From a cultural and historical perspective on the Deaf community, International Sign is, in fact, a form of international communication among deaf (t/Deaf) and hard-of-hearing (g/Deaf) people.
It is not a complete, globally standardized language that all deaf people automatically understand or know. Depending on the country, deaf people have their own sign language, and these differ from one another just as spoken languages do.
International Sign has developed primarily in connection with international meetings, conferences, and events in the Deaf community. Deaf interpreters, in particular, play an important role in this context. They bring not only their knowledge of various sign languages but also extensive expertise on specific topics and the corresponding terminology. This results in a form of communication that can vary from situation to situation.
And this is precisely where an important point lies: Not every deaf person understands International Sign. For example, someone who has learned a specific sign at an international conference can understand it there without any trouble, while another deaf person may not recognize it at all. The signs and technical terms used can sometimes even seem surprising or unfamiliar to outsiders.
Another issue is the world of social media, such as Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and the like. Sign language is often shown there and mistakenly referred to as International Sign. This is problematic because just because a sign is recognized by many people or a video goes viral internationally does not automatically mean it is International Sign. This portrayal quickly creates the impression that International Sign is a universal sign language that all deaf people understand.
However, that does not reflect reality.
Anyone who believes that sign language should be uniform everywhere should ask themselves a very basic question:
As a hearing person, do I primarily think of deafness as a disability, or do I recognize deaf people as a linguistic and cultural minority?
I’d like to take this opportunity to try to shed some light on something: What effect does a way of thinking shaped by auditory input have when we translate it directly into written language?
Let’s say we’re looking for a unique word for each concept as quickly as possible. One for this, one for that—as international as possible, as standardized as possible, and as free from misunderstandings as possible. That sounds reasonable at first. After all, that’s how language works, doesn’t it?
The potato isn't far from the stem.
Well, can you guess what that means?
And that's exactly where the problem lies—time for a little explanation.
Individual words may be familiar, but that doesn’t mean the meaning is clear. Language isn’t just about vocabulary. It consists of context, structure, experience, culture, and the very way people think and communicate with one another.
Solution to the example:
"The pomme falls no lejos vom stem."
"The apple doesn't fall far from the tree."
That is why International Sign should not be treated as a universal language. If someone says, “I didn’t understand that,” it does not necessarily mean that the person does not know International Sign—it may simply be that a variant or a technical term was used that they are not familiar with.
When it comes to content about International Sign, this also means that a video should, if possible, not stand alone completely without context or text. A brief explanation, subtitles, or accompanying information help viewers understand what is being signed and why certain signs are being used. International Sign functions primarily as a practical bridge between Deaf people, not as a language that every Deaf person in the world automatically understands.
For me, the core issue lies in a particularly intriguing aspect:
In academic circles, the question has been raised as to whether International Sign will eventually develop its own stable linguistic pattern—perhaps even one so stable that linguists will be able to describe it as a distinct linguistic system. Well, I sincerely hope linguists have a lot of fun with that. Because that’s exactly where it gets interesting.
Until then, however, we should be careful not to hastily turn a form of international communication into an “international sign language.” While that sounds wonderfully neat, it has about as much elegance as a label stuck on a drawer before you even know what’s inside.
International Sign emerges where different sign languages, cultures, and visual-linguistic ways of thinking come together. Added to this are interpreting situations involving hearing people, time pressure, and—not least—the fact that language never consists solely of individual vocabulary words. Especially in an international context, this can easily lead to a certain “vocabulary obsession”: People search for the one sign for a given concept, as if every language had a little international dictionary machine hidden away somewhere.
However, deaf people do not simply communicate using a “shopping list” of international individual signs. They draw on various linguistic resources, such as NVK and VGK, elements of their own national sign language, and, to some extent, standardized or commonly used signs. The result is flexible, context-dependent, and strongly influenced by who is communicating with whom and what experiences these people already have with international communication.
And that is exactly why the term “International Sign Language” is so problematic. It sounds as if we’re dealing with a single, globally standardized language that all Deaf people naturally understand. But that’s not the case.
Perhaps one day International Sign will indeed develop structures that can be described linguistically as a system in its own right. That would be extremely interesting. But until then, we should not confuse an intriguing research question with a fact that has already been proven.
After all, sometimes the most interesting linguistic insight is simply the realization that a category does not yet constitute a language.
Why am I telling you this?
Because it's important to me that you know what to expect from International Sign before you use it. Not all deaf people automatically understand International Sign, and that's completely normal.
That’s why it’s worth having a brief discussion beforehand: Who is the audience? What are their expectations? What form of communication makes sense?
This way, we can work together to ensure clarity and avoid misunderstandings —for you, for the audience, and for me as the translator.