ASL Literature
Byrne
approach is via the creation of a pedagogical canon in which individual colleges or universities
develop a concrete list of reading texts for each course. “The wider pedagogical canon is made up
of the most frequently taught texts, a list that is empirically verifiable” (Gallagher, 2001, p. 54).
In addition, Guillory (1995) explains that a canonical work in a spoken language is
reproduced for, and used by generations of readers. At the present time, there is no evidence that
the ASL Literature Series and the works by Valli and Lentz are incorporated into syllabi and
consistently taught to generations of students in American and Canadian colleges and universities
that offer programs in ASL and/or Deaf Studies. A study could be put together to examine whether
ASL literary works such as the ASL Literature Series and the works of Valli and Lentz, which
were published close to 30 years ago, have been consistently used and taught in ASL and/or Deaf
studies courses in the period since their publication (the equivalent of one generation).
Conclusion
In this paper, four main topics have been discussed and reframed for a better and clearer
understanding of what constitutes ASL literature. The present status of ASL literature is fairly
strong. We are a far cry from the time when Nancy Frishberg scrambled in the 1980s to convince
the American and Canadian academia about the vitality of oral literature and that ASL has literary
capacity. Not only does the comprehensive ASL literature definition in this paper support the
legitimacy and quality of the literary language of the deaf community, it serves as a benchmark
for the additions to come in the future. A consideration of how ASL literature should best be taught
in schools for the deaf will need to be part of this important undertaking. Accomplished ASL
performers will need to share their input as well. General knowledge of ASL literature, through
familiarity with the works listed in the database as well as critical and theoretical analyses, ASL
teaching experience, and native fluency in ASL, can support the task of creating a canon of ASL
literature.
References
Abrams, M. H., & Harpham, G. G. (2015). A glossary of literary terms (11 th ed.). Stamford, CT:
Cengage Learning.
Bahan, B. (1992). ASL literature: Inside the story. In J. Cebe (Ed.), Deaf studies: What’s up?:
1991 conference proceedings (pp. 153–164). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University,
College for Continuing Education.
Bahan, B. (2006). Face-to-face tradition in the American deaf community. In H-D. L. Bauman, J.
L. Nelson, & H. M. Rose (Eds.), Signing the body poetic: Essays on American Sign
Language literature (pp. 21–50). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bahan, B. (2014). Bleeva: A narrative of our existence. Presented at the 6 th Biennial Deaf Studies
Today! Conference in Orem, UT on Saturday, April 12, 2014. Retrieved from
https://www.uvu.edu/asl/dst/docs/Bleeva%20-%20DST%202014.pdf
Bauman, H-D. L., Nelson, J. L., & Rose, H. M. (Eds.). (2006). Signing the body poetic: Essays
on American Sign Language literature. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
SASLJ, Vol. 1, No. 1 – Fall/Winter 2017
71