So, I’m studying linguistics at Gallaudet. I spend each day thinking or talking about what language is, what sign language is, what ASL is, etc…
These aren’t easy questions to answer. I wouldn’t be studying linguistics if they were. When I ask people, I get different answers. My own answer even changes on a daily basis, even in the course of one discussion.
But there is an important question that we need to address. Not just for linguists to discuss. But for Deaf people as a community to answer. And for everyone to think about.
People use language everyday. It’s so important to us yet we don’t have serious discussions about it. Oh we’re quick to comment or quick to judge. For instance, on David Stuckless’s recent blog about a Deaf music video, someone commented that “it wasn’t pure ASL.”
What does that mean?
The idea of “pure ASL” doesn’t exist. Although Matthew Moore (recent founder of the society of ASL guardians) and many others would be quick to disagree. Why I don’t believe in it? A language is influenced by a myriad of factors: its users who come from a great variety of backgrounds, its use in different situations be it at school or at the bar, its surrounding languages (i.e., other languages that come in frequent contact with it), and the list continues. It is impossible to hold down a language and get it to stay still. It changes all the time, everywhere and for everyone.
What is ASL?
I could give you a dictionary definition, “It’s a sign language used by x number of people in America and some parts of Canada.”
I could give you a basic technical definition, “It’s a sign language that is its own language, separate from other signed and spoken languages in the world. It has a lexicon and set of rules that constrain its forms.”
I could give you a personal one, “It’s my language. It’s what I’ve been using to talk with friends, family, students, strangers, and colleagues since I was one. To use for sharing my thoughts, wants, bad jokes or just speaking out loud.”
There are so many more - your own personal one, the shifting definitions of the Deaf community, the mis-definitions some (those who don’t know what sign language even is or even those who teach Deaf children) have…
I think that most of these definitions aren’t so debatable (except for the technical definition for us linguists and undoubtedly the “mis-definitions”) but the one that is most controversial - is the shifting cultural definition of ASL.
Some Deaf people think that ASL is the language used only by Deaf people who were born in Deaf families and attended Deaf schools. That ASL is uninfluenced by English and should resist all change by external forces (e.g., mainstreamed Deaf students). Some Deaf people think that ASL is used by different people (Deaf residential students, Deaf mainstreamed students, Hearing CODAs, Hearing interpreters, etc.) and has been influenced by other languages like English.
What is THE cultural definition of ASL?
Is there even one?
This question is always on my mind but has increasingly become more personal to me. Probably because I constantly find people criticizing my ASL. This past weekend I went to another university to work on a research project with some colleagues I had never met in person before. Immediately a few of the Deaf people on their team made judgments and deemed my idiolect as non-ASL.
Or what about people in my own classes at Gallaudet who say in front of everyone, “oh what she just said wasn’t real ASL, that’s not what real Deaf people say.” Of course this strikes a nerve, it’s my language too! (There are more Deaf people that were born to hearing parents and mainstreamed than there are Deaf people born to Deaf parents and residentalized.)
But it also stirs up questions. What’s happening here? What factors are at play? Why do they get to decide what I’m speaking is not ASL and what Mr. Joe is speaking is? Really, what is ASL?
It’s time for the community to have real discussions about it.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
Have you checked out the comments on ASC’s recent vlog covering the sign as used for ‘counseling’? Interesting, yes?
Counseling Sign Vlog
yes, very interesting! that’s the kind of discussion we need. one that should be ongoing…
and there’s regional “dialect” signs in cities and rural areas across the country.
When someone says, “not pure ASL,” it’s usually understood that one does not sign ASL fluently; or that one modifies the natural language of ASL, those who are deaf parents of deaf children would sign naturally.
I understand that many people are very sensitive about the term, “not pure ASL,” or not signing ASL fluently but we all must realize that hearing educators of deaf children have been manipulating and screwing our language, ASL. It has to be stopped and allow the natural process of ASL to flourish without intervention of hearing people who know nothing about ASL.
From a pure linguistic perception, a natural language passes from parents to children. That’s what we ought to practice this way by showing our respect for the natural language passing from deaf parents to their deaf children.
In that case, the certain linguists of ASL MUST change their arrogant attitude, thinking they know better than deaf parents of deaf children, and seriously analyze and study them!
Now, Julie Hochgesang, I want you to open your eyes and ask yourself whether the linguists with PhD teaching ASL/English at Gallaudet ever seriously discuss and study researches or literatures written by deaf linguists whose primary language is ASL and their parents are deaf?
That’s my two cents.
What’s a “pure linguistic perception”? Again, I have issues with the word “pure”. I don’t think there are any assumptions that are true in every case. The situation changes. While it may have been true that most speakers acquire languages from their parents, why can’t we reconsider this “fact” when we look at the Deaf community? Why can’t we consider and discuss neutrally the fact that Deaf speakers of ASL can come from hearing parents too?
Which ASL linguists have arrogant attitudes and think they know better than Deaf parents of Deaf children?
The linguists at the Gallaudet department don’t teach ASL or English. They study languages (particularly signed languages) in natural contexts, and, yes, this entails studying seriously any literature related to sign languages by any linguist (be them Deaf or hearing, from a Deaf family or hearing family, American or British or Japanese, etc.).
I respect your resistance to the usage of the term, “pure.” Haven’t you read any literatures by Katz and Postal where they disucussed, “linguistics as something very much like mathematics, a pristine formal science without connection to anything as messy as thought.” Julie, now, wouldn’t you agree that the term, “pristine,” is a synonym of “pure”?
You assert, “while it may have been true that most speakers acquire languages from their parents, why can’t we reconsider this “fact” when we look at the Deaf community?
Oh, the fact is without question that language does pass from parents to children, though the children do evolve the nuances and terms of their language, otherwise the language would be frozen.
Now let’s focus the sentence you asked…”why can’t we reconsider this “fact” when we look at the Deaf community?”
That’s because most hearing educators and audiologists do not want to see ASL to flourish. Looking down on ASL is a form of oppression in deaf community–you need to understand the history of education for deaf children to realize that they DO mangle our language, ASL.
You asked, “Why can’t we consider and discuss neutrally the fact that Deaf speakers of ASL can come from hearing parents too?”
Oh, of course, we do and so are the linguists. However, have you noticed that those deaf children of hearing parents are often the subjects of ASL linguistic studies, not deaf children of deaf parents?
You ought to ask yourself why deaf children of deaf parents are rarely the subjects of published ASL linguistic studies? Here is my answer…most linguists who analyze ASL are not well versed in perceptive skills, that’s obvious how they manipulate natural ASL, rather than to allow ASL to flourish naturally without intervention from those who mangle ASL or think they know ASL.
You question, “Which ASL linguists have arrogant attitudes and think they know better than Deaf parents of Deaf children?” Well, as a grad student, that’s for you to observe, analyze, and find out for yourself.
You maintain, “The linguists at the Gallaudet department don’t teach ASL or English. They study languages (particularly signed languages) in natural contexts, and, yes, this entails studying seriously any literature related to sign languages by any linguist (be them Deaf or hearing, from a Deaf family or hearing family, American or British or Japanese, etc.).”
Prove me.
Native Signer,
When you propose that “pristine” is a synonym of “pure”, I’m inclined to agree. The quote you provided, however, suggests something different. Katz and Postal are talking about how one should study language. There are some scientists who believe that meaning should not be involved in the analysis of language but rather one should strive to identify the structures and rules for creating those structures in language. This method is very similar to mathematics. I don’t think they were trying to say language itself can be “pristine” (or “pure”), but rather the STUDY of language.
My question does not concern the effect of education on ASL, although it is an important issue. I did briefly mention in my original article “the misconceptions that educators have about ASL” but that isn’t really relevant to my current question.
I think it’s interesting that you believe that linguists don’t collect data from deaf children of deaf parents. The work I’ve seen and done has always targeted this population. Scott Liddell. Deborah Chen Pichler. Diane Lillo-Martin. Just to name a few.
You tell me to “observe, analyze, and find out for myself” who the arrogant ASL linguists are. I have been observing, analyzing, and finding out. And my current conclusions are that the linguists I’ve had the fortune of meeting are very careful about what data they use. They are very good about consulting native signers and including them in their work.
Julie, would you please name the specific articles or books that Liddell, Pichler, and Martin actually researched deaf children of deaf parents whose language is ASL?
Still, Katz and Postal used the term, “pristine” when they argued about the study of language. The STUDY of ASL is not pristine because those researchers have shown their biases; how could they analyze anthropological asplects of linguistics when their receptive skills in ASL are not fluent?
I’ve explained that “not pure ASL” often implies not signing ASL fluently. I’m sure you know that using the phrase (”not pure ASL”) is an acceptable metaphor.
1) I only list one instance for each author, although I can find more for these particular authors and several others.
Liddell, S. K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
For this book, Liddell relied on the grammaticality judgments of different ASL signers/speakers/users (Katherine, I’m still undecided! :) ). I know a few of those are Deaf of Deaf and am unsure about others.
Chen Pichler, D. 2001. Word Order Variation and Acquisition in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.
She used four Deaf children born to Deaf parents in her research.
Lillo-Martin, D. and Pertonio, K. (1997). WH-Movement and the Position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language, Vol 73, No. 1, pp. 18 - 57.
They specifically mention that they elicited data from many ASL signers, including Doreen Simons-Marques, Ted Supalla, and Clayton Valli. I believe they are all Deaf of Deaf.
2) Every researcher is biased. Every theory is biased. Every stated fact contains a particular view. How does this help prove your point about referring to research by Deaf of Deaf linguists?
3) Where’s the metaphor in “not pure ASL”?
Thank you for sharing the specific literatures that mention deaf children of deaf parents whose language is ASL.
Moreover, you just proved that we can count Deaf linguists on one hand.
Of course, I agree that each researcher carries some kind of biases; however, when their receptive skills are not fluent, how should we perceive the fairness of their research?
I suggest you read this book on Metaphor in ASL by Wilcox.
http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/MASL.html
How did I prove we can count Deaf linguists on one hand? Although I agree there should be more, I didn’t say anything to prove that point one way or another.
Receptive skills… how do you know what their receptive skills are if you haven’t met them?
I am familiar with the use of metaphor in ASL (and in English). I was wondering what you meant by a metaphor in “not pure ASL”. The only thing I see happening is the use of an adjective, specifically “pure” is an English adjective that modifies the noun “ASL”. Where’s the metaphor? A metaphor is a figure of speech where something applies to a concept that doesn’t really happen. For example, she broke through the glass ceiling. He’s a beacon of light. And so on… Linguists do discuss the metaphors (which aren’t the same as the literary ones) that exist in language but I don’t think that applies here.
Perhaps you did not read the messages between Shane and I…when I said you just proved, it’s not necssarily you striving to prove rather it was I who use your statement to prove a point I was trying to make. For me, the conversations in this blog become interwined with other messages.
Regarding receptive skills of certain researchers, believe me, I met many of them at every Linguistics conference, and I do know who is who.
All I suggest you is to read Wilcox’s book, Metaphor in ASL. I’m not interested in discussing subjective opinions.
It has been enlightening conversing with you, Shane, Dave, Katherine, JT, JJ, and others. Many thanks for your time.
Native Signer:
It is truly a pleasure having you contribute many of your valuable insights. I took all you said to the heart. Many of the things you have said await and deserve to be heard. It’s about time and I look forward to your contribution to the field of linguistics.
Native signer,
I appreciated the comments you’ve made and enjoyed the stimulating discussion that ensued. Thank you for your input.
Salama…
I’ve been disturbed by the use of the phrase “pure/pristine ASL” and it took me a few days to figure out why. People don’t talk about “pure English”. People use “proper” or “improper” English. This implies rules of the language are either being followed or they are not. Maybe if we discussed ASL in the same manner there would be less confusion and more boundaries and rules for us to compare to “improper ASL.” It wouldn’t matter who was doing the signing- DoD, DoH, Hearing of hearing. The language would be analyze by the same standard of linguistic rules in any situation: everyday use, music video, or a formal presentation.
Certainly, there are some DoH who are signers of ASL with varying degrees.
When studying and understanding a language, native signers among DoD families provide the foundation we need to build on and expand from. They have what many other languages have when it comes to being born to a family with same tongue. Some Deaf of Hearing and even Hearing of Hearing have benefitted from the findings of this very research.
With the Deaf community being an oppressed population with a sad history associated to it, too many people do not know what ASL is and what the language is about. Instead of letting ASL evolve over the years naturally, by the very people who are native signers, like we see with spoken languages by their native speakers, ASL was shoven in the backburner throughout the oral and Manually Coded English systems era.
When ASL is finally recognized as a language, some people used old MCEs approach/style or thinking related and then had the audacity to call it ASL. That, I do not call a natural evolution because first of all, MCE systems are not recognized as a language at all by linguists.
I can’t disagree with native signer’s comment:
“…we all must realize that hearing educators of deaf children have been manipulating and screwing our language, ASL. It has to be stopped and allow the natural process of ASL to flourish without intervention of hearing people who know nothing about ASL.” I want to add that some deaf people are not immune from this as some have learned from these hearing people. This is what promotes infighting between deaf people, unfortunately.
ASL is for anyone who desires to be part of it. I just ask that we keep an open minded and work together with native signers to help preserve, be sensitive and receptive to our language.
Julie, a friendly reminder… For someone like you who is studying to become a linguist, would it make sense if “signer” is replaced with speaker when referring to signed languages of the world?
Katherine,
An eloquent comment. I enjoyed reading it. Many valid points. As for your suggestion to use “signer” instead of “speaker”, I made the decision a long time ago that “speak” was so closely tied to using language, that “use” was a more broad term (e.g., “use a hammer”, “use a car”, etc.) and that “sign” was a more narrow term that wouldn’t suggest to people who weren’t familiar with sign languages that sign languages were something completely different from spoken languages. One of my goals is to see that people find signed languages equal to spoken language. This is why I use “speak”. But you have a valid point, and that’s something we need to discuss as well. I’m open.
I do see where you are coming from by using the word, “speak.” You have a point.
On the same vein, it can lead to a misconception to people, who are not familiar, that signed languages are a derivation from spoken languages. That is what people often associate our language with. i.e. ASL is a derivation of English. By using the term, “speak,” it can send a confusing message.
I no longer use sign language, which can include one of MCE systems by some people, because it gives certain people room to politicize ASL. When I talk about ASL or another country’s language, I make a point to use “signed language” to separate ASL from MCE systems.
Native Signer,
Is “natural language” also shared among deaf community members?
I think we all have seen a number of instances where a deaf person of hearing parents contributes to ASL. While deaf of deaf family interaction in a deaf household is probably an ideal incubator for the creative expression of sign language, I don’t think that we should be so quick to dismiss the possible positive contributions of deaf of hearing or hearing people to our language. We all have seen deaf people who learn the language late in their lives and completely absorb ASL.
Some hearing people appear to understand the structure and syntax of ASL better than some deaf people. Does that mean we bar their access to the language?
And finally, I want to be sure I understand your logic correctly. Since I do not come from a deaf of deaf family, I am not a “natural” signer because it was not passed down to me through my parents?
Oh, definitely, Shane…many deaf members of their community do share natural language of ASL. And, yes, deaf children of hearing parents who learn ASL later, they do contribute a lot to deaf community, but that’s not the point of my discussion.
The point I’m trying to make you see is how certain academic scholars often dismiss deaf children of deaf parents and even discriminate against them. They do not look at deaf parents as their equals.
Don’t you find it rather disconsolate to realize that hearing people know more about the grammatical structures of ASL than most deaf people themselves? Yet, they do nothing to standardize ASL for deaf children so they can understand and know their own language? Now, regarding the issue of accessing to the language of ASL, I’m asking you who bars whom?
As I explained to Julie in the earlier post that “not pure ASL” is often understood as not signing ASL fluently.
Yes, I discuss that ASL is a natural language since it does pass from deaf parents to deaf children; and at the same time certain hearing educators and audiologists do mangle and screw our natural language, ASL.
I’m not dismissing anyone but to present the facts, Shane. Please understand that most of us do have utmost respect for anyone who can sign ASL fluently, and even adopt ASL as their own nautral language.
Now, as Julie pointed out David Stuckless’s blog on Deaf music video where someone commented that their ASL was not *pure* ASL. Julie asked what this phrase “not pure ASL” implied. I explained that it’s often understood as not signing ASL fluently. Whoever made the comment, “not pure ASL,” has a right to criticize.
See, whenever a hearing individual audits for a spot to be a singer, one has to sing beautifully! With that in mind, anytime a group wants to sign music in ASL, I expect to see the highest degree of fluency and as well as for them to sign poetically.
I hope this clarification helps.
Native Signer,
The clarification helps.
“The point I’m trying to make you see is how certain academic scholars often dismiss deaf children of deaf parents and even discriminate against them. They do not look at deaf parents as their equals.”
Since I am not involved in ASL linguistics, can you explain this to me? How do they discriminate against deaf of deaf? I am not sure if I experienced this firsthand, so it is difficult for me to determine if your statement is indeed a “fact”.
OK, Shane, here is an excerpt from a literature discussing the limited research on ASL of deaf children whose signing parents are deaf.
Moreover, I have to rummage through my file for another literature from, I think, 1990s where a hearing researcher clearly dismissed deaf children of deaf parents.
QUOTE
Acquisition and processing of signed languages. Language acquisition
for deaf children with signing deaf parents typically involves use of
American Sign Language (ASL). Previous research, although limited, has
indicated that in those individuals exposed to ASL from birth, linguistic competence, on-line sentence processing and underlying neural mechanisms for language may be similar to those found in hearing users of native spoken languages. Additional studies are needed of cognitive, motor, neural, and molecular processes involved in acquisition of ASL among deaf children of deaf parents.
UNQUOTE
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/g.....4-091.html
I believe this literature from NIH presents one of the examples showing that certain researchers were biased and generally dismissed deaf children of deaf parents whose language is ASL.
I hope this clarifies.
That is one example (please share the rest when you rummage through your file).
This begs the question, if there is not enough research being done on deaf of deaf, then what is the entire field of ASL linguistic researchers doing their research on?
Take a look at the Gallaudet website for ASL/Deaf Studies faculty:
http://depts.gallaudet.edu/dea.....-staff.htm
Are you telling me that there is not enough research on deaf of deaf despite the presence of these faculty members at Gallaudet? If so, why?
Shane, something for you to ponder:
Why do those deaf linguists with PhD in linguistics work in the Deaf Studies Department at GU?
Why is there only one deaf linguist with PhD in linguistics working in the Linguistics Department at GU?
Why does the Linguistics Department at GU exclusively offer MA and PhD in Linguistics?
How many deaf graduate students are studying for MA and PhD in Linguistics at GU?
Why do those deaf linguists with PhD in linguistics work in the Deaf Studies Department at GU?
* Let’s ask them. But I think linguistics makes a fine background for other disciplines.
Why is there only one deaf linguist with PhD in linguistics working in the Linguistics Department at GU?
* There are two. Paul Dudis and Sue Mather.
Why does the Linguistics Department at GU exclusively offer MA and PhD in Linguistics?
* That’s Gallaudet’s issue not the department’s. I think other departments should offer PhDs as well.
How many deaf graduate students are studying for MA and PhD in Linguistics at GU?
* There are 5 or 6 in the first year (out of 8), 3 in the 2nd year (out of 5, and another will return next year. this includes myself.), and there are several studying for their PhDs.
Let me clarify my sentence…
“whether the linguists with PhD teaching ASL/English in the Department of Linguistics at GU ever seriously discuss and study researches or literatures written by deaf linguists whose primary language is ASL and their parents are deaf?”
Julie answered your questions. And as a perfect example: Dr. Paul Dudis.
He’s read not only by Deaf scholars but hearing scholars studying spoken languages as well.
I thought that discussion had been throughout in the 1960’s and 1970’s in the time of William Stokoe and the struggles at the Deaf community in recognization of the sign language.
Don’t forget to watch the old video of NAD’s oldest presdient Venditz signing in the Perseveration of Sign Language. It’s probably the pure ASL you could find. Battles against ASL (or at that time, called the sign language) have been going on in the begninning of 20th century until today. Also I believe that Dr. Frank Turk’s ASL is as almost as pure.
I am surprised to this day, you are bringing that up these issues about ASL. I thought this discussion has been done and agreed by scholars that ASL is pure enough to be a structured language.
How can a discussion about language ever be “done”? Languages are constantly changing, if they didn’t they would die out. So as these changes occur, we have to realize that discussion is a very important part of understanding how and why.
Sarah, I share the same thought with you about the changes of languages. ASL variation is the results of the constant changes in the language of any existing community. The changes take place in all aspects of language that the speakers or signers may not realize. For example, the English spoken in the Shakespeare’s original version is different from the English spoken today. While on the contrary, ASL originally came from French Sign Language (FSL). Here we called American Sign Language. The ASL structure/grammar is similar to FSL. The changes of ASL already have occurred over time since Laurent Clerc introduced it to America. That makes me wonder where the original ASL is.
BS,
Julie’s discussion asks what is “pure” ASL? Since you seem to know what “pure” ASL is, can you describe it to us? Dr. Frank Turk is an ASL user, no doubt. There are not many people who sign like him, so what is it about his signing that makes it “pure”?
What often happens is that someone shows me a deaf person, and says “that is pure ASL” and then another deaf person comes up and disagrees, “no that is not pure ASL” points to someone else and says “that is pure ASL”.
What can we use to “measure” the “purity” of ASL? That is, if there is indeed such a concept where we can all agree on what defines “pure” ASL.
Some thoughts:
-The “not pure ASL” people are just people practicing audism. Ignore them because they cannot even define the parameters of “pure ASL”. Like you say, it doesn’t exist.
-I do agree that the deaf community needs to come to some sort of a consenus on what is “proper ASL”. I do see professional interpreters adhering to some kind of a standard. I am sure they do not have precise definitions, but all of the “really good” terps seem to have a similar level of fluentcy (is that even a word? heh heh).
-Still, as you say, all languages evlove on an ongoing basis and you cannot “freeze” a language.
-I think anyone who can pass an advanced ASL class qualifies as fluent in ASL.
-It’s like in spoken English..some folks are really good at “wording” things…but it doesn’t make them more ‘competent’ than someone who can speak English albeit in a very dull manner. For example, if two people were asked to describe a tree on a hill…one person says, “The tree on the hill had orange leaves, which were falling off” then the other person says, “The magnificent old oak tree stood strongly on the hill top silhoutted against the orange sky of dusk…” One person is more interesting than the other, but is that person more proficient in the English language? No. I think it’s the same way with ASL.
-Of course, there’s the issue of terrible and choppy signing style…but I think that has more to do with laziness or not be willing to work on your signing skills. I have seen hard of hearing people sign better than people who were born deaf…ASL takes work..just like any other language. The reason that deaf of deaf seem better than other deaf people at ASL is simply because they signed ASL in the crib..while the rest of us picked it up later.
-I was born deaf, but grew up half in the hearing world. So, I used SEE/PSE a lot and my ASL was developed by hanging out with my deaf friends. Even then, I didn’t ‘perfect’ my ASL until I arrived to Washington D.C. Like it or not, Gallaudet is still the mecca of the deaf community. While a student at MSSD, I was mocked by friends for signing the word “Red” by forming a “R” with my hand and saying “Red” instead of just forming a finger and saying “Red”. With my friends I still form the “R”…but in a professional atmosphere..i.e. a meeting with deaf professionals I would use the proper sign for ‘red’.
J.J., you made a good point about the spectrum of expressing ASL. The commanders of ASL and English—they naturally determine their level of expression. There’s a reason a lot of us aren’t bestselling authors. We may have this ability to write and form sentences that are, most of the time, grammatically correct. But, it doesn’t make us Kafka-inspired writers. Case in point, the same applies to ASL.
No such thing as “pure” in the world of languages. But, there’s no denying that there’s that enviable level of native signing fluency that so many of us aspire to reach. We look up to people who have the FrankTurksque effect that leave us stunned. Just like we look up to people who can write so well and effortlessly.
I doubt I’m helping much with this “pure” ASL discussion. But, I believe we all ASL users belong to some arbitrary spectrum of fluency. I’d assume that the more right you go at the spectrum, the higher likelihood that it is from acquiring the language in a close-knit setting (e.g., mainstream programs, deaf schools, or deaf of deaf).
I had to jump in here:
What about those Deaf parents who are children of hearing parents? Those that didn’t attend Deaf schools? Are they considered “native” (denoted as such, since the term is up for debate) signers when passing on the language to their Deaf children? What about *before* they have Deaf children?
I am a Deaf person from a hearing family and was mainstreamed from fifth grade on. I had a mom who knew some SEE/PSE before I was born, and fully embraced my involvement in the community (I remember times when we would fight tooth and nail about attending community events - how ironic! But that’s another story…). However, she felt as strongly about English and instilled both in me. It wasn’t until much later (high school) that I really worked on developing my ASL skills, because it was just simply much better and easier to communicate fully in ASL.
I’m able to understand and use ASL well enough that I know when it is being mangled by individuals, well-meaning or otherwise. Yet, I still find myself being criticized as you do, Julie. I consider myself culturally Deaf, but somehow cannot satisfy “perfect” ASL. Having lived and worked in various communities, I realize now that I don’t have a strong foundation in ASL, as perhaps Deaf of Deaf do; my ASL has now become a melting pot of different regions. I am considering mentoring with a local respected Deaf instructor to strengthen my ASL skills, because I want to be able to convey my ideas, opinions, feelings, easily in the language of my community. Same as hearing people who want to improve their English skills by taking upgrading courses.
This is the same question that popped in to my head after reading many of these comments. To be a user of “pure” ASL, how far back do you have to go? If you are Deaf with Deaf parents, but all of your grandparents are Hearing, are you being passed down “pure” ASL? Is there some sort of rule book or dictionary definition for “pure” ASL?
Dare I introduce another perspective- Hearing Children of Deaf Parents? ASL (or my parent’s form of it) was introduced to me at birth. I’m pretty good with english, and my signs I know aren’t PURE ASL…
I’ve interpreted for everyone from Crackheads (literally) to Senior Computer and Automotive Engineers. Every one of them, in the end, understood the message I was interpreting.
I interpreted a funeral a few weeks ago and was greeted at the end by a person who listed what signs I signed wrong.
Audism is one thing- and yes it’s messed up, but how about elitism, where ‘your way’ is the only way. I tend to think it even worse.
I agree with you, David. Elitism often hinders our ability to discuss what ASL really is.
David and Julie
I’d like for you to clarify what you mean when you apply the term “elitism” to deaf children of deaf parents whose language is ASL?
How can deaf children of deaf parents whose language is ASL be elitism when ASL is their natural language?
Do we also apply the term “elitism” to the native speakers of English? That’s something I don’t understand.
You need to consider who screwed up the natural language of ASL, causing the babel of tower syndrome among deaf and hard of hearing people.
Wouldn’t it be much simplier had our educators show respect the natural language of ASL?
We didn’t apply the term “elitism” to Deaf of Deaf. We applied the term to what sometimes happens when people make judgments about the use of ASL.
Native Signer, I’d like to make one thing clear. I have nothing against Deaf children of Deaf parents. AND I have nothing against Deaf children of hearing parents. What I’m talking about here is the rash and misconceived judgments some may make about the definition of ASL.
I also agree very strongly with you on the point about the need for educators to show respect for ASL. I think that’s one of the most important things we need to fight for. I think ASL should be recognized legally and that schools should use it to teach Deaf children.
This issue is very personal for many people and that sometimes may cloud the issue. I think we owe it to ourselves to push aside those personal feelings and really look at the situation.
Native Signer,
You asked for clarification in my application of the term elitism to Deaf children of Deaf parents whose language is ASL…
YOU applied it to Deaf of Deaf. I never said if this person was Deaf of Deaf, Deaf of Hearing, Hearing of Deaf, or Hearing of Hearing.
When I have conversation with my friends, with co-workers, with professionals such as Doctors, Lawyers, Judges, Scientists, Legislators and so on- none of them correct my english. I truly don’t think it’s ever happened. When I send emails to professional writers and linguists, they don’t correct my language.
But every now and then there’s a few people that feel obligated to correct my signs in casual conversation. Like for basement (you use the a-hand, not the b-hand), or outside (not the c-hand on the shoulder, but out near the shoulder).
My contention is only when we as people- (because that’s what we all are, regardless of our audiogram, or that of our parents)- feel obligated to correct or criticize someone else’s language.
Conversational posturing… Like when you say things like “Now, Julie Hochgesang, I want you to open your eyes and ask yourself…” It doesn’t invite conversation or dialogue, and it sure as hell isn’t engaging. And I think she’s proven enough of your assumptions incorrect.
And I can only assume that this posturing was what the writer was getting at when she mentioned “…what about people in my own classes at Gallaudet who say in front of everyone, “oh what she just said wasn’t real ASL, that’s not what real Deaf people say.” Of course this strikes a nerve, it’s my language too!”
David,
People HAVE corrected your english word choices, maybe you were just too arrogant to notice it. No one is perfect in any language, mistakes are made, especially as Interpreters. However as “english” users living in a society where english is predominately used, we don’t acknowledge those corrections. The other perspective is that english users aren’t as protective of their language as ASL users are- therefore don’t have the need to correct someone any time a “mistake” is made.
Hearing children of deaf parents whose primary language is ASL, their first language is ASL. That’s fact!
Ryan Commerson speaks about the definition of ASL on a short vlog here. Albeit with a political twist; but his point is still valid.
Thank you, Bobby! Ryan’s vlog’s wonderful. Yes, you’re right. His stance was more political than anything. But he raised great points. ASL isn’t an all-inclusive system of different communicative styles. It doesn’t employ English word order. The most interesting part (for me) was that Gallaudet has that as their communicative policy. Gallaudet, the home of Stokoe and the beginning of ASL research, didn’t take to heart Stokoe’s work. The department of linguistics has tried time and time again to change this policy but someone up there isn’t listening.
A general note on “pure ASL”. There are 2 ways I find this used. One is the way mentioned by Native Signer of ASL - not signing fluently. I also find that people use “pure ASL” to judge even those who are fluent. This second sense seems to reject variation (brought about by borrowing from other languages (signed and spoken), changes that’ve occurred over time (from Veditz’s ASL to today’s ASL), etc…).
And Shane brings up an excellent issue - how do we “measure” the “purity” of ASL? I think we can’t. It may be too subjective.
J.J. and Liz talk about people who use ASL well. This doesn’t refer to the fluency of an ASL speaker but their articulateness or eloquence. That’s a more stylistic perspective than it is linguistic.
Julie,
I can understand why my comment may seem to be more on the “stylistic” side. But, it’s not what I meant at all. When I mentioned the spectrum of fluency, perhaps I should’ve said, the spectrum of authenticity. The more right you go along the spectrum, the more real ASL becomes. I am certainly not confusing mastery with authenticity of the language. I know some masters of ASL that don’t get the “authenticity” medal. I may not be a linguist but I’ve observed the elusive meaning of pure ASL in deaf-core settings like deaf schools, deaf families, deaf camps, etc. And I leave feeling I’ve got a long way to go learning about ASL. Perhaps, it’s an individual preference when it comes to claiming what is authentic and what isn’t. I don’t want to think that I’m being an elitist when I do that. I happen to uphold ASL standards high to know that they should be honored especially those that use it as their native language.
Ah, I see.
What you call “pure” ASL (that you’ve seen in deaf schools, etc.), I may aesthetically prefer that variety but I wouldn’t call them more authentic.
Using a language means that you understand the rules for creating structures (be it a sign, a phrase, etc.) and communicate with others (this is pretty basic but it’s a good starting point for our discussion). This is subject to so much variation - coming from different geographical areas, educational backgrounds, economic/social experiences, and so on. We could say that Deaf of Deaf use one variety of ASL (and that’s what some call “pure” ASL). But then again, that’d be too simplistic because maybe they wouldn’t attend residential schools or they’re from different areas. I’m hesitant to identify one type of signing as more authentic as others. It seems that the criteria used is more social than actually linguistic.
I’m reminded of comments by people who say that French is better suited for poetry and English for science. That kind of judgment isn’t linguistic but rather subjective. Beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that jazz.
Some things come to mind -
Being deaf of deaf is becoming rarer - the majority of deaf people are born to hearing parents or become deaf later. What impact will/does this have on ASL? And don’t forget the popularity of CIs. So will ASL become a dying language?
And doesn’t alot depend on how deaf parents communicate? Merely because they are deaf doesn’t mean they use ASL in one form or another. Further, a hearing child of deaf parents, capable of ASL, has a deaf child and it sounds like because that child does nothave deaf parents, he or she is viewed differently by the deaf community? ….there are so many scenarios. I am not sure if everything depends on just what the parents are - it sounds like there are so many other factors - schooling, friends, parental involvement, etc.
I have met quite a few deaf people who have very good receptive ASL skills, but use more of SEE/PSE themselves. How do these fit in?
Last, I thought it was the goal of an interpreter to make sure people understood him/her. Thus, if you have a mixed audience of deaf people, what is the compromise? Very few employers and public entities can afford to hire a variety of interpreters for events, and it seems like there is always a dissatisfied person.
But interpreting is a sticky wicket, and again probably more suitable for a different blog.
I’m not so sure I’d equate “purity” with fluency. That said, can I say that ASL’s “purity” comes with the idea that all of the rules and parameters in which ASL is set for it to be, technically, a language of and by itself? And that the rest of it is zeroed on the fact that ASL is an ever-changing, ever-evolving happenstance but the “purity” remains constant? Or am I being too overly simplistic?
I think mastery is a better way of describing “purity”. Fluency has nothing to do with mastery.
Could a hearing person ‘master’ ASL? Wouldn’t it then lose its “nativeness”? Do the purists insist that only deaf people can ‘master’ ASL?
Interesting subject. But I think, academically-wise, the ASL has been bashed upon repeatedly by people like Carol Padden and others.
To quote the comments from some books to define the ASL is not the way to go, IMO.
I am 6th generation of deaf families, nearly all of my generations did not go to college. Clayton Valli once visited and observed my parents — he muttered to me in private, “I think your parents may be one of fewest remaining Deaf people who knew how to sign pure ASL.”
I take it as a compliment. Too bad I’m not pure but I know what it takes to be one like my parents.
It is healthy debate but to continuously beat on a dead tree repeatedly can be so tiresome, I think.
R-
Ridor,
Don’t be silly. You are still full membership of Pureblood. So what if I am a Mudblood….
Rock on Malfoy!
The full-fledged ASL usually compose the cinematic contents and fluidity when come to the concept of visual communication, ex. movies. Every surviving language always have been evolutionary as opposed to the so-called purest form of language itself. No purest language survives anyway. (Mason, Robert L., 10/03/06)
The existence of closed captionings and subtitles within television probably influence the current ASL signers as compared to the past deaf generation of ASL signers without captions on TV (Mason, Robert L., 10/03/06)
The weekly captioned films at residential schools of the past just occured once per week. The past deaf generation had to visualize the dialogues without being influenced by daily exposures to written dialogues, ex. captions on TV (Mason, Robert L., 10/03/06).
Comic book readings of the 1940s to 80s indirectly influence ASL male signers in many ways without realizing the effects and imapcts on the style of ASL language itself. Same thing with the action films. (Mason, Robert L., 10/03/06)
We ought to ask ourselves HOW and WHY our ASL language quickly compromised in shortest evolutuionary language development between the 60s and 90s. (Mason, Robert L., 10/03/06)
Is the emergence of “Signed Exact English” and “Total Communication” in the 70s and 80s directly responsible for fuddening the existing ASL or what? Perhaps yes! (Mason, Robert L., 10/03/06)
The social stratification within the past deaf education settings have to do a lot with the regularization of ASL as a common language among students at residential schools or higher education institutions. The social status of deaf youngsters of deaf parents never have been placed in higher esteem before the 80s. The deaf youngsters of deaf parents ended up compromising their own ASL comptency after the 70s. (Mason, Robert L., 10/03/06)
All the following comments within this blog posting by Robert L. Mason are formally copyrighted under the intellectual property of Robert L. Mason estate (RLM).
Come on, try to sue me. Just try.
* * * *
The full-fledged ASL usually compose the cinematic contents and fluidity when come to the concept of visual communication, ex. movies. Every surviving language always have been evolutionary as opposed to the so-called purest form of language itself. No purest language survives anyway.
The existence of closed captionings and subtitles within television probably influence the current ASL signers as compared to the past deaf generation of ASL signers without captions on TV
The weekly captioned films at residential schools of the past just occured once per week. The past deaf generation had to visualize the dialogues without being influenced by daily exposures to written dialogues, ex. captions on TV
Comic book readings of the 1940s to 80s indirectly influence ASL male signers in many ways without realizing the effects and imapcts on the style of ASL language itself. Same thing with the action films.
We ought to ask ourselves HOW and WHY our ASL language quickly compromised in shortest evolutuionary language development between the 60s and 90s.
Is the emergence of “Signed Exact English” and “Total Communication” in the 70s and 80s directly responsible for fuddening the existing ASL or what? Perhaps yes!
The social stratification within the past deaf education settings have to do a lot with the regularization of ASL as a common language among students at residential schools or higher education institutions. The social status of deaf youngsters of deaf parents never have been placed in higher esteem before the 80s. The deaf youngsters of deaf parents ended up compromising their own ASL comptency after the 70s.
And this is supposed to be “intellectual property”?
copied from Ronald B. Adler
Language is symbolic. Even sign language, as “spoken” by most deaf people, is symbolic in nature and not the pantomime it might seem. Because this form of communication is symbolic and not literal, hundreds sign languages around the world have evolved independently whenever significant numbers of deaf people are in contact. Thse distinct languages include American Sign Language, British Sign Language, French Sign Language even Australian Aboriginal. The symbolic nature of language is a blessing.
Do you agree with him?