|
Which
Came First? ASL
or LSF? copyright
1999, Alysse Lemery Rasmussen If
you ask when ASL (American Sign Language) began, most people who “know”
about the Deaf will answer “Laurent Clerc taught the deaf to sign in 1817 in
Hartford.” If
you ask when LSF (Langue des signes francaise) first began, most people who
“know” about the Deaf will answer “Abbey l’Eppe taught the deaf to sign
in 1730 in Paris.” Clearly,
from these statements, one is lead to assume that LSF was the “father” of
ASL. But the answers are wrong.
No
one really knows where or how or when ASL (American Sign Language) began.
Nor do they know where or how or when LSF (Langue des Signes Francaise)
began. What we do know is that
linguists, the scientists who study language, don’t believe that either
Laurent Clerc or Michel l’Eppe was responsible for the creation of sign
language. Language,
you see, is not the creation of an individual.
It is the creation of a community. Just
as English, over time, evolved from older Germanic languages (which are, in
turn, evolved from Proto-Germanic languages and Proto-Indo-European languages),
ASL and LSF evolved from even older signed languages.1
Just
as English was influenced by contact with other languages (such as French during
the Norman invasion of 1066), ASL was influenced by languages (such as English
and LSF). Centuries
ago, hunter-gatherers, like Homo habilis, survived in communal groups
because, as members of groups, they were stronger and more successful than individuals.
One thing that enabled Homo habilis to form a cohesive group was
socialization. The tool which
enhanced, encouraged, and promoted socialization, was language. ___________ 1Interestingly
enough many linguists now believe that signed language preceded spoken
languages. One
of the reasons that the Deaf survive today, as a cultural, linguistic minority,
is because as members of the community we call “Deaf”, they are stronger and
more successful than isolated non-hearing individuals.
The thing that enables the Deaf to form a cohesive group is
socialization. The tool which enhances, encourages, and promotes
socialization is sign language. No
one knows how many deaf AmerIndians were already here when the first colonists
arrived. No one knows exactly when
the first deaf person of European heritage arrived or was born in the colonies.
What we do know is that there were deaf individuals in both populations
from time to time. Nora
Ellen Goce (Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language, 1985, Harvard
University Press) found that Martha’s Vineyard (an island off the coast of
Massachusetts) had a large deaf population as a result of a recessive gene trait
which came from the original British settlers, emigrants from an area known as
“the Weald” in Kent, England. Over
the course of her research, Goce found that during the first three centuries of
settlement, seventy-two deaf individuals were born to the Islanders.
Both the deaf and the hearing Islanders were totally integrated (and, in
most cases, bilingual). There was
no “deaf” community (to exist as a separate and/or isolated entity). In
the early 1800’s it was believed that there were approximately 80 deaf
individuals in New England (out of 800 in the entire 15 states and associated
territories). The fact that there
was such a large deaf population on Martha’s Vineyard, (1/155 as opposed to
the “norm” 1/1000) allowed the Island deaf to exist as a kind of
pre-”Deaf”, pre-ASL community. The
young deaf Islanders who would be among the first students (and most numerous
contingency) to attend the Hartford School for the Deaf would bring a strong
linguistic identity along with their portmanteaus. When
Laurent Clerc, a native signer of LSF (Langue des signes francaise), arrived in
the US in 1817, he wasn’t expecting to find linguistically sophisticated
signers. Yet the first class —
thirty one students in all — included many students from Martha’s Vineyard,
each of whom was a skilled and competent signer.
I remember reading, although I can no longer recall where, that Clerc was
pleased that he didn’t have to start from the “groundfloor” and, at the
same time, frustrated because so many of his “elegant” signs were
immediately bastardized by the local students. It’s
important to note that attitudes toward language were very judgmental at this
time in man’s history. Latin was, for every researcher of that era, the “holy
grail”, the “purest” form of communication, the “yardstick” by which
all other languages were measured and found wanting. French,
in the minds of its native speakers, was about as close to Latin as one could
get. Methodological signs — the
system of communication developed and used at the French schools for the Deaf
— combined LSF (the native language of the Parisian Deaf community) and
specialized signs used to represent elements of spoken French grammar which were
not a part of LSF). This was considered, by many of the educated and “elite”
native signers to be the “purest” form of sign communication. What
I found interesting to note was that while Clerc was living here in the States
and complaining that his students were ‘mauling” his language, his own
language was changing — slowly, inevitably, and without his realizing it.
According to Cathryn Carroll and Susan M Mather, authors of Movers
& Shakers, when Clerc returned to France to visit, Massieu and other
Deaf friends complained that Clerc’s signs had changed so much that he was
more “barbarian” than How
this change came about ties directly to the question of whether or not ASL is
descended from LSF. We
know that the deaf in the United States were, with the notable exception of the
deaf Islanders from Martha’s Vineyard, isolated and generally living in rural
communities. We
know that Laurent Clerc was a native LSF signer and that English (in it’s
written form) was a second language for him.
We know that his and Galluadet’s intentions were to use the
“methodological signs” to teach English to their new pupils. We also know that current studies
indicate that most hearing parents and deaf children with no previous knowledge
of the Deaf or deafness are forced to create their own form of communication —
home signs — in order to survive linguistically. We can assume that many of the deaf students (Alice Cogswell,
for example) who first came to ASD (the American School for the Deaf —
formerly known as the Hartford Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb), fit this category.2 The other students — those who came
from communities like Martha’s Vineyard— fit a vastly different pattern.
The Islanders and their ilk already shared very similar idiolects.
They were part of a larger linguistic community in which signs had been
systematized.3 They
had a language which was fully developed and as linguistically sophisticated as
LSF. It might not be 100% comprehensible to Clerc and Gallaudet,
but it was 100% efficient when used by the Islanders. Back home, on the Island, the Martha’s
Vineyard people keep using Martha’s Vineyard Sign; back in France, the French
Deaf keep using LSF; elsewhere, the local deaf continued to use their home
signs. But in Hartford, where these
unique “deaf” communities met, another linguistic community, a truly
“Deaf” community, began to form using an “ASL-LSF-home sign Pidgin”.
Just
as various homo habilis groups would, out of necessity, ability,
and/or need, developed a language
by agreeing, as a community, on certain linguistic constraints within the
community, the Deaf in Hartford did exactly the same thing.
Signers from all over — each with his/her own signs — came together
and formed a cohesive whole ... a melting pot, if you will, ...
using home signs, Martha’s Vineyard Sign, and LSF, and anything else
that they brought with them. It didn’t take long before this
stripped down mix “You Tarzan. Me
Jane. Ugh.”(ASL-LSF Pidgin)
proved to be inadequate for the needs of these Hartford signers. So, just like their ancestors did before them, they — as a
community — begin to agree on certain symbols and before long, what started as
a kind of pidgin turned into a creole and ASL was well on it’s way to becoming
the full fledged language we know and recognize today. ______________ 2
Idiolect is the term used to define an individual’s speech patterns
(personal language). Everyone uses
an idiolect. 3The
term used to describe shared idolects is “dialect”.
One
word of warning here ... the terms “language” and “dialect” are
deceptive. Often it is politically
motivated ... ie Danish and Norwegian are mutually intelligible, but for
political reasons (after WWII) they were declared to be different languages.
Yet Mandarin and Cantonese, which are not mutually intelligible are
considered “dialects because they share a cultural, political and written
script. But how, exactly, could this occur?
Well, we’re never going to know for
sure. But we can give a possible,
plausible (and, perhaps even probable) example: Let’s say, for the sake of argument
that the Martha’s Vineyard Signers4 used an open handed tapping
gesture on the chin for MOTHER. Clerc on the other hand, as a native
signer of LSF, used an open handed tapping gesture at the breast for MOTHER.
The home signers ... who knows? ...
perhaps they even used something like the AmerIndian sign for MOTHER (the
dominant hand plucking at the non-dominant breast). But in any case, members of each of these linguistic groups
would have gotten their point across or used one of the other member’s symbols
once they recognized its meaning. After a while, the Hartford Deaf
community would tend to favor one gesture — let’s say the tapping gesture on
the chin — over the other gestures. Over
time, this symbol — the tapping gesture on the chin — would becomes the
entire community’s symbol — the word, if you will, — for MOTHER. No one actually sat down and discussed
it. No one actually said “Let’s
all use the tapping gesture on the chin for MOTHER.”
It just happened, through use and repetition and unspoken group
consensus. A similar theory can by posited for some
of the ways the Deaf in Hartford might have used numerals.
Clerc, as an LSF signer, would have used:
1(thumb up), 2(thumb & index finger extended), 3(thumb, index, and
mid-finger extended), etc. Other signers would have used the more
“colonial/English-looking” gestures: 1(index
finger up), 2(index and mid-finger up), 3(index, mid-finger, and ring finger up)
more often. ____________ 4Martha’s
Vineyard was not the only deaf/Deaf community in existence in the United States;
however, Deaf communites, per se, were rare and
other known communities appear to have close ties to the Island and, as
such, shared linguistic traits with Martha’s Vineyard Sign. Still others might have used the more
“Hispanic/AmerIndian-looking” gestures of 1(pinkie up), 2(pinkie and ring
finger up), 3(pinkie, ring finger, and mid-finger up). It was no big deal.
For a while, given the small, homogenous nature of the community, all
sets of signs could have co-existed. ONE,
after all, is ONE, no matter which finger you hold up.
Yet, over time we see that the LSF “3” replaced the other variants of
“3”. And again, over time, the LSF “2”
disappeared from the sequence “1, 2, 3” but was retained for most of the
“20’s” (not “22”). There’s
no rhyme or reason. No big
discussion. No fanfare.
Just a quiet, un-noticed, tendency which became, over time, an equally
quite, un-noticed consensus. Then came the day when everyone who was a
member of the Hartford/ASD linguistic community, without even realizing it,
stopped using “thumb up” one and started using “index finger up” ONE.
In time — lots of it!—, if someone were to sign the old “thumb
up” one, it would strike the newer generation as “old”, “odd”,
“foreign”, or even “wrong” and might or might not be understood. If ASL can be said to have a
“birthplace”, that birthplace was undoubtedly Hartford — simply and solely
because Hartford offered a fertile “breeding” ground over an extended period
of time for the deaf who lived in New England.4
In addition, to forming a linguistically cohesive Deaf community which
encouraged the standardization of ASL, the Hartford/ASD Deaf community became a
major influence on other ASL variants since many graduates from ASD went on to
establish Deaf schools in other areas of the country, taking with them, their
own linguistic preferences and influences.
It is in this manner, that precursor of what is now known as ASL spread
throughout the United States and Canada. But as for ASL’s parentage ... well,
just as child will share traits with his natural and his adoptive parents, ASL
shares traits with its “natural” origins and it’s “adoptive” (LSF)
origins (just as English shares traits with it’s “natural” (Anglo-Saxon)
roots and it’s “adoptive” (French) roots).
But there is absolutely no linguistic evidence to support the statement
that ASL originated from LSF or was “given to the deaf” by Laurent Clerc or Thomas Gallaudet. ________________ 5Only one deaf person
from Martha’s Vineyard is known not to have attended ASD in the 1800’s. |
|
Copyright 2010, Alysse Suzanne Rasmussen; TeachASL is owned and operated by Alysse Rasmussen
|