DEAF STUDIES DIGITAL JOURNAL
Tracking our Sign Language Heritage
Ted Supalla, Fanny Limousin and Matthew Malzkuhn
Georgetown University
Videography by Matthew Malzkuhn and Ted Supalla
Summaries by Betsy Hicks McDonald, Georgetown University
Abstract This article presents a model used by Dr. Ted Supalla and his research team to
illuminate the motivation and methods for historical sign language documentation at various
points in time. Each aspect of historical documentation contributes to accurate reconstruction,
revealing periods of stable transmission or change in language and culture across successive
Deaf cohort generations in the United States and France.
Chapter Summaries
Chapter 1: Illuminating a 250-year legacy
One important tool for studying sign language history is to examine sources within and
across 50-year time periods for significant sign language documentation trends and
techniques. Research team member Matt Malzkuhn contributes chapters on
documentation sources in mid-20th century America, roughly 50 years after the NAD
films. Team member Fanny Limousin contributes chapters on early sources and data
from France, 50 years before the founding of the American School for the Deaf. While
LSF documentation waned after this time period, we can pick up the thread of
documentation in America. We will examine these early and modern 50-year intervals of
sign language documentation sources and trends in this article.
Chapter 2: The early 20th century sign language campaign
The National Association of the Deaf plan for promoting and improving the legacy of
sign language in America integrated 3 components: a series of filmed lectures, a text, and
a broad-based networking effort. Each aspect of the plan was built upon the same vision
and principles for the preservation and use of the sign language. The film series included
not only the well-known George Veditz, but also a host of additional key individuals.
The following clips show portions of the filmed lectures by these men and women.
•
http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu
John B. Hochkiss, Amos Draper, Edward A. Fay, E. M. Gallaudet, Thomas Fox, George Dougherty, James Cloud, Willis Hubbard, Winfield Marshall, Mary Williamson Erd, Harley Drake, Ruth Knox Birck, Frederick Hughes. Issue No.4 Spring 2014
DEAF STUDIES DIGITAL JOURNAL
Original films also included one from J. Schuyler Long of Iowa. His film has
unfortunately been lost, but it was Long, in fact, who published the critical second
component of the NAD plan: the illustrated sign language dictionary entitled: “The Sign
Language: A Manual of Signs”. The third element of the plan was the creation of a
national literary society, with chapters at American Deaf schools across the nation. With
the eventual collapse of this original infrastructure, we may ask how we can accomplish
this task once again with modern technology, such as social media.
Chapter 3: Further documentation in the 20th Century
The 1960’s were an important era in the history of ASL documentation. In 1960 Dr.
William C. Stokoe published a monograph on the structure of American sign language,
and followed this up in 1965 with the Dictionary of ASL, co-authored with deaf
colleagues Dorothy Casterline and Carl Croneberg. We see that the timing of the
dictionary of ASL coincided with a period of struggle within the community as to the
validity and form of ASL in public space. Given the currents of this era, it will be
interesting to examine additional films made within the community by Deaf people
themselves. Matt Malzkuhn reports on this in the next 3 chapters of the article.
Chapter 4: Preserving Deaf folklife films
The intent and purpose for this section is to valorize Deaf Community films and to
uncover the values they portray. In our previous sections of this article, we have
discussed the support historical sources provide for efforts to revitalize the study of sign
language literature and literacy programs. In this effort, 20th century Deaf folklife films,
also known as home movies, are important additions to the sources available,
representing yet another avenue for study, with many films yet to be discovered. In
reference to the 50-year intervals of study mentioned earlier in this article, the films
discussed here focus on the period roughly between the NAD film production beginning
in 1910 and the 1970’s. The following two chapters of this report will discuss the
methodology of our ongoing collection of Deaf folklife films, and the analysis and
interpretation of the films.
Chapter 5: Creating a historical film database
In order to study the expression of Deaf values and ways of being, film footage in the
historical collection is categorized according to themes and content. In this way, the films
become data yielding interpretations and arguments. Community individuals have been
asked to share contact information, their knowledge about Deaf film makers and the
location of home film collections. From the responses, it is clear that these films are
often neglected because they are in an older technological format and not yet digitized.
So far, we have access to the well-known NAD films and those of Charles Krauel, as well
as the newer collections of the Supalla family and my own somewhat newer Malzkuhn
family collection from the 1980s and 90s. Each film collection is entered into a digital
database. A film taxonomy enables the films to be systematically classified and easily
compared as to language, content and theme. With the completed data from this effort,
we can look across films and interpret their content as to the expression of Deaf values.
http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu
DEAF STUDIES DIGITAL JOURNAL
Chapter 6: Interpretation of Deaf values in films
In interpreting the films, we take as a given that the act of creating film footage of an
object or activity demonstrates its value to the filmmaker, who actively chooses to create
a record and preserve it. In this sense, we interpret the film contents as an expression of
Deaf values. Deaf people often shoot footage of well-known locations, each other’s
homes and cars and other possessions. Footage of plays and other performances at home
and at festivals is also common. By noting who is filmed and who is filming across film
content, we can also gather data to contribute to the academic theories of gender roles in
film and roles in film production.
Chapter 7: Reconstruction and reenactment of historical signs
Challenges remain in tracking our sign language through history, particularly since gaps
in film or print documentation remain. Even what is documented in these print or film
sources doesn’t capture the entire picture. However, we can look across resources to
reconstruct undocumented signs by examining related forms in contemporaneous
sources. This yields a richer linguistic picture than merely comparing a historical form to
a modern form. For example, the sign I use today for “language” is produced with two
handshapes in the form of the manual letter “L”—an initialized sign. Currently, there is
a trend toward restoring an older non-initialized sign to replace this modern form.
Gathering related forms from the J. S. Long 1910 ‘Dictionary of the Sign Language,”
several entries for ‘language’ and other concepts related to the use of language inform us
as to the contrasts present across signs in this era. The addition of these contextualized
historical examples can help us to perfect our re-enactment of older styles of signing.
Chapter 8: Before the beginning: LSF in France
As we are setting out and examining historical sign language sources in American terms
in 50-year time frame intervals, it is important to apply this technique to LSF in France as
well. While we know that LSF is the precursor language to ASL, we must keep in mind
that the historical course of these two languages is not precisely parallel. The history of
LSF extends at least 50 years further into the past than ASL, to the time of the Abbé de
l’Epée, whose school was founded at the time of the American Revolution. While the
particulars of the relative history of these two nations is not identical, we do know that
LSF was brought to America and we can therefore hypothesize that there will be
similarities across the two signed languages. Therefore, in researching the 200-year
history of ASL, the study of early LSF is critical, extending as it does a full 50 years
further into the past, giving us a 250-year history. In the next 3 chapters, Fanny
Limousin will present on the sources and some preliminary findings from early LSF.
Chapter 9: The First 50 years of LSF Documentation
In present times, we see a great deal of variation in LSF across France. We have little
knowledge to date on the source of such variation, the timing for the emergence of the
various forms, or the history of the sign language varieties,, as there are scant text and
dictionary sources. When we approach the study of LSF, we can refer to the model of
research with attention to 50-year time periods. It has been shown that, within and across
http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu
Issue No.4 Spring 2014
DEAF STUDIES DIGITAL JOURNAL
these time periods, a variety of etymological patterns emerge in the languages. Some
forms will be maintained with little change across time and in other cases we may see
widespread variation and change. It will be interesting to apply this model to LSF. The
etymological data set chosen for demonstration purposes contains the two concepts:
“man” (l’homme) and “boy” (le garcon).
Chapter 10: The Etymology for MAN in LSF
Data used for the etymological analysis of these forms is gathered across the entire time
span of LSF from various sources, grouped into 50 year time periods. Sources have been
found for 3 time periods in LSF: an Old LSF time period (1), a second time period 50
years following this (2), and after a 100-year gap in documentation, a modern LSF time
period (3). Setting out the etymological data for the sign MAN in the old LSF group 1,
two text descriptions both indicate that the sign should be formed “hold hat.” In the 2nd
group of 5 dictionaries 50 years later, descriptions indicate that the sign should be
formed: “tip hat.” And finally, in the 3rd group from the modern era 100 years later, a
completely different sign emerges, a one-handed sign beginning near the cheek, with a
movement seeming to depict a moustache. This is the modern form for the sign for
“man.” Thus, there have been obvious changes for the sign MAN across these 3 time
periods in LSF history.
Chapter 11: The constructions for BOY in LSF
In this chapter we turn to historical aspects of the sign for “boy” in LSF. Looking back at
the sources in the first 50 years of documented LSF history, the concept “boy” was
signed periphrastically. The individual components of the construction for BOY are
signed with ASL glosses. The first sign in this sequence was the LSF sign for MAN and
all modern LSF variants shown retain a similarity to this early sign. This is evidence for
historical transmission and maintenance of the form in LSF, and also evidence for the
derivation of BOY from a construction which included the early sign MAN, before the
more modern form resembling “moustache” superseded it. In conclusion, in this
reconstruction process, the value of comparing and contrasting the etymology of forms
for a concept, and the phonological form of diverse signs within and across specific
historical eras is clear. Each of these three aspects of research methodology informs the
others at the nexus of documentation and analysis.
Chapter 12: The history of ideas in the Deaf Community
Historical documentation is valuable in efforts to trace the history of sign language, but
the traditional stories of the origin of Sign Language may not always be accurate, as in
the case of George Veditz honoring the Abbe de l’Epée as the inventor of sign language.
Other evidence from research and historical documentation shows that, far from being
incapable of forging a sign language, even an isolated Deaf child can begin the process of
sign language evolution. This begins with gesture-based efforts to communicate with
caregivers. The knowledge of the existence of such homesign before a deaf child enters
school and learns a standard sign language such as ASL is a part of Deaf epistemology.
The traditional story of the “gift of Sign language” by l’Epée to Deaf people is perhaps a
way to explain the way in which l’Epée adapted the regional sign language into a
http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu
DEAF STUDIES DIGITAL JOURNAL
systematic teaching tool, giving rise to the practice of “prescriptive grammar.” It will be
necessary to track these contrasting stories of natural evolution and prescriptive grammar
through the eras of sign language history, tracing the plans for preserving, documenting
and improving on sign language over time. A filmed 2009 lecture at Gallaudet
University by Dr. Supalla discusses this topic in detail and can be accessed online, along
with the pdf of the accompanying powerpoint slide file. In this lecture, a history of
prescriptivism in ASL is laid out in detail.
2009 Lecture Video: http://videocatalog.gallaudet.edu/?video=11448
Powerpoint Slides: cbpr.georgetown.edu/supalla2009slides.
Chapter 13: Community epistemology in the NAD films
In addition to the film and dictionary contributions of J. S. Long, the contributions of
Robert McGregor are also important. McGregor’s three films in the NAD lecture Series
encompass 3 distinct topics, chosen to make a particular point by this skilled sign
language orator. In one film, McGregor highlighted the societal conflict between the
larger society and the Deaf community. This conflict centered on the external notion of
“what was good for the deaf”— the need for the deaf to be “restored to society.”
McGregor, in an allegorical tale, likens the finding of such a magically “restored”
speaking deaf person to searching for an elusive flea. In his second film, he demonstrates
how the tale of Marie Antoinette’s infamous comment: “Let them eat cake” illustrates
how little the larger society understands the priorities of the Deaf community and the
importance of sign language in the community. McGregor’s third lecture is a lay sermon
on brotherhood, advocating the importance of solidarity and connection among mankind,
regardless of external differences. McGregor’s masterful films show the currency of Deaf
people’s knowledge of the world and, at the same time, advance the important
perspective of the Deaf community. As well, the language planning objectives of the
film series as articulated by Veditz in his film are supported—showing traditional sign
models to be emulated to preserve sign language. The J. S. Long film was likely key in
this effort as well, though detailed knowledge was lost with the disappearance of his film.
Thus, in the conflict over “what is good for the deaf”, the film series stands as a statement
of Deaf epistemology, promoting the use, preservation and improvement of sign language
in Deaf people’s lives.
Chapter 14: Framing ASL as a heritage language
In our time, the concept of ASL as a heritage language is certainly valid. Our history as a
community is changing with young Deaf children unaware of past traditions and forms of
sign language due to changes in pedagogy today, leading to different patterns of
schooling, peer interaction, and contact with older Deaf adults. Contrary to current
assumptions about the paucity of historical documentation, there is a substantial body of
historical and linguistic knowledge which can be incorporated into curricula today.
Recovering and presenting the details of sign language documentation and community
epistemology in the context of well-defined 50-year eras is a manageable approach. In
this context, sign language heritage can be shared with the younger community members
of today.
http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu
Issue No.4 Spring 2014
DEAF STUDIES DIGITAL JOURNAL
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by NSF Research Grant BCS0925073 to Ted Supalla, by NIH
Research Grant DC00167 to Elissa L. Newport and Ted Supalla, and by a Georgetown
University Reflective Engagement in the Public Interest Grant for 2013-2014. We thank Jennifer
Joy-Vold for assisting the research team with the translation of this article from ASL to English.
References
Blanchet, A. L. P. (1850). La surdi-mutité: Traité philosophique et médical suivi d’un petit
dictionnaire usuel de mimique et de dactylologie à l’usage des médecins et des gens du
monde. Paris: Labé. Republished 2007: Petit dictionnaire usuel de mimique et de
dactylologie, coll. Archives de la langue des signes francaise. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
Bonnal-Verges, F. (2006). Iconographie des Signes (1853-1854) de Frères de Saint Gabriel.
Archives de la langue des signes francaise. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
Bonnal-Verges, F. (2007). Petit Dictionnaire Usuel de Mimique et de Dactylologie : à l'Usage
des Médecins et des Gens du Monde (1850) d’Alexandre Louis Paul Blanchet. Archives
de la langue des signes francaise. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
Bonnal-Verges, F. (2008). Dictionnaire à l'Usage des Sourds et Muets (ca. 1784) de Jean
Ferrand. Archives de la langue des signes francaise. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
Brouland, J. (1855). Spécimen d’un dictionnaire des signes. Paris : Institution impériale des
sourds-muets. Republished in: Renard, M. & Delaporte, Y. (2002). Aux origines de la
langue des signes francaise. Paris: Langue des Signes Éditions.
Companys, M., (2004). ABC...LSF : Dictionnaire visuel bilingue.
Compton, S.E., (2014). American Sign Language as a heritage language. In: Terry Wiley, Joy
Kreeft Peyton, Donna Christian, Sarah J. Moore and Na Liu (eds.) Handbook of heritage,
community, and Native American languages in the United States, 272–286. New York:
Routledge and Center for Applied Linguistics.
Delaporte, Y. (2002). La question étymologique en langue des signes : méthodes de recherché.
La LSF et son devenir, Actes des rencontres Arils; Samedi 16 mars et dimanche 17 mars
2002, Paris VIII (Vincennes Saint-Denis), France.
Delaporte, Y. (2004). Deux siècles d’histoire de la langue des signes francaise : les tendances
évolutives . In : Silexicales, 4, 131-151 : Linguistique de la langue des signes francaise :
recherches actuelles. [Actes du colloque de Villeneuve d’Ascq].
Delaporte, Y. (2005). Dictionnaire de la Langue des Signes d'Autrefois: Le Langage de la
Physionomie et du Geste Mis à Portée de tous. Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux
historiques et scientifiques.
Delaporte, Y. (2007). Dictionnaire Etymologique et Historique de la Langue des Signes
Francaise: Origine et Evolution de 1200 Signes. Les Essarts-le-Roi, France: Éditions du
Fox.
http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu
DEAF STUDIES DIGITAL JOURNAL
Feldman, H., S. Goldin-Meadow & L. Gleitman, (1978). Beyond Herodotus: The creation of a
language by linguistically deprived deaf children. In A. Lock (eds), Action, symbol, and
gesture: The emergence of language, 351-414. New York: Academic Press.
Ferrand, J. (1784). Republished 2007: Dictionnaire à l’usage des sourds et muets (ca. 1784).
Archives de la langue des signes francaise. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
Frères de Saint Gabriel .(1853-1854). Republished 2006: Iconographie des signes (1853-1854).
Archives de la langue des signes francaise. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
Frishberg, N., (1979). Historical change: From iconic to arbitrary. In Klima, E. S. & Bellugi, U.
(Eds.), The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 66-83.
Geertz, C., (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. The
Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic, 3-30.
Hauser, P. C., O’Hearn, A., McKee, M., Steider, A. & Thew, D. (2010). Deaf epistemology:
Deafhood and deafness. American Annals of the Deaf 154.5, 486-92.
Heather N. N., (1997). In amateur hands: Framing time and space in home-movies. History
Workshop Journal, 43 (Spring), 198-212
International Visual Theater. (1986, 1990, 1997). La langue des signes: Dictionnaire bilingue
LSF/francais. Vol. 1, 1990; vol. 2, 1997. Vincennes: Centre socio-culturel des sourds.
L’abbé de l’Epée. (1784). La véritable manière d'instruire les sourds et muets confirmée par une
longue expérience. Republished 1984: La véritable manière d'instruire les sourds et
muets. Corpus des oeuvres de philosophie en langue francaise. Fayard.
Lambert, L. M. (1865). Le langage de la physionomie et du geste mis à la portée de tous. Paris:
Lecoffre. Republished 2005: Dictionnaire de la langue des signes francaise d’autrefois.
Paris: Editions du CTHS.
Long, J. S., (1910). The Sign Language: A Manual of Signs. Washington, DC: Gibson Brothers.
Second edition in 1918, published by Robert Henderson. Amended Second Edition,
published by Gallaudet College Press, reprinted in 1944, 1949, 1952, 1958, 1959, 1961,
1962, 1963.
Maher, J. (1996). Seeing Language in Sign. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Malzkuhn, M., (2007). Home Customization: Understanding the Deaf Ways of Being.
Unpublished M.A. thesis, Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C.
Pélissier, P. (1856). Iconographie des signes faisant partie de l’enseignement des sourds-muets.
Paris: Dupont.
Reilly, J., & McIntire, M. L., (1980). American Sign Language and Pidgin Sign English:
What’s the difference? Sign Language Studies, 27, 151-192.
Renard, M. & Delaporte, Y. (2004). Aux Origines de la Langue des Signes Française Brouland, Pélissier, Lambert, les Premiers Illustrateurs de 1855 à 1865. Langue des
Signes Edition Publication.
Shaw, E. & Delaporte, Y., (2010). New Perspectives on the History of American Sign Language
Sign Language Studies, Volume 11, Number 2, Winter 2010, p. 158-204. Washington,
DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Stokoe, W.C. (1960). Sign language structure. In G. L. Trager (ed.), Occasional Paper 8,
Studies in Linguistics, University of Buffalo, NY.
Stokoe, W., Casterline, D. & Croneberg, C. (1965). A Dictionary of ASL Based on Linguistic
Principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu
Issue No.4 Spring 2014
DEAF STUDIES DIGITAL JOURNAL
Supalla, T. (1994). Charles Krauel: A Profile of a Deaf Filmmaker. 30 min., VHS, Color/b&w.
Documentary videotape, San Diego, CA: Dawn Sign Pictures.
Supalla, T. (1994). Deaf folklife film collection project. The Deaf Way: Perspectives from the
International Conference on Deaf Culture. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press,
285-90.
Supalla, T., (2002). Making historical sign language materials accessible: A prototype database
of early ASL. Sign Language and Linguistics, 4, 285-297.
Supalla, T. (2004). The validity of the Gallaudet lecture films. Sign Language Studies, 4, 261292.
Supalla, T., (2008). Sign language archeology: Integrating historical linguistics with fieldwork
on young sign languages. . In R. M. de Quadros (ed.), Sign Languages: Spinning and
unraveling the past, present and future. Proceedings of the The Ninth International
Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research. Florianopolis, Brazil,
December 2006. Petropolis, Brazil: Editora Arara Azul.
Supalla, T., (2009) DSDJ1. Sign language archeology. Deaf Studies Digital Journal, volume 1.
http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu/
Supalla, T., (2009). Charting the history of register in American Sign Language through Deaf
folklife films and written artifacts. Deaf History Lecture Series, Gallaudet University,
April 2009. http://videocatalog.gallaudet.edu/?video=11448
Supalla, T., (2010). DSDJ2. Using etymology to link ASL and LSF. Deaf Studies Digital
Journal, volume 2. http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu/
Supalla, T. & McDonald, B.H., (2011). Building an infrastructure to support historical sign
language research. Minpaku Anthropology Newsletter, 33, 6-8.
Supalla, T., (2012). DSDJ3. Guidelines for the study of ASL etymology. Deaf Studies Digital
Journal, volume 3. http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu/
Supalla, T., (2013). The role of historical research in building a model of language typology,
variation, and change. In R. Kikusawa & L. A. Reed (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2011:
Selected papers from the 20th International Conference on Historical Linguistics.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Supalla, T. and Clark, P., in press. Sign Language Archeology: Understanding the History and
Evolution of American Sign Language. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
Woodward, J., (1973). Some characteristics of Pidgin Sign English. Sign Language Studies, 3,
39-46.
Woodward, J., (1976). Signs of change: historical variation in American Sign Language. Sign
Language Studies, 10, 81-94.
http://dsdj.gallaudet.edu