the language; however, they do not refect the natural richness and variation present in sign languages. As sign languages are for the most part minority languages, it is important to highlight they are full-fedged natural languages, structurally indepen- dent from the spoken languages with which they coexist; certainly they come into contact with spoken languages, but their structure is diferent and autonomous. In certain quarters, there are those who maintain that only one sign should correspond to a single word or concept, which is wrong both from everyday, lay, and academic per- spectives. It is important to note that spoken languages also do not have one word for one concept (for example, English has many syn- onyms for words, but no one ever seeks to standardize English in the same way).

What Is Language Standardization? Language planning may include status planning, corpus planning, acquisition planning, and attitude planning and may involve sign languages as well (Reagan 2010). Language standardization is one of the goals of language planning; others are language revival, language purifcation, and language reform (Nahir 2003). Specifcally, lan- guage standardization is a part of corpus planning in that it involves the publication of a dictionary and a grammar and modernization of the grammar (Deumert 2001). A standard language is most commonly defned as a codifed form of a language, which is the uniform linguistic norm (Deumert 2001). Often the most prestigious form of a language becomes standardized, Standardization of Sign Languages | 435

and for standardization to be successful, acceptance of this variety as the norm is vital. For spoken languages, the standard form is most often the dialect that is associated with specifc subgroups and specifc functions. Various languages around the world have standardized forms. For instance, English, Spanish, and French have both a standard form and local dialects.The standard form “becomes the legitimate form, and all other forms become, in the popular mind, illegitimate” (Milroy 2001, 547). History plays a role in this legitimization, and the language of a country may be seen as a part of the nation. Moreover, there are parallels in the history of oppression and marginalization of sign languages (Ladd 2003, 502; Lane 1984), leading to the view that some varieties of sign language are more legitimate than others, which I explain later.Additionally, English and similar languages have “played a very large role in providing the data on which linguistic methods and theories are built” (Milroy 2001, 547). How does the standardiza- tion of sign languages take place? It occurs when certain dictionaries acquire status and are considered “standard.” Native signers rarely use them (Sutton-Spence and Woll 1999), but second-language users who employ these dictionaries become educators and interpreters, and thus these resources have a standardizing efect on the sign language.

Examples of Sign Language Standardization Australia. Hearing welfare workers and teachers of Deaf children have made attempts to standardize the sign language of the Australian Deaf community (Abraham 1903; Jeanes, Jeanes, et al. 1972; Jeanes and Reynolds 1982; Jeanes, Reynolds, and Coleman 1989), with some level of involvement by members of the Deaf community.The 1982 version was a result of the Australian Sign Language Development Project, a name that gives us some idea of the aim of this project: to “develop” Australian Sign Language. Deaf people from Melbourne were involved particularly at the committee level, as models for the illustrations, but never as authors of the published product.These representatives of the Deaf community were from the Deaf Committee, a subcommittee of the Board of Management of the Victorian Deaf Society (Flynn 1984). In fact, the acknowledgements include a long list of Deaf peo- ple, but this may indicate a high turnover of Deaf members of the 436 | Sign Language Studies

committee. Deaf people tended to attend a number of meetings and then withdraw from the committee, only to be replaced by another Deaf person, so the list of numerous Deaf participants should not be seen as the Deaf community’s endorsement of this work. Publications introduced various foreign signs and morphology signs from ASL and Irish Sign Language:“The Signed English vocabulary was based on a core of genuine Deaf signs which were standardized and restricted in meaning for Signed English in addition to a large number of contrived signs and loan signs from ASL and Gestuno” (Johnston 1989, 475). The dictionary has been widely used in Australia and in educational settings outside Melbourne and thus may have had an infuence on modern Auslan.

Japan. In 1980 the Japanese Federation of the Deaf (JFD) obtained funds from the Ministry of Social Afairs to establish a Japanese Sign Language (Nihon Shuwa) Research Group to “increase the vocabulary of Nihon Shuwa signers to help ensure that they would be able to keep up with modern Japanese (both the people and the language) and to help standardize Nihon Shuwa” (Nakamura 2011, 322). This work continues to this day, and books with these new signs are pub- lished annually by a committee that meets to discuss new signs, which are then circulated throughout the community. Interpreters trained by the JFD are taught these signs, using “a grammar that closely ap- proximates the spoken sentences they are interpreting but to learn to mouth the words at the same time” (ibid., 325). The National Rehabilitation Centre in Saitama, Japan, trains Japa- nese Sign Language (JSL) interpreters using “pure Nihon Shuwa” but older Deaf people do not understand this and prefer the JFD-trained interpreters. A great irony, however, is that the public broadcasting network in Japan (NHK) airs two diferent television shows called “Everyone’s Sign” and “The Sign News” (the latter is presented by fuent Deaf signers who do not use the form of signing promoted by the JFD). However, Mori (2011) points out that the JFD was the only organization publishing a JSL lexicon for some time, that there are now more JSL resources available from private publishers than ever before, and that the JFD’s hegemony is approaching its demise. Mori Standardization of Sign Languages | 437 also defends the Myanmar Sign Language Standardization Project, which the JFD conducted in Myanmar, and claims that the stan- dardization of sign language parallels that of Burmese even though nonofcial languages exist.This project arose from an inquiry from the government of Myanmar, which asked the Japanese government for assistance.The Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA), an agency of the Japanese government, requested that the JFD collaborate with it on this endeavor. Mori claims the following: Deaf people are spread across the land and have little communication with each other. Often in those countries it would be hard for Deaf people to come together for a national-level meeting and to share the resources of the nationwide media because of poor infrastructure and their own livelihood situations. In these cases, most governments of developing countries feel pressured by international standards to respond to the needs of their Deaf citizens, so they try to rush the standardization process with government assistance. (Mori 2011, 334) Mori argues that such an initiative will increase the human rights of Deaf people and lead to an enhanced respect for Deaf culture and language.This process still raises the questions of who is driving this standardization, whether Deaf people in Myanmar actually have any control over this process, and whether they have any ownership of the language.

Kenya. This work has also continued in Kenya,1 where the JICA has also been involved with a project to standardize Kenyan Sign Lan- guage. Again, contact was made with JICA by the Kenyan National Association of the Deaf (KNAD) through the relevant government ofce. A visit from the Kenyan delegation was organized by the JFD and the JICA. A rationale for this project is that, “[h]aving experi- enced standardized sign language in Japan, participants recognized the importance of enhancing their communication in Kenya through standardizing sign language in the country. Currently, diferent regions in Kenya have their unique signage, making communication difcult.” Ichiro Miyamoto, executive director of the JFD, is also quoted as maintaining that “standardizing sign language in the country does not mean that local sign languages will become obsolete.” 438 | Sign Language Studies

Mori’s defense of sign language standardization and the JFD’s con- tinued work on standardization in Myanmar and Kenya provides an interesting contrast to Hoyer’s and Eichmann’s positions on sign lan- guage standardization: that this work is not always done by hearing people.

The Netherlands. In the Netherlands, sign language planning has been the result of collaboration between members of the Dutch Deaf com- munity, the Dutch Deaf Council, various educational organizations, and the national association for parents of deaf children (Schermer 2012). This partnership brought about a heightened awareness of Nederlandse Gebarentaal (NGT), giving impetus to the campaign to implement a language policy.Another milestone occurred when the European Parliament advised its member states in 1988 to recognize their national sign languages. A committee was then set up in 1996 by the Dutch government to discuss the recognition of NGT, which resulted in recommendations to standardize NGT for use in schools. This led to the establishment of the Standardization of the Basic Lexi- con (STABOL) Project. Even though a number of Deaf people and researchers objected, this project proceeded. Eventually fve thousand signs were recorded and disseminated as CD-ROM dictionaries, a process that itself had a standardizing efect. Of the signs that were selected, 60 percent were recognized and used for the same meaning in all regions, 25 percent were regional signs that were included in the standard lexicon, and 15 percent included selections for standard signs. This database now contains sixteen thousand signs, fourteen thousand of which are available online and on DVD. The production of this dictionary has been positively perceived by Deaf Dutch citizens inasmuch as it acknowledges their language. In the long term, however, it is not yet known whether Deaf sign- ers have been exposed to the standard lexicon and how their signing style has been infuenced by this standardization process, particularly because interpreters are trained to use these standardized signs.“The position of NGT and its users is still vulnerable in the Netherlands, and it remains very important to join forces, both deaf and hearing, to ensure the right of Deaf people to fully participate in society” (Schermer 2012, 491). Even though the Dutch government required Standardization of Sign Languages | 439 the standardization of NGT before conferring ofcial status, it has not yet followed through with this recognition.

WFD Statement on Standardized Sign Language The following is the statement on standardized sign language that was prepared by the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) in association with its Expert Group on Sign Language and Deaf Studies.2 This came as a result of concern about projects around the world where sign languages have been standardized. It may be said that the WFD actively promotes a descriptive approach to sign language research, as opposed to a prescriptive approach, and that as much variation within and across sign languages must be documented.The Statement reads as follows: The World Federation of the Deaf is concerned about attempts to “standardize” sign languages in some countries. Often, language stan- dardisation takes the form of deciding on one single word or one sign for a concept and as a result, the natural variation of the language is ignored. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) article 21 (e) obliges states parties to recognize and promote the use of sign languages. In the spirit of the CRPD, sign languages should be promoted in the form [in which] they are used by Deaf Communities around the world. Some researchers or organisations around the world have attempt- ed to standardize sign languages by producing dictionaries which only have one sign for one concept and ignoring the other variations of the sign or concept.This is an incorrect approach because this does not refect how natural languages have variation.Also, these resources are then used to teach sign language, train interpreters, or to serve as a record of the language, and these do not refect the natural richness and variation that is present in sign languages. It is possible that such an activity will in the long term alienate or disenfranchise language communities. It is important to highlight that sign languages are full-fedged natural languages, structurally independent from the spoken languages with which they co-exist; they are certainly in contact with these spoken languages but their structure is diferent and independent. Some people believe that there should only be one sign for one word or one concept, which is wrong both from an everyday, lay and from an academic perspective. It is important to note that spoken 440 | Sign Language Studies

languages do not have one word for one concept either (for example, in English truck/lorry, elevator/lift). Sign languages are like spoken languages in that there is a great deal of sociolinguistic variation (Lucas and Valli 1992 and Lucas, Bayley, and Valli 2001).This variation can be: • regional (where people live in a specifc country), • age (older people and younger people), • gender (men and women), • education (how a person was educated) • family background (whether there are Deaf members of the family or not), • social (networks a person is in contact with) • ethnicity (where a person comes from), and • register (diferent situations eg formal, informal, etc). • lexical (diferent ways of saying the same thing). All languages of course allow for the same thing to be said in dif- ferent words/signs.Variation is a natural feature of both sign languages and spoken languages, and this is an important part of any language research. Further background on the WFD Statement on Sign Language Work can be seen here: http://wfdeaf.org/wp- content/uploads /2014/02/WFD-statement-sign-language-work.pdf. This Statement emphasises that it is important for sign language work to be done with leadership of Deaf native sign language users and WFD Ordinary members; it is important also to note that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires governments to ensure that people with disability can express themselves freely, including in sign language. The WFD believes that any sign language work should refect all the diferent signs used by a language community.Therefore, sign language diction- ary work should always document all the diferent signs and their variations that deaf people in a community or area use. It is not advisable to pick only one sign for one word when documenting sign languages. The WFD therefore does not support any formal standardization activities related to any sign language, but supports appropriately qualifed linguistic research into and documentation of all sign languages in the world. Standardization of Sign Languages | 441

The WFD Statement on the Unifcation of Sign Languages can also be seen here: http://www.wfdeaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011 /04/Statement-on-the-unification-of-sign-languages-_January -2007_1.pdf which notes negative language standardization prac- tices such as: • replacing old sign languages with [sic] “better” sign languages • unifying several sign languages to a single sign language or • deleting foreign signs from Sign Languages, all of which are not supported by the WFD. For general further information on sign languages see: http://wfdeaf .org/our-work/focus-areas/sign- language which has some suggested readings.

Unifcation of Arab Sign Languages Language standardization occurs not only within countries but also across countries. In 2009 the WFD learned about attempts to unify Arab sign languages. There is a one-hour daily news program on Al Jazeera, an Arabic news network (al-Fityani and Padden 2010). The news program’s interpreter did not interpret into a sign language from spoken Arabic but into a “newly devised sign language which draws vocabulary from diferent Arab sign languages, including Egyp- tian Sign Language and Saudi Sign Language.”This development of a pan-Arab sign language was made possible by the production of a dictionary published by the Council of Arab Ministers of Social Afairs (CAMSA) within the League of Arab States. This is in spite of the fact that there are twenty-two Arab states and despite the exis- tence of a diglossic language situation, in which regional dialects are spoken alongside a highly codifed written language. Arabic is also a pluricentric language in that it has several standard varieties in dif- ferent countries. As largely endogamous marriage patterns are prevalent in the Arab world, a greater incidence of genetic deafness occurs; thus many sign languages in the region are unrelated historically. Although similar signs appear in sign languages in Arab countries, there are “large vo- cabularies [that are] not in common” (Al-Fityani and Padden 2010, 28). 442 | Sign Language Studies

This explains why Deaf people in the Arab region do not understand the interpreters on the Al Jazeera program. In contrast, on Japanese television, Deaf signers intentionally use what they consider “pure” Nihon Shuwa. On Al Jazeera, however, the interpreters do not use the language of their Deaf viewers but instead use an artifcially created set of standardized signs.

UNCRPD The WFD participated in the discussions that led to the framing of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Dis- abilities (CRPD) (Kauppinen and Jokinen 2014). It is the frst UN convention to explicitly defne language. In Article 2 “language” in- cludes spoken and signed languages and other forms of nonspoken languages; altogether the convention makes reference to sign language in fve articles. Specifcally in relation to the status of sign languages, Article 21 states that “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise the right to free- dom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through all forms of communication of their choice, as defned in article 2 of the present Convention.” It also obliges states parties to recognize and promote the use of sign languages. In the spirit of the CRPD, sign languages should be promoted in the form preferred by Deaf communities around the world.

Conclusion Language standardization may be undertaken for a variety of reasons. It may not necessarily result from the guidance of a hearing hege- mony but may also be promoted by both Deaf and hearing people. However, one can argue that this is in reality due to both the status of sign language as a minority language and some of the external pres- sures that are then exerted. In addition, attitudes toward a particular language and which of its varieties is seen as legitimate play a role in such standardization. Historical factors also have a strong infuence. In Australia the standardization process was initiated by hearing teach- ers and hearing welfare workers but also involved Deaf people at the Standardization of Sign Languages | 443

project committee level. In Japan, standardization was initiated by a Deaf organization with government funding and continues in other countries with government support. In the Netherlands, language standardization was guided by Deaf community organizations, edu- cational association, and national parent groups, leading the Dutch government to make standardization a precondition of language rec- ognition. Finally, in the Arab world this process has taken place at a cross-national, panregional level. Each of these examples refects a diferent set of circumstances with regard to the support of local Deaf people. The World Federation of the Deaf provides some guidance on language standardization with regard to the protection and the cher- ishing of the great diversity found in sign languages. It also expresses its concern about attempts to standardize sign languages and does not support their unifcation. The CRPD also maintains that sign languages should be promoted as they are used by Deaf communities around the world. Language standardization can thus take a variety of forms around the world. Once more with regard to “language ownership” (Eich- mann 2009), it is important to consider both who is directing the standardization and whether the ownership of the language in ques- tion has actually been taken into account throughout the process.

Notes 1. http://www.jica.go.jp/kenya/english/ofce/topics/140127.html. 2. http://wfdeaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/WFD-Statement -on-Standardization-of-Sign-Languages-FINAL-20-MAY-2014.pdf.

Acknowledgment The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is gratefully acknowledged: Robert Adam was supported by the ESRC Deafness Cognition and Language Research Centre (DCAL) Grant RES-620-28-0002.

References Abraham, E. J. D. 1903. The Story of the Deaf and Dumb and the Language of Gesture. Melbourne:Adult Deaf and Dumb Mission of Victoria. 444 | Sign Language Studies al-Fityani, K., and C. Padden. 2010. Sign Language Geography in the Arab World. In Sign Languages, ed. D. Brentari, 433–50. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brien, D. 1992. Dictionary of British Sign Language/English. Boston: Faber and Faber. Deumert,A. 2001. Language Planning and Policy. In Introducing Sociolinguistics, ed. R. Mesthrie, J. Swann,A. Deumert, and W. Leap, 382–418. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Eichmann, H. 2009. Planning Sign Languages: Promoting Hearing Hege- mony? Conceptualizing Sign Language Standardization. Current Issues in Language Planning 10(3): 293–307. doi: 10.1080/14664200903116287. Flynn, J.W. 1984. No Longer by Gaslight:The First 100 Years of the Adult Deaf Society of Victoria. Melbourne:Adult Deaf Society of Victoria. Hoyer, K. 2012. Language Documentation and Description as Language Planning: Working with Three Signed Minority Languages. PhD. diss., University of Helsinki, Helsinki. Jeanes, D. R., R. C. Jeanes, C. C. Murkin, and B. E. Reynolds. 1972. Aid to Communication with the Deaf. Melbourne:Victorian School for Deaf Children. Jeanes, R., and B. E. Reynolds. 1982. Dictionary of Australasian Signs for Com- munication with the Deaf. Melbourne:Victorian School for Deaf Children. ———, and B. C. Coleman. 1989. Dictionary of Australasian Signs, 2nd ed. Melbourne:Victorian School for Deaf Children. Johnston, T. 1989. Auslan Dictionary: A Dictionary of the Sign Language of the Australian Deaf Community. Sydney: Deafness Resources Australia. Kauppinen, L., and M. Jokinen. 2014. Including Deaf Culture and Linguistic Rights. In Human Rights and Disability Advocacy, ed. M. Sabatello and M. Schulze, 131–45. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Klima, E., and U. Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Knoors, H. 2007. Obituary: Bernard Theodoor Marie Tervoort. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 12(2): 242. Ladd, P. 2003. Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lane, H. 1984. When the Mind Hears. New York: Random House. Lucas, C., R. Bayley, and C.Valli. 2001. Sociolinguistic Variation in . Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Lucas, C., and C.Valli. 1992. Language Contact in the American Deaf Community. San Diego:Academic Press. Milroy, J. 2001. Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardiza- tion. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5(4): 530–55. Mori, S. 2011. Pluralization:An Alternative to the Existing Hegemony in JSL. Standardization of Sign Languages | 445

In Deaf around the World:The Impace of Language, ed. G. Mathur and D. J. Napoli, 333–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nahir, M. 2003. Language Planning Goals:A Classifcation. In Sociolinguistics: The Essential Readings, ed. C. B. Paulston and G. R. Tucker, 423–48. Oxford: Blackwell. Nakamura, K. 2011.The Language Politics of Japanese Sign Language (Nihon Shuwa). In Deaf around the World, ed. G. Mathur and D. J. Napoli, 316–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Padden, C., and T. Humphries. 1988. Deaf in America:Voices from a Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reagan,T. G. 2010. Language Policy and Planning for Sign Languages. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Schermer,T. 2012. Sign Language Planning in the Netherlands between 1980 and 2010. Sign Language Studies 12(4): 467–93. Stokoe,W. C., D. C. Casterline, and C. G. Croneberg. 1965. A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press. Sutton-Spence, R., and B.Woll. 1999. The Linguistics of British Sign Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tervoort, B. 1953. Structurele analyse van visueel taalgebruik binnen een groep dove kinderen.Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing. Woll, B., and R. Adam. 2012. Sign Language and the Politics of Deafness. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism, ed. M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, and A. Creese, 100–15.Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Woodward, J. 1973. Implicational Lects on the Deaf Diglossic Continuum. PhD diss., ,Washington, DC.