To investigate the under-researched topic of sign language vitality, the authors evaluate a set of sociolinguistic data gathered as part of the Sign Hub project. The subproject Atlas aimed to create an interactive online tool for researchers, teachers, and interpreters to compare sign languages’ sociolinguistic, grammatical, lexical, and phonological features. This paper presents an analysis of ten sign languages, i.e. the first batch of socio-historical data submitted to the subproject. The authors find that nearly all of them have been subjected to oppression, and their documentation is limited. Their vitality is supported by good awareness among the hearing community and use within educational institutions, national deaf associations and local deaf clubs. Vitality is threatened by low provision of sign language media and a lack of interpreter training. The paper concludes that the Atlas has considerable utility in research on sign language vitality, which may be augmented by adding further diachronic components.

Since the 1960s sign languages have been identified as natural human languages and conceived of as a key feature of Deaf culture and identity. Eschewing the notion of disability, deaf advocacy organisations have connected the use of sign language to linguistic and cultural rights. Despite the clear preference of deaf advocates, the legal protection of sign languages remains uneven and somewhat difficult to grasp, being situated at the intersection of disability rights and linguistic rights. Few attempts have been made to identify the extent to which sign languages are recognised and enshrined within domestic legal systems. This article aims to propose a novel taxonomy that focuses on the normative conceptualisation of sign language and deaf people in national legislation. Based on a comparative analysis and focusing on European Union Member States, it identifies three main approaches: an explicit ‘minority’ approach—ie the express recognition of deaf persons as a linguistic minority; a more nuanced ‘cultural approach’—which acknowledges sign language as autonomous language and provides for promotional measures; and a ‘disability’ approach—which mandates and/or promotes the use of sign language primarily as an accessibility measure.

To investigate cross-linguistic interactions in bimodal bilingual production, behavioural and electrophysiological measures (ERPs) were recorded from 24 deaf bimodal bilinguals while naming pictures in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Two tasks were employed, a picture-word interference and a picture-picture interference task. Cross-linguistic effects were explored via distractors that were either semantically related to the target picture, to the phonology/orthography of the Spanish name of the target picture, or were unrelated. No semantic effects were observed in sign latencies, but ERPs differed between semantically related and unrelated distractors. For the form-related manipulation, a facilitation effect was observed both behaviourally and at the ERP level. Importantly, these effects were not influenced by the type of distractor (word/picture) presented providing the first piece of evidence that deaf bimodal bilinguals are sensitive to oral language in sign production. Implications for models of cross-linguistic interactions in bimodal bilinguals are discussed.

Since linguistic and anthropological study of sign languages began in the 1960s, most research has focused on national sign languages, with scant attention paid to indigenous and original sign languages. Vulnerable to extinction, the latter varieties can expand our understanding of language universals, language typologies, historical comparative linguistics, and other areas. Using Thailand as a case study and drawing on three examples – a rare phonological form, basic color terminology, and baby talk/motherese – from Ban Khor Sign Language, an indigenous signed code, this article describes the problem of benign neglect of sign languages in current discussions of language endangerment and argues for the importance of expanding such discussions to include codes expressed in the manual-visual channel.The linguistic field research upon which this article is based was funded by the Endangered Language Fund, the Explorers Club, IIE Fulbright, Sign Language Research Inc., the Thai-U.S. Educational Foundation, the UCLA Department of Anthropology, the UCLA Office of International Studies and Overseas Programs, the UCLA Wagatsuma Memorial Fund, and the Wenner-Gren Foundation. I wish to thank the following individuals and groups for their assistance in various phases of the project: Alexis Altounian, Poonpit Amatyakul, Jean Ann, Wendy Belcher, Ursula Bellugi, Steve Bickler, Ken Kamler, Peter Ladefoged, Tuanvu Le, Chettah Madminggao, Nutjaree Madminggao, Marina McIntire, Carmella Moore, Pam Munro, Carol Padden, Diana Pash, Nilawan Pitipat, Claire Ramsey, Chip Reilly, Olga Solomon, Kelly Stack, Laura Sterponi, Viphavee Vongpumivitch, and Akira Yamamoto. Special thanks belong to Vien Champa, Lahsee Khammee, Jintala Anuyahong, Anucha Ratanasint, Khwanta Sukhwan, Nipha Sukhwan, Phaiwan Sukhwan, Kampol Suwanarat, Thanu Wongchai, James C. Woodward, the Ratchasuda Foundation, the National Association of the Deaf in Thailand, and, of course, the community of Ban Khor.