COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 1

Comprehension Efficacy in International Sign

Olivia Borkowski

ojb9526@g.rit.edu

Rochester Institute of Technology

December 15, 2023

COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 2

Abstract

International Sign (IS) is a unique communication system used by the international deaf

community. It provides trans-linguistic communication in many settings including conferences

like the World Federation of the Deaf’s (WFD) congress. It is not standardized and is not a

language, rather it becomes conventionalized when deaf people gather and converse. IS is largely

accepted as a means for diverse deaf people to communicate and often championed as the way to

global inclusiveness. The implications of such acceptance on audience comprehension, however,

are still in question. In 2017, Dr. Lori Whynot conducted an extensive quantitative study on the

lexical aspects of IS and proceeded to test audience comprehension of IS when signed in an

expository setting. Her findings revealed low comprehension rates and questioned the efficacy of

IS when used in such settings. In my study, I seek to expand on her research by finding solutions

to improve low audience IS comprehension like testing how various exposures to IS impacts

comprehension as well as introducing presentation comprehension tools like powerpoints and

paper handouts.

key terms: International Sign (IS), expository, standardized, conventionalized, moral orientation,

direct communication, World Federation of the Deaf (WFD), language borrowing

Introduction

International Sign (IS) is a non-standardized communication system used by the

international deaf community that functions in conventionalized settings. While some call it a

“lingua franca,” a trade language, or a pidgin, most researchers and linguists agree that it is more

grammatically complex than a pidgin, but not yet a fully developed language. It relies heavily on

borrowed lexical signs from various national sign languages as well as iconic signs, classifiers,

and depictions. International Sign can be used as a form of cross-signing: used in one-on-one
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 3

interactions between two signers who do not share a National Sign Language (NSL). It can also

be used in expository settings. “Expository IS is defined as group communications that take the

form of uni-directional address by presenters and interpreters at global deaf conferences and

meetings, aimed at communicating with a diverse SL-using audience rather than communicating

with an established, mutually understood native sign language” (Whynot, p. 35, 2016). Examples

of expository settings are conferences or formal presentations. Organizations like the World

Federation of the Deaf (WFD) and World Association of Sign Language Interpreters (WASLI)

have adopted the use of IS into many of their formal meetings, however the implications of this

in regards to audience comprehension are still vague.

Though it is growing in popularity within the international deaf community, there is little

research on IS. Even less is known about the implications of using IS in high register

environments. In fact, most studies on IS comprehension have only been conducted within the

past twenty years. One of the most notable of these is Whynot (2017). She sought to answer

many questions on the topic of IS and comprehension: When International Sign is used in

expository, conference settings, how can linguists measure comprehension rates of such a

diverse and multicultural audience? Seeking to find more answers, Dr. Lori Whynot created an

extensive sociolinguistic study on International Sign. She found exceptionally low

comprehension rates in her tester audience. This created more questions, specifically regarding

how to solve the problem of low comprehension in expository settings. The first solution one

may consider is performing further research on International Sign’s linguistic features,

standardization and conventionalization, and production. This, though worthy of its own study, is

a massive undertaking: one that requires deeper and slower linguistic research on IS. Because IS

has already become commonly used in major conferences held by WFD and WASLIE, a quicker
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 4

solution is needed. A study is needed to find tools that can be implemented now in order to

increase comprehension rates and create a temporary solution while further research catches up.

In this study, I plan to uncover these tools by replicating aspects of Whynot’s (2017)

study and modifying them to collect the desired targeted data. This is a two part study that aims

to find quantitative data on tools that aid comprehension in expository, IS using settings. The

first proposed study asks: “How does socialization in conventional IS before attending

expository IS presentations improve comprehension?” My second proposed study asks: “How do

other communication tools enhance comprehension rates of international audiences during

expository, IS settings?” The comprehension tools to note consist of a powerpoint presentation

and paper pamphlet handout. The results of this project would add to the foundational work

already conducted, especially while further research on IS linguistics is conducted. By finding

effective ways to aid comprehension both before and during expository settings, this project aims

to benefit the international deaf community. Its goal is to elevate overall comprehension rates

and ensure all audience members have access to the information presented. It will also provide

International Sign interpreters with more guidance as communication facilitators in these

environments.

Literature Review

Language does not operate within a vacuum, and various socio-cultural factors come into

play when discussing sign languages. This specifically applies to IS as it seeks to include the

international deaf community as a whole. Over the past twenty years, research addresses IS from

a linguistic perspective (studying its origins and classification), from an anthropological

perspective (studying its history and culture), and from a social perspective (studying the overall
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 5

attitude of the deaf community towards IS). Understanding IS from these contexts is crucial

when considering my research goals.

International Sign is not a universal language, rather a method of communication across

the global deaf community. It emerged as a result of increased language contact and lexical

borrowing from diverse NSLs. When two or more persons interact, each with their own NSL,

intentional efforts are made on both sides of the exchange to understand eachother. Participants

will actively monitor each other to make sure communication takes place. They will navigate this

by each simplifying their own language. Because sign language takes place in the visual

modality, many key linguistic features like iconic signs and gestures are shared despite using

totally different languages. When this simplification happens, the structure and grammar of each

participant’s language changes into what linguists call a koine. If that koine develops a new,

shared grammar, it is labeled as a pidgin. Researchers categorize IS as more complex than a

koine. In fact, though it is not a standardized language, linguists recognize IS’s complex

grammar as more detailed and structured than a even pidgin.

Over the past fifty years, various standardization attempts have been undergone on

several national sign languages. Dr. Robert Adam is an accredited researcher and Deaf

interpreter with a strong affiliation to the WFD. In his 2015 article, he discusses the effects of

sign language standardization attempts across the globe. Though it may seem effective on paper,

most standardization projects were taken up by hearing educators, leaving deaf, native signers

out of the picture. The sign dictionaries they created rarely considered the plethora of language

variations and would often reduce one concept down to one singular sign. Refining variations

down to a single vocabulary word strips such languages of their richness and is often

experienced as oppressive by native signers. Standardization of languages risks creating

COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 6

linguistic elitism as if one version of a language is more “pure” than other variants. With this in

mind, one can begin to understand why the overall attitude from the international deaf

community and WFD is against standardizing IS. “IS is framed as a neutral meeting ground for

people from different language backgrounds, supposed to defuse geopolitical tensions and

imperialist histories.” (Kusters, p. 481, 2021) In addition, standardization is not necessary for

the international deaf community to communicate. This is because IS is stabilized enough to

have some grammatical norms in conventionalized settings. Conventionalization relates to “the

creation of agreed upon form-meaning symbols through accommodation” (Whynot, p. 36, 2016).

This means that there is a limited established vocabulary, and lexical tokens will emerge

temporarily in controlled settings where the international deaf community is present. The

conventionalization of IS can be seen during international deaf events like the Deaflympics and

in conference settings like WFD.

Rather than using a NSL like ASL as the "international language," like the spoken world

has done with English, the international deaf community prefers to use IS in order to maintain

the previously mentioned value of neutrality. Kusters 2021 goes on to say, "using ASL as a

lingua franca (or treating it as one) is resisted by people who are concerned that such a

recognition will fuel linguistic imperialism and thereby sideline or 'overtake' IS" (p. 412). ASL is

one of the most commonly used National Sign Languages and contains linguistic capital. With

the rise of globalization, some view it as a means to higher education and worldwide unity, while

others see it as a form of western linguistic imperialism that suffocates native sign languages

(Kusters, 2021). As mentioned before, IS comes from the lexical influence of many National

Sign Languages. These lexical tokens are borrowed and combined together to become
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 7

phonologically integrated into a whole new communication system, though some debate IS’s

linguistic inclusivity..

Because of the long and controversial history of linguistic imperialism, some are even

hesitant to accept IS as truly international. “European conventionalized types of IS probably have

their roots in the international deaf gatherings in Europe, in which mostly a white male middle-

and upper-class elite took part” (Kusters, p. 402, 2021). According to Whynot’s 2017 study, high

rates of American Sign Language, British Sign Language, and Australian Sign Language lexical

features were found in expository IS compared to lesser known NSLs. Though they aren’t the

only NSL lexically represented in IS, the strong presence of these three major NSLs, makes one

curious about the role of African and Asian sign languages within IS. In addition, many

researchers wonder about the comprehension rates of those individuals if their NSL and cultural

norms lack representation on the international deaf community’s stage. Further research needs to

be conducted on the production and comprehension of expository IS by individuals from Asia

and Africa in order to gather a deeper and more holistic view of IS.

This is especially so when considering cultural influence on iconic signs. Iconicity in sign

language is a type of “visual onomatopoeia” where a sign looks just like the object or action it is

describing. For example, the sign DOOR in ASL reflects the visual image of a door swinging

open. When considering a cultural influence on iconic signs, communication may not be as clear

as the signer initially thought. For example, one may iconically sign DOOR (one that swings

open/shut on hinges,) however, the person they are signing to may never have experienced a door

in that way; their experience with doors may only be those that slide on rollers. This is a very

basic example, but it explains how iconicity is a valuable yet fallible aspect of IS. Something that
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 8

seems crystal clear to one signer may not be fully comprehended due to cultural influence or

personal schema.

These mentioned linguistic and socio-cultural complexities (the strong western world

lexical and cultural influence) show why IS is necessary and valued. Despite some reservations,

the deaf community seeks to uphold IS as a neutral form of communication that is detached from

the attitude of imperialism. With this in mind, one is able to understand the core values

championed by the international deaf community. In these spaces, both people share in and

invest effort to communicate. In her 2015 article, Green presents the term “moral orientation”

which is the understanding to collaborate through heightened relationality and attentiveness. It's

like a positive, mutual form of linguistic code switching and accomodating. Though

communicating through IS and orienting to each other is difficult, it is viewed in high regard

because the process itself knits the community closer together despite national, cultural, and

linguistic differences. This value is reflected in the WFD General Assembly’s policy of direct

communication: communicating directly through IS, rather than through an interpreter. This

means that everyone participating in General Assembly (GA) meetings must use IS only; NSL

interpreters are not permitted. This rule caused controversy in the deaf community, because not

every GA participant supported this policy. Understanding and orienting to IS is challenging, and

some attendees value full comprehension and clarity over the WFD’s value of DEAF SAME,

unity, and attentive relationship building. WFD explained that their reasoning for this policy

makes things equal, however, if not everyone understands IS to the same extent, is this really

equality? Is it effective to value the equal experience of disregarding one’s NSL over ensuring

clear communication and comprehension? Controversies like these highlight the multi-layered
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 9

factors present on the international deaf stage and show the need for further research on IS

comprehension.

Of course, not all WFD meetings ban NSL or IS interpreters. In fact, there is an increased

need for accredited IS interpreters yet a noticeable gap in training. According to De Witt,

Crasborn, and Napier (2021), “Apart from occasional ad hoc workshops, and a Master’s

programme that features an element of IS, currently no formal systematic training of IS

interpreters to work in conferences and high-level meetings exists. Yet there is an increasing

demand for IS conference interpreters” (pp. 205-206). Discussion about IS interpreters, quality

assurance, and professional training has grown, and in recent years, researchers like Dr. Maya de

Wit conducted various studies in this fairly new area. As mentioned, IS is a multi-layered

communication system; adding interpreters as a factor increases its complexity. IS interpreters

have puzzled on how to formally train in a non-standardized communication system. The data

from de Wit’s research shows that to be a qualified IS interpreter, one must know multiple NSL,

English, and should be involved with the deaf community on an international level (Wit, M. de,

Crasborn, O. & Napier, J., 2021). It is valuable for me to include IS interpreters as I conduct my

study. Findings on comprehension tools will benefit them in their work due to their role as

communication facilitators. It will also help them identify what they are and are not responsible

for regarding communication management in expository settings.

The mentioned gaps in research regarding this topic lead linguist, Dr. Lori Whynot, to run

an extensive empirical study on IS comprehension in expository settings. Her study built off the

work of Rosenstock (2004) and is one of the first to collect quantitative data on this topic. She

“sought to determine whether, and to what extent, expository IS created by deaf presenters is

understandable to a variety of different sign language (SL) users” (Whynot, p. 268, 2017). Her
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 10

findings are quite informative and surprising. The overall comprehension rate of a diverse

audience who watched an expository presentation in IS by a deaf individual was 56%. Of the

thirty-two participants, only six were labeled as individuals who successfully gained information

with a minimum score of 75% comprehension rate. When comparing this with data of the same

parameters except in a NSL, Whynot found a nearly 30% gap in comprehension. In addition, she

noted a significant pattern: “Responses by diverse participants indicate a trend toward better

understanding of global discourse pragmatic and goal information (78%), with decreasing ability

to determine IS presentation main points (57%) and details (46%).” (Whynot, p. 269, 2017) She

concluded:

“I can claim that from this research that expository IS lecture is efficacious for

conveying limited, general, global-level information for many perceivers, but is

more efficacious for conveying information effectively only for bilingual and

multilingual audiences with experience using IS, knowledge of ASL and English,

have a university education, and have traveled amid other Deaf communities.

Monolingual signers therefore risk missing large amounts of information in IS.”

(Whynot, pp. 288-299, 2017)

She concludes her work by noting that due to these low comprehension rates, IS would be best

fitting in settings where general information is presented and the signer and audience share

cultural factors and knowledge. She also highlights the importance of making the international

deaf community aware of these facts. Many participants experienced an illusion of

comprehension and were not aware of the significant pieces of information that they had missed.

She emphasized that in settings where it is typically used, WFD and WASLIE, participants

should be made aware that they will miss some information.

COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 11

Whynot’s research was a pivotal piece to the foundation of IS research, and she notes the

need for further research in this area. She states that more transparency is needed from the

international deaf community about the goal of IS: is it to share a collective identity, or clearly

communicate information? Regarding this tension, Whynot states:

“If deaf attendees of international events do not expect to effectively understand

information in IS, but want to enjoy an illusion of understanding and inclusiveness (even

if it means only understanding 54% to 56% or less), this may be the limits of IS.”

(Whynot, p.289, 2017)

She calls for the need for further evaluation and dialogue about comprehension within the

international deaf community, including IS interpreters. By replicating aspects of Whynot’s

research, my study will examine different approaches to improve comprehension in expository

settings where IS is used.

Methodology

In my research, I will replicate Whynot’s (2017) study and use a quantitative method to

gather data. This is a two part study that will examine different approaches to improve

comprehension in expository settings where IS is used. Study 1 asks: “How does socialization in

conventional IS before attending expository IS presentations improve comprehension?” Part one

will measure how various amounts of conventionalized IS exposure before a presentation can

impact expository IS comprehension. Study 2 asks: “How do other communication tools like

powerpoints and pamphlets enhance comprehension rates of international audiences during

expository, IS settings?” Part two implements physical tools and measures how they aid

comprehension during presentations that use expository IS. The goal of this research is to find

new knowledge that can improve overall comprehension of diverse audience members.
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 12

For this research project, I will recruit participants through a method similar to Whynot’s

recruitment. In her work, Whynot recruited people from “five geographically diverse test

locations: the Czech Republic, Brazil, Japan, Australia, and the United States” (Whynot, p.170,

2017) because each region had unrelated national sign languages. My study isn't restricted to

these specific countries of origin, but the goal of having participants with diverse, unrelated sign

languages will be maintained. Whynot had a total of 32 participants and I will aim to recruit

around the same number in my study, however, not restrict it with a cap because the more

participants recruited, the clearer and more detailed the data will be. Because this is a two part

study, half of the recruited participants will take part in study one, and the other half will take

part in study two. These studies will then be run simultaneously over the course of the WFD

2027 Congress.

In Whynot’s study, “Each participant was scheduled for 2 hours of individual testing, at a

location that was accessible from his or her home. All testing sessions were conducted in a quiet

room, free from distractions'' (p. 185, 2017). I aim to replicate this setting of testing as well as

incorporate a NSL interpreter to ensure the participant is clear about the process. For study 1 and

2, however, the environment before and after the test will be different. Whynot (2017) was held

in each person’s country of origin, with the participant fairly isolated from immediate IS

exposure. The location of study 1 will be at the 2027 WFD Congress in the UAE in order to

capitalize on interactions with the international deaf community. Study 1 will have four rounds

and last the duration of the conference. Round one will function as the control and will take place

before participants arrive in the UAE with participants fairly isolated. Round two will take place

after one day of exposure to IS, round three after three days of exposure to IS, and round four

after five days of IS exposure. The conference will be an excellent setting to provide IS exposure
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 13

to participants. For each round participants will be pulled aside and tested on a selected video

and each round will have its own assigned video.

Study 2 will follow the same pattern as study 1 with a four round system: testing at

intervals pre conference, day one, day three, and day five. Study 2, however, will incorporate

physical comprehension tools during each round. Round one will be a control round with no

additional comprehension tools. Round two will be accompanied only by a handout including a

presentation outline in written English. Round three will be accompanied by a powerpoint

presentation with pictures only. Round four will be accompanied by a powerpoint presentation

with pictures only and a handout written in English. The goal is to measure how these tools aid

comprehension by giving context clues and detailed information to audiences.

Expository IS video samples will be produced for participants to view during the test.

They will be the same for each study. There will be a total of four short video recordings where a

deaf signer is using IS. Like Whynot’s study, the signers of each video will be diverse as well as

the topic. I will follow guidelines similar to Whynot’s study: “Five short presentation video clips

were shown to each participant— four IS lectures and one locally translated lecture— each with

subsequent queries to ascertain aspects of comprehension of the video just watched” (p. 174,

2017). This will be mostly the same except that I will not incorporate the locally translated

lecture and only show four IS lecture video clips. The clips will be short so as not to fatigue the

participants, and each video will contain a high concentration of lexicalized IS signs in order to

be an appropriate sample of IS. Testing procedure will follow Whynot’s mixed data collection

approach that cover different aspects of comprehension:

“(1) a quantitative Likert-type judgment scale used to rate comprehension of each IS

videotext, (2) direct content questioning via a structured interview procedure, (3) a lexical
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 14

semantic identification task that was quantitatively scored, (4) elicitation and quantitative

analysis of a propositional retell task.” (Whynot, p. 173, 2017)

By adding a diverse range and style of questions, data collection biases and errors can be

reduced. For example, testing a person’s comprehension through retelling skills as well as testing

through multiple choice questions can get a more rounded picture of the participant’s

understanding.

Study 1 seeks to quantitatively measure how conventionalized interactions before an

expository IS presentation impacts comprehension. According to the WFD, “Prior to the General

Assembly, a one-day workshop is usually held, so the participants can be prepared in advance for

discussions on agenda items and other important issues related to human rights work.” (WFD,

2016) In Green’s qualitative research where she attended one of these meetings, she noted

observing this workshop day where the IS only policy was explained, as well as a few key terms

and vocabulary words (Green 2014). Findings from my study may help give direction about

whether or not these pre-conference workshops are helpful and can increase comprehension.

Regarding study 2, Whynot (2017) shares an example of IS conference norms: “For IS

conference lectures, participants know that there are typically podiums, large presentation

screens, a stage or platform, interpreters, and live captioning, and that presenter language use

will be more formal in its characteristics.” In Green (2014), she mentions that written material is

provided for delegates in English only. This is because in article 6.2 of the WFD Statues, it says,

“English shall be used in all official WFD minutes, reports, documents, correspondence, and

informational materials.” (WFD, 2016) Data from Study 2 seeks to quantify the efficacy of such

resources and findings could be used to help establish effective conference norms.
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 15

From this two part study, it is hypothesized that participants’ comprehension rates will

increase with more exposure to IS through socialization and with more comprehension tools

present.

Summary

By replicating aspects of Whynot’s 2017 research, my two part study aims to find

quantitative research on how IS exposure during international deaf conferences and the addition

of comprehension tools during presentations improve comprehension in audiences. It seeks to

find answers to the questions: “How does socialization in conventional IS before attending

expository IS presentations improve comprehension?” and “What tools can be added in an

expository setting where International Sign is used in order to increase comprehension rates of

international audiences?” It is hypothesized that the findings will not only benefit the

international deaf community, but provide International Sign interpreters with more guidance as

communication facilitators in expository settings.

If my hypothesis is correct, that additional IS exposure as well as adding powerpoints and

handouts during presentations enhances audience comprehension, then incorporating these to

international deaf conferences could be a temporary solution to maximize understanding while

further data in this area is collected. Also, it could be a proposed common ground between the

mentioned competing values of sharing a communication that champions inclusivity and direct

communication while still upholding the value of clear communication and care for

comprehension. I plan to share my proposal and findings with my class via a recording

presentation.

In the future, I hope further research is conducted on the implications of western

influence in International Sign, and what that means for Asian and African members of the deaf
COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 16

community. More quantitative and qualitative research needs to be gathered on solutions to this

dilemma. Further qualitative research of the deaf community’s attitude towards IS would also be

beneficial in order to find how perspectives of IS have evolved as it has become more popular.

This would also help identify which values seem to be most important to this community. Last,

as IS becomes more accessible through the internet, more research is needed to find if

comprehension rates are naturally improving.

COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 17

Sources

Adam, R. (2015). Standardization of Sign Languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), 432-445.

https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2015.0015

General Assembly. World Federation of the Deaf. (2020, May 6). https://wfdeaf.org/get-involved

/wfd-events/general-assembly/

Green, E. M. (2014). Building the tower of Babel: International Sign, linguistic commensuration,

and moral orientation. Language in Society, 43(4), 445–465.

Kusters, A. (2021). International Sign and American Sign Language as different types of global

deaf lingua francas. Sign Language Studies, 21(4), 391–426.

Lucas, C., & Valli, C. (1992). Language contact in the American Deaf Community. Academic

Press.

Rosenstock, R. (2016). Comprehension of Expository International Sign. In R. Rosenstock & J.

Napier (Eds.), International Sign: Linguistic, Usage, and Status Issues (pp. 84–102).

Gallaudet University Press.

Rosenstock, R. (2008). The Role of Iconicity in International Sign. Sign Language Studies, 8(2),

131–159.

Supalla, T., & Webb, R. (1995). The Grammar of International Sign: A New Look at Pidgin

Languages. In K. Emmorey & J. S. Reilly (Eds.), Language, gesture, and space (pp. 333–

352). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

WFD General Assembly. (2016, February 15). World Federation of the Deaf: Statues. Finland.

Wit, M. de, Crasborn, O., & Napier, J. (2023). Quality Assurance in International Sign

Conference Interpreting at international organizations. The International Journal of

Translation and Interpreting Research, 15(1)

COMPREHENSION EFFICACY IN INTERNATIONAL SIGN 18

Wit, M. de, Crasborn, O. & Napier, J. (2021). Interpreting International Sign: Mapping the

Interpreter’s Profile. The Interpreter & Translator Trainer 15(1) https://doi.org/10.10

80/1750399X.2020.1868172

Wit, M. de, & Sluis, I. (2016). International Sign: An Exploration Into Interpreter Preparation.

In R. Rosenstock & J. Napier (Eds.), International Sign : Linguistic, usage, and status

issues (pp. 105–135). Gallaudet University Press.

Whynot, L. (2016). Telling, Showing, and Representing: Conventions of the Lexicon in

International Sign Language Expository Text. In R. Rosenstock & J. Napier (Eds.),

International Sign : Linguistic, Usage, and Status Issues (pp. 35–64). Gallaudet

Whynot, L. A. (2017). Understanding International Sign : A sociolinguistic study. Gallaudet

University Press.