Language Policy and Planning for Sign Languages

Chapter 4. The Creation and Use of Manual Sign Codes as Language Planning

129 Chapter 4 The Creation and Use of Manual Sign Codes as Language Planning There exists today a notable carelessness in the use of the sign language . The old-time masters of the sign language used a clear-cut, carefully chosen style of delivery which was easy to understand and pleasing to see. Today too many deaf are inclined to slur over their spelling and crowd their signs, and in order to understand them, one must strain both one’s eyesight and one’s mentality. (Byron Burnes, 1950, quoted in Padden & Humphries, 1988, p. 62) Nowadays, signs are different. Back then, signs were better, you know, more natural, but . . . Nowadays, with IS and all those things, you get these long drawn-out sentences that take forever to sign. It’s a waste of time, I tell you. (Charles Krauel, in an interview, quoted in Padden & Humphries, 1988, p. 63)1 From the mid-nineteenth century until recently, the education of deaf children was characterized by a deep division between educators favoring an “oral” approach, in which signing was generally forbidden and children were even punished for signing, and those supporting a “manual ” approach, in which signing of some sort was allowed generally in conjunction with speech (see Baynton, 1996; Nover, 2000; Reagan, 1989; Winefield, 1987; Van Cleve, 2007); indeed, some educators of deaf children talk about two competing, bipolar educational philosophies in deaf education (see Paul & Jackson, 1993; Paul & Quigley, 1990, pp. 5–7). This dichotomy between oralism and manualism has become less significant in the past few decades, however. Although oralism remains powerfully attractive for some educators of deaf children and for many hearing parents of deaf children, most educational programs serving deaf people today employ signing of some sort, ranging from 130 : c h a p t e r 4 those using American Sign Language (ASL) itself (increasingly common) to programs utilizing some type of Total Communication (TC)2 all the way to the use of a “manual sign code” (MSC) for English (also sometimes called “manual coded English,” or MCE). Since the 1960s, and well into the 1980s, there were a number of efforts, both in the United States and elsewhere, to construct artificial sign languages or, more accurately, MSCs, for use in the education of deaf children (see Paul, 2001, pp. 235–93; Reagan, 1986a, 1995b), and many of these MSCs continue to be used in programs for deaf children. Such MSCs are intended to facilitate the learning of a spoken language by children who have limited or no auditory input from that spoken language; thus these artificial MSCs attempt to provide linguistic and communicative input in a modality different from that normally employed (i.e., visually rather than orally). Although the MSCs that have been developed do typically (though not universally) utilize signs drawn from natural sign languages, they nevertheless differ dramatically from natural sign languages. Phonologically, morphologically , lexically, and syntactically, the basis for an MSC is the norms of the target spoken language rather than those of the natural sign language. In other words, artificial MSCs designed to represent English may best be understood as varieties of English that utilize a visual/manual modality, rather than as varieties of either ASL or British Sign Language. In this chapter I explore the nature and development of MSCs as an example of language planning for sign languages, and I examine both the strengths and weaknesses of MSCs as the products of language planning efforts. FINGERSPELLING: ITS NATURE AND USES Manual alphabets are used by deaf people around the world, often in conjunction with a natural sign language (Schein & Stewart, 1995, pp. 77–78). These alphabets are used in fingerspelling particular words, especially personal names, place names, and words for which either there is no sign or the sign is not known. Fingerspelling is thus the most basic and fundamental “bridge” between spoken language and sign language. At the same time, fingerspelling plays a relatively minor role in signing, as David Brien notes in the Dictionary of British Sign Language / English: Creation and Use of Manual Sign Codes as Language Planning : 131 It appears to be a widely held belief amongst the general public in the U.K. [and elsewhere] that sign language consists entirely of fingerspelling. In fact, fingerspelling accounts for only a small proportion of the lexical content of BSL [British Sign Language, and other sign languages]. Contrary...