a historical linguistic account of sign language among ...gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/msl.pdf ·...

A Historical Linguistic Account of Sign

Language among North American Indians

Jeffrey E. Davis

Signed communication among various indigenous peoples has beenobserved and documented across the NorthAmerican continent sincefifteenth-andsixteenth-centuryEuropeancontact.Earlyscholarsofthissubject (e.g., Clark 1885; Mallery 1880; Scott 1931; Tomkins 1926)havemadecasesfortheNorthAmericanIndian1signvarietytojustifyitsbeingconsideredafull-fledgedlanguage.TwopredominantthemesintheearlywritingsaboutIndiansignedlanguagesare“universality”and“iconicity”—theoretical issues that signed language linguists continuetoaddresseventoday.Thestudyofsuchphenomenahelpsbroadenourunderstandingoftheseissuesandotherlinguisticquestions.Forexample,theearlyresearchonIndiansignedlanguagesinformedtheseminalworkofsomeofthefirstsignedlanguagelinguists(e.g.,Stokoe1960;Battison1978/2003).These historical linguistic data need to be reexamined inlightofcurrentlinguistictheories,interdisciplinaryperspectives,andcur-rentsignuseamongdeafandhearingNorthAmericanIndiansandotherindigenouspopulationsaroundtheworld.

IamgratefultotheOfficeoftheChancellorandDeanofGraduateStudiesattheUniversityofTennesseefortheirgeneroussupporttohavedigitizedthedocumentarymaterialsthatarethefocusofthispaper. Iwouldalsoliketoacknowledgethesupport fromaNationalEndowment for theHumanities andNational ScienceFoundationDocumentingEndangeredLanguagesfellowship(FN-50002-06).Anyviews,findings,conclusions,orrecommendationsexpressedinthispaperdonotnecessarilyreflectthoseoftheUniversityofTennessee,NationalEndowmentfortheHumanities,NationalScienceFoundation,ortheSmithsonianInstitution.

3

� : jeffreye.davis

NortH AmerIcAN INdIAN SIgN LANguAge VArIetIeS

Observed and documented across several geographic locations andculturalareas,thehistoricalvarietiesofindigenoussignedlanguagespe-cifictoNorthAmericaaresometimescollectivelyreferredtoas“NorthAmericanIndianSignLanguage”(seeWurtzburgandCampbell,1995).Historically, these varieties of signed language were named in variousways — Plains Indian Sign Language, Indian Sign Language,The SignLanguage, Indian Language of Signs, and historical references in thispaperwillapplythosenameswhereappropriate.2Previousanthropologi-cal linguisticfield research (Kroeber1958;Voegelin1958;West1960)indicatesthatsignedlanguagewasusedinvaryingdegreeswithinmostofthelanguagefamiliesofNativeNorthAmerica.Thebestdocumentedcases of indigenous signed languages involved various Indian groupswhoonceinhabitedtheGreatPlainsareaoftheNorthAmericanconti-nent(seetable1).ThisenormousgeographicexpansestretchednorthtosouthformorethantwothousandmilesfromtheNorthSaskatchewanRiverinCanadatotheRioGrandeinMexico.Theeast-westboundar-ieswereapproximatelytheMississippi-MissourivalleysandthefoothillsoftheRockyMountainsandencompassedanareaofsomeonemillionsquaremiles.Generally,twelvemajorgeographicculturalareasofNativeNorthAmericaareidentifiedintheliteraturewiththePlainsculturalareacentrallylocatedtoallofthese(cf.Campbell2000,Mithun1999).His-torically,thislargegeographic areawasoneofextremelinguisticdiver-sity,andhundredsofdifferentlanguageswerespokenamongthenativepopulace.3

ThePlainstribesweregeographicallyandculturallycentraltomostof theotherNorthAmerican Indian cultural groups and a signed lin-gua francaappears tohaveevolvedasaway tomakecommunicationpossibleamongindividualsspeakingsomanydifferentmothertongues(Davis, 2005). Traditionally, the nomadic groups of the Great PlainsusedPlainsSignLanguage(PISLhereafter)asanalternatetospokenlan-guage. Beyond the Plains geographic area, fluent signers of PISL havebeen identified among native groups from the Plateau area —e.g., theNezPerce(Sahaptian)andtheFlathead(Salishan).InwhatremainsthemostextensivestudyofPISLtodate,West(1960)reporteddialectdif-ferencesamongtheseIndiangroups,butfoundthatthesedidnotseri-ouslyimpedesignedcommunication.Inthelate1950s,WestfoundthatPISLwasstillpracticed,particularlyonintertribalceremonialoccasions

Sign Language among North American Indians : 5

but also in storytelling and conversation, even among speakers of thesamelanguage.ThehistoricalethnographicandlinguisticdocumentarymaterialsthatarethefocusofthispapersupportthatPISLwasusedasalinguafrancaamongthePlainsIndiantribesaswellasbetweenthemandotherAmericanIndianlinguisticgroups(compareCampbell2000;Davis2005;Farnell1995;Mithun1999;Taylor1978;Umiker-SebeokandSebeok1978;WurtzburgandCampbell1995). Forexample,Campbell(2000,10)writesthat“thesignlanguageasawholebecamethelinguafrancaoftheGreatPlains,anditspreadfromthereasfarasBritishColumbia,Alberta,Saskatchewan,andManitoba.”Evidentlytherewassomevariationfromtribetotribe,andnotallindivid-ualswereequallyproficientinsignedlanguage.VaryingdegreesofsignedlanguageuseamongsomeAmericanIndianindividualsandgroupshasbeenobservedeventoday.However, thenumberofusershasdramati-callydeclinedsincethenineteenthcentury,leadingseveralresearcherstoconcludethatthesetraditionalsignedlanguagevarietiesareendangered(Davis 2005; Farnell 1995; Kelly and McGregor 2003; McKay-Cody1997).ContemporaryandhistoricaluseofthesignedlanguageamongNativeAmericangroupsneedstobedocumented,described,andstabi-lizedthroughlanguagemaintenanceandeducationtopreventimminentlanguageloss. Researchershaveproposed that the signed systemsusedbyhearingIndiansasanalternative tospoken languagebecameaprimarysignedlanguagewhenacquirednativelybytribalmemberswhoaredeaf(Davisand Supalla 1995; Kelly and McGregor 2003; McKay-Cody 1997).4These studies have reported the contemporary use of traditional PISLamong both deaf and hearing Native American descendents of thePlainsIndianculturalgroups.DeafandhearingindividualsfromotherNativeAmerican groups, such as the Diné/Navajo (Davis and Supalla1995) andtheKeresanoftheNewMexicoPuebloculturalarea(KellyandMcGregor2003)appeartosignavarietythatisdistinctfromtradi-tionalPISL.Preliminarily,theavailablelinguisticevidencesuggeststhatthesetraditionalwaysofsigningamongIndiangroupsaredistinctfromAmericanSignLanguage(ASL).Atthesametime,strikingsimilaritiesinlinguisticstructurebetweenPISLandASL(e.g.,markedandunmarkedhandshapes,symmetryanddominanceconditions,classifierforms,andnonmanualmarkers),havebeendocumented(seeDavis2005,DavisandSupalla1995,McKay-Cody1997).Inthispaper,IreportthedocumentedcasesofhistoricalandcontemporarysignedlanguageuseamongNorth

6 : jeffreye.davis

AmericanIndiangroups,presentpreliminarylinguisticdescriptionsandfindings,andofferreadersa linktoaprototypeon-linedigitalarchiveofPISLdocumentarymaterials.Iaimtoexpandthisopenaccesson-linelinguisticcorpusofPISLtoincludemoredocumentarymaterials,transla-tions,andanalyses.Thiswillencourageandfacilitate languagerevital-izationefforts,furtherresearch,andscholarship.Thelinktotheon-linedigital archiveofPISLdocumentarymaterials isPlainsSignLanguageDigitalArchive:http://sunsite.utk.edu/plainssignlanguage/.

Pre-euroPean ContaCt

Clearly, there was (and still remains) an indigenous form of NorthAmericansignedlanguage,anditsusehasbeenhistoricallydocumentedasbeingwidespread.WurtzburgandCampbell(1995)makeacompellingcasefortherehavingbeenapreexistent,well-developedindigenoussignedlanguageacrosstheGulfCoast-Texas-northernMexicoareabefore Euro-pean contact. Intheirhistoricalstudyof“NorthAmericanIndianSignLanguage,”WurtzburgandCampbell(1995,160)define“signlanguage”as“aconventionalizedgesturelanguageofthesortlaterattestedamongthePlains andneighboringareas.”Basedonnumerous earlyhistoricalaccounts,theyreportthattheearliestandmostsubstantiveaccountsisfromthe1527expeditionfortheconquestofFlorida,leadbytheSpanishconquistadorCabezadeVacawhoreportednumerousoccasionswhereinnative groups communicatedwith signs (1995,15�–55).According tothehistoricalrecord,CabezadeVaca“alsoclearlydistinguishedwhichgroups spoke the same language,which spokedifferent languages butunderstoodothers,andwhichgroupsdidnotunderstandothersatall,exceptthroughtheuseofsignlanguage”(1995,155).5SimilaraccountsweremadebyCoronadoin15�1(reportedinTaylor1978),andsubse-quent reportsweremade in the eighteenth century (e.g., SantaAna in17�0[reportedinMithun1999]).Goddard(1979),andWurtzburgandCampbell(1995)publishedpapersabouttheroleservedbysignedlan-guages and some spokennative languages as lingua francas, andhavediscussedthepidgins,tradelanguagesand“mixed”systemsusedamongnative groups.The generally accepted hypothesis among scholars (seeCampbell2000;Mithun1999)isthatNorthAmericanIndianSignLan-guageoriginatedandspreadfromtheGulfCoast,becametheintertriballinguafrancaoftheGreatPlains,andspreadthroughoutthenorthwest


territories of the United States and Canada (compare Goddard 1979;Taylor1978;WurtzburgandCampbell1995).Furtherresearchofthesetopicsisneeded,butpresentlybeyondthescopeofthispaper.Thehistori-callinguisticdocumentsandethnographicaccountsthatarethefocusofthispapersupportthatsignedlanguagewasusedbeyondtheGreatPlainsareaandwasevidentacrossmostofthemajorAmericanIndianculturalareas(e.g.,SoutheastandGulfCoast,Southwest,PlateauandBasin,Sub-arctic,Mesoamerica,andNortheast). Attention to the rich legacy of historical linguistic documents thatremain (essays, descriptions, illustrations, films) is needed in light ofnewlinguistictheories.Theindigenousoriginsofcontemporarysignedlanguageuse amongNativeAmericandeaf andhearing signers acrossdifferentgeographicandculturalcontextsmustbedocumented.Furtherconsiderationmustbegiventotheintergenerationaluseofhighlyelabo-ratesignedcommunicationsystemsthathavebeendocumentedforhear-ing signing communities, evenwhendeaf people are not present (e.g.,historically onMartha’sVineyard aswell as currently andhistoricallyin some indigenous and monastic communities). In addition to signedlanguageuseinDeafcommunities,thislinguisticphenomenon(i.e.,sign-ingcommunitiesthatarepredominatelyhearing)hasbeenandcontinuestobedocumentedinseveralaboriginalcommunitiesaroundtheworldandisalsoevidentinsomeoccupationalsettingsandmonastictraditions(see,e.g.,DavisandSupalla1995;Farnell1995;Johnson199�;Kendon1988,2002;KellyandMcGregor2003;Plann1997;Umiker-SebeokandSebeok1978;Washabaugh1986a,1986b). Morerecently,somesignedlanguagelinguists(Davis2005;DavisandSupalla1995;Johnson199�;Farnell1995;KellyandMcGregor2003;McKay-Cody 1997) have documented contemporary signed languageuseamongotherNorthAmericanlinguisticgroups—forexample,Algon-quian (Blackfeet) and Siouan (Assiniboine, Dakotan, Stoney) languagegroupsaswellasNavajo(Diné),KeresanPueblo,NorthernCheyenne,Yucatan-Mayan, and others. In light of new field studies and linguis-tic theories, linguists have reexamined the documented occurrences ofaboriginalsigned language inNorthAmericanand inothercontinents(e.g.,AustraliaandSouthAmerica).Theevidencesuggeststhatinaddi-tiontoitsdocumentedhistoryasanintertriballinguafranca,signedlan-guage was used intratribally for a variety of discourse purposes (e.g.,storytelling,gender-specificactivities,timeswhenspeechwastaboo,andritualpractices).

8 : jeffreye.davis

In this paper, I examine the documented film and written ethno-graphicaccountsofNorthAmerican Indians signinganassortmentoftopics,includingdifferentdiscoursetypesacrossavarietyofsettingsandparticipants.Furthermore,IconsidersomeofthehistoricalconnectionsbetweenASLandindigenoussignedlanguagevarieties.Historicandcon-temporaryusesofsignedlanguagehavebeendocumentedinatleastonedozendistinctNorthAmericanlanguagefamilies(phyla).Certainly,sign-ingmayhavebeenusedby evenmore groups than these, but at leastthismanycasesweredocumentedinhistorical linguisticaccounts.Thearchiveddatarevealthatregardlessofhearingstatus,signingwasusedbymembersfromapproximatelythirty-sevendistinctAmericanIndianspo-kenlanguagegroups.ConventionsfortheclassificationofNorthAmeri-can language families are followed (compare Campbell 2000; Mithun1999). Ineachcase, thepublishedsource isprovidedanddocumentedcasesofcurrentusearehighlighted.Thesehistoricalandcontemporarycasesarepresentedintable1.

HistoriCal linguistiC DoCuMentation anD DesCriPtion

Throughoutthe1800s,theearliestexplorers,naturalists,ethnologists,andevenU.S.militarypersonnel,extensivelydocumentedtheuseofIndianSignLanguageforavarietyofpurposes.DocumentationofIndianSignLanguagecontinuedthroughthe1900s,andtheearliestanthropologists,linguists,andsemioticiansstudiedanddescribeditslinguisticstructures(e.g.,Boas1890/1978;Kroeber1958;Mallery1880;Umiker-SebeokandSebeok1978;Voegelin1958),mostofwhom,notably,alsoservedtermsaspresidentsoftheLinguisticSocietyofAmerica.TheseearlyscholarslaidthegroundworkforIndianSignLanguagetobeconsideredapre-existent,full-fledgedlanguage.Thus,thereremainsarichlinguisticandethnographiclegacyintheformofdiaries,books,articles,illustrations,dictionaries,andmotionpicturesthatdocumentthevarietiesofsignedlanguagehistoricallyusedamongnativepopulationsofNorthAmerica.Themost extensivedocumentationofPISLwasmadeby thefirst eth-nologiststodofieldworkfortheBureauofEthnologyattheSmithsonianInstitutioninWashington,D.C.(fromapproximatelythe1870s–1890s).Figure1showssomeoftheoriginalpenandinkillustrationsofthePISLfromthefilesofGarrikMalleryandhiscollaboratorsworkingwiththeSmithsonianinthelate1880s.Oneoftherichestsourcesforarchivaldata


table1. Documentation of Historic and Current Sign Language Use among North American Indians

LanguagePhylaandGroup PublishedSources

I. Algic = Algonquian family Campbell(2000),Mithun(1999),McKay-Cody(1997)

1.Arapaho Clark(1885),Mallery(1880),Scott(1931) 2.Blackfoot=Blood=Piegan Davis,2005;Mallery(1880),Scott(1931);

Weatherwax(2002) 3.NorthernCheyenne Burton(1862),Mallery(1880),McKay-

Cody,1997;Scott(1931),Seton(1918) �.Cree Long(1823),Mallery(1880),Scott(1931) 5.Fox=Sauk-Kickapoo Long(1823),Mallery(1880) 6.Ojibwa=Ojibwe=Chippeway Hofsinde(1956),Long(1823),Mallery

(1880)7.Shawnee Burton(1862),Harrington(1938)

II. Athabaskan-Tlingit family Campbell(2000),Mithun(1999)

8.Navajo=Diné DavisandSupalla(1995)9.PlainsApache=Kiowa-Apache FronvallandDubois(1985),Hadley

(1891),Harrington(1938),Mallery(1880),Scott(1931)

10.Sarcee=Sarsi Scott(1931)

III. Siouan-Catawban family Campbell(2000),Mithun(1999)

11.Crow Burton(1862),Mallery(1880),Scott(1931)

12.Hidasta=GrosVenture Mallery(1880),Scott(1931)13.Mandan Scott(1931)1�.Dakotan=Sioux=Lak(h)ota Burton(1862),Farnell,1995;Long

(1823),Mallery(1880),Seton(1918),Tompkins(1926)

15.Assiniboine=Stoney=Alberta Farnell(1995),Mallery(1880),Scott(1931)

16.Omaha-Ponca Long(1823),Mallery(1880)17.Osage=Kansa Harrington(1938),Long(1823)18.Oto=Missouri=Iowa Long(1823),Mallery(1880)

IV.Caddoan family Campbell(2000),Mithun(1999)

19.Caddo Harrington(1938)20.Wichita Harrington(1938),Mallery(1880)21.Pawnee Burton(1862),Mallery(1880)

10 : jeffreye.davis

LanguagePhylaandGroup PublishedSources

22.Arikara Mallery(1880),Scott(1931)

V. Kiowan-Tonoan family Campbell(2000),Mithun(1999)

23.Kiowa FronvalandDubois(1985),Hadley(1891),Harrington(1938),Mallery(1880)

2�.Tonoan=Tewa= Goddard(1979),Mallery(1880)Hopi-Tewa=Tano

VI. Uto-Aztecan family Campbell(2000),Mithun(1999)

25.Shoshone=Shoshoni Burton(1862),Mallery(1880),Scott(1931)

26.Comanche Harrington(1938),Mallery(1880)27.Ute=SouthernPaiute Burton(1862),Mallery(1880)28.NorthernPaitue= Mallery(1880)Bannock=Banak

VII. Shahaptian family Campbell(2000),Mithun(1999)

29.NezPerce=Nimipu= Scott(1931)Chopunnish30.Sahaptian Mallery(1880)

VIII. Salishan family Campbell(2000),Mithun(1999)

31.Coeurd’Alene Teit(1930)32.Flathead=Spokane=Kalispel Scott(1931)33.Shuswap,BritishColumbia Boas(1890/1978)

IX. Eskimo-Aleut family Campbell(2000),Mithun(1999)

3�.Inuit=Inupiaq-Inuktitut Hoffman(1895)

X. Iroquoian family Campbell(2000),Mithun(1999)

35.Huron-Wyandot Mallery(1880)

XI. Zuni (isolate) Campbell(2000)

36.Zuni Mallery(1880)

XII. Keresan = Keres Campbell(2000)

NewMexicoPueblovarieties37.LagunaPueblo Goldfrank(1923)KeresanPueblo KellyandMcGregor(2003)

Note:FordescriptionsofcurrentsignlanguageuseseeMcKay-Cody(1997),Davis(2005),DavisandSupalla(1995),Farnell(1995),Goff-ParisandWood(2002),KellyandMcGregor(2003).


comesfromthemotionpicturesproducedbyScott(1931)withsupportfromaU.S.ActofCongress.ThepurposeofthesefilmswastopreservesignedlanguageasapartoftheNorthAmericanIndianculturalandlin-guisticheritage.Thesourceandcontentofthesefilmswillbedescribedlaterinthispaper. Unfortunately, since the late 1800s, social, cultural, and historicalfactors have caused the population of native and secondary users ofthe signed languages to dramatically decrease, suggesting that PISL isanendangeredlanguage.Fortunately,somePISLvarietiesarestillusedtodayandneedtobefurtherdocumentedanddescribed.Forexample,currentsignedlanguageuseandmaintenanceprogramshavebeendocu-

figure1. Original Pen and Ink Drawings of Indian Signs (ca. 1880); Courtesy of the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution (ms.2372).

12 : jeffreye.davis

mentedfortheAssiniboine,Stoney,Blackfeet,Piegan,Blood,Crow,andNorthCheyenne(seeFarnell1995).Further,theNationalMulticulturalInterpretingProjectatElPasoCommunityCollege,theIntertribalDeafCouncil,andtheDepartmentofBlackfeetStudiesatBlackfeetCommu-nityCollegeareinvolvedintherevitalizationofPISL.

Contemporary north american indian sign language studies

DavisandSupalla(1995)studiedsignedlanguageinacontemporaryNativeAmericanIndianlinguisticcommunity.Foraperiodoftwoyears(June, 1990–May, 1992) these researchers documented the signed lan-guageusedinaNavajo(Diné)communitywithseveraldeaffamilymem-bers(i.e.,sixoutofelevensiblingsweredeaforhardofhearing).Inthatlinguisticcommunity,reminiscentofthehistoricalcaseonMartha’sVine-yard(Groce1985),bothdeafandhearingfamilymemberssharedsignedlanguage.Note,however,thatthemembersoftheparticularNavajofam-ilyhavingseveraldeaffamilymemberssignedmorefluentlythanmostmembersofthelargerhearingNavajocommunity. DavisandSupalladocumentedthehighlyelaboratesign-basedcom-munication system that was used by the Navajo family and that wasdistinct fromASL.Apparently, the sign systemusedby the familyhasevolvedintergenerationallybecauseofseveraloutstandinghistoricalandsociolinguisticcauses.ThefirstoftheseinfluenceswasareportedhistoryofsigncommunicationinthelargerhearingNavajocommunity(similartothetypesevidentinotherNorthAmericanindigenouscommunities).Second,thehearingNavajoparentsofthisfamilysignedwhatwascalled“theNavajoway.”Furthermore,athirty-yearagespanseparatedtheold-estdeafsiblingandtheyoungestdeafsibling.Threeyoungersisters(twodeafandonehardofhearing)andamalecousin,whoisalsodeaf,wereeducatedattheArizonaSchoolfortheDeafandBlind(ASDB)inTucson.Thethreeolderdeafsiblings,havingneverattendedschool,apparentlyneverlearnedASL.AlthoughtheyoungerdeafsiblingsandcousinwerefluentinASL,theycontinuedtousewhatwascalled“theNavajoway”or“thefamilysign”withtheirdeafandhearingrelatives livingonthereservation. Themalecousinservedastheprimaryconsultantforthestudy.6Hewasfluentinthevarietyofsignedlanguageusedbythefamily,fluentinthesignedcommunicationusedwithinthelargerhearingNavajocommunity,nativelyproficientinASL,andabletocommunicateinwrittenEnglish.


Hemetwiththeresearchersbeforeandaftereachsitevisitandservedasaninterpreter.Ethnographicprocedureswerefollowedtoenhancerap-port,naturalness,andauthenticityofthedatacollected.Approximatelytwentyhoursofvideotapedsignedlanguagedataweredocumentedforthisfamily.Theresearchersdescribedthenatureoflinguisticinteraction(e.g.,languagefunctionsanddomainsofuse)betweenthedeafandhear-ingparticipantsinthisrarifiedsituation.DavisandSupallaobservedthatbothdeafandhearingfamilymembersmaintainedandrecognized lin-guisticboundariesbetweenthesedifferentvarietiesofsigning. The primary deaf Navajo consultant, hearing family members, andotherdeafandhearingNavajoindividualsdescribedthedifferent“waysof signing”used in the largerNavajo community.ASLwas referred toas“Englishsign”or“theAnglowayofsigning.”Thefamilysignsystem,which theycalled“our signs”or“family sign,”wasconsidereddistinctfromASL.ThesignedlanguageusedbythelargerNavajocommunitywascalled“thehearingNavajowayof signing,”“signing theNavajoway,”“NavajoSign,”and“Indiansign.”ThehearingNavajowayofsigningwasviewedasbeingrelatedtotheirfamilysignedlanguage(i.e.,sharedlexi-con),butdistinctinotherways.Whenaskedwhatmakesthefamilysigndifferent,theNavajosourcesreportedthatthefamilysignislesstranspar-entandenvironmentallydependentand is signedmuch faster than thehearingNavajowayofsigning.DavisandSupallaobservedthatthefol-lowingpracticesinbothdeafandhearingNavajofamilymembers:

• Consistentlyusedthefamilysignsystemwithoneanother(i.e.,noobserveduseofASLamongthefamilymembers)

• Participatedinsignedconversationsthatspannedarangeoftop-icsandsettings,pastandpresenttimeperiods,andconversationsaboutdailyroutines(e.g.,rugmakingandsheepherding)

• InterpretedbetweenspokenNavajo,English,ASL,andthefamilysignsystem(dependingonthehearingstatusandsociolinguisticbackgroundoftheparticipant)

• Usednamesignstoidentifyeachfamilymember(presentorabsent)

Significantly,theso-calledfamilysignappearedtobemuchmorecom-plexwith linguistic features thatare typicallyabsent forvariousotherhomesignsystems. According to Frishberg (1987), home sign systems do share somefeatureswithnatural languages (e.g., individual signsare segmentable,can be assigned to semantic categories, etc.). However, they also have

1� : jeffreye.davis

specific characteristics that distinguish them from conventional signedlanguages.Forexample,signingspaceforhomesignislarger;signsandsignsequences tendtoberepeated; thenumberofdistincthandshapesarefewer;eyegazefunctionsdifferently;signsareproducedmoreslowly,awkwardly,andlessfluently;andhomesignsystemsaremoreenviron-mentallydependent(e.g.,requiringthesignertopointtoacolororobjectintheenvironmentratherthanmakeasignforthem).Incontrasttotheabovefeaturesdescribedforhomesign,DavisandSupalla(1995)foundthattheNavajofamilysignsystemhadthefollowingcharacteristics:

• Moremultilayeredandcomplexthanwhatistypicallydescribedforhomesign(e.g.,richuseofheadandfacenonmanualmarkersandclassifierforms)

• Highlyelaboratedandconventionalized(e.g.,aconsistentmeaning-symbolrelationshipforsigns,includingculturalconceptssuchasherdingsheep,weaving,andperformingIndiandancing)

• DevelopedinahistoricalcontextwheresigninghasreportedlybeenusedbysomehearingmembersofthelargerNavajospo-kenlanguagecommunity(evenwhennodeafindividualswerepresent)

• Usedinthisfamilycross-generationallyforatleastfiftyyears• SignedwithminimalASLborrowingandcodeswitching• DistinctfromASLandspokenNavajo(i.e.,languageskeptsepa-

ratebyfamilymembers,dependingonthelanguagebackgroundofinterlocutors)

Overall,DavisandSupalla(1995)observedminimal lexicalborrow-ingfromASL(e.g.,someASLsignswereusedforfamilyrelations,foodsigns,andcolorterms,andASLfingerspellingwasusedintokenwaystoconveysomepropernouns).Incontrast,homesignisusuallynotmain-tainedcross-generationallyandistypicallyreplacedbytheconventionalsignlanguageoftheDeafcommunity.DavisandSupallasuggestedthatthese combined sociolinguistic factors lead toa full-fledged (orat leastemergent)languagethatisdistinctfromothertypesofsignedcommunica-tion(e.g.,signsorgesturesthataccompanyspeech;home-basedsigning). DavisandSupalla(1995)proposeda“TaxonomyofSignedCommu-nicationSystems”thatwasbasedonworkwiththeNavajofamilyandonaccountsfromotheraboriginalandindigenoussignedlanguagestudies(e.g.,Kendon1988;Washabaugh1986a,1986b).Inthistaxonomy,theydescribedthefollowingtypesofvisual-gesturalcommunication:


• Primary signed languagesthathaveevolvedwithinspecifichistor-ical,social,andculturalcontextsandthathavebeenusedacrossgenerationsofsigners(e.g.,ASL,FrenchSignLanguage,DanishSignLanguage,etc.)

• Alternate sign systemsdevelopedandusedbyindividualswhoarealreadycompetentinspokenlanguage(e.g.,thehighlyelaboratedandcomplexsignsystemusedhistoricallybythePlainsIndiansofNorthAmerica)

• Home sign systemsthataregesturalcommunicationsystemsdevelopedwhendeafindividualsareisolatedfromotherdeafpeopleandneedtocommunicatewithotherhearingpeoplearoundthem

• Gesturesthataccompanyspokenlanguagediscourse

Naturally,thesedistinctionsarenotthatcutanddried,andthedifferenttypesofsignedcommunicationsareinterrelated.Althoughthesecategoriesareusefuldescriptively,DavisandSupallanotedoverlapbetweenthecat-egories.Forexample,thefamily’shomesignsystemwasinformedbythealternatesignsusedbysomeinthehearingNavajocommunity.Thus,thewayofsigningusedbythisNavajofamilyemergedasaprimarysignedlan-guage.Alongsimilarlines,McKay-Cody’s(1997,10–11)studysupportedthatthe“alternatesignsystems”usedbyhearingIndiansbecamea“pri-marysignedlanguage”whenacquirednativelybyIndianswhoaredeaf.Thelinguisticevidencealsosuggeststhatalternatesignsareusedtovaryingdegreesofproficiency,rangingfrom(a)signsthataccompanyspeechto(b)signsthatareusedwithoutspeechto(c)signusethatfunctionssimilarlytoprimarysignedlanguage.Likeothercasesofsociolinguisticvariation,thesewaysofsigningarebestconsideredalongacontinuum.

the national archives

In1993,SamuelSupallaandIreceivedasmallgrantfromtheLaurentClercCultural Fund fromGallaudetUniversityAlumniAssociation tocollectandorganizefilmand literatureonNativeAmericanSignLan-guage in NorthAmerica. I traveled toWashington, D.C., and the dayIwasscheduledtodoresearchat theNationalArchives,asnowstormof unforecasted proportions descended on the city.The transit systemwasparalyzedforseveralhours,butfindingsaferefugeintheNationalArchives,Iremainedlongerthanexpected.Whilewaitingfortheblizzardto subside, Imet some researchersworkingonKenBurns’s upcoming

16 : jeffreye.davis

PBSspecialaboutthehistoryofAmericanbaseball.WhenIsharedmyresearch agenda about Indian Sign Language, the researchers directedmetoanareaofthearchiveswheretherewerenumerousoldfilmsdocu-mentingIndianSignLanguage. BecauseWashington,D.C.,wasatastandstill,theNationalArchivesremainedopenbeyondtheusualhours.Takingadvantageofthisoppor-tunity,thearchivistsassistedmeinmakingVHScopiesoftheseoldfilmstobringback to the signed language research labat theUniversityofArizona.Sincethattime,Ihavesharedthesefilmswithotherswhohavealsostudied themperiodically.However,a full-scale linguistic studyofthephonology,morphology,andsyntaxofPISL is still forthcoming.Apreliminary linguistic analysis of some of the data contained in thesefilmsandofthehistoricaldocumentsuncoveredduringtheinitialPISLprojectwere the focusof anoutstandingmaster’s thesis completedbyMelanieMcKay-Cody(1997)attheUniversityofArizona.McKay-Codycompareda traditionalnarrative aboutbuffalohunting signedbyoneof thehearing Indianchiefs fromthe1930sfilmwitha similarnarra-tivesignedbyacontemporarydeafIndianwhowasanativePISLuser.7Thisstudydistinguishedtwomajorcategoriesofsigned languageusedby Indians: (1) as an alternative to spoken languagebyhearing tribalmembers;and(2)asaprimarylanguage(firstlanguage)fordeaftribalmembers (McKay-Cody 1997, 10). This finding was consistent withthepatterns identified earlierbyDavis andSupalla, andMcKay-Codyobservedthatwhensignerswhoaredeaflearnthesignedlanguageusedbythelargerhearingnativecommunitythey“seemtogainahigherlevelofproficiency”thanthehearingIndiansigners(50).Thesefindingssug-gestthatalternatesignedlanguageusedbyhearingIndiansbecomelin-guisticallyenrichedwhenlearnedasaprimarylanguagebymembersofIndiancommunitieswhoaredeaf.McKay-CodyconcludedthatPISLwasafull-fledgedlanguage. McKay-Cody’sstudyalsodemonstratedthatthenarrativestructuresand morphological complexities of historical and contemporary PISLare comparablewith those found inASL. For example, the sign types,markedandunmarkedhandshapes,andsymmetryanddominancecondi-tionsdescribedforASLbyBattison(1978/2003)areevidentinthePISLlexicon,andtheclassifierformdescribedforASLbyTedSupalla(1978)arealsoclearlyevidentinthePISLdatacorpus.Remarkably,morethantwo-thirdsofthesignsusedbytheprimaryPISLdeafsignerinhisver-sionofthebuffalohuntingstorywereidenticalorsimilar(i.e.,different


inonlyoneparameter,or signedwithonehand insteadof two) to thesignsdocumentedinthehistoricalPISLlexicon.Thoughbasedononlytheanalysisofonesignednarrative,theseresultswerenonethelesssignificant.McKay-Cody’sprimaryconsultantlearnedPISLasayoungdeafchildonthe Northern Cheyenne Reservation, and his Cheyenne ancestors werereportedtobeamongthehistoricalprogenitorsoftraditionalPISL. Consideringhistoricallinguisticchange,regionalvariation,andinten-sive language issues, the similarities that are evident between contem-poraryandhistoricalPISLarestriking.ThefactthatPISLhassurvivedandcontinuestobeusedisremarkable,especiallyconsideringthepres-suresforlinguisticandculturalassimilationthathavebeenhistoricallyimposedonindigenouspeoples.Furtherlinguisticcomparison,documen-tation,anddescriptionofhistoricalandcontemporaryPISLuseamongdeafandhearingIndiansareneeded.EvenmorecriticalistheneedforlanguagemaintenanceandeducationbecausePISLisanendangeredlan-guage.Unfortunately,programstosupportthemaintenanceofthehis-toricalPISLvarietyandtoeducateusershavebeenlacking.SeeCrystal(2000) for more information about the extreme urgency for languagestabilizationandmaintenance.

the Historical linguistic Database

ThesignsusedbyAmericanIndianshavebeendocumentedforavari-etyofpurposessincetheearly1800s,andIhaveidentifiedover8,000lexicaldescriptions,illustrations,photographs,andfilmsdocumentedinarchivedsourcesthatspanthreecenturies(seetable1).Greatcaremustbe taken inclassifying,preserving,analyzing,anddescribing thesehis-torical linguistic data documenting the Indians use of signs.Certainly,given the wide geographic expanse of the North American continentandthelinguisticandculturaldiversitythatwasevident,morethanonenativesignvarietyisrepresentedinthesehistoricallinguisticdocuments.Describing,illustrating,anddecipheringsignsaccuratelyisachallenge.Consequently, duplicate entries between dictionaries and instances ofoverlap(whereinthesamesignislabeleddifferently)mayhaveoccurred,andsomeofthedescriptionsandillustrationsmaybeerroneous. Fortunately,asubstantialamountofPISLhasbeenfilmed(historicallyandcontemporarily),thusmakingpossiblefurthercomparisonsbetweenthewritten, illustrated, andfilmedhistorical linguisticdocuments.Thesheermagnitudeofthesedata,however,pointtotheneedtoestablishan

18 : jeffreye.davis

open-sourcedatabase toprovideaccess forothers to study, teach,andresearchPISLandotherNativeAmericansignvarieties.Ahistoryoflan-guagecontactbetweenNorthAmericanIndianandDeafAmericancom-munitieswarrantsfurtherconsideration,however,beforeanydiscussionaboutthecontentofthefilmeddocumentationispresentedhere.

Historical sign language studies

ThefirstknowndescriptionofIndiansignvocabularywaspublishedin1823(Long1823)after theStephenLongexpeditionundertaken in1820.8Thataccountprecededbyonehundredyearsthefirstpublisheddictionary for the sign language used by Deaf Americans (J. S. Long1918). In18�8, thefirstknownarticle tobepublishedbyThomasH.Gallaudetwasanessaytitled“OntheNaturalLanguageofSigns:AndItsValueandUsesintheInstructionoftheDeafandDumb.”ThefirstpartofhisessayappearedintheinauguralpublicationofAmerican Annals of the Deaf(18�8a)andthesecondpartinthefollowingissue(18�8b).Theessay was written following early nineteenth-century conventions thatarearchaicandpatronizingbytoday’sstandards.Nonetheless,T.H.Gal-laudetusedthe“IndianLanguageofSigns”tomakeacaseforthevalueof“thenaturallanguageofsigns”forteachingandcommunicatingwithdeafpeople. Inthepublishedessay,GallaudetdidnotproposethattheIndianLan-guageofSignsbeusedasthelanguageofinstruction,butthat“TheNatu-ralLanguageofSigns”wasthebestmethodofinstruction(18�8a).Inthesecondpartof the essay (18�8b),heproposed that the“originatorsofthis language”are thedeafpeople themselves (93).Gallaudetdiscussedthe“universality”ofwhathecalledthe“thenaturallanguageofsigns.”Hismainpointabout“universality”wasthatsignedlanguage“naturally”occurs“whennecessityexists”and“promptstheinventionanduseofthislanguageof signs” (18�8a, 59).As evidence,Gallaudet used examplesfromtheIndianLanguageofSignsandincludedthedetaileddescriptionsofsignsusedbythe“aboriginalIndians”thathehadtakeninpartfrom“ExpeditionfromPittsburghtotheRockyMountains,”anaccountoftheexpeditionledbyMajorStephenH.Longthatincludesdescriptionsofatotalof10�“Indiansigns”(Long1823,378–9�). ThehistoricalproximityofthefirstAmericandeafschoolhavingbeenestablishedin1817andthefactthatGallaudetconsideredthesignlan-guageoftheIndianssignificantenoughtomakethatthecentralfocusof


hisarticleintheinauguraleditionoftheAmerican Annals of the Deaf and Dumb, makesitspossibleintroductiontodeafstudentsanintriguingquestion.However,thehistoricpublicationsthatareconsideredheredonotexactlysupportthisnotion.Forexample,in18�8,Gallaudetwrotethefollowing:

MajorLong’sworkcontainsanaccuratedescriptionofmanyofthesesigns,anditissurprisingtonoticehownotafewofthemarealmostidenticallythesamewiththosewhichthedeafanddumbemploytodescribethesamethings,whileothershavesuchgeneral featuresofresemblanceastoshowthattheyoriginatefromelementsofthissign-languagewhichnaturefurnishestomanwhereverheisfound,whetherbarbarousorcivilized.(18�8a,59)

Tosupport thehypothesis thatsigned languagewasanaturallyoccur-ringhumanphenomenon,Gallaudet(18�8a)hadselectedeightexamplesfromthepreviouslypublishedlistof10�Indiansignsanddescriptions(Long1823).Specifically,heselectedexamplesthathefoundweresignedthesamewaybydeafpeopleandbyIndians.AfterthedeathofT.H.Gal-laudet,thecompletelistof10�Indiansigns(Long1823)waspublishedasthe“IndianLanguageofSigns”intheAmerican Annals of the Deaf and Dumb(Gallaudet1852)andincludedthisnotefromtheeditor:“Thepointsofresemblancebetweenthesesignsandthose inuseamongtheeducateddeafanddumbarenumerousandstriking”(157).Theentirepublishedlistoftheoriginal10�Indiansigndescriptions(compareLong1823)istoolongtoincludehere;however,theeightIndiansigndescrip-tionsfromGallaudet’s18�8articlearepresentedinappendixA.

other Historical Connections

It was not until 1918 that J. Schuyler Long (long-time principal atthe Iowa School for the Deaf) published the first illustrated dictionary,The Sign Language: A Manual of Signs,whichhedescribedas“BeingadescriptivevocabularyofsignsusedbythedeafoftheUnitedStatesandCanada”(Long1918,).Thatstatement[Imeanthedictionary,notthestate-ment]camealmostonehundredyearsafterS.H.Long’s1823publisheddescriptionsof the“IndianLanguageofSigns.” It shouldbenoted thatJ. Schuyler LongcorrespondedwithbothGarrickMalleryandHughScott,thetwopreeminentscholarsofIndianSignLanguageofthetime.Addi-tional research is needed to learnmore about these collaborations and

20 : jeffreye.davis

thehistoricalrelationshipsbetweenthehistoricalvarietiesofIndianSignLanguageandASL.Furthermore,linguisticcomparisonsmusttakeintoaccounticonicity,historicalchange,andvariation. Thus, the historical linguistic evidence in these earliest publishedaccountsraisesnumerousquestionssuchasthefollowing:

• DidGallaudetpicktheeightsignsfromthe10�IndiansignsasthemostsalientexamplesofhowtheIndiansanddeafpeoplesignedthesame(inanattempttoprovehisclaimabouttheuni-versalityofnaturalsignlanguage)?

• WereIndiansignseverusedtoteachdeafstudentsattendingschoolsforthedeaf(somethingnotexplicitlystatedbyGallaudetinthe18�8American Annals of the Deaf and Dumbessay)?

• WhataboutcontactbetweentheearliestEuropeanimmigrantswhoweredeafandAmericanIndians?

• WhatcontactdiddeafstudentsattendingthefirstAmericanschoolsforthedeafhavewithAmericanIndianswhosigned?

• AretheredocumentedcasesofAmericanIndianchildrenwhoweredeafattendingschoolsforthedeaf?

• GiventhepropensityforAmericanIndianstousesignandthefactthatIndianswerereportedlyinhabitantsofMartha’sVine-yardatthetimeofthefirstwaveofEuropeanimmigration(Groce1985),whatconnectionmighttherebebetweenthesehistoricalfactsandthesubsequent emergenceofaMartha’sVineyardsignlanguagevariety?

These questions are beyond the scope of the present study to addressbutareofferedhereforotherstoconsideraspossibletopicsforfurtherinvestigation. Forthispaper,Iconductedapreliminaryanalysisofthis1823pub-lishedlistof10�IndiansignsandcomparedthemwithsubsequentsigndescriptionscontainedinthehistoricalPISLdatabase.First,Icomparedthedescriptionsfromtheearly1800swiththosemadeinthelate1800sandearly1900s(i.e.,documentedethnographicaccountsthatspannedaone-hundred-yearperiod).ThenIcomparedthenineteenthandearlytwentieth centurydescriptionswith150examplesof Indian signs thatwere contemporarily signed and videotaped by Martin Weatherwax(2002), chair of Blackfeet Studies at Blackfeet Community College inBrowning, Montana. Professor Weatherwax reported that he learnedIndianSignLanguagenativelyfromhisBlackfootgrandfather.Thus,the


preliminary historical linguistic comparisons reported here span threecenturies(i.e.,fromtheveryearly1800suntilthe2000s). Conservatively,Ihaveestimatedthatatleast75percentofthesignsfrom the 1823 descriptions were identical or similar (i.e., differing inonlyasingleparameter—handshape,movement, location,orientation)to the Indiansigns thathavebeendocumented forsubsequentgenera-tions.Althoughtheseresultsarepreliminaryandshouldbeinterpretedcarefully,onemustalsoconsidertheoverwhelminghistorical linguisticevidencefortherehavingbeenanintertribalandintergenerationalsignedlinguafranca.The1930sfilmsproducedbyHughScottremaintherich-estsourceofhistoricalNASILandprovidethestrongestevidenceforahistoricalsignedlinguafranca.

a historical linguistic account of sign language among ...gupress.gallaudet.edu/excerpts/msl.pdf ·...

Documents