This chapter addresses issues related to sign language standardization, a topic that has been approached from many different perspectives. To some members of the Deaf communities, language standardization represents a form of outsider oppression meant to ‘fill in gaps’ with the establishment of a ‘standard’ sign language that is ‘more consistent’. In this sense, there is a resistance in some Deaf communities against dictionaries or glossaries proposed for educational purposes or for teaching sign language. On the other hand, others in the Deaf communities discuss how to standardize their language(s) considering different motivations that are more inclusive, such as the recognition of the diverse varieties of a sign language and how to deal with them. These points are discussed considering the complex factors that are involved in the tentative language standardization processes of sign languages in many different countries. We present and discuss the different experiences and motivations of various language planning projects that include proposals of sign language standardization. We conclude that a successful language standardization process needs to include Deaf professionals as the protagonists.

We propose a theoretical reflection on the functions of linguistic norms and the tensions between the linguistic centre(s) and peripheries for any language that has undergone standardization. We propose that dialects have a right to be recognized in the language’s codified norms because of the impact that standardization has on (peripheral) speakers’ perceptions of, and feelings towards, their own varieties. To illustrate these ideas, we use the case of the Catalan language, which has undergone a complex and still incomplete process of standardization since the beginning of the twentieth century. After describing Catalan’s current sociolinguistic situation, we analyse the recent Gramàtica de la llengua catalana (2016) by the Institut d’Estudis Catalans (GIEC). The volume approaches linguistic codification as a process of ‘prescription through description’.

This chapter analyses the role of grammars, dictionaries and other metalinguistic texts in the history and present practice of language standardization, with examples and case studies taken from a broad range of European and non-European languages. The chapter presents a typology of codification types, with examples: standard-creating, modernizing, archaizing and standard-descriptive. It argues that dictionaries, grammars and related texts participate in a historical discourse tradition, with a number of shared features, but where participation in that discourse tradition does not necessarily indicate the presence of a standard language ideology. It presents that discourse tradition in five broad (and inevitably sometimes overlapping) phases: early practical (professional or pedagogical) codifications; patriotic codifications (from the sixteenth century onwards in Europe); public-orientated codifications (rationalist, democratizing codifications, with a wider intended reach, from the late eighteenth century); national and nationalist codifications; and post-national(ist) challenges to standard ideologies. It also looks at the important role of grammars and dictionaries for foreign language learners in the history of language standardizations and the connections to language purism. Finally, the chapter presents a framework to evaluate the difficult question of the authority, reach and ultimate influence of grammars, dictionaries and related texts on usage.

This chapter discusses dictionaries from the point of view of World Englishes (WEs). The first section describes what dictionaries are, provides some relevant categorizations of dictionary types, and discusses the importance of dictionaries for WEs. For those considering compiling a dictionary, advice and caveats are given. The second section provides an overview of the dictionaries currently available for the various anglophone regions around the world. The paucity of dictionaries for many varieties, not to mention the absence of dictionaries for many others, highlights the need for more lexicographical work to be done in the field of WEs.