Marc fonamental de la situació jurídica de la llengua de signes: reconeixement i oficialitat
| Autor | Filipe Venade de Sousa |
| Cargo | PhD in Public Legal Sciences by the School of Law of the University of Minho (Braga, Portugal) |
| Páginas | 177-193 |
REVISTA DE LLENGUA I DRET #78
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LAW
ESSENTIAL FRAMEWORK OF THE LEGAL STATUS OF SIGN LANGUAGE:
RECOGNITION AND OFFICIALITY
Filipe Venade de Sousa∗
Abstract
The present article aims to contribute to understanding the meaning and scope of recognition and ofciality of the legal
status of sign languages – using the example of the legal status of Portuguese Sign Language and Catalan Sign Language
– with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). To a certain extent,
the Convention seeks to respond to and protect the inherent rights of deaf people, according special consideration to their
inherent rights in linguistic matters. Although the fundamental denition of ofciality in the respective sign language
statutes may vary according to the national legal system of the sign language in question, it can be said that the minimum
presuppositions of ofciality under the Convention are that the State recognize sign language as a fully-edged language,
with such characteristics as to make it a legitimately valid means of communication used in interactions between deaf
people and public authorities in general.
Keywords: sign language; United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; recognition; ofciality.
MARC FONAMENTAL DE LA SITUACIÓ JURÍDICA DE LA LLENGUA DE SIGNES:
RECONEIXEMENT I OFICIALITAT
Resum
En aquest article es pretén contribuir a conèixer el signicat i l’abast del reconeixement i l’ocialitat de la situació
jurídica de les llengües de signes (amb l’exemple de la situació jurídica de la llengua de signes portuguesa i la llengua
de signes catalana) en relació amb la Convenció sobre els drets de les persones amb discapacitat de les Nacions
Unides. En certa mesura, en la convenció s’intenta respondre als drets inherents de les persones sordes i protegir-los,
amb especial atenció als seus drets inherents en matèria lingüística. Tot i que la denició fonamental d’ocialitat dels
estatuts respectius de la llengua de signes pot variar en funció del sistema jurídic nacional de la llengua de signes en
qüestió, es pot dir que les premisses mínimes d’ocialitat segons la convenció són que l’Estat reconegui la llengua
de signes com una llengua de ple dret, amb unes característiques que la converteixen en un mitjà de comunicació
legítimament vàlid que es fa servir en les interaccions entre les persones sordes i les autoritats públiques en general.
Paraules clau: llengua de signes; Convenció sobre els drets de les persones amb discapacitat de les Nacions Unides;
reconeixement; ocialitat.
∗ Filipe Venade de Sousa, PhD in Public Legal Sciences by the School of Law of the University of Minho (Braga, Portugal).
Professor at the Lisbon School of Law at the Catholic University of Portugal and at the Higher School of Education at the Polytechnic
Institute of Porto lipevenade@ucp.pt
Article received: 04.06.2022. Blind reviews: 04.10.2022 and 11.10.2022. Final version accepted: 20.10.2022.
Venade de Sousa, Filipe. (2022). Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality. Revista de
Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, 78, 177-193. http://www.doi.com/10.2436/rld.i78.2022.3843
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 178
Contents
1 General considerations: sign language and linguistic rights
2 Principles of the legal recognition of sign languages
2.1 Principle of linguistic dignity
2.2 Principle of linguistic freedom
2.3 Principle of equality and non-discrimination on language grounds
2.4 Principle of cultural conception of sign language
2.5 Principle of legality of recognition and ofciality of the use of sign language
3 Nomative contribution of the legal recognition of sign languages
3.1 Models of the legal status of sign languages: Portuguese Sign Language and Catalan Sign Language
3.2 Interpretation of the CRPD: recognition and ofciality
3.2.1 First presupposition: formal and material recognition of sign language status
3.2.2 Second presupposition: content of the legal status of sign language inherent to ofciality
4 Meaning and scope of Article 21 of the CRPD: case of sign language
4.1 Article 21 as a starting point for the requirement for legal recognition
4.2 Jurisprudence of the Committee: complementary elements of interpretation of the CRPD
5 Conclusions
References
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 179
1 General considerations: sign language and linguistic rights
The present study intends to contribute to a legal approach based on law and language, looking simultaneously
at sign languages as a matter of cultural and linguistic particularities of deaf people and as a matter of
human rights (Venade de Sousa, 2021, 2022). Specically, it seeks to contribute to understanding of the
legal-linguistic status of sign languages and their articulation with linguistic rights. These are understood as
a compass for language policies, establishing sociopolitical principles in linguistic matters and their legal
matrices, particularly within the framework of international human rights law (Venade de Sousa, 2021). The
sociopolitical and legal contexts of a sign language cannot therefore be understood as a matter of the legal
status of a language in its own right without relating it to the reasons expressed by the sociolinguistic reality
of the linguistic community that expresses itself through said language (De Varennes, 2007; Skutnabb-Kangas,
1995, 1998).
To a certain extent, international law seeks to respond to and protect the rights of deaf people, according
these rights the special consideration of inherent rights in terms of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Notwithstanding, deaf people respond with their own vision, preserving their cultural and linguistic traits
and ghting for the recognition, enjoyment and exercise of rights considered fundamental in the cultural and
linguistic sphere.
Both dynamic and evolving, international law goes hand in hand with the concretization, delimitation and
revelation of the treatment of the rights of deaf people and the statutes inherent to their respective sign
languages under international human rights law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), as well as soft law international declarations adopted by the United
Nations, the Council of Europe and the European Union (Krausneker, 2008; Tupi, 2019). There is widespread
awareness of the issue of linguistic rights for deaf people, both nationally and internationally, and the defense
of sign language has been claimed as a human rights issue for many years.
The relationship between language and law is understood multifunctionally. Language articulates and
represents the linguistic community that expresses itself through a common language. The use of language
thus represents the idiosyncratic essence of the linguistic community in question. It is one of the functions
of the law to ensure respect and protection for linguistic diversity, supported by the legal order of the State
in question, and to strive to achieve a proportionately balanced coexistence between the general protection
of rights considered fundamental and the preservation of the sociocultural particularities of the speakers of
certain languages.
The use of language is an integral part of personal identity, a principle underpinned by respect for human
dignity, freedom of expression, equality and non-discrimination on language grounds. Linguistic rights
guarantee respect for the use of language as a means of expression and communication. Specically, these
rights are seen as linguistic freedoms, integrating the matrix concept of freedom of expression, such as the
freedom to use language. These rights form part of the catalog of human rights and fundamental freedoms
within the scope of international human rights law, as in the legal framework of the CRPD, for example
(Venade de Sousa, 2021, 2022).
In principle, the concept of the linguistic rights of deaf people embodies the principles of linguistic law
associated with human rights, as well as the axiological values of sign languages as idiosyncratic languages
of deaf communities. Constituting a specic legal reality and embodied in norms and legal principles, these
linguistic rights, endowed with their own dynamic, are intersectional and interconnected with international
human rights law and, above all, the linguistic rights of their respective countries (Ruíz Vieytez, 2004;
Pizzorusso, 1986). In other words, the linguistic rights of deaf people are considered a specic, intersectional,
multifunctional legal-linguistic reality that is interconnected with other branches of knowledge, primarily
international human rights law and constitutional law, including minority rights and the rights of persons with
disabilities, among other areas of human rights and fundamental freedoms (Venade de Sousa, 2021, 2022;
Murray, 2015). It is a concept that cannot be understood in isolation, much less fully, without considering the
multifunctional contexts, that is, the intersectional framework of the historical and cultural associations of
the linguistic community in question, the social problems to which it proposes to respond, and the ways in
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 180
which, in practice, the legal norms are respected by public authorities in the sphere of deaf people in general
(Batterbury, 2012; Busatta, 2022).
The concept of the linguistic rights of deaf people presents itself as a framework capable of combining, on the
one hand, axiological values, fundamental principles and legal norms based on reciprocal and intersectional
interactivity, with sociohistorical, sociopolitical and even legal-linguistic dimensions on the other. This
multifunctional concept therefore contributes to the scope of a vast understanding, simultaneously cultural
and legal, of the realization, delimitation and disclosure of the inherent rights of deaf people and the legal
statutes of their respective sign languages.
The framework of the linguistic rights of speakers of a minority language community is the main instrument
for safeguarding linguistic peculiarities (De Varennes, 1996, 2007). The minimum scope of the necessary
recognition implies the following: (i) linguistic rights are a matter of equality of normative dignity with the
fundamental rights and freedoms enjoyed by other people; (ii) recognition and promotion of sociocultural
and linguistic diversity in a heterogeneous society, guided by linguistic equality and non-discrimination and
respect for linguistic particularities; (iii) the existence of a proportionally adequate legal framework for the
protection and promotion of inherent rights in the various spheres of daily life, as well as mechanisms for
the protection, implementation and monitoring of such measures as are deemed necessary. This recognition
must be effective in practice to fully ensure the enjoyment and exercise of these fundamental rights (Venade
de Sousa, 2021).
2 Principles of the legal recognition of sign languages
The CRPD can be said to constitute an essential corpus iuris to guide and contribute to an understanding of
the legal status of sign languages and their respective linguistic rights frameworks. It is, therefore, important
to systematize and identify this corpus iuris or essential core of the Convention in relation to the status of
sign language, that is, articles 2, 9, 21, 24 and 30, which have various interconnected and complementary
implications. The essential principles of Article 3 of the Convention are applicable to the fundamental
rights and freedoms of persons with disabilities, including deaf persons. Moreover, these principles are
complementary and adaptable to the specic nature of the inherent rights of deaf persons in relation to the
use of sign language (Venade de Sousa, 2021).
2.1 Principle of linguistic dignity
The legal recognition of sign language is a matter of the linguistic and cultural dignity shared by speakers of a
given language community. Linguistic dignity consists of afrming that any and all languages are considered
worthy in society (Venade de Sousa, 2021). Languages assume an axiological value that represents the
dignity of the speaker of a given language. In other words, linguistic dignity is rooted in the linguistically
axiological essence of human language, which is constituted by the speakers of these languages, with all the
linguistic characteristics worthy of the recognition of their sociolinguistic value in society (Moreno, 2000).
Sign language, therefore, represents the extrinsic essence of the dignity of the deaf person, in the sense that
it is the speakers of the linguistic community who express sign language as an idiosyncratic language, since
their use of sign language is a matter of dignied cultural and linguistic existence.
Sign language is linguistically worthy of the same consideration, or equal treatment, as any other language.
A language by itself does not dene its own degree of sociolinguistic dignity, nor does it determine the
degree of any other language, since all languages, whether spoken or otherwise, are entitled to the same
linguistic consideration. Consequently, the dignity of sign language is an axiological acknowledgement of
all its linguistic singularities, as is the case for other human languages used by their speakers to express
themselves with dignity.
Through this recognition, the sociocultural existence of speakers in society is reafrmed as being on an
equal footing with other holders of full rights, taking into account the sociocultural singularities of speakers
in general. Thus, the legal recognition of sign language must have practical effects in the different spheres
of daily life. Lack of recognition can lead to the marginalization of deaf people in society. Conversely, legal
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 181
recognition of sign language contributes to linguistic dignity and the promotion of the use of sign language
in society; discriminatory, language-based barriers are removed; and the cultural richness of the speakers is
enhanced, in a message of inclusion to society. Language undoubtedly builds bridges between people and their
cultures. In short, sign language is seen as an accredited language with its own legal reality, characterized by
its legal-linguistic specicity of inherent rights, through which the legal status of sign language is recognized
in the national legal system and reveals its axiological and dogmatic legal reality of fundamental rights.
2.2 Principle of linguistic freedom
Linguistic freedom is closely related to the essence of the right to the free development of personality in linguistic
and identity matters. Therefore, the legal system has the necessary mechanisms through which to provide the
ways and means to ensure respect for the linguistic rights of any and all individuals (De Varennes, 2007).
Recognition of the use of sign language is the essence of the right of deaf people to freedom to use, express
and communicate in their own language, according to the CRPD. This recognition is the materialization of
full personal freedom; without it, personal freedom is diminished. Hence, recognition of sign language by
the State demonstrates compliance with one of the legal requirements of the CRPD, in the sense of protecting
and valuing sign language in all contexts of daily life (Venade de Sousa, 2021).
Self-expression through sign language is an individual freedom of each and every speaker, and one with
which the state is not permitted to interfere in general, under penalty of incurring a violation of the right to
freedom of expression through language, and hence deprivation of personal freedom. Therefore, this freedom
is directly related to the right of the individual to fully develop their personality.
The concept of linguistic freedom recognized by the CRPD is therein dened, on the one hand, in a negative
dimension, insofar as any speaker may exercise this right of freedom 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” (CRPD, Article 21). On the other hand, in a positive dimension, the Convention
denes the more concrete and less abstract notion of the enjoyment and exercise of individual freedom of
expression. In particular, under Article 21, paragraphs (b) and (e), respectively, “ Accepting and facilitating
the use of sign languages (…) and all other means, modes and formats of communication of their choice by
persons with disabilities in ofcial interactions” and “Recognizing and promoting the use of sign languages”.
Indeed, within the framework of individual linguistic freedom and the margins of political-legislative
conformity as to the ways and means of adopting legislative measures, speakers may use sign language to
express themselves, communicate and be served by public services. In addition to linguistic freedom, the
right to use and express oneself in sign language is inherent to the issue of freedom of expression, as well as
to issues of ofciality.
2.3 Principle of equality and non-discrimination on language grounds
The prohibition of discrimination on language grounds is universally recognized and enshrined, in its various
aspects, in articles 2 and 5 of the CRPD. These articles of the Convention establish that sign languages are
equal to other spoken languages, and are inherent to the clause of non-discrimination on language grounds;
that is, non-discrimination on the basis of the languages used by deaf people (Venade de Sousa, 2021).
The principle of non-discrimination on the basis of the language used by the speaker constitutes a legal and
axiological basis for respecting the sociolinguistic characteristics of speakers who express themselves in
their own language. Linguistic equality is inherent to respect for linguistic dignity. Speakers who express
themselves in their own languages are entitled to any and all rights considered fundamental to ensure their
sociolinguistic existence as a member of the linguistic community that freely identies their cultural reference.
Hence, linguistic dignity and equality are axiologically indivisible.
In general terms, there are three minimum preconditions for the admissibility of non-discriminatory treatment
on language grounds (Venade de Sousa, 2021): (i) the consideration that a given language has an ofcial
linguistic status which provides additional protection of the non-discriminatory clause on language grounds,
depending on the factual and specific normative circumstances; (ii) the non-discriminatory subjective
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 182
qualication of the speakers who speak the language in question; (iii) non-discriminatory treatment based on
language takes into account the sociohistorical, social and linguistic contexts of the situation of the speakers
and the linguistic normalization of the historically discriminated (or invisible) languages themselves, which
may proportionally justify the need to adopt positive action measures to offset inequalities, where necessary.
Illegitimate exclusions or restrictions related to the use, teaching and learning of a given language in society
may constitute, depending on their specic circumstances, a violation of this principled element, unless
there are legitimate and proportionate justications for the measures adopted to support the promotion and
safeguarding of the language in question. For this reason, the adoption of such a language policy must
be committed to eliminating barriers to the use of a given language in society, effectively ensuring the
maintenance, development and preservation of the use of the minority language.
2.4 Principle of cultural conception of sign language
Each and every constructed language is essentially “the expression of a collective identity and of a distinct
way of perceiving and describing reality and must therefore be able to enjoy the conditions required for their
development in all functions” (Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights, 1996). Articles 1 and 2 of the
same Declaration go on to state that “All languages are collectively constituted reality and are made available
within a community for individual use as tools of cohesion, identication, communication and creative
expression.” Indeed, sign languages are seen, beyond any doubt, as human languages, whose sociohistorical
and sociolinguistic reality is constituted by deaf people and represented by the deaf community as having their
own sociolinguistic identity. These languages are the fundamental instrument of communication, available
and accessible for individual use, by deaf people in particular, and are also instruments of cultural and identity
cohesion for the same community that is responsible for their creation and development.
It is pertinent to afrm that the sign languages used by respective deaf communities have unquestionable
cultural and linguistic value as vectors for the inherent identity of the deaf community as a whole. Sign
language is the representation of a sociocultural reality and has the characteristics that are valued by the deaf
people who identify with it. The sociolinguistic meaning of sign language is not only a question of linguistic
legitimacy, as languages historically constructed by the speakers of that linguistic community; sign language
is also part of the linguistic diversity of the richness of humanity, insofar as it is endowed with its own inherent
linguistic characteristics.
Of overarching importance is the recognition of rights considered relevant for the purpose of the exercise of
rights in society, on an equal footing with other languages. This recognition presupposes respect for linguistic
equality and also takes into account the cultural identity of the linguistic community. Full recognition acquires
sociopolitical relevance with the adoption of signicant measures to ensure and promote the fundamental
rights and freedoms of deaf people, mainly with respect to sociocultural and linguistic differences. In order
to achieve respect for recognized rights, effective compliance with the neces sary measures of any nature
must be enforced, in the eld of education and elsewhere, to ensure the deaf community’s full enjoyment of
fundamental rights and freedoms (Batterbury, 2012; De Meulder & Murray, 2017).
2.5 Principle of legality of recognition and ofciality of the use of sign language
The relationship between language and law is multifunctional, as it presents several dimensions of language
use in both private and public spheres (Milian i Massana, 2016; Pérez Fernández, 2006). The legal regulation
of language use denes, by its nature, the meaning, content and scope of linguistic rights, and takes into
account the multifunctional concept of the right to language, the meaning of which differs according to the
nature and scope of the legislation. In fact, the use of a given language becomes the object of legal regulation
by the State, which assumes its political, administrative and legislative functions in relation to the framework
of language as a means of communication between public authorities and citizens, both individually and
collectively (Pérez Fernández, 2006).
The denition of ofciality inherent to the legal status of sign language varies, therefore, according to their
national legal systems (for example, Major, 2014; Ruíz Vieytez, 2004; Rytz Regula & Romano, 2019). However,
it can be said that the minimum presuppositions of ofciality are that the State recognize sign language as a
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 183
fully-edged language with the capacity to be seen as a legitimately valid means of communication used in
interactions between deaf people and public authorities in general. In this sense, the CRPD requires states
to declare the legal status of a sign language as equal to other languages, while acknowledging its inherent
linguistic and communicative characteristics and, consequently, recognizing it as a language in its own right.
The CRPD does not allow the State to discriminately disregard or restrict this statute of sign language, thereby
harming the inherent rights of deaf people. In this way, the Convention conditions the degree to which states,
within their political and legislative faculties, comply with the principles and norms therein. Essentially, it
is up to the State to adopt legislative and other measures in accordance with the aims of the CRPD; that is,
the State must adopt a legal framework for the use of sign language, safeguarding the rights of sign language
speakers and the conditions required for the enjoyment and exercise of these rights in linguistic matters. Hence,
the CRPD contains the presuppositions addressed to states to regulate and provide the necessary conditions
to ensure the recognition and use of sign language.
3 Nomative contribution of the legal recognition of sign languages
3.1 Models of the legal status of sign languages: Portuguese Sign Language and Catalan Sign
Language
Different models of legal recognition portray or explore the different legal solutions of their respective legal
systems to contribute to the legal statutes of sign languages (for example, De Meulder et al., 2019; Van
Herreweghe et al., 2015). In other words, the legal recognition model has multiple different aspects since it
is contextualized according to the sociopolitical circumstances and the legal system of the respective state.
Consequently, the legal recognition of sign languages is determined by their respective national legal systems
(Rytz Regula & Romano, 2021). Equally, the meaning, scope and effect of legal recognition are dened
differently by their respective legal systems, as is the content inherent to the linguistic ofciality of the sign
language statutes of the respective countries. For example, the legal status of sign language can benet from
its constitutional, infra-constitutional or legal value, nature and effectiveness (e.g., De Meulder, 2016; Busatta,
2022).
Table 1.
PORTUGUESE CONSTITUTION
(1997)
STATUTE OF AUTONOMY OF CATALONIA
(2006)
CHAPTER III. Cultural rights and duties CHAPTER V. Governing principles
Article 74: Education Article 50: Promotion and dissemination of Catalan
2. In implementing the education policy, the state is
charged with: (…)
h) Protecting and developing Portuguese sign language as
an expression of culture and an instrument for access to
education and equal opportunities
6. Public authorities shall guarantee the use of Catalan sign
language and conditions of equality for deaf people who
choose to use this language, which shall be the subject of
education, protection and respect.
Source: Prepared by the author
For example, the constitutional recognition of Portuguese Sign Language (in Portuguese, Língua Gestual
Portuguesa) in the Portuguese Constitution and Catalan Sign Language (in Catalan, Llengua de Signes
Catalana) in the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia (as it is treated as an organic law under the Spanish legal
system) reveal different models of dealing with constitutional and legal recognition, respectively. These
recognition models are rooted in the principles often invoked by their national legal systems in terms of
protecting and promoting the use of sign language inherent in respect for equality and non-discrimination,
access to education and, above all, inclusion in society (Busatta, 2022).
The above articles establish recognition of the respective sign languages as a starting point, despite the different
nature of their constitutional and legal models, dening their legal statutes with different implications founded
in the terms protecting and developing in the Portuguese Constitution, and guarantee, protection and respect
in the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. These models regulate the protection and promotion of the use of
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 184
sign language. Portugal has intersectional legislation in different areas that have no specic legislation. For
example, under Article 15 of Decree-Law 54/2018, Portuguese Sign Language is recognized as a specic
subject for deaf students who attend certain bilingual schools that have their own Ministry of Education-
approved curricular programs. On the other hand, Article 4 of Law 46/2006 protects the rights of deaf people
who invoke discrimination on language grounds, having been excluded or diminished by authorities that have
failed to fulll their obligations. Catalonia complements its own legislation on the basis of Article 50 of the
Statute of Autonomy. Catalonia has several laws regarding the use of sign language: Law 27/2007 recognizes
both Spanish and Catalan sign languages at the state level; Law 17/2010 recognizes Catalan Sign Language;
and Law 13/2014 makes provision for accessibility at the Catalan regional level (see Jarque et al., 2019;
Quer, 2012). In general, the expressions “cultural rights and duties” (Portuguese Constitution) and “governing
principles” (Catalonia) are classic legal categories of constitutional law with different prescriptive and/or
programmatic implications in their respective legal systems. These are precepts that, included in Chapter III
(Cultural rights and duties) of the Portuguese Constitution; and in Chapter V (Governing principles) of the
Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, with somewhat similar legal implications regarding the recognition and
use of sign language. In principle, articles 74.2, subparagraph (h), of the Portuguese Constitution, and 50.6
of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, under the aegis of equality and non-discrimination on language
grounds and, above all, universal accessibility in society, assign to the competent authorities the responsibility
for ensuring and promoting the necessary conditions for deaf people to enjoy and exercise their right to the
recognition and use of their respective sign language.
As in other countries, these recognitions are not autonomously self-executable, despite having the objectively
declarative legal effect important to their legal systems: political, legislative and administrative intervention is
required to translate these legal statutes into practical effectiveness – to the detriment of theoretical or illusory
rights – and the enjoyment and exercise of the rights thereby protected.
With regard to the meaning and nature of the legal recognition of sign languages in constitutional and legal
texts, respectively, systematic and pro homine interpretation allows us to understand that these legal systems,
according to their interpretative elements, introduce the categorization of the legal status of sign language as
a fully-edged language and a legitimate instrument of inclusive accessibility in society. This must include
specic consideration of the unique legal reality of sign languages, according to the sociopolitical and
sociocultural particularities of their respective deaf communities. For example, the Portuguese Constitution
denes Portuguese Sign Language as “an expression of culture” and “an instrument for access”. This provision
is a constitutional declaration that recognizes the different meanings of the language in question. However, the
regulation of these constitutional declarations, necessary to complete the legal effects inherent to the enjoyment
and exercise of rights, is lacking in the educational sphere (Decree-Law 54/2018), in legal protection against
discrimination on grounds of disability (Law 46/2006), and in various other associated spheres, such as access
to communication and information, among others. With respect to Portuguese Sign Language, Portugal has
specic laws that deal with minority languages – Mirandês (Law 7/99) and Barranquenho (Law 97 /21) –
with limited legal effects.
In the case of Catalan, Article 50.6 of the Statute of Autonomy establishes the guarantee of the use of
Catalan Sign Language as a guiding principle of public policy. This article is specied by the legislation
for this purpose. Law 27/2007 uses the term recognize: “recognize Catalan sign language as the language
of deaf, hearing-impaired and deaf-blind people in Catalonia, who freely decide to use it, without prejudice
to subsequent legislative and regulatory regulations that may correspond to the Generalitat de Catalunya,
developing its powers”. Meanwhile, Law 17/2010 states: “Recognize Catalan Sign Language as a linguistic
system and regulate its teaching and protection from the public authorities, in accordance with article 50.6 of
the Statute of Autonomy”. On the one hand, then, the legislation denes the term; recognize means dening
the language used by the deaf community. On the other, recognize refers to the legal framework that denes
a set of linguistic rights with different legal effects. These aspects will be explored in further detail below.
3.2 Interpretation of the CRPD: recognition and ofciality
3.2.1 First presupposition: formal and material recognition of sign language status
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 185
The CRPD does not expressly dene the concept of sign language recognition. In general, legal recognition
is a multifunctional concept that evolves according to the sociopolitical, sociocultural and linguistic contexts
of a given society. The concept of recognition is associated with linguistic ideologies “about the normativity
of the spoken modality” (De Meulder, Murray & McKee, 2019). However, from a strictly legal perspective,
the concept of recognition is not merely associated with conrmation of the existence of the language itself.
Essentially, recognition is inherent to the functional metamorphosis, endowed with declarative, attributive
and constitutive effect, of the language’s status as a language that is formally and materially used by speakers
in different contexts of everyday life (Venade de Sousa, 2021).
In short, legal recognition is a legal category that reveals the existence of a stated legal-linguistic reality.
This means that the legal existence of language can be neither denied nor neglected by the legal system. The
language has a formal and materially stated statute with all the necessary conditions for the enjoyment and
exercise of rights (Venade de Sousa, 2021).
Hence, it is understandable that legal recognition is a legal category of its own that encompasses, in different
ways, for example, formalization of the communicative acts of public authorities in their ofcial interactions
with speakers; the symbolic manifestation of cultural expression of a language community; and the legal
elevation of a language in need of legal-linguistic protection, both axiological and normative, from the State
(Pizzorusso, 1986; De Meulder, 2016).
The attribution and denition of legal recognition is essentially up to the political faculties of the respective
states in accordance with their legal systems, which declare, establish and determine the legal statutes of
specic languages with different legal effects and, above all, the leveling of legal-linguistic protection (Pérez
Fernández, 2006). Legal status means that certain languages have legal frameworks, established by their
respective legal systems, that regulate the determination and endowment of the legal effectiveness of the given
language, in the sense that this status fullls essential assumptions and creates the conditions necessary to
implement the effects of legal recognition and thus translate the enjoyment and exercise of linguistic rights
into practice (Pérez Fernández, 2006).
Thus, legal recognition requires the State to formally declare, in accordance with its discretionary political
faculties, de iure and/or de facto, the existence in society of the language in question, as a legitimate and
legal instrument of communication in accordance with its statutory framework – whether legal, political,
administrative or social in nature – and endowed with juridical-linguistic value and sociolinguistically
instrumental effectiveness in conditions of preservation, valorization and promotion of the language in society.
Hence, legal recognition is a formal instrument through which the State, as the ultimate recipient of the
adoption of language policies, can wield, to the extent of its competences, to guarantee the aforementioned
existence, preservation and valorization of the language.
The content of legal recognition must be, essentially and simultaneously, (i) formal, that is, a state declaration
inherent to its linguistic legislation, depending on the degree and type of the legislation; (ii) material, that
is, the denition and implementation of the enjoyment and exercise of rights inherent to the status of the
recognized language; (iii) explicit, that is, the existence of a multifunctional framework to implement its
measures; and (iv) practical, as regards the value and effectiveness of measures that promote the preservation,
valorization and promotion of the language in question.
In short, recognition is merely the starting point for the protection, guarantee and promotion of linguistic
rights; it is the result of this recognition that will make the difference (see Venade de Sousa, 2021). Although
recognition will not be an instant panacea, it is nonetheless the rst step towards adopting the measures
necessary to promote the use of and access to the language in the daily life of speakers in society (see Venade
de Sousa, 2021).
3.2.2 Second presupposition: content of the legal status of sign language inherent to ofciality
Recognition involves different types, degrees and levels of protection conferred by its legal status as a means
of communication and/or as an instrument of cultural expression of the language community concerned
(e.g., De Meulder, 2015, 2016). This recognition involves a posteriori denition of the nature and degree of
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 186
the status of linguistic ofciality, since legal recognition and linguistic ofciality are autonomous concepts,
although mutually complementary.
Linguistic ofciality is, therefore, a polysemic concept that has different meanings, contents and legal effects
depending on the sociopolitical, sociocultural and linguistic circumstances of the society in question (Venade
de Sousa, 2021). Nonetheless, it incorporates the importance of different terms such as ofcialization – inherent
to the formal dimension of the statute – and ofciality – associated with the material and substantive content
of the exercise of language rights.
The term ofcialization is a presupposition of legal-linguistic accreditation in the sense of the metamorphosis
or elevation of the formal status of the language, through the legal system, to that of a fully-edged language.
The CRPD requires that the national legal system makes sign language ofcial, a fully-edged language,
because a constitutive element of legal-linguistic personality is a prerequisite to having a corpus iuris of
linguistic rights. The language will subsequently be framed in the light of the conditions of enjoyment and
exercise inherent to the status of linguistic ofciality.
Ofciality, on the other hand, has to do with the necessary conditions for the language to be deemed ofcial.
That is, it relates to the applicability and feasibility of the legal statute to translate into practical effectiveness
with respect to use of the language.
Applicability consists of stating that the status of linguistic ofciality has the capacity to produce the potential
legal effects in the legal system, and has to do with the degree and intensity of the legal-normative force of
the statute in question; when a linguistic ofciality statute has an adequate degree of effectiveness to be able
to apply in a specic case, for example. Applicability is inherent to legal effectiveness. Depending on the
specic normative circumstances, if any of the elements necessary to produce these effects are lacking, the
applicability and, consequently, the practical effectiveness of this statute would be diminished.
The feasibility of the linguistic ofciality status means that this status requires linguistic legislation that
generates legal effect by implementing conditions for the speakers’ enjoyment and exercise of their
fundamental language rights. Presuppositions of normative sufciency, clarity and determinability of the
norms that constitute the ofcial linguistic status enable a degree of practical feasibility, inherent to the legal-
normative density of this statute as dened and established by linguistic legislation.
Linguistic ofciality presupposes the a priori existence of the legal recognition of sign language as a fully-
edged language, on an equal footing with other languages and with its own sociolinguistic reality. In
other words, linguistic ofciality is the continuum and the plus ultra (or additional guarantee) of legal-
linguistic recognition. Ofciality implies that the status of a given language is an elevator of reinforced and
complementary legal-linguistic protection of legal-linguistic recognition. The statute of linguistic ofciality
requires the legislator to establish the legal framework with the necessary conditions of practical fullness,
adequate legal effectiveness and necessary feasibility in the various legal-linguistic spheres between speakers
and public authorities in general.
The legal status of sign language must t the scope of ofcialization in the sense of being deemed a language
in its own right. In addition, the ofcial status is the plus of legal-linguistic recognition, which is materially
equated with a process of consequential ofcialization of the language’s status.
4 Meaning and scope of Article 21 of the CRPD: case of sign language
4.1 Article 21 as a starting point for the requirement for legal recognition
“Although the CRPD does not refer explicitly to a legal right to language, this right is implied in the
Convention” (Bantekas et al., 2018). Article 21 of the CRPD explicitly provides that the State take – not be
able to take – “all appropriate measures to ensure” that deaf people may adequately exercise their fundamental
rights, with particular respect to use of and access to the language in all contexts related to the rights protected
by the Convention. This article is interconnected with other conventional norms and does not stand in isolation
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 187
(Bantekas et al., 2018). Moreover, these “appropriate measures” are characteristic of conventional regulation
on the meaning and scope of the recognition and promotion of the use of sign language. Therefore, the CRPD
itself is dening the essential content – with minimum conditions – of recognition of the use of sign language,
which the State is obliged to incorporate into its domestic law framework in accordance with the Convention.
In the context of Article 21, paragraphs (b) and (e) of the CRPD, the Convention itself denes the essential
content. These paragraphs are considered the legal basis inherent to a statute of sign language, since the terms
accept, recognize, facilitate and promote have essential legal implications: “As a result, Article 21, para. (e),
of the CRPD provides for two different but interrelated obligations.” (Della Fina et al., 2017).
Taking into account the background and travaux préparatoires (Bantekas et al., 2018; Della Fina et al., 2017)
and, according to pro homine interpretive criteria (Venade de Sousa, 2021):
(a) The terms accept and facilitate refer to a subjective dimension of the legal status of sign language.
These terms impose a qualitatively sociolegal meaning of the existence of the sociolinguistic reality of
a given language. This subjective dimension implies that the denition of recognition has a subjective
scope inherent in the speaker ’s right to use sign language, a right that can be neither denied nor
conditioned by the State in its ofcial interactions. The denition of the inherent recognition of the
terms accept and facilitate is understood as a guarantee of linguistic rights in line with the purposes
of the Convention that the State acts in accordance with the legal framework that the Convention
protects the rights of speakers in interactions with various public authorities.
(b) The terms recognize and promote refer to an objective dimension of the legal status of sign
language. This objective dimension mainly applies to states that have obligations under the CRPD to
adopt any and all measures necessary to harmonize their legislation and other actions compatible with
the aims of the Convention. The term recognize translates into a formal declaration of the sociolegal
dignity of the language in question, with elevating legal force in the legal system of the State (Venade
de Sousa, 2021): “Accordingly, far from being just a meaningless recognition, Article 21, para. (e), of
the CRPD also requires Contracting Parties to promote the use of sign languages so that the deaf are
guaranteed the right to their natural language expression and development.” (Della Fina et al., 2017).
In other words, the State acts in accordance with the CRPD by formally declaring sign language to be a
fully-edged language in conditions of proportional equality with other languages (articles 2 and 5 of the
Convention), with different means and forms, through the adoption of legislative or other measures, whether
constitutional, infra-constitutional or legal in nature. Furthermore, the Convention requires the State to adopt
the necessary measures to guarantee the use of sign language. This is a material ofciality inherent to the
substantive content of the enjoyment and exercise of protected rights with effective and practical conditions.
The CRPD contains cumulative presuppositions designed to verify that the legal status of sign language
established by the national legal system in question is in accordance with the purposes of the Convention.
Regardless of the formal typology of the constitutional, infra-constitutional or legal statute, it is pertinent that
the legal statute should benet from the regime of material and practical ofciality and should not only rely on
a symbolic or merely declamatory nature of ofciality. This means that there must be effective and efcient
conditions for speakers to fully enjoy and exercise their inherent rights in linguistic matters.
To understand the legal effectiveness of Article 21 of the CRPD, the term indirect applicability is used,
since it is necessary to constitute legislation that densies the content of the ofcial status of sign language,
the task of which is to fulll the enforceability of statute, the legislative and political intermediation of the
legislator, and thus ensures the necessary conditions of this statute in everyday life. This is not to say that
these norms of the Convention should be seen as a “blank check”, but rather a clear, objective imperative of
the CRPD, aimed at the legislator to determine content and legal-linguistic framework in accordance with
the principle-based assumptions of said norms. It is necessary to emphasize, once again, that the ordinary
legislator cannot suppress the need for the status of linguistic ofciality, by imperative of teh Convention,
in its various normative presuppositions, which are legally potent and not optional. The legislator is obliged
to develop measures of a legislative and political nature, to describe and establish the legal consequences
inherent in the legal-linguistic recognition of sign language. The issue is not one of a right of legal creation;
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 188
rather, it is one of an ex constitutione framework dening the principled presuppositions for the protection
and valorization of sign language as a language in its own right.
The practical effectiveness of the status must at least guarantee to facilitate the use of sign language in ofcial
relations. The State must ensure the equitable provision of sign language in ofcial interactions, fully and
without any illegitimate or arbitrary political, legislative, regulatory, administrative or other obstacle.
In short, subparagraphs (b) and (e) of the same article qualify as a basic reference of the CRPD in linguistic
matters, whereby the State is required to develop and specify the legal framework established by domestic
law without distorting the purposes of the Convention. The legal recognition of sign language must have a
declarative as well as a constitutive effect because it must contain a substantive framework for the enjoyment
and exercise of these linguistic rights, thus justifying the fundamental right of deaf people to use and express
themselves in sign language, according to the catalog of rights protected under Article 21 of the CRPD in
particular. In other words, it is an essential framework for dening the set of various rights protected by the
Convention inherent to the status of ofciality regulated by the conventional legal system.
4.2 Jurisprudence of the Committee: complementary elements of interpretation of the CRPD
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has consistently reinforced its
interpretive understanding of the recognition and use of sign language.
For example, despite the fact that the Portuguese legal system formally recognizes sign language in the
Portuguese Constitution, however, the Committee still recommends that the Portuguese State “promote the
ofcial recognition of Portuguese sign language and Braille” (Committee on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, 2016, § 41). The key word is promote, as in the Spanish Constitution’s “Ensure full access to
sign language interpretation services for persons who are deaf and increase the training of sign language
interpreters”, for example (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2019, § 40).
In the cases of France (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2021) and Switzerland
(Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2022), however, which had no recognized sign
languages, the Committee urged the states in question to adopt relevant legislative measures. According to
the jurisprudence of the Committee, the following cumulative requirements are considered necessary to meet
the aims of the CRPD:
(i) The adoption of a legal framework for the rights of deaf people must be the result of a consultation
and articulation process between the State and organizations that represent deaf people. In other
words, “ensure close consultation and engagement with the deaf community, especially in schools,
universities and other settings” (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2022, § 42).
(ii) The concept of the legal recognition of a sign language must have both a formal and a material
dimension, as an “ofcial language” in accordance with its national legal system and the purposes of
the CRPD. For example, in the case of Switzerland, the Committee clearly recommends to the Swiss
State: “Recognize the three Swiss sign languages as ofcial languages at both the federal and the
cantonal levels (…)” (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2022, § 42).
(iii) The typology and nature of the legal status of sign language varies according to the national legal
system. It is up to the State to choose and adopt the statute of sign language in accordance with the
aims of the CRPD. For example, in the French case, “Recognize French Sign Language as an ofcial
language, including at the constitutional level, and promote access to and the use of sign languages
in all areas of life” (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2021, § 40).
(iv) Content inherent to the legal status of sign language generally covers “all areas of life” (Committee
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2022, § 42). It should not be limited, for example, to
recognizing only rights in the educational eld (“sign language is recognized only in certain areas,
such as education”, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2021, § 39). To give
another example, it is not complete if access to sign language interpretation provided by duly qualied
interpreters is not guaranteed (“sign language interpretation is not recognized as a profession, and there
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 189
is a lack of professional requirements and specic training for sign language interpreters” (Committee
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities2021, § 39). Consequently, it must not permit “limited
availability” (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2021, § 39) of the practical
effectiveness of recognized rights, thereby preventing or hindering the enjoyment and exercise of
these rights. On the contrary, it must “Ensure full access to sign language interpretation services for
persons who are deaf and increase the training of sign language interpreters, particularly in rural
areas” (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2021, § 40).
(v) The legal status of sign language must cover the rights of deaf people in educational, informative,
communicative and cultural matters in any context. For example, the Committee recommends the legal
status recognize “the specic cultural and linguistic identity of deaf persons, including sign languages
and deaf culture” (Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2022, § 58).
(vi) The purpose of the legal statute of sign language must, at least, fully guarantee informative and
communicative accessibility as inherent to the exercise of recognized rights, without any discriminatory
conditioning that might impede the enjoyment and exercise of such rights in conditions of proportional
equality by virtue of articles 2 and 5 of the CRPD, for example: “Develop legally binding information
and communications standards at the federal, cantonal and municipal levels to ensure the accessibility
of provided to the public, including at public events and on websites, television and media services”
(Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2022, § 42).
(vii) The effectiveness of the enjoyment and exercise of rights established by the legal statute of sign
language must be guaranteed and promoted to ensure “access to and the use of sign languages in all
areas of life” and “ensure the availability of qualied sign language interpreters” (Committee on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2022, § 42).
The European Union of the Deaf (2022), incidentally, denes ve fundamental points of the “ofcial language”
concept necessary to complete the recognition of a sign language: “(…) Ofcial recognition of sign languages
entails: 1. Recognizing sign languages as fully-edged languages of the EU. 2. Granting sign language
users their linguistic rights – the right to use and receive information in a national sign language in ofcial
interactions at the EU level. 3. Recognizing the culture of deaf people and awareness of the aspirations of the
deaf community. 4. Ensuring accessibility in national sign languages on request via professional and veried
sign language interpreters. 5. Celebrating national sign languages during the European Day of Languages”.
Thus, the CRPD states the essence of the State’s obligation as the State’s duty to effectively guarantee the right
of deaf people to use and express themselves in sign language in their domestic legal system. The essential
minimum requirements for the effectiveness of full sign language recognition are the following:
(i) Recognition means more than a mere formal proclamation which must also be materially
accompanied by a sufciently dened legal framework enforceable before any competent authority.
The legal nature of recognition must not be merely symbolic, with no practical legal effects.
Furthermore, it must assume an “instrumental” character with legal effects “aimed at ensuring that
language is not an obstacle to the effective enjoyment of rights with a linguistic dimension” (De
Meulder & Murray, 2017).
(ii) The existence of a legal framework created through adequate legislation that denes the legally
and practically effective conditions for the enjoyment and exercise of rights appropriate to all aspects
of daily life, far beyond mere proclamation of recognition itself.
(iii) The status of the use of sign language, in its normative dimensions and of any nature, must be
multifunctionally inclusive and effective in all aspects of daily life.
(iv) The legal framework must be compatible with the catalog of fundamental rights protected by the
CRPD, for these are authentic fundamental rights rather than mere faculties granted by domestic law.
(v) The essential elements of the enjoyment and exercise of the rights considered appropriate fall
within the framework of the purposes legitimately pursued under the CRPD: (a) the right to use sign
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 190
language in any circumstances; (b) the right to choose to use sign language for ofcial interactions;
(c) the right of access in sign language under conditions of linguistic equality; and (d) the right to
know sign language as a vehicle for teaching and learning.
5 Conclusions
Article 21 of the CRPD is the compass for denition of recognition of the status of sign language. The
paragraphs referred to in said article are dened as the core of the CRPD and are inherent to the denition
and establishment of the legal framework common to the states parties that act within the parameters of the
Convention. It is true that each state party is free to constitute any legal framework for its respective sign
languages according to the sociohistorical, sociopolitical and legal circumstances inherent to its national legal
system and, naturally, to its own sociopolitical and linguistic ideologies. However, domestic law interprets and
applies in accordance with the Convention, and not vice versa. Consequently, the broad and exible concept
of recognition is revealed by the Convention, which provided signicant indications with which to complete
the concept, scope and purposes of the eventual legal status of sign language.
Recognition is the consequence of linguistic ofciality, which translates into a legal-linguistic materialization
inherent to the use of and access to the language and which is, above all, associated with the linguistic rights
of speakers and deaf people in particular. The CRPD clearly demonstrates that mere symbolic recognition
without legal effects is not adequately compatible with the purposes of the Convention itself. In particular,
the examples of legislation relating to Portuguese Sign Language and Catalan Sign Language are close to the
purposes of Article 21 of the Convention. However, the problem of these legal statutes is not ofcialization
per se, but difculties related to the issue of ofciality to fully guarantee the use of and access to the language
in all contexts and not merely in some contexts of public services.
As is understandable, the competent authorities must necessarily adopt measures of a different nature that
effectively ensure and promote the practical rights – to the detriment of theoretical rights – of speakers in
society, allowing them to express themselves in sign language and have access to the language whenever
possible, in any context of public, personal or family life. The CRPD itself determines that the State must adopt
the necessary measures to ensure that sign language may fully exercise its sociolegal (and sociolinguistic)
functions as a vehicle of communication between speakers and public authorities. This is, necessarily, a
linguistic ofcial status that must be legally developed and safeguarded by the State, which elucidates, within a
certain margin of conformity as to the ways and means by which to properly achieve the necessary conditions
for the exercise of the linguistic rights of speakers in ofcial interactions.
Likewise, the promotion of the presence and use of sign language in ofcial interactions is the permanent
compass of the practical effectiveness of the fundamental right to language, hence the State may not justify,
for any reason invoked in the eyes of the CRPD, its ignorance of the prevalence of a particular language to
the detriment of sign language. On the contrary, to promote the use of sign language is to equitably ensure
the sociolinguistic and sociolegal coexistence of the languages that exist under the legal system of the State
in question.
The legal recognition of sign language presupposes a legal framework endowed with the effectiveness,
legal and practical, of the enjoyment and exercise of the rights attributed to those who use and express
themselves in that language, both in the active and passive dimensions, in accordance with the parameters
of their respective national legal systems and, above all, by the CRPD. Indeed, the status of recognition is
only appropriate if it adequately states the value and existence of the language in question in the linguistic
legislation and, furthermore, if its framework is dened and established to ensure its socio-linguistic and
socio-political effectiveness under conditions and through policies that are complete, up to date, appropriate
and proportionate to its purposes.
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 191
References
Bantekas, Ilias, Ashley Stein, Michael, & Anastasiou, Dimitris. (Eds.). (2018). The UN Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A commentary. Oxford Commentaries on International Law.
Batterbury, Sarah C. E. (2012). Language justice for sign language peoples: The UN Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities. Language Policy, 11(3), pp. 253–272.
Busatta, Lucia. (2022). The legal recognition of sign languages in an intersectional perspective. Comparative
Law and Language, 1(1), pp. 74–87.
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2021). Concluding observations on the initial report
of France (CRPD/C/FRA/CO/1). United Nations Convention on the on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, United Nations.
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2016). Concluding observations on the initial report
of Portugal (CRPD/C/PRT/CO/1). United Nations Convention on the on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, United Nations.
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2019). Concluding observations on the initial report
of Spain (CRPD/C/ESP/CO/2-3). United Nations Convention on the on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, United Nations.
Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2022). Concluding observations on the initial report
of Switzerland (CRPD/C/CHE/CO/1). United Nations Convention on the on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, United Nations.
De Meulder, Maartje. (2015). The legal recognition of sign languages. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), pp. 498–506.
De Meulder, Maartje. (2015). Sign language recognition: tensions between specicity and universalism
in international deaf discourses. In Annelies Kusters & Michele Friedner (Eds.), It’s Small World:
International Deaf Spaces and Encounters (pp. 167–168). Gallaudet University Press.
De Meulder, Maartje. (2016). The power of language policy: The legal recognition of sign languages and
the aspirations of deaf communities. Publication No. 310 [Doctoral dissertation]. Jyväskylä Studies in
Humanities. University of Jyväskylä.
De Meulder, Maartje, & Murray, Joseph J. (2017). Buttering their bread on both sides? The recognition of
sign languages and the aspirations of deaf communities. Language Problems and Language Planning,
41(2), 136–158.
De Meulder, Maartje, Murray, Joseph J., & McKee, Rachel. (Eds.). (2019). The Legal Recognition of Sign
Languages: Advocacy and Outcomes Around the World. Multilingual Matters.
De Varennes, Fernand. (1996). Language, Minorities and Human Rights. Martinus Nijoff Publishers.
De Varennes, Fernand. (2007). Linguistic identity and language rights. In Marc Weller (Ed.), Universal
Minority Rights. A Commentary on the Jurisprudence of International Courts and Treaty Bodies.
Oxford University Press.
Della Fina, Valentina, Cera, Rachele, & Palmisano, Giuseppe (Eds.). (2017). The United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: A Commentary. Springer International Publishing.
European Union of the Deaf (EUD). (2022). European Union of the Deaf (EUD) alternative report for the
second review of the European Union (the EU) by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) Committee (For List of Issues Prior to Reporting). European Union
of the Deaf.
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 192
Haualand, Hilda, & Holmström, Ingela. (2019). When language recognition and language shaming go hand in
hand – sign language ideologies in Sweden and Norway. Deafness & Education International, 21(2–3),
pp. 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2018.1562636
Jarque, Maria Josep, Bosch-Baliarda, Marta, & González, Menchu. (2019). Legal recognition and regulation
of Catalan sign language. In Maartje De Meulder, Joseph J. Murray, & Rachel L. McKee (Eds.), The
Legal Recognition of Sign Languages: Advocacy and Outcomes Around the World. Multilingual Matters.
Working Paper, 15(02).
Krausneker, Verena. (2008). The protection and promotion of sign languages and the rights of their users in
Council of Europe member states: needs analysis. Council of Europe.
Kusters, Annelies, De Meulder, Maartje, Friedner, Michele, & Emery, Steve. (2015). On “diversity” and
“inclusion”: Exploring paradigms for Sign Language Peoples’ rights. MMG
Major, Mari-Claire. (2014). La reconnaissance ofcielle des langues des signes : état de la situation dans le
monde et ses implications. Ofce des personnes handicapées du Québec.
McKee, Rachel, & Manning, Victoria. (2015). Evaluating effects of language recognition on language
rights and the vitality of New Zealand sign language. Sign Language Studies, 15(4), pp. 473–497.
https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2015.0017
Meereboer, Sven, Meereboer, Kika, & Spijkers, Otto. (2018). Recognition of sign language under international
law: A case study of Dutch sign language in the Netherlands. In Fabian Amtenbrink, Denise Prévost,
& Ramses A. Wessel (Eds.), Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2017 (pp. 411–431). TMC
Asser Press.
Milian i Massana, Antoni. (2016). Más sobre derechos lingüísticos: Reflexiones sobre los límites
constitucionales y su interpretación por el Tribunal Constitucional. Tirant lo Blanch.
Moreno Cabrera, Juan Carlos. (2000). La dignidad e igualdad de las lenguas. Crítica de la discriminación
lingística. Alianza.
Murray, Joseph J. (2015). Linguistic human rights discourse in deaf community activism. Sign Language
Studies, 15(4), pp. 379–410. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2015.0012
Pérez Fernández, José Manuel. (Ed.). (2006). Estudios sobre el estatuto jurídico de las lenguas en España.
Atelier.
Pizzorusso, Alessandro. (1986). Libertad de lengua y derechos lingísticos un estudio comparado. Revista
Vasca de Administración Pública, 16, pp. 13–28.
Quer, Joseph. (2012). Legal pathways to the recognition of sign languages: A comparison of the Catalan and
Spanish Sign Language Acts. Sign Language Studies, 12(4), pp. 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1353/
sls.2012.0012
Ruíz Vieytez, Eduardo J. (2004, February 27–29). Lenguas ociales y lenguas minoritarias: cuestiones sobre
su estatuto jurídico a través del derecho comparado [Conference presentation]. Europa 2004: ¿un nuevo
marco para todas las lenguas?, Tarragona, Spain.
Rytz Regula, Lohr, & Romano, Reynard. (2019). Possibilités de reconnaissance juridique des langues des
signes suisses. Rapport du Conseil fédéral. Confédération suisse.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, & Phillipson, Robert. (1995). Linguistic human rights, past and present. In Tove
Skutnabb-Kangas & Robert Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic Human Rights. Overcoming Linguistic
Discrimination (pp. 71–110). Mouton de Gruyter.
Filipe Venade de Sousa
Essential framework of the legal status of sign language: recognition and ofciality
Revista de Llengua i Dret, Journal of Language and Law, issue. 78, 2022 193
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. (1998, October 14–17). Language, power and linguistic human rights – the role of
the state [Conference presentation]. Comhdháil Idirnáisiúnta ar Reachtaíocht Teanga (International
Conference on Language Legislation), Dublin, Ireland.
Tupi, Eeva. (2019). Sign language rights in the framework of the Council of Europe and its member states.
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland.
Van Herreweghe, Mieke, De Meulder, Maartje, & Vermeerbergen, Maartje. (2015). From erasure to recognition
(and back again?): the case of Flemish sign language. In Mark Marschark & Patricia Elisabeth Spencer
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language: Research, Policy and Practice (pp. 45–61).
Oxford University Press.
Venade de Sousa, Filipe. (2021). Língua Gestual Portuguesa: História, Sociolinguística e Política Linguística.
Lisbon International Press.
Venade de Sousa, Filipe. (2020). In principio erat corpus idiossincrático da Comunidade Surda e Língua
Gestual Portuguesa: Diálogo entre o Direito, a Sociologia e os Estudos Culturais. Lisbon International
Press.
