Taiwan Sign Language: From a Community Language in Schools for the Deaf to a Legally Recognized National Language

During the COVID-19 pandemic, sign language interpreters standing beside officials at daily press conferences became a familiar sight. For many, this was the first time they noticed that sign language is not merely a gesture-based translation of Chinese sentence by sentence, but a language with its own vocabulary, grammar, history, and community. That moment of visibility was significant, yet it risked creating the misconception that Taiwan Sign Language (TSL) was a public service "invented" only recently.

TSL has long been operational within the Deaf community. Its history is intertwined with Deaf education, colonial rule, post-war demographic shifts, and language policy. As National Chung Cheng University explains, sign language communicates through the "visual-gestural" channel and possesses vocabulary and grammar just like any other human natural language¹.

Figure: Solomon203 / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0; Image Page · License. Unmodified image.

30-Second Overview: Taiwan Sign Language is a natural language used daily by the Deaf community in Taiwan, not a gestural version of Chinese. It formed sustainable language communities in early 20th-century Deaf education institutions in Tainan and Taipei, influenced by Japanese Sign Language and later absorbing vocabulary from Chinese Sign Language and the educational context. The divergence of northern and southern educational systems left dialectal differences; for a long time, schools often treated sign language as a communication tool to be corrected or supplemented. The 2019 National Language Development Act listed TSL as a national language, marking institutional recognition, but early family exposure, teacher training, teaching materials, interpretation, and public usage remain the true tests ahead².

Let Go of the Misconception That "Sign Language Is Just Gesturing"

The first common sense that needs to be corrected regarding TSL is that it is not a word-for-word translation of spoken language. As National Chung Cheng University notes, spoken language is transmitted through sound and hearing, while sign language is transmitted through movement and vision. Both use a limited set of basic symbols to form vocabulary and employ grammar to express infinite concepts¹. Therefore, TSL is not "Chinese plus gestures," nor is it a single international sign language shared by all countries.

A linguistic introduction published by Taiwan Insight provides an accessible example: TSL can use a Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) basic word order. The sentence "He likes apples" would appear as "He—Apple—Like." Negation may also appear after the verb, or even at the end of the sentence². This is not simply replacing Chinese characters with gestures; it is a different set of linguistic rules. Handshape, location, movement, palm orientation, and facial expressions may all participate in distinguishing meaning or constructing sentences.

Viewing sign language as a natural language also changes our imagination of "mother tongue." Many Deaf children are born into hearing families, whose members typically do not know TSL. Before entering Deaf schools and meeting peers, they may only have simple home-made gestures. National Chung Cheng University notes that over 95% of Deaf children are born into hearing families; while home gestures can aid daily communication, they do not necessarily provide a complete language environment¹. The issue, therefore, is not just "whether children should learn sign language," but when children can truly encounter a community where a complete language can be used, and whether families receive support during this waiting period.

Taiwan Sign Language Is Not "Signed Chinese"

Another concept that must not be conflated in Deaf education in Taiwan is the distinction between Taiwan Sign Language and Signed Chinese. TSL is a natural language developed by the Deaf community. Signed Chinese, on the other hand, primarily follows the word order and grammar of Mandarin, presenting spoken content through gestures or sign symbols. Linguistic chapters by James Tai and Jane Tsay point out that after the war, Mandarin replaced Japanese as the primary language of education, administration, and mass media, leading to the use of Signed Chinese based on Mandarin in educational settings. While it shares much vocabulary with TSL, its morphology and syntax are different³.

This coexistence does not mean users only operate in one mode. Research indicates that Deaf students may be exposed to spoken Mandarin, written Chinese, Signed Chinese, and TSL simultaneously. In professional or technical vocabulary, they may temporarily borrow from Signed Chinese or standardized gestures used in educational settings³. Thus, the linguistic ecology of TSL is not simply "natural language versus foreign language," but rather different communication systems interacting in schools, families, and communities. The real question is: does this interaction allow every language to be fully learned, or does it leave only fragments sufficient to barely cope in the classroom?

Tainan and Taipei: Two Schools, Two Directions

The verifiable history of TSL must begin with schools. Languages do not appear because a place has an official naming list; they emerge when children who were once scattered have the opportunity to gather for long periods, attend classes together, and live together, gradually developing family gestures and external signs into a community language capable of transmitting knowledge and experience.

Wayne H. Smith of the Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, notes in his historical review that the first school for the Deaf in Tainan was established in 1915, and the second school in Taipei in 1917. Both schools were established during the Japanese colonial period and were influenced by the educational systems of Tokyo and Osaka, respectively⁴. National Chung Cheng University’s introduction also notes that Japanese teachers came to Taiwan to teach, bringing Japanese Sign Language, and the Deaf community in Taiwan gradually developed its own sign language within this educational environment¹.

The north-south difference is not merely an accent issue that appeared later, but stems from the fact that the educational networks were never identical from the start. Smith’s review suggests that the Taipei school inherited more from the Tokyo system, while the Tainan school inherited more from the Osaka system. Since the two Japanese sign systems themselves had regional differences, this became the historical foundation for the northern and southern dialects of TSL⁴. Thus, "Taiwan Sign Language" is not a single standard without internal differences. Like spoken languages in Taiwan, it bears traces left by schools, cities, generations, and community mobility.

These two schools were not merely places of language input, but also where children first met large numbers of peers, built friendships, and formed community memories. In other words, schools brought together language users who were originally scattered across different families. School buildings, dormitories, playgrounds, and classrooms thus became not just educational facilities, but social spaces where TSL could be transmitted across generations. Looking back at the gates of schools for the Deaf today, we see not just architecture, but a path that brought language from the family into the public sphere.

Figure: Rico Shen / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0 or CC BY-SA 2.5 Taiwan; Image Page · License (3.0). Unmodified image.

This history also reminds us not to write "influenced by Japanese Sign Language" as "TSL is Japanese Sign Language." Smith points out that TSL continued to evolve independently after the war, later absorbing vocabulary from Mainland China and Hong Kong sign languages, as well as new gestures created for teaching purposes⁴. The TSL Online Dictionary at National Chung Cheng University summarizes this path: the vocabulary and grammatical foundation of TSL originated from Japanese Deaf education during the colonial period, and after 1949, it added influences from Chinese Sign Language⁵. Estimates of the proportion of shared vocabulary vary depending on the source; here, no single percentage is treated as proof of TSL’s identity. The identity of a language comes from continuous community use, not from similarity rankings.

Post-War Issues: A Language Managed by Pedagogy

After 1945, the administrative and instructional languages of schools changed, but TSL did not disappear. Smith records that Taiwanese teachers who had been working in Taiwan remained in the schools, passing on the existing sign language to new staff. After 1949, Deaf individuals, teachers, and school experiences from Mainland China brought new influences to TSL⁴. This is a history of language contact, but also a history of educational power: which gestures remain in the classroom and which are deemed "non-standard" are often not decided solely by users.

Consequently, research on TSL started very late. Smith notes that the earliest known article specifically discussing TSL did not appear until 1959. In the 1960s and 1970s, Deaf schools across Taiwan successively compiled sign language vocabulary, but early collection, photography, and publication were incomplete, and much material did not truly circulate⁴. His own research began in the mid-1970s, culminating in the first doctoral dissertation on TSL in 1989. This academic history shows that a language can be used daily within a community for a long time before being properly recorded by academia or the state apparatus.

"Teaching sign language" and "teaching using sign language" are not the same thing. In reporting on a 2024 workshop at the National Tainan University Affiliated School for the Deaf, the Ministry of Education specifically distinguished between teaching students the language of TSL and using TSL for instruction. The workshop content included grammatical structures and Deaf culture, not just word-for-word correspondence⁶. This distinction seems technical, but it actually touches on a fundamental question: Are Deaf students learning an auxiliary system translated by hearing people, or are they learning a complete language capable of carrying mathematics, literature, friendship, and debate?

The history of Deaf education is not a linear curve of progress from "no education" to "language equality." Educational history research divides Taiwan’s Deaf education into several overlapping stages: the influence of late Qing education, the Japanese educational system during the colonial period, the regime and teacher turnover after 1945, and the modern system after the 1950s. Research indicates that teachers in Tainan and Taipei during the colonial period came from different sources; post-war Mainland China teachers and sign language experiences entered campuses; and after the 1970s, oral/auditory training and Signed Chinese played a larger role in classrooms⁷. These changes are not merely replacements in teaching methods; they determine at what age, with what language, and by whom students are taught.

In the 1970s, the Ministry of Education organized representatives from three Deaf schools to compile standardized gestures for teaching, resulting in approximately 1,750 basic vocabulary items and creating new gestures for classroom concepts. However, related research records that early preparation involved little Deaf participation, leading to disappointment within the Deaf community that the results did not reflect their own language³. Later versions increased Deaf user participation, and the TSL Online Dictionary adopts the direction of收录ing variants rather than replacing community usage with a single standard³. This history adds weight to the word "standard": standardization can make teaching materials interoperable, but it cannot erase users' linguistic judgment on the grounds of convenience for materials.

2019: The Law Changed the Position First; Society Must Change Habits Next

The National Language Development Act, promulgated on January 9, 2019, legally placed TSL within the scope of national languages. Policy data from the Executive Yuan explicitly states that the purpose of this law is not to crown one language as the sole representative, but to protect the inheritance, revitalization, and development of natural languages used by Taiwan’s indigenous ethnic groups and TSL⁸. Between legal recognition and the ability of every agency to use it, there remain gaps in resources, teacher training, and institutional execution. Therefore, the real question is not whether the name has changed, but whether language rights can be realized where needed.

Article 3 of the law defines:

"The term 'national language' as used in this Act refers to natural languages used by Taiwan’s indigenous ethnic groups and Taiwan Sign Language."⁹

Article 4 further states that all national languages are equal, and citizens’ use of national languages shall not be subject to discrimination or restriction⁹. This "equality" is not just a pretty summary; it is a specific policy direction: if TSL is a national language, it should not only appear in high-visibility events such as presidential inaugurations or pandemic press conferences, but must also be usable in schools, healthcare, justice, administration, and daily information.

The law simultaneously requires national languages to enter education, research, teaching materials, online learning, and interpretation services. Articles listed in the Law Database include provisions that the central education authority should list national languages as department-defined curricula at all stages of basic national education, government agencies should provide interpretation services between national languages when necessary, and competent authorities should conduct competency certifications⁹. This transforms TSL from "a method in special education" to "a language the state is responsible for developing."

Figure: Rico Shen / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0 or CC BY-SA 2.5 Taiwan; Image Page · License (3.0). Unmodified image.

An interpreter standing at an event site does not mean the entire system has achieved accessibility. Interpretation is an important bridge, but both ends of the bridge still require stable language services: advance announcements, on-site flow, subtitles, emergency messages, medical explanations, and post-event data must all be independently accessible to users. The law writes interpretation into the system; the next step is to ensure information does not wait for major events to be translated.

Figure: Rico Shen / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0, 3.0, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic, or 1.0 Generic; Image Page · License Info. Unmodified image.

But legal status does not automatically generate a language environment. Taiwan Insight cites the Ministry of Culture’s 2020 National Language Survey: among 571 respondents to the TSL online questionnaire, only 27.1% reported learning TSL as their first language at home². This is not the population proportion of all Deaf people, nor can it be used to draw conclusions for all families. It is more like an alarm, reminding us that there is still a distance between legal recognition and the time families acquire the language.

Language Revitalization Is Not a Slogan, But Infrastructure Engineering

The National Language Development Policy divides work into directions such as corpus preservation, education, friendly environments, promotion, and digital resources, listing language inheritance, localization, and modernization as the core of policy advancement⁸. The Executive Yuan’s National Language Development Plan also lists education, corpus preservation, and cross-ministerial division of labor as part of policy advancement¹⁰. Placing TSL in this plan means revitalization is not just about holding a few Sign Language Day events, but about establishing a set of infrastructure that can be used long-term.

This infrastructure includes searchable corpora, dictionaries available for learning, stable training for teachers and interpreters, teaching materials usable in schools, and media and public agencies willing to view TSL as a native language rather than an aside in the visual field. The TSL Online Dictionary established by the National Chung Cheng University research team is precisely an example of this linguistic infrastructure. Related research has organized how the Center for Sign Language Linguistics and the online dictionary make TSL a learnable and researchable language⁵.

Institutional attempts are already appearing in educational settings. The Ministry of Education reported on workshops where teachers and staff of schools for the Deaf received TSL training and certification. 42 teachers and 50 staff members of the National Tainan University Affiliated School for the Deaf participated, bringing the language into the public cultural space of the Literature Museum through sign language tours⁶. This number cannot be exaggerated into "teacher resources are sufficient nationwide," but it presents a direction: a friendly environment does not require Deaf people to adapt to hearing systems, but requires those within the system to learn to enter the world of TSL.

The tools listed in the National Language Policy also illustrate that language revitalization is not just about increasing class hours. It simultaneously requires surveys and databases so researchers and communities know where the language is being used; it requires protection for pre-school exposure to avoid children spending their early growth without complete language stimulation; it requires teaching materials, teachers, and curricula so the language is not locked in the single field of special education; and it requires writing references, digital input methods, online learning, and interpreter training so TSL can enter modern administrative and information environments⁹. These works are interconnected: without corpora, teaching materials are hard to update; without teachers, curricula are hard to implement; without digital tools, the language is hard to see in daily messages.

Who Will Use TSL Next?

Figure: Rico Shen / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0, 3.0, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic, or 1.0 Generic; Image Page · License Info. Unmodified image.

The significance of this photo lies not in decorating TSL as an event program, but in reminding us: Deaf culture is not only about the side that "needs assistance." Sign language can be a language class, public interpretation, but also performance, sports events, community gatherings, and creation. When cultural activities only place Deaf people in the position of being served, TSL is still narrowed. When Deaf people can become performers, organizers, and knowledge producers in their own language, the public space truly gains an expression method other than sound.

If TSL is used only by Deaf people, and converted by a few interpreters at critical moments, its legal status will remain on paper. This is not because every hearing person must learn to fluency, but because language rights require multi-layered entry points: Deaf children must be able to access complete language early, parents must have affordable learning support, teachers must be able to teach in TSL, healthcare and public services must provide direct or reliable communication, and the general public must know they are not facing "people who cannot speak," but "people who use a different language."

The most powerful aspect of TSL’s story is precisely not that it was finally named a national language by the government, but that it had been alive for a long time before that naming. Two early schools gathered scattered children into a community; northern and southern dialects preserved the differences of educational networks; post-war language contact left new vocabulary; researchers, teachers, and the Deaf community then organized it into a language that can be learned, recorded, and inherited.

Thus, 2019 is not the starting point of TSL, but a belated public acknowledgment. The true endpoint will not be just one more interpreter beside a press conference. When TSL can appear in a Deaf child’s home and school before they are forced to wait until "adulthood" to learn language. When public agencies do not have to wait for major events to think of information equity. When research and teaching materials no longer treat Deaf people only as objects to be served, but acknowledge them as language users, teachers, and knowledge producers—only then will the "equality for all" in the law transform from text into life.

TSL is not a silent Taiwan. It simply reaches us through the eyes. Whether a society truly hears depends on whether it is willing to turn its own systems in that direction.