Sign Languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present and future. TISLR9, forty five papers and three posters from the
9th. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, Florianopolis, Brazil, December 2006. (2008) R. M. de
Quadros (ed.). Editora Arara Azul. Petrópolis/RJ. Brazil. http://www.editora-arara-azul.com.br/EstudosSurdos.php.
Sign Language Archeology:
Integrating Historical Linguistics with
1
Fieldwork on Young Sign Languages
Ted Supalla
University of Rochester
1. The Current State of Theory and Practice
The nature of our understanding of sign languages of the world rests on our specific history of sign
language research. The 40-year history of modern sign language research includes both impressive
achievements which have advanced our knowledge and research agendas which have narrowed our
focus and limited our knowledge. During this time, sign language genesis and evolution has
remained a domain largely outside of our focus of interest. Its neglect can be traced to the belief
that evolving sign languages were often “contaminated” by oppressive pedagogical practices which
attempted to shape sign language to match the spoken majority language. In addition, lexical items
from foreign sign languages were often imported as new schools were established in developing
countries.
This notion of resulting “impure” sign languages meant that historical linguistic
researchers were confronted with the fact that “natural” historical processes were likely obscured or
destroyed by linguistic imperialism. However, such a view incorrectly denies the natural nature of
language contact in human history worldwide. The study of language genesis and evolution is
“flying blind” if such natural human interactions are not factored into historical linguistics research.
Research such as comparative linguistic reconstruction in sign language is not only possible, but
valuable for supporting the aims of deaf people worldwide. This complex research requires multidisciplinary sources of documentation and careful interpretation of the language and thoughts of
deaf people in the context of the deaf community/society of the time. In time, trained Deaf sign
1
Acknowledgements. I am grateful to my collaborators for their important contributions to the work reviewed on ASL
history, young sign languages and International Sign, particularly past and present members of the Research Team at
the Sign Language Research Center: Aaron Brace, Patricia Clark, Merrie Davidson, Markku Jokinen, Donald Metlay,
Doug McKenney, Elissa Newport, Erin Sigmund, Annie Senghas, Marie Coppolla, Wanette Reynolds, Yutaka Osugi
and Rebecca Webb. Thanks also to Betsy Hicks McDonald for assistance with writing and editing of this paper. This
research was supported in part by NIH grant DC00167 to Elissa L. Newport and Ted Supalla, and two NEH Fellowship
Awards to Ted Supalla.
575
language specialists and a growing body of knowledge in this field will support efforts toward
beneficial linguistic and pedagogical planning for deaf people around the world.
Modern sign language research began with the work of William C. Stokoe and his
colleagues on the linguistic validation of American Sign Language (ASL).
Compiling
lexicographic data, Stokoe and his team identified and documented aspects of individual signs
which were structured in ways similar to spoken languages. As research continued, work shifted
from validation to the exciting possibility that the manual/visual modality was a “proving ground”
for linguistic universals: those formal and substantive language tendencies contained in the theory
of Universal Grammar. Many scholars have contributed to the current linguistic model of a multitiered, layered process of co-articulation of autosegments expressed by different parts of the
signer’s body and surrounding space. However, in the ongoing pursuit of this goal, we have seen
this agenda dictating the “interesting” domains and details of linguistic data within a community.
Work as a “sign language researcher” has come to mean research in this narrowly-defined area of
language history and structure.
Within the broader field of sociolinguistics, the study of human communities and
geographical and social mobility and contact are part and parcel of historical research. Within
historical sign language research, however, the varied patterns of experiences of deaf individuals
striving to shape their lives in society remain unfamiliar to the research community. At times, this
is due to a notion that social thought and response to political conditions among deaf people has
been uniform across time. Thus the history of interaction among deaf and hearing people is
fragmented, being assumed rather than documented, although it is a force which shapes sign
language evolution and growth. Also, not yet fully appreciated is the robustness of the maturation
process of sign language, even while undergoing cycles of reanalysis triggered by both
interventional efforts and the diverse nature of the deaf community, in which only 5% of the
community are indigenous members at birth, ideally situated to pass the language along to a
following generation. Given these facts, it is clear that the fabric of the deaf community is woven
of social bonds among individuals using a common sign language. Such a social infrastructure can
be affected by polarization among competing signed and spoken linguistic forces. Moreover, such
forces are not necessarily uniform across time, waxing and waning in the history of the community.
Researchers have often failed to incorporate patterns of deaf interaction (or lack of it) in their
research, proceeding on assumptions and drawing incorrect conclusions about, for example, the age
of the signing community and the capacity of deaf communities for full language evolution.
In spite of its complexity, historical linguistic research has a great deal to offer the study of
the genesis and evolution of sign languages. It is fortunate that many school archives have stored
576
historical records, journals and films, thus making it possible to trace the history of signing
communities and languages. The integration of linguistic tools and visual, narrative and print
resources and documentation can result in a scientifically-informed analysis of the history of a
language.
Such techniques will be beneficial when applied to both established regional sign
languages and newly-emerging and evolving languages. As we view natural processes in action
today in young languages, we will be able to resolve gaps in the history of older sign languages.
2. ASL Sign Language Archeology and Historical Linguistics
Recent broad-based interdisciplinary research into the history and evolution of ASL has helped to
re-shape our perception of historical materials and processes. Armed with the reconstruction tools
of historical linguistics, we have uncovered natural linguistic processes and important language
planning efforts in the NAD Gallaudet Lecture Films (Supalla, 2001, 2004; Supalla and Clark, in
press). These ASL historical documentary materials were thought to be “impure” as a result of
importation of French Sign Language (LSF), educational interventions, and ASL-English bilingual
knowledge and practices. However, after re-viewing the films and conducting additional historical
research on the individuals and organizations involved, we have uncovered the existence of a
“Classic Register” of ASL which no longer exists.
Historical literary research reveals the function of this register as classic oratory of the time,
practiced by elite signers passing on the traditional signing of the early Hartford, Connecticut
Institute for Deaf Mutes. In the course of at least seven cohort generations of ASL transmission,
archaic forms originating at this school have disappeared, with only the oratory texts recorded on
film remaining to tell the tale. Research reveals as well the motive of preserving this register on the
part of the National Association of the Deaf. Our research creating a full database of the film text
corpora, lexically cross-referenced both with other lecture films and historical (early) dictionaries,
has provided us with a rich source for tracing linguistic forms, literary and polyglossic practices,
and metalanguage of the time. As we became familiar with early ASL structure and pedagogy
through this work, we were able to shed light on the gap in ASL history caused by the Dark Epoch
of oral pedagogy for Deaf people.
We have conducted diachronic and synchronic linguistic
comparisons, both within the era of the films and with subsequent and earlier epochs, and we have
interpreted the metalanguage of various epochs in the light of this new understanding. Finally, we
re-forged a link in the chain of ASL history by considering the protogrammar of ASL as a dynamic
form incorporating contact with LSF and Home Signs.
577
Our new broadened research model has enabled us to widen the scope of inquiry and to
reinterpret existing historical documentation. Early metalinguistic descriptions were merely hidden,
not lost, during the Dark Epoch. Historical research into the metalanguage of pedagogy shows that
early educators considered natural discourse as the educational springboard for young deaf children
coming to school with a Home Sign system.
Artificially devised sign languages, such as
“Methodical Sign”, were deemed meaningless for such children and were only incorporated briefly
into educational efforts. “Improved Sign” at school was a standardized natural discourse promoted
during this era. One important aspect of “Improved Sign” was the use of syntax for the expression
of abstract concepts.
In numerous examples, the sign language lexicon was expanded via
standardized “word-phrases”
In a sense, we can view Home Sign as a proto-grammar of this “Improved Sign”, with its
sequential gestures as the precursor of the Word Phrase. The natural semantic bond among adjacent
gestures and groups of gestures is reinforced by the discourse context. Within Sign Language
discourse, these word-phrases functioned as a single constituent. As a single unit, they were used
continuously in the same order and in the same environments, undergoing natural linguistic
processes of reduction and re-analysis, such as compounding , a phenomenon which has been welldescribed in the field. Within the notion of compounding, however, a further distinction has been
overlooked. In some cases, these processes of restructuring and reanalysis gave rise to grammatical
paradigms, by triggering a process of cliticization where one component becomes specialized for a
specific grammatical category, such as gender. The growth of additional grammatical functions for
specific gestures in word-phrase paradigms gives rise to polysemy as an independent lexical item
and an emerging grammatical particle share a form.
Thus, forms originally independent are
converted into bound morphology, in a unidirectional trend of grammatical change, much like that
described in historical linguistics and grammatical change in spoken languages (Hopper and
Traugott, 2003). This occurred when the positioning of lexical items lacking internal morphology
for generative recursion was re-analyzed as a grammatical relation between a host and a secondary
particle. In ASL, such processes gave rise to a system of gender in kinship terms. Early ASL word
phrases incorporated gender in these terms, as shown below:
FEMALE, LIFT-BABY
“Mother”
MALE, LIFT-BABY
“Father”
MALE, ROCK-BABY
“Son”
FEMALE, ROCK-BABY
“Daughter”
Imported lexical items from French Sign Language contributed the raw material for many of
these word-phrases. Historical research using the Gallaudet Lecture Films has enabled us to uncover
578
intermediate forms, thus filling in a gap in ASL research between Early ASL forms and modern
ASL, where the MALE and FEMALE morphemes have been reduced to mere locations, as part of a
systematic kinship paradigm of gender affixes.
Feminine gender + PARENT
“Mother”
Masculine gender + PARENT
“Father”
Masculine gender + OFFSPRING
“Son”
Feminine gender + OFFSPRING
“Daughter”
Such grammaticalization proceeds from syntactic juxtaposition of content words, to
cliticization of the word judged to be “dependent”, to a productive process of affixation, in some
cases. Cliticization refers to a phenomenon where a word particle that frequently occurs only in
combination with another word becomes dependent on this paradigm, such as the clitic “’m” in
“I’m” in the English language.
This syntactic dependency triggers diachronic phonological
processes, such as the natural reduction of redundant elements found in the second position of the
constituent.
In signed languages, this second element is often reduced to a mere location,
movement, or handshape feature. Examples of the result of this process are the two contrasting
location features, one at the forehead area and the other at the lower cheek area, appearing regularly
in initial segment of a wider gender-sensitive kinship paradigm. A clitic may evolve into an affix
when it becomes a systematic morpheme, used productively in inflectional processes or to generate
derived lexical items.
The ASL systems of agency and negation also have undergone this process. Similar to the
earlier word phrases for kinship terms, a search of earlier forms reveals regular syntactic phrases
using the sign BODY to signal a person involved in a particular activity, such as MOUSTACHE,
STEAL, BODY= THIEF. The BODY morpheme has come to be re-analyzed as a particle meaning
AGENT, and is now a semi-regular morpheme with limited scope. In earlier ASL negation as well,
an archaic form of NOT, in which one or both hands were “waved away” to express negation,
appeared in the final VP position, as in: WANT NOT and evolved into a re-analyzed particle,
which was then incorporated in a limited way into specific frequent lexical items (cf. DON’TWANT). The general function of negation was taken over by pre-verbal NOT. Thus, in several
ASL paradigms, we see the historical pattern of development shown below (cf. Hopper and
Traugott, 2003, for the overall pattern, and Supalla and Clark, in press, for a more detailed
description of these examples and the process in ASL).
Thus historical linguistics has provided us with a scientific approach to Sign Language
Archeology. While the origin and history of signs in ASL has often been explained through folk
579
etymology, such as the notion that the sign for “girl” represented the tracing of a bonnet string along
the lower cheek, we now have an alternate set of tools and an alternate explanation for current
forms, given our “excavation” of Sign Language. It is clear, as in spoken languages, that processes
in natural gestural discourse lead to syntax and finally to bound morphology and we are able to see
both productive processes and unproductive or opaque remnants of this evolution in modern ASL .
At the same time, our Archeology must also recognize that there exist in signed languages
other types of bound forms which are present early in the life of the language and which appear in
many sign languages studied thus far.
Such forms common thoroughout the history of sign
languages may arise not from widespread linguistic processes of change, but perhaps from the
nature of sign languages alone. These forms include spatial pointers, direction of movement of the
verb as an agreement marker, and the use of classifier hanshapes. In an overview article “Sign
Language Research at the Millenium”, Newport and Supalla (2000) discuss the tendency toward
such structures in young sign languages, sign language pidgins, and even home sign systems. I
recently surveyed 15 sign languages which have arisen naturally in different parts of the world.
This cross-linguistic comparison shows that all use location and movement through space in
common ways to mark grammatical agreement with subject and object. “Investigators have also
noted classifier structures in verbs of motion of many sign languages. Presumably because of such
similarities among unrelated sign languages, speakers of mutually unintelligible sign languages are
able to develop a signed pidgin (called International Sign) which retains these morphological
structures, and which is thus unexpectedly more complex than spoken pidgins (T. Supalla and
Webb, 1995;Webb and T. Supalla, 1995).” (Newport and Supalla, 2000, p. 12) Thus, in historical
and comparative research, we see both processes of divergence and convergence across signed
languages internationally, and both processes common to all languages and those specific to signed
languages .
3. The TISLR9 Theme
Current integration of historical linguistics research and field studies directly affect work relevant to
our TISLR9 conference theme: Sign languages: spinning and unraveling the past, present and
future. These studies enable us to revisit and revise assumptions about the known past which may
be incorrect.
Moreover, new tools and data will result from future work on emerging sign
languages. The various types of sign language communities and varieties each have a place and a
natural role to play in Sign Language Archeology, as shown by our recent analyses of ASL sign
language history. We have seen the contributions to an evolving sign language from the home sign
580
systems of Deaf isolates, young sign languages in new communities, and cross-linguistic contact
registers. In this model, work can proceed beyond a single sign language, such as ASL, in
understanding the social and linguistic dynamics of language contact and in reconstructing sign
language histories and proto-grammar. Missing links in sign language genesis and evolution can be
re-forged, and observations on sign language typological variation and universals of Sign Language
change will naturally emerge. It is possible that such research will ultimately link sign language
research with the even broader research on human gesture, language origins, and species capability
for language. This current and future work directly supports the TISLR 9 objectives to “situate the
development of sign language studies over time” and “establish international relations between
those who study sign language,” thus “creating opportunities for comparative analysis.”
TISLR participants and the World Federation of the Deaf also have broader aspirations for
Deaf people and communities worldwide.
Visibility and legitimacy for indigenous signed
languages are key goals for both TISLR and the WFD. The 1990 WFD report on the Status of Sign
Languages described the dissatisfaction of the majority of survey respondents with the level of sign
language used in schools. Responding to this clearly felt need, the WFD issued a list of priorities
for promoting sign languages around the world, and followed through with membership in the
coalition of world organizations which drafted the “Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disablilities”.
languages.
This statement is a first step in building world-wide infrastructure for sign
As we move forward, we will face challenges in designing ideal access to sign
language for Deaf people. How will rights such as the right to a signed language and the right to
education be implemented in ways which avoid oppressive practices and respect the practices and
capability of indigenous communities?
How will community signed languages be fostered when
most profoundly deaf children are born to hearing parents, and may have no access to education in
80% of developing countries; and when education exists, a role for sign language is rarely
advocated? How are we to treat the Home Sign systems which we encounter in such situations?
Historical linguistics research which encompasses the human ecology of Deaf history, such as
interaction patterns and cross-linguistic contact, promises the foundation and a “road map” for
building an infrastructure for Sign Language in society.
The application of research lends
credibility and visibility to existing indigenous sign languages. Moreover, research in a broadbased archeological paradigm will provide guidelines for sign language planning and monitoring
around the world. As research proceeds, we will become familiar with specific sorts of contact
situations, be able to identify similar situations which have occurred earlier in the history of world
sign languages, and be able to judge the likely effects of a variety of “imported” languages and
581
language planning strategies from our knowledge of the past. This familiarity will help us to
answer questions and concerns such as the following from Deaf people and national leaders:
• To what extent should we promote cross-linguistic contact in emerging communities?
• What is the most beneficial sort of support to promote a natural transition from home sign
systems?
• What are the effects of adopting an outside superstrate sign language if no history or community
exists for a developing deaf community?
Such a research paradigm not only aligns with and supports the agenda of Deaf people
worldwide, it also widens the scope of research itself and the profession of “the sign language
specialist”. The concept of such a resource person has been introduced to schools in industrialized
societies to supplement language and speech pathologists from the field of Hearing and Speech
science.
Additional sign language research careers will become feasible within the “global deaf
village”. An appropriately-trained sign language specialist could apply knowledge of research in the
following areas:
• The structure and history of sign languages around the world
• Sign language acquisition and the effect of the age at which sign language is learned
• Psycholinguistic processing of Sign language
• The representation of sign language in the brain
Bridges will be built to other fields in the sciences and humanities with the multidisciplinary research mandated by this broad archeological model.
To be sure, the research
challenges are many, in areas such as the lack of tools for sign language assessment and resource
data for sign language planning and monitoring. In assessment, we are unfamiliar with the full
range of sign language variation and interaction. We do not yet have typological classifications for
signed languages.
Finally, we only have developmental milestones for native sign language
acquisition. In our “bank” of resources for sign language planning, we lack extensive data on sign
language genesis and history, and have not yet adequately documented patterns of change in signed
languages. Nevertheless, “the way forward” clearly lies in broadening research to embrace the
reality of the diverse Deaf World and its robust natural sign language systems.
References
Hopper, Paul and E. Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
582
Newport, Elissa and T. Supalla. 2000. Sign language research at the Millenium. In The Signs of
Language Revisited. K. Emmory and H. Lane (eds.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Supalla, Ted and P. Clark. In press. Sign Language Archeology: Understanding the Historical
Roots of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Supalla, Ted. 2004. The validity of the Gallaudet Lecture Films. Sign Language Studies, 4, 261292.
Supalla, T. 2002. Making historical sign language materials accessible. Journal of Sign Language
Linguistics 4, 285-297.
Supalla, Ted and R. Webb. 1995. The grammar of International Sign Language: A new look at
pidgin languages. In K. Emmorey and J. Reilly (Eds.), Sign, Gesture and Space. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Webb, R. and T. Supalla. 1995. Negation in International Sign. In I. Ahlgren, B. Bergman and M.
Brennan (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research.
Hamburg: Signum Press.
583