Written Sign Languages: SignWriting and Other Attempts

By Reginaldo Francisco

It’s hard to predict whether SignWriting, ELiS, SEL, or any other system will become widely used for written communication, but it’s certainly desirable that these and other attempts continue toward that goal.

After being neglected or even suppressed for centuries, sign languages have, in recent decades, been acknowledged as the comprehensive natural languages they are. In different Deaf cultures around the world, local sign languages are used for intragroup communication and have been gaining more institutional and official recognition.

When it comes to reading and writing, however, most Deaf individuals have to use the dominant spoken language (DSL) of their country. While this diglossic situation (intragroup communication in a sign language and reading and writing in the DSL) is very common, it’s far from ideal. As Jason Hopkins (SIL International) observes: “Though the Deaf are generally in constant contact with the DSL, they are rarely highly competent in reading and writing that language.”¹

For many Deaf people, especially those born Deaf, written forms of the DSL are disconnected from their lived experience. The link between sound and spelling—central to spoken-language literacy, despite the apparent chaos, for example, in English spelling—is often absent or obscure to them.

Why Not Just Use Video?

The widespread use of video technology might seem to render the need for written sign language unnecessary. However, video is not a practical solution in all situations. It’s technologically demanding, harder to draft or revise, and far less searchable or editable than written text.

If you’ve ever written an academic dissertation or thesis, for example, you may remember all the writing and rewriting involved in the process from the first draft to the final text, including the notes and tracked changes in the intermediary versions exchanged with your advisor. Now imagine how impracticable this would be in video instead of text.

Attempts to Represent Sign Language in Writing

Efforts to create written forms of sign languages are not new. Linguists and educators have developed various systems over the decades, some for academic transcription, others for potential everyday use. These include glossing (see Figure 1 for an example), which consists of using DSL words combined with some special conventions to represent signs; phonetic-style notations, like the Hamburg Notation System (HamNoSys) and the Stokoe Notation; and more ambitious writing systems intended for broader communication.

In this article, I concentrate on proposals that: 1) attempt to create a code to represent the signs rather than using DSL words, and 2) aim to make sign languages truly writable for daily use by the Deaf, enabling them to express their ideas in writing. Three of these systems are examined in more detail here: SignWriting, ELiS, and SEL.

Figure 1: An example of glossing provided by Jason Hopkins (See Note 1).

SignWriting

Created in 1974 by Valerie Sutton, an American developer of movement notation and a former dancer, SignWriting grew out of her earlier system for representing dance movements (DanceWriting²) and is part of her broader scope of creating a writing system for movement in general (MovementWriting³).

One of the most notable strengths of SignWriting is its iconicity: the symbols have a visual resemblance to the signs they represent. For some examples, see Figure 2, and the word “Taxonomy” in American Sign Language (ASL) SignWriting as demonstrated in here. Unlike alphabetic scripts, SignWriting is visual in both form and function and is usually written vertically, from top to bottom. These characteristics tend to make the system more intuitive for Deaf readers and for those already fluent in the language.

Figure 2: “SignWriting” in ASL SignWriting. Adapted from this video.

 

Another advantage lies in its comprehensiveness, including nonmanual markers such as facial expressions, head tilts, and body shifts, which are important expressive components of sign languages.

Those advantages come with a price, though. They result in a complex system, with an extensive symbol set: 639 symbols with approximately 35,000 variations, according to Stuart Thiessen, a Deaf translation and linguistics consultant at DOOR International, who documented these counts in his 2011 master’s thesis.⁴ That complexity can be overwhelming for new learners. Additionally, there are multiple ways to write the same sign, which can lead to inconsistency and complicate standardization efforts.

Despite these complexities, SignWriting is the best known and most widespread writing system for sign languages. It has been adapted to dozens of sign languages worldwide. In Brazil, for example, it has been chosen by the National Association of the Deaf (FENEIS) as the preferred method to transcribe Brazilian Sign Language (officially known as Libras) into a written form and is taught in the curriculum of at least 18 Brazilian universities.⁵

Nonetheless, its usage in daily life is still very limited. Literature written in SignWriting seems to concern mostly religious texts and stories for children.⁶ (An example can be found in Figure 3.) Several theses and dissertations have been written about SignWriting, but not in SignWriting.⁷ Teaching material is available (in other languages) to teach SignWriting⁸, but materials written in SignWriting about other subjects seem rare. Also, in routine communication (e.g., email, instant messaging), most Deaf people use the DSL or videos instead of SignWriting.

In addition to the system’s complexity—and as a result of it—SignWriting requires specialized software and is not easily integrated into mainstream word processors or everyday applications. One cannot sit at a computer or pick up a smartphone and start typing in SignWriting without previous technical adaptations. That seems to be one of the reasons why, despite its being the most well-known, widespread, and institutionally recognized way of writing sign languages, SignWriting is not widely used in written communication.

Figure 3: “Jack and Jill” in ASL SignWriting. Adapted from “Jack and Jill,” written in ASL by Cherie Wren (Georgia School for the Deaf).

ELiS

Created by Professor Mariângela Estelita Barros (Federal University of Goiás), Escrita das Línguas de Sinais—Sign Language Writing (ELiS)—is linear and has an alphabetic approach. Developed over the span of Barros’s master’s and doctoral work, ELiS uses a set of characters (which she refers to as visographemes) to represent key parameters of a sign: handshape (or rather “fingershape,” since ELiS focuses on the configuration of fingers), palm orientation, location, and movement. (See Figure 4 to see how this looks.⁹)

Figure 4: Text in ELiS produced by a student in a course delivered by Mariângela Estelita Barros as part of her doctoral research.

 

ELiS is less visually iconic than SignWriting. Its symbols do not closely resemble the shapes and movements of actual signs, and nonmanual markers, such as facial expressions and head movements, are not included. As a consequence, ELiS may seem less intuitive, but it offers a smaller and more manageable set of symbols that reduces the cognitive load for new users.

Figure 5 shows how the word is signed in Libras. You can also see it demonstrated in this video.

Figure 5: “Bonito” signed in Libras and written in ELiS.

 

The linear, alphabetic nature of ELiS also makes it better suited for integration into digital tools. For example, a font has been developed for both Windows and macOS¹⁰ so that one can type directly in ELiS in standard text editors without the need for specialized software. Some adaptation is still needed—the installation of the font—but it can undoubtedly integrate more easily into day-to-day communication, such as messaging or document writing.

Despite these advantages, the presence of ELiS outside academic settings is still limited. It’s used in the federal universities of Goiás, Greater Dourados, and Mato Grosso in Brazil¹¹, but it’s not widely known beyond academia. Despite the existence of the digital font and the easier “usability” provided by its characteristics, it’s also not regularly used in communication.

One could argue, however, that this limited use is due to its short existence. Time will tell if it will one day become as well-known as SignWriting, and then potentially more widely used in practical contexts.

SEL

The newest of the three systems, Sistema de Escrita da Libras—Libras Writing System (SEL)—was created by Professor Adriana Lessa-de-Oliveira (State University of Southwestern Bahia) inside a research project initiated in 2009. SEL was created for Libras, as specified in its name, but Lessa-de-Oliveira claims it’s adaptable for other sign languages. Like ELiS, it’s a linear and alphabetic system.

Based on thorough morphological analysis of the signs, SEL breaks them into “MLMov” units (M for mão, hand; L for localização, location; and Mov for movimento, movement), which are roughly comparable to syllables. (See Figure 6 for an example.¹²) Those units are then encoded in writing using an extensive set of letters and diacritics, including, unlike ELiS, even facial expressions.

Like SignWriting and ELiS, SEL aims to be adopted in real-world communication and text production, and a text editor application (E-sel) is under development to facilitate its use. However, its strong linguistic foundation and attention to detail end up making it overly complex, with an inventory of hundreds of letters and diacritics to represent handshapes, fingers and finger combinations, palm orientation, body parts, movements, touch/proximity, facial expressions, and other details.

Currently, its adoption is limited, mostly restricted to a few academic contexts and to the research projects around itself. This is mainly due to its recent development and could change with time, although its complexity might represent a barrier to wider dissemination and use.

Figure 6: “Padrasto” (“stepfather”) signed in Libras and written in SEL, with three MLMov units. Note that an MLMov unit can have all three components (hand, location, and movement) or just one or two of them.

Common Challenges and Reasons to Persist

The systems discussed here, as well as other attempts to write sign languages, share common challenges. First and foremost is adoption. None of the systems have achieved widespread daily use within the Deaf community. This is partly because of technical hurdles—they require custom fonts, nonstandard software, or workarounds to integrate into digital communication tools.

Another major obstacle is posed by the inherent complexity of sign languages. Classifier constructions, simultaneous gestures, and spatial grammar are difficult to represent in writing, no matter the system.

It’s hard to predict whether SignWriting, ELiS, SEL, or any other system will become widely used for written communication, but it’s certainly desirable that these and other attempts continue toward that goal. Even though video technology can help Deaf people communicate in their language, and many end up having to learn a DSL to some degree, having their own written language might bring several benefits that oral language speakers simply take for granted.

Writing provides unmatched opportunities for cognitive development, cultural expression, and social participation. A functional writing system could unlock academic and literary production in sign languages. Writing in their natural language might help Deaf people develop, record, refine, and communicate their ideas. Currently, the world is probably missing part of the potential of Deaf minds. Moreover, developing literacy first in their language might eventually help the Deaf learn a written DSL.

From the perspective of translation, a widely used sign language writing system might open multiple new opportunities. Along with literature and academic publishing would come translation, both literary and technical, and new niches such as sign language subtitling. Furthermore, the ability to register signs in writing could help standardize, develop, and strengthen sign languages.

For all those possibilities, and the others Deaf people might devise, initiatives toward a functional, accessible, and expressive written sign language are desirable and worth supporting. Writing is not just a communication tool—it’s a powerful means of reflection, organization, and empowerment. Uerba (et signa) uolant, scripta manent.¹³

Notes

1. Hopkins, Jason. “Choosing How to Write Sign Language: A Sociolinguistic Perspective,” International Journal of the Sociology of Language (vol. 2008, no. 192, 2008), 76, 78.
2. Valerie Sutton’s DanceWriting Site.
3. Valerie Sutton’s MovementWriting Site.
4. Thiessen, Stuart M. A Grammar of SignWriting. Master’s thesis (University of North Dakota, May 2011), xxii.
5. Barbosa, Gabriela Otaviani. A arte de escrever em Libras. Master’s thesis (Federal University of Santa Catarina, 2016), 26.
6. SignWriting Literature (Found on Valerie Sutton’s Publications in SignWriting History: 1974 to Present).
7. Dissertations and Theses on or Using SignWriting (Found on Valerie Sutton’s Publications in SignWriting History: 1974 to Present).
8. SignWriting Instruction Manuals (Found on Valerie Sutton’s Publications in SignWriting History: 1974 to Present).
9. Barros, Mariângela Estelita. ELiS—Escrita das Línguas de Sinais: proposta teórica e verificação prática. Doctoral dissertation (Federal University of Santa Catarina, 2008), 120.
10. The font can be downloaded from the website of the Federal University of Goiás.
11. Barbosa, Gabriela Otaviani. A arte de escrever em Libras. Master’s thesis (Federal University of Santa Catarina, 2016), 27.
12. Lessa-de-Oliveira, Adriana Stella Cardoso. Por uma modalidade escrita da Libras: estrutura frasal e sinalização, a estrutura fonológica do sinal e a escrita Sel (Pontes Editores, 2023).
13. Spoken (and signed) words fly away, written words remain.

---

Reginaldo Francisco is an English, Italian, and French into Portuguese translator working with literary and technical texts. He has a bachelor’s degree in translation from São Paulo State University (UNESP) and a master’s degree in translation studies from the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) in Brazil. He worked briefly in the Brazilian Sign Language undergraduate course at UFSC and has reviewed and proofread theses and dissertations in this area. franciscotradutor@gmail.com