a historical linguistic account of sign language among north american indians

Part 1 Multilingualism

01 lucas 1-78.indd 1 9/8/06 11:26:28 AM

01 lucas 1-78.indd 2 9/8/06 11:26:28 AM

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 North American 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

01 lucas 1-78.indd 3 9/8/06 11:26:28 AM

� : jeffrey e. 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in variousways —Plains Indian Sign Language, Indian Sign Language, The SignLanguage, Indian Language of Signs, and historical references in thispaperwillapplythosenameswhereappropriate.2Previousanthropologi-cal linguisticfieldresearch (Kroeber1958;Voegelin1958;West1960)indicatesthatsignedlanguagewasusedinvaryingdegreeswithinmostofthelanguagefamiliesofNativeNorthAmerica.ThebestdocumentedcasesofindigenoussignedlanguagesinvolvedvariousIndiangroupswhoonce inhabited theGreatPlainsareaof theNorthAmericancontinent(seetable1).ThisenormousgeographicexpansestretchednorthtosouthformorethantwothousandmilesfromtheNorthSaskatchewanRiverinCanadatotheRioGrandeinMexico.Theeast-westboundarieswereapproximatelytheMississippi-Missourivalleysandthefoothillsof theRockyMountainsandencompassedanareaofsomeonemillionsquaremiles.Generally,twelvemajorgeographicculturalareasofNativeNorthAmericaareidentifiedintheliteraturewiththePlainsculturalareacen-trallylocatedtoallofthese(cf.Campbell2000,Mithun1999).Histori-cally,thislargegeographic areawasoneofextremelinguisticdiversity,and hundreds of different languages were spoken among the nativepopulace.3

ThePlainstribesweregeographicallyandculturallycentraltomostof theotherNorthAmerican Indian cultural groups anda 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

01 lucas 1-78.indd 4 9/8/06 11:26:28 AM

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.DeafandhearingindividualsfromotherNativeAmericangroups, suchas theDiné/Navajo (Davis andSupalla1995) andtheKeresanoftheNewMexicoPuebloculturalarea(KellyandMcGregor2003)appeartosignavarietythatisdistinctfromtradi-tionalPISL.Preliminarily,theavailablelinguisticevidencesuggeststhatthesetraditionalwaysofsigningamongIndiangroupsaredistinctfromAmericanSignLanguage(ASL).Atthesametime,strikingsimilaritiesinlinguisticstructurebetweenPISLandASL(e.g.,markedandunmarkedhandshapes,symmetryanddominanceconditions,classifierforms,andnonmanualmarkers),havebeendocumented(seeDavis2005,DavisandSupalla1995,McKay-Cody1997).Inthispaper,IreportthedocumentedcasesofhistoricalandcontemporarysignedlanguageuseamongNorth

01 lucas 1-78.indd 5 9/8/06 11:26:28 AM

6 : jeffrey e. davis

AmericanIndiangroups,presentpreliminarylinguisticdescriptionsandfindings,andofferreadersalinktoaprototypeon-linedigitalarchiveofPISLdocumentarymaterials.Theauthoraimstoexpandthisopenaccesson-linelinguisticcorpusofPISLtoincludemoredocumentarymaterials,translations, and analyses. This will encourage and facilitate languagerevitalizationefforts,furtherresearch,andscholarship.Thelinktotheon-linedigitalarchiveofPISLdocumentarymaterialsisPlainsSignLan-guageDigitalArchive:http://sunsite.utk.edu/plainssignlanguage/

Pre-euroPean ContaCt

Clearly, there was (and still remains) an indigenous form of NorthAmericansignedlanguage,anditsusehasbeenhistoricallydocumentedasbeingwidespread.WurtzburgandCampbell(1995)makeacompellingcasefortherehavingbeenapreexistent,welldevelopedindigenoussignedlanguageacrosstheGulfCoast-Texas-northernMexicoareabefore Euro-pean contact.Intheirhistoricalstudyof“NorthAmericanIndianSignLanguage,”WurtzburgandCampbell(1995,160)define“signlanguage”as“aconventionalizedgesturelanguageofthesortlaterattestedamongthePlainsandneighboringareas.”Basedonnumerousearlyhistoricalaccounts,theyreportthattheearliestandmostsubstantiveaccountsisfromthe1527expeditionfortheconquestofFlorida,leadbytheSpanishconquistadorCabezadeVacawhoreportednumerousoccasionswhereinnativegroupscommunicatedwith signs (1995,15�–55).According tothehistoricalrecord,CabezadeVaca“alsoclearlydistinguishedwhichgroups spoke the same language,which spokedifferent languagesbutunderstoodothers,andwhichgroupsdidnotunderstandothersatall,exceptthroughtheuseofsignlanguage”(1995,155).5SimilaraccountsweremadebyCoronado in15�1 (reported inTaylor1978), and sub-sequent reports were made in the eighteenth century (e.g., Santa Anain17�0 [reported inMithun1999]).Goddard (1979),andWurtzburgandCampbell(1995)publishedpapersabouttheroleservedbysignedlanguagesandsomespokennativelanguagesaslinguafrancas,andhavediscussedthepidgins,tradelanguagesand“mixed”systemsusedamongnative groups. The generally accepted hypothesis among scholars (seeCampbell2000;Mithun1999)isthatNorthAmericanIndianSignLan-guageoriginatedandspreadfromtheGulfCoast,becametheintertriballinguafrancaoftheGreatPlains,andspreadthroughoutthenorthwest

01 lucas 1-78.indd 6 9/8/06 11:26:29 AM


territories of the United States and Canada (compare Goddard 1979;Taylor1978;WurtzburgandCampbell1995).Furtherresearchofthesetopicsisneeded,butpresentlybeyondthescopeofthispaper.Thehis-toricallinguisticdocumentsandethnographicaccountsthatarethefocusofthispapersupportthatsignedlanguagewasusedbeyondtheGreatPlainsareaandwasevidentacrossmostofthemajorAmericanIndianculturalareas (e.g.,SoutheastandGulfCoast,Southwest,PlateauandBasin,Subarctic,Mesoamerica,andNortheast). Attention to the rich legacy of historical linguistic documents thatremain(essays,descriptions,illustrations,films)isneededinlightofnewlinguistic theories.The indigenousoriginsofcontemporarysigned lan-guageuseamongNativeAmericandeafandhearingsignersacrossdif-ferent geographic and cultural contexts must be documented. Furtherconsiderationmustbegiventotheintergenerationaluseofhighlyelabo-ratesignedcommunicationsystemsthathavebeendocumentedforhear-ing signing communities, evenwhendeafpeople arenotpresent (e.g.,historicallyonMartha’sVineyardaswell 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-Cody1997)havedocumentedcontemporarysignedlanguageuseamongotherNorthAmerican linguistic groups—for example,Algon-quian (Blackfeet) andSiouan (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 inNorthAmericanandinothercontinents(e.g.,AustraliaandSouthAmerica).Theevidencesuggeststhatinaddi-tiontoitsdocumentedhistoryasaintertriballinguafranca,signedlan-guage was used intratribally for a variety of discourse purposes (e.g.,storytelling,gender-specificactivities,timeswhenspeechwastaboo,rit-ualpractices).

01 lucas 1-78.indd 7 9/8/06 11:26:29 AM


Inthispaper,Iexaminethedocumentedfilmandwrittenethnographicaccounts of North American Indians signing an assortment of topics,includingdifferentdiscoursetypesacrossavarietyofsettingsandpar-ticipants. Furthermore, I consider some of the historical connectionsbetween ASL and indigenous signed language varieties. Historic andcontemporaryusesofsignedlanguagehavebeendocumentedinatleastonedozendistinctNorthAmericanlanguagefamilies(phyla).Certainly,signingmayhavebeenusedbyevenmoregroupsthanthese,butatleastthismanycasesweredocumentedinhistorical linguisticaccounts.Thearchiveddatarevealthatregardlessofhearingstatus,signingwasusedbymembersfromapproximatelythirty-sevendistinctAmericanIndianspo-kenlanguagegroups.ConventionsfortheclassificationofNorthAmeri-can language families are followed (compare Campbell 2000; Mithun1999). Ineachcase, thepublishedsource isprovidedanddocumentedcasesofcurrentusearehighlighted.Thesehistoricalandcontemporarycasesarepresentedintable1.

HistoriCal linguistiC DoCuMentation anD DesCriPtion

Throughout the 1800s, the earliest explorers, naturalists, ethnolo-gists,andevenU.S.militarypersonnel,extensivelydocumentedtheuseof Indian Sign Language for a variety of purposes. Documentation ofIndian Sign Language continued through the 1900s, and the earliestanthropologists,linguists,andsemioticiansstudiedanddescribeditslin-guistic structures (e.g.,Boas1890/1978;Kroeber1958;Mallery1880;Umiker-SebeokandSebeok1978;Voegelin1958),mostofwhom,nota-bly,alsoservedtermsaspresidentsoftheLinguisticSocietyofAmerica.Theseearlyscholars laidthegroundworkfor IndianSignLanguagetobeconsideredapreexistent,full-fledgedlanguage.Thus,thereremainsarichlinguisticandethnographiclegacyintheformofdiaries,books,arti-cles, illustrations,dictionaries, andmotionpictures thatdocument thevarietiesofsignedlanguagehistoricallyusedamongnativepopulationsofNorthAmerica.Oneof the richest sources forarchivaldata comesfromthemotionpicturesproducedbyScott(1931)withsupportfromaU.S.ActofCongress.ThepurposeofthesefilmswastopreservesignedlanguageasapartoftheNorthAmericanIndianculturalandlinguisticheritage.Thesourceandcontentofthesefilmswillbedescribedlaterinthispaper.

01 lucas 1-78.indd 8 9/8/06 11:26:29 AM


table 1. 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)

01 lucas 1-78.indd 9 9/8/06 11:26:29 AM


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).

01 lucas 1-78.indd 10 9/8/06 11:26:29 AM


Unfortunately,sincethelate1800s,social,cultural,andhistoricalfac-tors have caused the population of native and secondary users of thesigned languages to dramatically decrease, suggesting that PISL is anendangeredlanguage.Fortunately,somePISLvarietiesarestillusedtodayandneedtobefurtherdocumentedanddescribed.Forexample,currentsignedlanguageuseandmaintenanceprogramshavebeendocumentedfortheAssiniboine,Stoney,Blackfeet,Piegan,Blood,Crow,NorthChey-enne(seeFarnell1995).Further,theNationalMulticulturalInterpretingProjectatElPasoCommunityCollege,theIntertribalDeafCouncil,andtheDepartmentofBlackfeetStudiesatBlackfeetCommunityCollegeareinvolvedintherevitalizationofPISL.

figure 1. Original Pen and Ink Drawings of Indian Signs (ca. 1880); Courtesy of the National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution (ms. 2372).

01 lucas 1-78.indd 11 9/8/06 11:26:30 AM


Contemporary north american indian sign language studies

DavisandSupalla(1995)studiedsignedlanguageinacontemporaryNativeAmericanIndianlinguisticcommunity.Foraperiodoftwoyears(June,1990–May,1992) these researchersdocumented 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”withtheirdeafandhearingrelativeslivingonthereservation. Themalecousinservedastheprimaryconsultantforthestudy.6Hewasfluentinthevarietyofsignedlanguageusedbythefamily,fluentinthesignedcommunicationusedwithinthelargerhearingNavajocommunity,nativelyproficientinASL,andabletocommunicateinwrittenEnglish.Hemetwiththeresearchersbeforeandaftereachsitevisitandservedasaninterpreter.Ethnographicprocedureswerefollowedtoenhancerap-port,naturalness,andauthenticityofthedatacollected.Approximatelytwentyhoursofvideotapedsignedlanguagedataweredocumentedforthisfamily.Theresearchersdescribedthenatureoflinguisticinteraction(e.g.,languagefunctionsanddomainsofuse)betweenthedeafandhear-

01 lucas 1-78.indd 12 9/8/06 11:26:30 AM


ingparticipantsinthisrarifiedsituation.DavisandSupallaobservedthatbothdeafandhearingfamilymembersmaintainedandrecognized lin-guisticboundariesbetweenthesedifferentvarietiesofsigning. The primary deaf Navajo consultant, hearing family members, andotherdeafandhearingNavajoindividualsdescribedthedifferent“waysofsigning”usedinthelargerNavajocommunity.ASLwasreferredtoas“Englishsign”or“theAnglowayofsigning.”Thefamilysignsystem,whichtheycalled“oursigns”or“familysign,”wasconsidereddistinctfromASL.Thesigned languageusedby the largerNavajocommunitywas called“thehearingNavajowayof signing,”“signing theNavajoway,”“NavajoSign,”and“Indian sign.”ThehearingNavajowayofsigningwasviewedasbeingrelatedtotheirfamilysignedlanguage(i.e.,shared lexicon), but distinct in other ways. When asked what makesthe family sign different, the Navajo sources reported that the familysign is less transparent and environmentally dependent and is signedmuchfasterthanthehearingNavajowayofsigning.DavisandSupallaobservedthatthefollowingpractices inbothdeafandhearingNavajofamilymembers:

• 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., individualsignsaresegmentable,canbe assigned to semantic categories, etc.).However, theyalsohavespecific characteristics that distinguish them from conventional signedlanguages.Forexample,signingspaceforhomesignislarger;signsandsignsequences tendtoberepeated; thenumberofdistincthandshapesarefewer;eyegazefunctionsdifferently;signsareproducedmoreslowly,

01 lucas 1-78.indd 13 9/8/06 11:26:30 AM

1� : jeffrey e. davis

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)observedminimallexicalborrow-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”thatwasbasedonworkwiththeNavajofamilyandonaccountsfromotheraboriginalandindigenoussignedlanguagestud-ies(e.g.,Kendon1988;Washabaugh1986a,1986b).Inthistaxonomy,theydescribedthefollowingtypesofvisual-gesturalcommunication:

• Primary signed languagesthathaveevolvedwithinspecifichistor-ical,social,andculturalcontextsandthathavebeenusedacross

01 lucas 1-78.indd 14 9/8/06 11:26:30 AM


generationsofsigners(e.g.,ASL,FrenchSignLanguage,DanishSignLanguage,etc.)

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

• Home sign systemsthataregesturalcommunicationsystemsdevelopedwhendeafindividualsareisolatedfromotherdeafpeopleandneedtocommunicatewithotherhearingpeoplearoundthem

• Gesturesthataccompanyspokenlanguagediscourse

Naturally,thesedistinctionsarenotthatcutanddried,andthediffer-enttypesofsignedcommunicationsareinterrelated.Althoughthesecat-egoriesareusefuldescriptively,DavisandSupallanotedoverlapbetweenthecategories.Forexample,thefamily’shomesignsystemwasinformedbythealternatesignsusedbysomeinthehearingNavajocommunity.Thus,thewayofsigningusedbythisNavajofamilyemergedasapri-marysignedlanguage.Alongsimilarlines,McKay-Cody’s(1997,10–11)studysupportedthatthe“alternatesignsystems”usedbyhearingIndiansbecamea“primarysignedlanguage”whenacquirednativelybyIndianswhoaredeaf.The linguisticevidencealsosuggests thatalternatesignsareused tovaryingdegreesofproficiency, ranging from (a) signs thataccompanyspeechto(b)signsthatareusedwithoutspeechto(c)signusethatfunctionssimilarlytoprimarysignedlanguage.Likeothercasesofsociolinguisticvariation,thesewaysofsigningarebestconsideredalongacontinuum.

the national archives

In1993,SamuelSupallaandIreceivedasmallgrantfromtheLaurentClercCulturalFund fromGallaudetUniversityAlumniAssociation tocollectandorganizefilmand literatureonNativeAmericanSignLan-guage inNorthAmerica. I traveled toWashington,D.C.,and thedayIwasscheduledtodoresearchattheNationalArchives,asnowstormof unforecasted proportions descended on the city. The transit systemwasparalyzedforseveralhours,butfindingsaferefugeintheNationalArchives,Iremainedlongerthanexpected.Whilewaitingfortheblizzardto subside, Imet some researchersworkingonKenBurns’s upcoming

01 lucas 1-78.indd 15 9/8/06 11:26:30 AM


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,Ihavesharedthesefilmswithotherswhohavealsostudiedthemperiodically.However,afull-scale linguisticstudyofthephonology,morphology,andsyntaxofPISLisstill 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 signedbyoneofthehearingIndianchiefsfromthe1930sfilmwithasimilarnarrativesignedbyacontemporarydeafIndianwhowasanativePISLuser.7ThisstudydistinguishedtwomajorcategoriesofsignedlanguageusedbyIndi-ans:(1)asanalternativetospokenlanguagebyhearingtribalmembers;and(2)asaprimary language(first language) fordeaf tribalmembers(McKay-Cody1997,10).ThisfindingwasconsistentwiththepatternsidentifiedearlierbyDavisandSupalla,andMcKay-Codyobservedthatwhensignerswhoaredeaflearnthesignedlanguageusedbythelargerhearing native community they “seem to gain a higher level of profi-ciency”thanthehearingIndiansigners(50).ThesefindingssuggestthatalternatesignedlanguageusedbyhearingIndiansbecomelinguisticallyenrichedwhenlearnedasaprimarylanguagebymembersofIndiancom-munities who are deaf. McKay-Cody concluded that PISL was a full-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

01 lucas 1-78.indd 16 9/8/06 11:26:30 AM


inonlyoneparameter,or signedwithonehand insteadof two) to thesignsdocumentedinthehistoricalPISLlexicon.Thoughbasedononlytheanalysisofone signednarrative, these resultswerenonetheless sig-nificant.McKay-Cody’sprimaryconsultantlearnedPISLasayoungdeafchildontheNorthernCheyenneReservation,andhisCheyenneancestorswerereportedtobeamongthehistoricalprogenitorsoftraditionalPISL. 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-etyofpurposes since the early1800s,and Ihave identifiedover8,000lexicaldescriptions,illustrations,photographs,andfilmsdocumentedinarchivedsourcesthatspanthreecenturies(seetable1).Greatcaremustbetaken inclassifying,preserving,analyzing,anddescribingthesehis-torical linguisticdatadocumenting the Indiansuseof 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

01 lucas 1-78.indd 17 9/8/06 11:26:31 AM


open-sourcedatabase toprovideaccess forothers tostudy, 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).The essay was written following early nineteenth-century conventionsthatarearchaicandpatronizingbytoday’sstandards.Nonetheless,T.H.Gallaudetusedthe“IndianLanguageofSigns”tomakeacaseforthevalueof“thenaturallanguageofsigns”forteachingandcommunicatingwithdeafpeople. Inthepublishedessay,GallaudetdidnotproposethattheIndianLan-guageofSignsbeusedasthelanguageofinstruction,butthat“TheNatu-ralLanguageofSigns”wasthebestmethodofinstruction(18�8a).Inthesecondpartof theessay (18�8b),heproposed that the“originatorsofthis language”arethedeafpeoplethemselves(93).Gallaudetdiscussedthe“universality”ofwhathecalledthe“thenaturallanguageofsigns.”Hismainpointabout“universality”wasthatsignedlanguage“naturally”occurs“whennecessityexists”and“promptstheinventionanduseofthislanguageof signs” (18�8a,59).Asevidence,GallaudetusedexamplesfromtheIndianLanguageofSignsandincludedthedetaileddescriptionsofsignsusedbythe“aboriginalIndians”thathehadtakeninpartfrom“ExpeditionfromPittsburghto theRockyMountains,”anaccountoftheexpeditionledbyMajorStephenH.Longthatincludesdescriptionsofatotalof10�“Indiansigns”(Long1823,378–9�). ThehistoricalproximityofthefirstAmericandeafschoolhavingbeenestablishedin1817andthefactthatGallaudetconsideredthesignlan-guageoftheIndianssignificantenoughtomakethatthecentralfocusof

01 lucas 1-78.indd 18 9/8/06 11:26:31 AM


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

Itwasnotuntil1918thatJ.SchuylerLong(long-timeprincipalattheIowaSchool for theDeaf)published thefirst illustrateddictionary,The Sign Language: A Manual of Signs,whichhedescribedas“Beingadescrip-tivevocabularyofsignsusedbythedeafoftheUnitedStatesandCanada”(Long1918,).Thatstatement[Imeanthedictionary,notthestatement]camealmostonehundredyearsafterS.H.Long’s1823publisheddescrip-tionsofthe“IndianLanguageofSigns.”ItshouldbenotedthatJ.Schuy-ler Longcorrespondedwith thebothGarrickMalleryandHughScott,thetwopreeminentscholarsofIndianSignLanguageofthetime.Addi-tional research is needed to learnmore about these collaborations and

01 lucas 1-78.indd 19 9/8/06 11:26:31 AM


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 centurydescriptionswith150 examplesof 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

01 lucas 1-78.indd 20 9/8/06 11:26:31 AM


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.

tHe 1930s FILm PreSerVAtIoN Project

Unfortunately, by the 1900s, the use of Indian Sign Language wasgreatly diminished and appeared endangered. Recognizing the endan-geredstatusofIndianSignLanguage,in1930,HughScottproposedamotionpicturepreservationprojectthatwasfundedandcompletedbyanActoftheU.S.Congress.9ThiseffortresultedinTheIndianSignLan-guageConference thatwasfilmedSeptember�–6,1930, inBrowning,Montana.ThiseventwasthelargestintertribalmeetingofIndianchiefs,elders,medicinemen,andotherrepresentativeseverfilmed.Therewereeighteenofficialparticipants,includingrepresentativesfromadozendif-ferenttribesandlanguagegroupsfromthePlains,Plateau,andBasincul-turalareas.ApermanentmonumenttotheIndianSignLanguageCouncilsignifyingtheimportanceofthisgatheringwasestablishedattheconfer-encesite,andeachofthecouncilmembershadtheirfootprintsplacedinbronzeasapartofthemonument.Subsequently,theMuseumofthePlainsIndianwasconstructedonthissite.

Council Participants and tribal affiliations

Theoriginal1930filmsdocumentedthatIndianSignLanguage,with-outtheaccompanimentofspeech,wasthemodusoperandiforthecon-ference. Following theopening signed remarksbyGeneral Scott, eachrepresentativesignedtheirname,tribalaffiliation,andintroductorycom-ments.Theorderofsignedintroductionswasasfollows:DickWashakie,

01 lucas 1-78.indd 21 9/8/06 11:26:31 AM


Shoshone;ShortFace,Piegan;BitterRootJim,Flathead;NightShoots,Piegan;DragsWolf,Hidasta;DeerNose,Crow;JamesEagle,Arikara;FoolishWoman,Mandan;StrangeOwl,Cheyenne;BirdRattler,Blood;MountainChief,ChiefofthePiegans;AssiniboineBoy,UpperGrosVen-ture;TomWhitehorse,Arapaho;RidesBlackHorse,Assiniboine;LittlePlum,Piegan;FineYoungMan,Sarcee;BigPlume,Sarcee;andGeneralScott,Anglo-American. Notably,dozensofdifferentspokenlanguageswererepresentedamongtheparticipants.Thus,theso-calledsignedlinguafrancawasusedbytheparticipants,whowerethechiefsandeldersrepresentingthevarioustribes.Because the location for the IndianSignLanguageCouncilwas in closeproximitytotheBlackfeetReservation,severaloftheparticipantswerefromtheBlackfeetnation(frombothPieganandBloodlineages).Afewwomanandchildrenwerefilmedenteringthecouncil lodge,buttheywereneverformallyintroducedorshownsigning.TwoBlackfeetparticipantsdidnotappearonthefilm.TheywereJimWhiteCalf,andRichardSanderville.

Discourse types

Duringthethree-dayIndianSignLanguageConference(September�–6,1930),theparticipantsdiscussedavarietyoftopicsandsharedseveralanecdotes,stories,anddiscoursegenres,allofwhichweredocumentedinthesefilms.Inparticular,thefilmsincludedsignedstories,titled“SagasinSigns,”whicharesummarizedasfollows:

• Introductions,signednames,signsforthetwelvetribes(sixminutes)• MountainChief’sBuffaloSignedChant(twominutes)—ThePie-

ganChieftellsatraditionalbuffalohuntingstory.Inthedigitizedcopiesofthefilms,itispossibletoseemuchgreaterdetailthanitwaspreviouslywiththeoldanalogvideotapes.ItisclearinthefilmandfromScott’svoicedtranslationthatMountainChiefissingingtheMedicineManchantsinaccompanimentwithsigning.Inotherwordsheissingingandsigningsimultaneously.Speechwithsignaccompanimenthasbeenobservedbyothers(e.g.,Far-nell1995)butapparently,thispracticewasnotacommonoccur-renceinthesefilms(therewasonlyoneexampleofastorytoldinsignwithspeechaccompaniment,andthatisnotedbelow).

• TomWhitehorse’sMetaphoricalComparison(thirtyseconds)—ThisArapahosignergivesametaphoricalcomparisonoftheradio(whichhecallsWhiteMan’sMedicine)andtheabilitytocom-

01 lucas 1-78.indd 22 9/8/06 11:26:31 AM


municateindreams(RedMan’sMedicine).PartofthetranslationofferedbyScottis“ThustheWhiteMan,withhisMechanicalMedicine,isalsoabletohearthatwhichhecannotsee.”10

• StrangeOwl’sAnecdote(Cheyenne,forty-fiveseconds)—AstoryabouthowStrangeOwl,whenaboutfifteenyearsold,wenthunt-ingwithhisbrother,andalmostlosthislifecapturingabuffalocalf(speechwithsignaccompanimentwasevidentforthisstory).

• BitterRootJim’sBearStory(Flathead,fiveminutesandtwenty-fourseconds)—Thisnarrativewasthelongestsignedstoryfilmedduringtheconference,anditwasreportedlya“classicandrenownedstory.”ThetranslationofthestoryprovidedbyScottseemsfar-fetched.However,MartinWeatherwax,chairofBlack-feetStudiesatBlackfeetCommunityCollegeinBrowning,Mon-tana,toldmethatthisnarrativeisamedicinestoryandshouldnotbetakenliterally(MartinWeatherwax,personalcommunica-tion,June9,2002).

• IntertribalJokesinSignLanguage(approximatelytwominutes)—Thissectionofthefilmistitled“Theformalfeaturesofthecouncilover,thevisitorsrelax.”Hereweseeallofthepartici-pantsengagedinlivelysignedlanguagediscourse.

• Inoutdatedargot,thesubsequentsectionsofthefilmaretitled“Inter-tribalby-play,”“JokesandWisecracksinSigns,”and“ThehoaryconceitthattheIndiandoesnotlaughisleftwithnotalegtostandon.”

• ClosingRemarksinSignLanguage(fortyseconds)

Thesefilmsshowtheparticipantsengagedinnaturalandunrehearsedsignedlanguagediscourse.Forexample,duringthesesignedinteractions,the interlocutorsare frequentlyandconsistentlyobservedusinga signthatappearstofunctionasadiscoursemarker.ThisIndiansignwasdoc-umentedasearlyas1823andistranslatedas“Yes”or“Itisso.”ThespontaneityandvarietyofdiscoursetypescapturedinthesefilmsprovidethemostremarkableevidencethattheIndiansusedafull-fledgednaturalsignedlanguage(seealsofigure1).

Further Historical Considerations

HughScottwasseventy-eightyearsoldatthetimeoftheconferenceandreportedlyhadbeensigningformorethanfiftyyears.Thoughapparentlyfluent,hishavinglostseveralfingersbecauseoffrostbiteinhisyounger

01 lucas 1-78.indd 23 9/8/06 11:26:32 AM


daysmadeitdifficulttofollowsomeofhissigns.Hisproficiency,how-ever, was evident in that he provided voice-over translation for all oftheproceedingsin1931,whichwereprofessionallydubbedintothefilmduring the subsequentproduction stages.Nodocumentationhasbeenuncoveredshowingthatinterpreterswereusedtoassistinthetranslationprocess.Ofcourse,theuseofinterpretersremainsapossibilitybecauseone of the principle participants was Richard Sanderville (a Blackfeettriballeader)whowasreportedlypresentbutwhoneverappearsinthe1930filmsfromtheCouncil(suggestingthathewasworkingbehindthescenesandpossiblyhelpingwiththetranslation). Some participants at the Council were probably not fluent in PISL(e.g.,thegovernorofMontana,andacongressman).Theirpresencesug-geststhataninterpreterwouldhavebeenneeded,andSandervillewouldhavebeenaprobablecandidate.Forexample,hesubsequentlytraveledto the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C., to complete the Indian SignLanguagefilmdictionaryprojectstartedbyScottbeforehisdeath.Scott’scontribution—a staggering358propernounsigns for tribesandgeo-graphiclocations—wereincludedwiththe1930films.WhileworkingintheNationalArchivesin2002,IfinallycameacrossSanderville’scontri-butiontoScott’s“dictionary”thatwasfilmedattheSmithsonianintheearly1930s.Unfortunately,theonlypreservationcopiesavailablewereeitherpoorlyprocessedorproducedinanoutmodedformat.AftertwoyearsofpainstakinganalysistodecipherwhatremainsofSanderville’scontribution,theresultsaremorethan200PISLsignsandidiomssigni-fyingavarietyoflexicalcategories(includingabstractnouns,classifierpredicates,andnounandverbmodifiers).Thus,Sanderville’scontribu-tionsrepresentatypeof“RosettaStone.”Thatis,thelexicalinventoriesdocumented in thesefilmscombinedwith thebasicvoice-over transla-tionsprovidedbyScottin1931arethekeystotranslatingwhattheorigi-nalparticipantsattheCouncilweresigning. Theoldestparticipantsonthefilmalsoappearedtobethemostpro-ficient in sign language. For example, Mountain Chief was reportedlyeighty-twoyearsoldatthetime,andBitterRootJimappearedtobeinthesameagerange.Theagesoftheotherparticipantswerenotreported,buttheyoungestparticipantsappearedtobeintheirforties,withseveralof the others approaching their sixties and seventies.Age is significantbecausetheolderparticipantsprobablylearnedtosigninthemid-1800s,thatis,beforethedeclineofmanyIndiantraditionalwaysthatoccurredinthelate1800saftertheCivilWar,broughtonbytheconstructionof

01 lucas 1-78.indd 24 9/8/06 11:26:32 AM


thefirst cross-continental railroadand the rapidWesternexpansionbyAnglo-Americans.ThisdeclineisreflectedinoneofthestatementssignedbyScottduringtheopeningremarks:“Theyoungmenarenotlearningyoursignlanguageandsoonitwilldisappearfromthiscountry.Itisforustomakearecordofitforthosewhocomeafterus,beforeitbecomeslost forever.” Furthermore, Indian Schools were established during thepost–CivilWarreconstructionera,anditbecamecommonplaceforIndianchildren tobe takenaway fromtheir familiesandplaced in these resi-dentialschools.Nativelanguagesandculturalcustomswereforbiddenintheseschools,andtheonlylanguageallowedwasEnglish.Certainly,suchpressuresaffectedtheacquisitionofPISLamongsubsequentgenerations.

DisCussion

Thefilmsproducedfromthe1930IndianSignLanguageCouncilhavebeen preserved in the vaults of the National Archives. However, theyarenoteasilyaccessible,exceptforresearcherswhoknowexactlywhattolookfor.Preservationcopiesarenotcirculated,andthecopiesmadeavailabletoresearchersaresecondorthirdgenerationVHSanalogfor-mat.TheNationalArchivesprovidesalistofprivatevendorswhoareauthorizedtodigitizethepreservationcopies.In2002,Iobtainedasmallgranttohavetheoriginalpreservationcopiesofthe1930filmsprofes-sionally digitized. The digitized copies of the original 8 mm films areextremelyhighquality,especiallycomparedwiththeoldanalogcopies. TheNationalArchiveshaspreservedonedozen8mmfilmsproducedduring the three-day Indian Sign Language Conference in Browning,Montana(September�–6,1930).Thepristineconditionof thesefilms,thenumberofparticipantsfromavarietyofbackgrounds(linguisticandgeographic),andthedifferenttypesofdiscoursethatwererecordedpro-videanexcellentsourceforPISLdocumentationanddescription.Forthisstudy,Ihavedigitizedmanyofthehistoricalfilmsdescribedinthispaper,andmygoalistohavethesedigitizedcopiesplacedintoanopen-sourcePISLdatabasesootherscanstudythesesignedlanguagevarieties.Whileefforts are currently underway to establish an open-source database,somesamplevideoclipsofhistoricalPISLusecanbeviewedon-lineatthisWebsitehttp://sunsite.utk.edu/plainssignlanguage/. Inthispaper,Ihavepresentedsomeoftheresultsofpreliminaryhis-toricalsociolinguisticresearchofPISL,andIhavefoundphonological,

01 lucas 1-78.indd 25 9/8/06 11:26:32 AM


morphological,andsyntacticpatternsthatareconsistentwiththoseevi-dentforfull-fledgedconventionalsignedlanguages.Forexample,someofthephonologicalandmorphologicalconstraintsinASLdescribedbyBattison(1978/2003)—passiveanddominanthandshapes;markedandunmarked handshapes; symmetry and dominance conditions — wereoriginallyproposedforIndianSignLanguage(compareKroeber1958;Voegelin1958;West1960).Nophonological inventoryor analysis ofNAISLsyntaxhasbeencompletedsinceWest’s(1960)phonologicalanal-ysisofPISL.Again,thistypeofeffortrepresentsamassiveundertaking. Thepresentpapertakesintoaccountsomeofthehistoricalandcon-temporary sociolinguistic contexts and describes some of the types ofdiscoursethathavebeendocumentedforPISL.ThisdiscourseincludeshearingIndiansusingsignedlanguageforavarietyofdiscoursefunctionssuchasmakingintroductions,storytelling,makingjokes,chanting,andnamingpractices.WhenviewedbynativeASLsigners,forexample,theyareastonishedthatthesesignerswerehearingpeople(notethatnotonedeafpersonwasreportedpresentatthe1930councilgathering). RichardSanderville,Scott’schiefcollaboratorandinterpreterfromtheBlackfootNationreturnedtotheSmithsonianInstitutionin193� (fol-lowingScott’sdeath)andposedfor790signsandsignednarratives.Thescopeanddiscoursecoherenceofthesignednarrativesinthe1930and193�filmsprovidesevidenceoftheuseofalanguage,notacollectionofgestures.ThefollowingsampletranslationisofacommonjokesignedbyRichardSandervillewasfilmedin193�.Sandervilleprovidedthefollow-ingwrittentranslationforthesignednarrative.

AmanasksaChief’sdaughter:“Willyoumarryme?”Shesays:“Noyou’reapoorman.”Themanissadandgoestowar.Hestealstenhorsesand twoguns.Man returnsafter tendays.Heaskswoman:“Willyoumarryme?”Shesays:“Yes!”Hesays:“No!!”Youlovemyhorses,youlovemenot.

Additionaltranslationsofthenarrativesfilmedduringthe1930councilgatheringandthoseofRichardSandervilleproducedattheSmithsonianInstitutionin193� arecurrentlyunderway.Restorationofthehistoricalfilms indigitized formatswithopencaptionswill allowothers tohaveaccesstothecontactbeingconveyed.Theleaptothepragmaticlevelisnotintendedtobypasstheneedformorecomprehensiveandcurrentpho-nologicalormorphologicaldescriptions.Atthistime,thevarietyofsocio-linguistic contexts, participants and discourse types that are evident in

01 lucas 1-78.indd 26 9/8/06 11:26:32 AM


thesedata,suggeststhatPISLwas(andstillremains)afull-fledgedsignedlanguage. Many questions remain and much more linguistic research,documentation,anddescriptionareneeded.

soMe aDDitional Questions

Severaladditionalresearchquestionsandlinguisticissuesarebeyondthescopeofthepresentstudytoaddressbutareneverthelessimportant.Someoftheseareofferedhereforotherstoconsideraspossibleresearchtopics:

• DothedocumentedcasesofPISLconstituteonelanguagevarietyoravarietyofdistinctlanguages?

• Whathappenswhenachildisborndeafintoacommunitywherethereishistoricalorcurrentuseofsignedcommunicationbyhearingindividualsinthelinguisticcommunity?HowdotheseinstancescomparewithwhathappenedhistoricallyonMartha’sVineyard?

• InwhatwayswerethedocumentedcasesofsignedlanguageamongindigenouspopulationsinNorthAmericaninterrelated?

• Whatsharedlinguisticpatternsandcognatesdowefindbetweenthesesignedlanguagevarieties—betweenandwithindifferentgroupsofAmericanIndiansigners(deafandhearingsigners;familieswhospeakandsign;groupsdifferingbyregion,age,andgender)?

• HowdoescurrentPISLusedifferfromitshistoricalantecedents?• Whatarethebestwaystomaintainandpreservetheseendan-

geredsignedlanguagevarieties?

ConClusion

Thereremainsalinguisticandethnographiclegacyofdiaries,books,articles,illustrations,dictionaries,andmotionpicturesdocumentingthevarietiesofsignedlanguagehistoricallyusedamongnativepopulationsofNorthAmerica.ThesedocumentsnotonlyrepresentavitalpartofAmericanIndianculturesandheritagesbutalsoareanationaltreasureandsourceforinvaluablehistoricallinguisticinformation.Unfortunately,mostpeoplearenotawareofthispartofNorthAmericanhistory.Evenmembersofthescientificandacademiccommunities,aswellasmanyin

01 lucas 1-78.indd 27 9/8/06 11:26:32 AM


thelinguisticcommunitieswherethesesignedlanguagesonceflourished,are generally not cognizant that there once flourished a signed linguafrancaandthattheselanguagevarietiesarecurrentlyendangered. Forexample,IrecentlyvisitedtheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian inWashington,D.C., accompaniedbyaPh.D. candidate in lin-guisticswho isdeafandanothergraduate student in linguisticswho isof Native American descent. We were inspired by the enormity of thebuildingandqualityofthecollections.Whileenjoyingalloftheexhib-its,wediligentlysearchedforexamplesofthetraditionalsignedlanguageamongtheexhibits.Wetalkedwithvariousmuseumworkersandcura-torswhotriedtohelpus,onlytodiscoverthattherewasnodisplayofsigned language thatoncehadbeensowidespreadand that isamajorhistorical and linguisticpartofAmerican Indian culture. Sadly, even ifthesefilmswereplacedonexhibit,withoutaccuratetranslationsandopencaptions,thecontentwouldbeincomprehensibletoallbutthefewnativePISLsignerswhoremain.Itwasencouragingatleast,tolearnfromoneofmycolleaguesthatamedicinemanfromtheNorthernCheyennenation,whoalsohappenstobedeafandanativeuserofPISL,participatedintheopeningceremoniesfortheNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndian. Historically,withsomeexceptions, researchersof indigenoussignedlanguage were not fluent signers and were working from theoreticalorientationsandbasesthatweredifferentfromwhatwehaveavailabletoday.Fortunately, in thepast fewyears, stateof theartmethodsandtechniqueshaveemergedtoassistthedocumentationandtranscriptionprocessesforsignedlanguages(see,e.g.,Supalla2001). Finally, given new discoveries about PISL (both historical and cur-rent),wearebetterabletotranslatewhatthesignersonthesefilmsweresigning.Sincetheearlystudieswereconducted,othershavemadenewcontributionsinlinguistictheoryandethnographicfieldpractice.Inter-disciplinaryapproachesinformedbylinguistictheoryhavebroughtnewinsightsintothemultipledimensionsofhumanlanguageandcognition.FurtherPISLresearchaswellasinsightsfromnativesignersandlinguis-ticresearcherswithnativesignedlanguageproficiencycanhelpbroadenourunderstandingoftheseandotherrelatedlinguisticphenomena.

NoteS

1. Many terms are commonly used to label the descendants of the firstAmericans — Indian, American Indian, and Native American — but the first

01 lucas 1-78.indd 28 9/8/06 11:26:32 AM


twoarepreferredbymostmembersoftheseculturalgroups(e.g.,theNationalMuseumoftheAmericanIndianinWashington,D.C.).Inthisarticle,thesetermsareusedinterchangeablydependingonthehistoricalcontextandsourcebeingcited.ThetermNorth American Indian issometimesnecessarytodistinguishtheindigenouspeopleswhoinhabitedtheNorthAmericancontinentfromthosewhoinhabitedCentralandSouthAmerica.

2.ThehistoricallinguisticdocumentsthatarethefocusofthepresentstudyarebasedonNorthAmericanfieldwork.WurtzburgandCampbell(1995),amongothers,useNorth American Indian Sign Languagetodistinguishthesesignvari-etiesfromthoseusedbyCentralorSouthAmericanindigenouspopulations.His-torically, themostwidelyused signed language and thebest documentedwasPlainsSignLanguage(PISL);however,earlierscholarsalternatelyreferredtothisasIndianSignLanguage(Clark1885;Mallery1880;Scott1931).Somemembersof thePlains cultural groups referred to sign languageas“hand talk” (Davis,2005;Tomkins,1926).Dependingonthehistoricalreferenceandculturalcon-text,theusesofthesedifferenttermsareincludedinthepresentpaper.Incaseswhereaspecificordistinctsignedlanguagevarietyisknown—suchasNavajoorKeresanPueblosignvarieties—thosearereferenced.Furtherresearchisneededtodeterminethenumberofdistinctsignedlanguagesanddialectsinvolved.

3.Waldman(2000,32–33)explainsthatthemodernculturalareas“arenotfiniteandabsoluteboundaries,butsimplyhelpfuleducationaldevices”and“thattribalterritorieswereoftenvagueandchanging,withgreatmovementamongthetribesandthepassingofculturaltraitsfromoneareatothenext;andthatpeopleofthesamelanguagefamilysometimeslivedindifferentculturalareas,eveninsomeinstancesatoppositeendsofthecontinent.”

�.Inthispaper,uppercaseDeafreferstothelargerculturalgrouporcom-munity;lowercasedeafreferstoindividualswhohaveahearinglossregardlessofculturalidentity.

5.WurtzburgandCampbell(1995,155)citethat“CabezadeVaca’sstorywaspublishedina15�2edition(calledLa Relación)andina1555secondedi-tion(entitledNaufragios),essentiallythesameastheearlieronewithbutminordifferences.”

6. In the Navajo matrilineal society (compare Witherspoon 1975) it wassignificantthatthemalecousinwasonthemother’sside.AccordingtoNavajokinshipterms,hewascalleda“brother-cousin.”

7. The primary signer who was Deaf did not see the alternate signer’snarrative before telling his version of the traditional buffalo hunting story.Furthermore, McKay-Cody reported that the primary signer did not use ASLsignsinhisrendition.

8.Long’s1820expeditionwasthenextofficialexpeditionafterLewisandClark’sinitialexpedition.Perhapsbecauseoftheextremeconditionsencounteredduringthatfirstexpedition,therewasadearthofwrittendocumentationandno

01 lucas 1-78.indd 29 9/8/06 11:26:33 AM


documentationofIndiansignlanguageuncovered.Incontrast,Long’sexpeditionwaswelldocumented,andhelivedtoanoldageandlecturedfrequentlyabouthisexpedition.

9.HughL.ScotthadconsiderablepoliticalcloutanddiligentlyledtheIndianSignLanguagepreservationeffortuntilhisdeathin193�.HeattendedPrincetonUniversity,andgraduatedfromWestPointin1876.HebeganhismilitarycareerasalieutenantintheU.S.Calvary,waspromotedtomajorgeneralin1915,andservedassecretaryofwaronWoodrowWilson’scabinet.HewasresponsibleforthepassageoftheSelectiveServiceActandtheappointmentofGeneralPershingascommanderinchief.Evenafterhehadofficiallyretiredfrommilitaryandcivilservice,ScottremainedextremelyactiveasamemberoftheBoardofIndianCom-missionersandaschairmanoftheNewJerseyHighwayCommission,andhespenttheremainderofhislifestudying,lecturing,andwritingaboutIndianSignLan-guage.HereceivedhonorarydoctoratedegreesfrombothPrincetonandColumbiaUniversities.Intestimonytotherespectheldforhimbytriballeaders,hewasmadeanhonorarymemberofvariousIndiantribes.ScottworkedwiththeIndiansformorethanfiftyyearsandwasknownas“Mole-I-Gu-Op,”signifying“onewhotalkswithhishands.”ScottwasamemberofnumerouslearnedsocietiesincludingtheAmericanPhilosophicalSocietyandAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.

10.AccordingtotheNationalMulticulturalInterpretingCurriculum(Mooney,Aramburo, Davis, Dunbar, Roth, and Nishimura, 2001, 27), “medicine is anarrayof spiritualpractices, ideas,andconcepts rather thanonlyremediesandtreatments as in western medicine” (emphasis in the original). Furthermore,“medicinemenandwomenareviewedasthespiritualhealersandleadersofthecommunity.Theyhavetherolenotonlyasadoctor,buttheycanbethediviner,rain-maker,prophet,priest,orchief”(27,emphasisintheoriginal).MedicineisanythingthatbringsoneclosertotheGreatSpirit,totheDivine.Inthistradition,allspaceissacredspace.Everyplaceontheplanetholdsaspecificenergyconnec-tiontosomelivingcreatureandistobehonoredforthatreason.

reFereNceS

Battison,R.1978/2003.Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language.Repr.Burtonsville,Md.:LinstokPress.

Boas,F.1890/1978.Signlanguage.InAboriginal Sign Language of the

Americas and Australia,Vol.2,ed.D.J.Umiker-SebeokandT.A.Sebeok,19–20.Repr.NewYork:PlenumPress.

Burton,R.F.1862.The city of the saints and across the Rocky Mountains to

California.NewYork:Harper.Campbell,L.2000.American Indian languages.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Clark,W.P.1885.The Indian sign language.Philadelphia:L.R.Hamersly.

01 lucas 1-78.indd 30 9/8/06 11:26:33 AM


Crystal,D.2000.Language death.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Davis,J.E.2005.EvidenceofahistoricalsignedlinguafrancaamongNorth

AmericanIndians.Deaf Worlds 21(3):�7–72.Davis,J.E.,andS.Supalla.1995.Asociolinguisticdescriptionofsignlanguage

useinaNavajoFamily.InSociolinguistics in Deaf communities,ed.C.Lucas,77–106.Washington,D.C.:GallaudetUniversityPress.

Farnell,B.M.1995.Do you see what I mean? Plains Indian sign talk and the

embodiment of action.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.FrishbergN.1987.Homesign.InGallaudet encyclopedia of Deaf people and

deafness,ed.J.V.VanCleve,128–31.NewYork:McGrawHill.Fronval,G.,andD.Dubois.1985.Indian signals and sign language.NewYork:

BonanzaBooks.Gallaudet,T.H.18�8a.Onthenaturallanguageofsigns;anditsvalueanduses

intheinstructionofthedeafanddumb.Part1.American Annals of the Deaf

and Dumb 1(1):55–60.———.18�8b.Onthenaturallanguageofsigns;anditsvalueandusesinthe

instructionofthedeafanddumb.Part2.American Annals of the Deaf and

Dumb 1(2):79–93.———.1852.Indianlanguageofsigns.American Annals of the Deaf and

Dumb � (1):157–71.Goddard,I.1979.ThelanguagesofSouthTexasandthelowerRioGrande.In

The languages of native America: Historical and comparative assessment,ed.L.CampbellandM.Mithun,355–89. Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.

Goff-Paris,D.,andS.Wood.2002.Step into the circle: The heartbeat of

American Indian, Alaska native and First Nations Deaf communities.Monmouth,Oreg.:AGOPublications.

Goldfrank,E.1923.NotesonthetwoPueblofeasts.American Antiquity 25:193–95.

Groce,N.E.1985.Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on

Martha’s Vineyard.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Hadley,L.F.1891.Indian sign talk.Chicago:BakerandCompany.Harrington,J.P.1938a.TheAmericanIndiansignlanguage.Indians at Work 5

(7):8–15.———.1938b.TheAmericanIndiansignlanguage.Indians at Work5(11):

28–32.———.1938c.TheAmericanIndiansignlanguage.Indians at Work 5(12):

25–30.———.1938d.TheAmericanIndiansignlanguage.Indians at Work6(3):

2�–29.———.1938/1978.TheAmericanIndiansignlanguage.InAboriginal Sign

Language of the Americas and Australia,vol.2,ed.D.J.Umiker-SebeokandT.A.Sebeok,109–56.Repr.NewYork:PlenumPress.

01 lucas 1-78.indd 31 9/8/06 11:26:33 AM


Hoffman,W.J.1895.The graphic arts of the Eskimos, 902–12;9�8–58.NewYork:AMSPress.

Hofsinde,R.1956.Indian sign language.NewYork:WilliamMorrow.Johnson,R.E.199�.Signlanguageandtheconceptofdeafnessinatraditional

YucatecMayanvillage.InThe Deaf way: Perspectives from the international

conference on Deaf culture,ed.C.Erting,R.Johnson,D.Smith,andB.Snider,102–9.Washington,D.C.:GallaudetUniversityPress.

Kelly,W.P.,&McGregor,T.L.(2003).KeresanPuebloIndianSignLanguage.InNurturing native languages, ed.J.Reyhner,O.Trujillo,R.L.Carrasco,andL.Lockard,1�1–�8.Flagstaff:NorthernArizonaUniversity.

Kendon,A.1988.Sign languages of aboriginal Australia: Cultural, semiotic,

and communication perspectives.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.———.2002.Historicalobservationsontherelationshipbetweenresearchon

signlanguagesandlanguageoriginstheory.InEssays in honor of William C.

Stokoe: The study of signed languages,ed.D.Armstrong,M.A.Karchmer,andJ.V.VanCleve,35–52.Washington,D.C.:GallaudetUniversityPress.

Kroeber,A.L.1958.Signlanguageinquiry.The International Journal of

American Linquistics 2�:1–19.Long,J.S.1918.The sign language: A manual of signs;Beingadescriptive

vocabularyofsignsusedbytheDeafoftheUnitedStatesandCanada.Washington,D.C.:GallaudetCollege.

Long,S.H.1823.Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky

Mountains.Philadelphia:EdwinJames,Co.Mallery,G.1880.ThesignlanguageoftheIndiansoftheupperMissouri,in

1832.American Antiquarian 2(3):218–28.McKay-Cody,M.1997.Plains Indian Sign Language: A comparative study of

alternate and primary signers.Master’sthesis,UniversityofArizona,Tucson.Mithun,M.1999.The languages of native North America.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.Mooney,M.,A.Aramburo,J.Davis,T.Dunbar,A.Roth,andJ.Nishimura.

2001.National multicultural interpreting project curriculum.Stillwater:OklahomaStateUniversityClearinghouseforO.S.E.R.S.TrainingMaterials.

Plann,S.1997.A silent minority: Deaf education in Spain, 1550–1835.

Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Scott,H.L.1931.Film dictionary of the North American Indian Sign

Language.Washington,D.C.:NationalArchives.Seton,E.T.1918.Sign talk: A universal signal code, without apparatus, for use

in the Army, Navy, camping, hunting, and daily Life. The gesture language

of the Cheyenne Indians.NewYork:Doubleday,Page&Co.Stokoe,W.C.1960.Sign language structure: An outline of the visual

communication systems of the American Deaf. StudiesinLinguisticsOccasionalPapers8.Buffalo,N.Y.:UniversityofBuffalo.

01 lucas 1-78.indd 32 9/8/06 11:26:33 AM


———.1972.Semiotics and human sign languages.TheHague:Mouton.Supalla,T.1978.MorphologyofverbsofmotionandlocationinAmerican

SignLanguage.InProceedings of the second symposium on sign language

research and teaching,ed.F.Caccamise,27–�5.SilverSpring,Md.:NationalAssociationoftheDeaf.

———.2001.Makinghistoricalsignlanguagematerialsaccessible:AprototypedatabaseofearlyASL. Sign Language and Linguistics �(1/2).

Taylor,A.R.1978.NonverbalcommunicationinaboriginalNorthAmerica:ThePlainssignlanguage.InAboriginal sign languages of the Americas and

Australia, the Americas and Australia, vol.2,ed.D.J.Umiker-SebeokandT.A.Sebeok,223–��.NewYork:PlenumPress.

Teit,J.A.1930.The Salishan tribes of the Western Plateau:�5th annual report

of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington,D.C.:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice.

Tomkins,W.1926/1969.Universal Indian sign language of the Plains Indians of

North America.Repr.NewYork:DoverPress.Umiker-Sebeok,J.,andT.A.Sebeok.1978.Aboriginal Sign Languages of the

Americas and Australia. 2vols.NewYork:PlenumPress.Voegelin,C.F.1958.Signlanguageanalysis,ononeleverortwo?International

Journal of American Linguistics 2�:71–77.Waldman,C.2000.Atlas of the North American Indian.NewYork:Factson

File.Washabaugh,W.1986a.Theacquisitionofcommunicativeskillsbythedeafof

ProvidenceIsland.Semiotica6(2):179–90.———.1986b.Five fingers for survival.AnnArbor,Mich.:Koroma.Weatherwax,M.2002.Indian Sign Language.VHS.DepartmentofBlackfeet

Studies,BlackfeetCommunityCollege,Browning,Mont.West,L.1960.Thesignlanguage:Ananalysis.2vols.Ph.D.diss.,Department

ofAnthropology,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington.Witherspoon,G.1975.Navajo kinship and marriage. Chicago:Universityof

ChicagoPress.Wurtzburg,S.,andL.Campbell.1995.NorthAmericanIndiansignlanguage:

EvidenceofitsexistencebeforeEuropeancontact.International Journal of

American Linguistics 61(2):153–67.

appendix a

ThisappendixpresentsIndiansigndescriptionsthatGallaudetincludedinhisfirstpublishedessaytitled“OntheNaturalLanguageofSigns:And

01 lucas 1-78.indd 33 9/8/06 11:26:34 AM


ItsValueandUses in the Instructionof theDeafandDumb” (18�8a,55–60).

To show how nature, when necessity exists, prompts to the inven-tionanduseof this languageof signs,and toexhibit fromanotherinterestingpointofviewthefeaturesofitsuniversality,afactisworthmentioning, tobefoundinMajorStephenH.Long’saccountofanExpeditionfromPittsburghtotheRockyMountains,in1819.Itseems,fromwhathetellsus,thattheaboriginalIndians,westoftheMissis-sippi,consistofdifferenttribes,havingeitherdifferentlanguagesordialectsofthesamelanguage.Someareunabletocommunicatewithothersbyspeech;while theyhave fallen intoa languageof signs toremedythisinconvenience,whichhasbeenlongusedamongthem.

MajorLong’sworkcontainsanaccuratedescriptionofmanyofthesesigns,anditissurprisingtonoticehownotafewofthemarealmostiden-ticallythesamewiththosewhichthedeafanddumbemploytodescribethesamethings,whileothershavesuchgeneralfeaturesofresemblanceastoshowthattheyoriginatefromelementsofthissign-languagewhichnaturefurnishestomanwhereverheisfound,whetherbarbarousorcivi-lized.Sucharethefollowing: Sun — Theforefingerandthumbarebroughttogetherattip,soastoformacircle,andheldupwardstowardsthesun’strack.Toindicateanyparticulartimeoftheday,thehandwiththesignofthesunisstretchedouttowardstheeasthorizon,andthengraduallyelevated,toshowtheascent of that luminary, until thehand arrives in theproper directiontoindicatethepartoftheheavensinwhichthesunwillbeatthegiventime. Moon — Thethumbandfingeropenareelevatedtowardstherightear.Thislastsignisgenerallyprecededbythesignofthenightordarkness. Seeing — Theforefinger,intheattitudeofpointing,ispassedfromtheeyetowardstherealorimaginaryobject. Theft — Theleftforearmisheldhorizontally,alittleforwardofacrossthebody,andtherighthand,passingunderitwithaquickmotion,seemstograspsomething,andissuddenlywithdrawn. Truth — Theforefingerispassed,intheattitudeofpointing,fromthemouth forward ina linecurvinga littleupward, the thumbandotherfingersbeingcompletelyclosed. Love — Theclenchedhandispressedharduponthebreast.

01 lucas 1-78.indd 34 9/8/06 11:26:34 AM


Now, or at present — The two hands, forming each a hollow, arebroughtneareachother,andput ina tremulousmotionupwardsanddownwards. Done, or finished — Thehandsareplaced,edgeupanddown,paralleltoeachother,therighthandwithout;whichlatterisdrawnbackasifcuttingsomething.

[To Be Continued.]

TheabovedescriptionsastheyappearhereinthisexcerptweretakenoutoforderfromtheoriginallistofdescriptionsfirstpublishedbyLong(1823).Itwasnotuntil1852thattheAmerican Annals of the Deaf and Dumb editors published the “Indian Language of Signs” (Gallaudet1852)thatincludedtheentirelistof10�Indiansigndescriptionsverba-timandinthesameorderasLong’soriginal1823publication.

01 lucas 1-78.indd 35 9/8/06 11:26:34 AM

01 lucas 1-78.indd 36 9/8/06 11:26:34 AM

a historical linguistic account of sign language among north american indians

Documents