Although Deaf people are an indigenous minority group in the EU, there has been very little cross European research on their languages and communities. On the one hand, this information would be useful in service planning into the next Millennium but it is also vital in developing our understanding of a unique and dynamic European language. In 1988, the European Parliament recognised the sign languages of the Member States. The question is whether that recognition has created an enabling environment for Deaf people and whether national responses to Deafness have had an impact on the current situation of Deaf people. The project was designed to collect data on sign language status in Europe today. By status, we mean the position which sign language has achieved in comparison to languages in general. Such status may be describes in terms of the extent of use and in terms of Deaf and hearing people's knowledge of sign language. The purpose of this work was to construct a picture of sign language use in Europe in 1997 and to determine its comparative status in different Member States. By so doing, the project would provide a basis for EU planning and progress in each participating country. There were three components to the study: Interviews with Deaf people Questionnaire responses from institutions with an involvement in Deafness Questionnaire returns from individuals, some of whom have no involvement in Deafness The work began in October 1996 and data collection and principal analysis was completed by July l997. This represents an extremely compressed time scale and is consistent with the snapshot of Europe that was required. However, the data reported here may undergo further more detailed analysis at a later stage, in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of attitudes to Deafness and sign language. Nevertheless, there is a great deal which can be deduced and reported from this analysis and which casts a great deal of light on what is happening in Europe today. The survey was planned in Bristol with a fixed frame for sampling the population, linked to age, gender, hearing status, location and nationality. Larger countries had more representatives. Research partners in each country of the European Union, Norway and Iceland, were contracted to carry out the research. Questionnaires and interview materials were translated into the language of the country. Deaf researchers, using the national sign language carried out interviews with Deaf people. Video materials to support this were given to all Deaf researchers at a workshop in February 1997. Researchers used translations originated in Bristol, made agreed adaptations or carried out their own agreed translations. The emphasis was on simplicity of style and all questions had to be directly comparable across languages. Data collected in each country was returned to Bristol for computer encoding and analysis. A total of 1030 returns have been analysed: from the Deaf community (325), from organisations and institutions with an involvement in Deafness (251) and from hearing individuals who had varying levels of involvement with Deaf people (454). There were major variations between countries in terms of experience 1 and provision. These tend to follow a North-South pattern with Nordic countries having more services and correspondingly greater awareness of Deafness. This can be seen throughout the responses of Deaf people, the organisations' respondents and the individual questionnaire returns. It would appear that there is a clear relation between the knowledge and awareness of the population, Deaf and hearing, and the level of provision and services available. Deaf People There are variations in the names given to the communication of Deaf people. On the one hand, Deaf people use "SIGNING" as a way to illustrate their communication with each other, but increasingly they term their signing "SIGN LANGUAGE." However, the names used in each country vary, as awareness of the language has progressed at different rates. The Deaf people who took part had mostly attended a Deaf school that was usually a day school. Children in Greece, Sweden and Norway tended to begin Deaf school later. Very few Deaf people (less than 25%) had experienced sign language in use in their schooling most of the time. In Portugal and Germany, more than two thirds had teachers, who never signed to them. In contrast, they were likely to sign to children outside of the classroom. Most had learned signing while still at school, although larger numbers (over 40%) of those in Greece and Portugal learned sign after the age of 11 years. Deaf people use sign much less than hearing people use speech. The Deaf community is not a geographical community or village and so Deaf people's interaction takes place in the evening and at Deaf clubs. There were major differences between countries in the amount of sign use which Deaf people experience. Swedish representatives claimed to have most. Deaf people used varying extents of sign language with different people. Interestingly, they tended not to sign with their parents or their children (who are mostly hearing) but signed extensively with their partners (mostly Deaf ) and with friends. Organisations Although the choice of institutions was to be the same in each country, there were certain institutions which did not exist in some countries - a location for mental health, an elderly persons home and so on. When asked directly about the status of sign language in their countries, there was a range of responses. In countries that had more developed services, often the responses were more critical than where there was no legislation. Of ail 251 returns, 47% felt that recognition of sign language was at a lower level than all other spoken languages or indeed, that there was no recognition at all. Although ail the participants were in centres that involved Deaf people, only 24% had policies on sign language communication at work. Interpreters were used in many countries but much less so in Ireland, Austria, Iceland and Spain. It was possible to generate a composite score for "commitment " to sign at work and in this, the Swedish response showed greatest acceptance, with least positive responses from France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Italy and Austria. Hearing Individuals The returns from individuals included both people who worked with Deaf people and those who had little contact with Deaf people. Mostly they did not believe sign language was recognised in their country. The pattern of knowledge and perception of signing was less developed in this group but only very few had never seen sign language. Then the groups were divided according to their extent of contact with deaf people, there were differences according to socio-economic status. It was more likely that professionals responded to the survey request (a common feature of surveys) but one which confounded the variable of contact with deaf people - i.e. more contact with deaf people was found among professionals (who were in caring or service roles). In order to deal with this, a sub-sample was chosen consisting only of professionals or managers. When this was used for the analysis, the north-south differences and the effects of contact with deaf people became more obvious. Northern countries with more provision and more contact, were more aware and more knowledgeable about Deaf people. In comparison to work carried out in the early l980s in the UK, only professionals showed an increased awareness of Deaf people and presented more positive attitudes. People with little contact with Deaf people tended to have more negative attitudes to Deaf people, and showed little advance on figures available for 1981. Comparisons Deaf people tend to believe there is less signing in a range of settings than do hearing people or those in organisations. However, the variable is complex as Deaf people tend to be more critical when there is a higher level of general awareness and provision than where there is less. Countries where the level of provision is less tend to be more optimistic about the extent of use of signing. When we asked about the existence of laws in favour of sign language, often hearing people believed there were laws when Deaf people did not know about them. Although most television programmes for Deaf people in sign were known to hearing people, in some countries there were Deaf programmes which hearing people did not know about (Netherlands, Portugal) and some countries where the hearing people were convinced that there was a programme which the Deaf people did not report (France). On a very simple point, hearing people were likely to be more aware of the existence of a sign language dictionary than Deaf people. It is interesting to consider whether other minority language users would be more aware of their dictionary than would be the majority language users. It seems likely that minority language users would frequently use a dictionary of the majority language. However, in the case of the Deaf community, hearing people were more likely to be owners and users of a dictionary of the national sign language. This is part of an emerging realisation in our research which seems to cut across many of the responses, that hearing people have more access to information about Deaf people than Deaf people have themselves. This applies even to sign language. When we set a "test " of sign language knowledge, the Deaf people tended to be less knowledgeable than the hearing people in the other groups. There could be many reasons for this including the questions themselves, but the reality remains that Deaf people may have limited access to knowledge which is directly concerned with their own language. Where the access to knowledge is possible, Deaf people are likely to perform better than do hearing people. A second emerging feature is that the responses from the hearing people and organisations,, referred to and created a picture of a service orientation where sign language is delivered to Deaf people who need it. In contrast the responses for Deaf people seemed to imply that they wished the language to be accepted and used in all walks of life. The two views are strikingly different. We are beginning to form the opinion that the best explanation of the hearing and organisation responses is that they reflect a service - oriented view, where hearing people see sign language as a need of Deaf people - something which might be assessed (and costed) and as a device by which Deaf people can be supported. The requirement for involvement by hearing people personally, diminishes and most probably, the provision which would be made, is interpreting. Deaf people, in contrast, wish there to be a community language and expect hearing people to engage with this, learn it and use it. This is brought home in the scenarios where sign language was said to be used and how these situations compared to users of other minority languages. Both Deaf and hearing identified sign language use in service situations - in job counselling, job interviews, but not in personal, health and community situations such as in shops or in visits to the doctor or with the clergy. It looks as if there remains a great deal to be done if sign language is to be a community language. Taken as a whole,, the results are complex and extensive. They will take some time to analyse fully. This is an initial attempt to do so and will provide a base for planning and further discussion.