September 7, 2011
Using Movies to Debate Sign Language
George Veditz from Preservation of the Sign Language.
As school boards across the country struggle with budget cuts, parents and students can find themselves fighting over issues more political than economic. Case in point: American Sign Language, according to a recent New York Times article, is the fourth most-popular language taught in colleges. (Read the entire Modern Language Association report.)
But as Monica Davey reported in another Times article, several states—including Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota and West Virginia—are threatening to reduce funding for state schools for the deaf, limiting the available options for deaf students who want to learn A.S.L. From the story:
Some advocates for the schools now worry that financial concerns could push the debate toward sending deaf children to “mainstream” schools, which would, in the eyes of some, ultimately encourage methods of communication other than American Sign Language.
The conflict between A.S.L. and what some refer to as “oralism,” or a listening and spoken language approach, extends back many years. Schools promoting oralism formed as early as 1867, and a 1880 conference in Milan, the International Congress on Education of the Deaf, voted to ban sign language. Nebraska passed a law in 1913 outlawing sign language. Alexander Graham Bell was one of the most insistent proponents of oralism.
That was the atmosphere behind a remarkable series of films made between 1910 and 1921, under the auspices of the National Association of the Deaf. Formed in 1880, the NAD fought to “preserve, protect and promote the civil, human and linguistic rights of deaf and hard of hearing people,” in particular in the “acquisition, usage, and preservation of American Sign Language.”
“The only way in which this can be done is by means of moving picture films,” wrote George William Veditz. Born in 1861, Veditz lost his hearing at the age of eight due to scarlet fever. Graduating from Gallaudet College as valedictorian in 1884, he became a teacher and later president of the NAD. The Association formed a Motion Picture Committee in 1910 with a mandate to film “excellent examples” of sign language and distribute these movies throughout the country.
The 14 films produced by the committee are now part of the George W. Veditz Collection at Gallaudet University. All of the titles have historical significance, according to Patti Durr, who blogs about deaf issues at People of the Eye. But Preservation of the Sign Language, which records a 14-minute speech by Veditz (above), may be the most moving. “Veditz is my hero,” Durr wrote me in an e-mail. “I totally adore his foresight and fortitude. If he were alive today he would without a doubt be involved in the exact same issues.”
Even if you do not understand A.S.L., Veditz is a forceful and persuasive presence in Preservation of the Sign Language. As Dr. Carol Padden (the first deaf recipient of a John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur fellowship) wrote, “His hair is parted neatly in the middle, so his face can be clearly seen, and he is careful to sign precisely and in large gestures.”
Dr. Padden has translated Veditz’s speech into written English; Veditz wrote out his own version in a letter some years after the film was made. It was only by comparing the two that I began to appreciate A.S.L. Previously I had thought of sign language as a sort of literal translation of spoken English, with a one-to-one correspondence between spoken words and signs. But I now view A.S.L. as an actual stand-alone language, with its own vocabulary, its own grammar, its own rhetoric.
Take the following signed sentence as an example. Padden translates it as: “But for thirty-three years their teachers have cast them aside and refused to listen to their pleas.” “Cast aside” Veditz signs as “grab-hold-forcefully-push-down.” His written English equivalent: “For thirty-three years their teachers have held them off with a hand of steel.”
Watching Preservation of the Sign Language and the other films in the Veditz Collection connects us directly to battles that are still being waged today. It also gives us a glimpse at some remarkable people who found a way to utilize motion pictures for their own ends.
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Growing up as the hearing child of Deaf parents ASL was naturally my first language. Very often when interpreting for my parents I would realize that ASL just couldn’t be translated into English very well. I came to realize that ASL was a rich and beautiful language on its own. — I frankly don’t understand why some educators of the Deaf don’t see the value in teaching via both ASL and English. Having worked as a counselor in a summer camp for Deaf “oralist” children, I’ve seen the non-ASL approach succeed with some and fail miserably with others. The latter acquire little or no language, and thus education and social skills, until they transfer to a program using ASL.
Comment by Tom McCarthy — September 8, 2011 @ 8:11 am
There’s more to the debate beyond signing and oralism as you can see on my blog. Many in the deaf community use PSE which is pidgen of sign language and English on the hand rather than Bilingual = which is sign language without English on the hand but written English.
Comment by Candy — September 8, 2011 @ 11:41 am
Who knew? Seems like there is a lot of partisanship on ASL v.s. Oral communication for the deaf. Very nice writing.
Comment by JP — September 8, 2011 @ 6:07 pm
Daniel – biggest thanks for your write up here honoring Veditz, the man, his Preservation of Sign Language speech, and his work on the National Association of the Deaf Motion Picture project.
Reel-ly appreciate all you wrote as well as the Smithonian’s valuing of Deaf culture, Deaf history, American Sign Language, cultural and linguistic diversity, artifacts, multiculturalism-multingualism, language rights and social justice.
Ya hoo – life is grand.
Thank you also for understanding that the debate is Oralism (oral / aural ONLYism) vs. Bilingualism (ASL+English)
depriving the Deaf of a fully natural and accessible signed language vs. allowing them to have two or more languages
Thank you again
Much peace,
Patti
Comment by patti durr — September 9, 2011 @ 9:17 am
The controversy frequently is described as be Oral (Listening and Speaking) versus ASL.
Not really–it is Oral versus a comprehensive approach that includes ASL, English in its written and read forms, and oral. Oralism is a limited approach while the other is a multi-disciplinary approach.
It is no wonder we are seeing some children with stunted development of language as a result of limited approaches.
Comment by Dianrez — September 9, 2011 @ 10:00 am
Very nice write-up and encapsulation of the what was going on behind the oral-manual controversy. Veditz was truly a great, perceptive leader who had much foresight for our Deaf community.
Thank you for pointing out the difference between Padden’s and Veditz’s own translation of his speech, which I’ve seen a number of times. Veditz’s translation makes me appreciate even more the poetry of his signs and his true intent behind what he was signing. Now I need to go back and find his translation and reread it much more carefully!
Comment by Don G. — September 9, 2011 @ 10:47 am
Please don’t link to the People of the Eye blog. It is full of nastiness and hostility. The Smithsonian should be better than this.
Comment by SB — September 9, 2011 @ 10:49 am
Thank you Smithsonian for making time to appreciate and recognize George W. Veditz’s attempt to preserve Sign Language which is known as American Sign Language (ASL) these days. I certainly hope Smithsonian will continue and expand his work more in its own museum.
More truths (People of the Eye blog) have come out in recent years to show the oppression toward our beautiful American Sign Language. As George said in the film, “sign language as it is the the noblest gift God has given to the Deaf”.
We have seen more discussion among the society on respecting one other, Deaf people deserve the utmost respect of our own true language, American Sign Language. We look forward to brighter days for our Deaf children to be able to learn and acquire American Sign Language to become better America citizens.
Comment by Joey Baer — September 9, 2011 @ 11:36 am
Joey, are you saying that deaf people who sign are better than deaf people who speak? Sounds like audism to me…
Comment by SB — September 9, 2011 @ 11:57 am
I realized that Daniel did not link to show part of Veditz’s film so I am including a link here for your viewing. http://www.joeybaer.com/asl/veditz.htm
Thank you!
Comment by Joey Baer — September 9, 2011 @ 1:19 pm
there is NO “better than” in anything that Joey or i have written.
the issue is not with Deaf folks speaking – the issue is with systems that say one becomes independent through listening and speaking because… that is simply NOT TRUE and majorly OFFENSIVE. the issue is with systems that actively deny the child the right to a fully natural and accessible signed language. and this is de ja vu so Veditz’s message is very salient now more than ever.
also because knowledge is power – Audism is defined by Dr. Humphries as the notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears.
Deaf folks who advocate for a Deaf child’s right to a fully accessible and natural language are challenging systems and practices that obstruct this right, they are not opposing folks who do talk.
so lets return to the point of this article – the power of the medium of film to make the invisible visible and for people to document and disseminate their culture and language. That is a GREAT thing.
the actual typed up speech by Veditz’ of “Preservation of Sign Language” can be found at http://handeyes.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/george-veditz-1861-1937/
scroll down for the documents
it is very poetic and prophetic in places, indeed.
Again Mr. Eagan and the Smithonian – I thank you.
Peace
Patti
Comment by patti durr — September 9, 2011 @ 1:48 pm
Great Post Patti! Veditz in the Smithsonian! That is incredible! Um, nowhere in veditz speech does he say pse etc right? No he says sign language. Hearing ppl created the division. When studying ASL came up with terms like pse etc. That is soooooo yesterday! Deaf ppl I know simply say Sign Language. No separatism or division. Not Veditz purpose. Preserve sign language period!
Comment by Sheri Farinha — September 10, 2011 @ 3:18 pm