History of the American Sign Language - Research Paper Example

History of the American Sign Language Introduction The growth of English-based sign methods and their swift dissemination all over the 1970s have brought in virtually radical transformations in the forms of communication used with deaf, speech-impaired students in classroom contexts. The recognition and implementation of such educational strategies after many years of compliance to oral-exclusive courses of instruction has compelled a number of teachers of the hard-of-hearing to think that English-based sign methods, or sign systems rooted in an oral national language, are current improvements in themselves (Paul 2008). This thought reflects a complete absence of historical perception. Thus this essay discusses the history of the American Sign Language (ASL) and the ongoing debate between oral communication and ASL. History of the American Sign Language The emergence of the American Sign Language did not actually commence until deaf education was launched in the United States in 1814. There are almost no documented facts about the history of ASL prior to this period (Nickens 2008). The history of ASL actually began with Dr. Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet. Mason Fitch Cogswell, Gallaudet’s neighbor, had a daughter with hearing impairment. Dr. Gallaudet tried to teach the child in spelling and reading, but will little success for he did not possess any knowledge of the most useful methods to educate the deaf (Tabak 2006). Thus, according to Tabak (2006), Gallaudet received the needed financial and moral support from the community for his travel to Europe to learn strategies in deaf education. Gallaudet became acquainted with prominent deaf educators in Europe: Laurent Clerc, Jean Massieu, and Abbe Sicard. Gallaudet tried to learn the teaching strategies of these educators. When he was preparing to return to America, he invited Clerc to come with him. Gallaudet realized that Clerc would greatly contribute to the establishment of deaf education in the United States. Clerc accepted the offer (Nickens 2008). Their school, which is currently recognized as the American School for the Deaf, was established in 1817 in Hartford, Connecticut. This was a grand landmark in the history of American Deaf education. The school progressed rapidly. Deaf students from America who attended the school carried with them sign systems from home. ASL originated from these sign systems and from the French Sign Language that Clerc lectured to Gallaudet (Nickens 2008). Until today deaf schools all over the United States use the deaf education principles and strategies of Clerc. The Oral-Manual Debate The basically unavoidable consequent disagreement between advocates of ASL and English-based signs has been viewed as ‘unique’, while the 18th and 19th centuries in France and 19th century in the U.S. are stuffed with phases of disagreement between ‘methodical’ and ‘natural’ sign systems (Paul 2008). Because American teachers of students with hearing impairment have been consumed with the debate between ‘manualism’ and ‘oralism’, according to Grayson (2003), there is inadequate knowledge of the fact that the conflict between English-based signs and ASL in the U.S. heralds the oral-manual conflict and sometimes has been even more hostile. Historically, oralists and manualists have usually been unsuccessful in finding any point of similarity. Primarily, the oralist approach triumphed as the best communication form adopted for hard-of-hearing people in America until a disintegration in adoption in the 1970’s and 1980’s. ASL only surfaced as an equivalent and recognized form of communication when the American Civil Rights Movement took place (Baker 2011). As emphasized in a passage from the History through Deaf Eyes by Gallaudet University, the Civil Rights Movement and episodes that came after enabled deaf people to exercise the ‘natural rights of liberty, justice, and equality’ (Baker 2011, para 5) avowed in the constitution of the United States. Immediately after gaining such civil rights, members of the deaf community also gained privileges under the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act and1990 American Disabilities Act (ADA) (Baker 2011, para 5-6). With these decrees members of the hearing and the deaf community at last had the privilege to opt for and/or adopt a favored communication strategy. There was a time oralist teachers, under the influence of a quite crude and popularized interpretation of the theory of evolution, believed sign language is only fit for ‘backward’ people who occupy the base of the developmental hierarchy. They viewed Native Americans as breathing relics, remnants from a primitive period (Nickens 2008). Therefore, sign language was an undeveloped language that delayed the progress of deaf individuals. Educators would argue that it was immoral to ignore members of the deaf community. Acquiring oral skills would evidently raise them to the level of members of the hearing community. Thus, the attempt to eradicate sign language was not merely about deaf education. It brought into play all kinds of bigger concerns, like historical path, position of individuals in the world’s hierarchy, and the implication of progress (Grayson 2003). At the conclusion of the 19th century, the entire focus of deaf education transitioned from adjusting to impairment to winning over disability. For the members of the deaf community, the model of impairment during the 19th century implied adopting sign language, which was viewed as God’s bequest to ease the trouble of deafness. Nevertheless, ‘winning’ implied trying to read lips and verbalize, so that they may better cope with hearing individuals (Grayson 2003). It showed a quite distinct perspective. As an outcome of the decrees promoting both oral and manual communications, numerous views on which was the better form of communication for deaf individuals emerge. Some decided to passionately endorse ASL whereas others supported oral communication. Yet, others attempted to promote a fusion of the two methods, such as Simultaneous Communication and Total Communication (Baker 2011, para 6). Such forms of communication are all kinds of communication that merge the function of oral and manual communications by some means. Nevertheless, these merged techniques are not as greatly controversial as are oral-manual debate (Baker 2011). This is due to the fact that people who prefer ASL or oral communication really give importance to the advantages conferred by it. For decades, both oral advocates and the deaf advocates have taken part in debate about the comparative advantages of oral communication versus ASL or manual communication. These two communication methods for hard-of-hearing students have comparative strengths and weaknesses. The concept of ‘manual communication’ denotes communicating through gestures, especially hand movements. Advocates of manual communication are usually Deaf community members, who think that deafness is a component of a cultural character, and that deaf people’s natural language is the ‘sign language’ (Grayson 2003). Signed languages, such as ASL, are the most recognized types of manual communication. Such languages follow a distinct grammar, and are clearly independent from their oral counterparts. In contrast, oral communication advocates for hard-of-hearing people, or ‘oralists’, assert that the communication of the hearing community with deaf people is impeded by the adoption of manual communication methods (Grayson 2003). Specifically, as stated by Paul (2008), hearing community members who are not acquainted with the sign language should depend on an interpreter to communicate with manual communication users. They support the adoption of oral communication for people with hearing impairment so that they could communicate directly and easily with members of the hearing community. Conclusions The debate between oralists and manualists rages until now. A way out of this standoff is yet to be discovered, as the choice in forms of communication for deaf people mainly concerns the core principles or beliefs espoused by each individual. ASL advocates largely argue for more emotional, social, and individual gains whereas Oralists often promote more holistic gains. Regardless of these two choices, a person with hearing impairment should at the end of the day adopt a form of communication and the choice merely relies on which is observed to be basically useful. Works Cited Baker, K. Oral Communication versus American Sign Language. Springfield, Missouri: Drury University, 2011. Print. Grayson, G. Talking with your hands, listening with your eyes: a complete photographic guide to American Sign Language. New York: Square One Publishers, Inc., 2003. Print. Nickens, C. The History of American Sign Language. New York: Lulu.com, 2008. Print. Paul, P. Language and Deafness. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2008. Print. Tabak, J. Significant gestures: a history of American Sign Language. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006. Print. Read More