ASL Preservation and the Need for Stewardship
(Continued from page 1)
of different levels or tutors as linguistic role models. The students usually have a limited authentic or
immersed language learning experience outside of the classroom. The use of spoken English to teach
ASL in the classroom deprives the students of yet another layer of authentic language instruction. Their
interaction opportunities with the Deaf community are much more challenging compared to other foreign
languages, where students can experience a full-fledged linguistic immersion by simply going to a
Spanish-speaking country like Spain or South America to master the language.
Apart from the need to further consider about how ASL is being learned, Jack Levesque
expressed a sense of urgency in his 1990 article, “Let’s Return ASL to Deaf Ownership”:
The sharp increase in prestige among hearing people that ASL has enjoyed over the past thirty
years should have been a good thing for the Deaf community. Somehow, however, ASL’s
popularity has come at the cost of demotion to some kind of a craft or hobby, like quilting or
aerobics, taught by volunteer enthusiast in church basements, not professor in university
departments of modern languages. The only credentialing body of ASL teachers has no
enforcement authority. (Bragg, 2001, p. 116)
Even with increased professionalization of ASL instruction in the years since Levesque’s article,
the attitudes toward learning and instructing ASL continue to be worrisome. This concern was even
expressed by Deaf leaders during the first half of the 20th century. For instance, former National
Association of the Deaf presidents George Veditz and Tom Anderson foresaw the shift of language
ownership and the needs of persevering signed language, which helped prompt their efforts to preserve
the language on film. The climate for signed language was very different at that time with society set out
against it, but the lack of seriousness in regard to ASL at present is equally damaging.
Adding to the struggles of stewardship, the current digital generation has witnessed informal,
often inaccurate, ASL teaching by a novice L2 signer generating millions of hits on YouTube, or the
vogue nature of translated English-to-ASL songs online. Most troubling is how many Deaf students are
in mainstream settings where the use of spoken language is prevalent, with minimal or no signed
language models. At Gallaudet University, there has been an increased wave of Deaf students who do not
sign fluently. While the non-signing student coming to Gallaudet is not new in principle, the number of
such students has increased dramatically. They are embracing the Deaf community, especially as new
ASL users; should they be considered heritage language learners?
This shift in circumstances, and thinking, sheds light on the importance of language ownership,
stewardship, and the appropriateness of language use. Would the interpretation of the ownership of a
minority and possibly endangered language differ from a robust and well-documented majority or
national language? This accountability and stewarding are critical to ensure that ASL is used, taught and
transmitted accordingly. A stringent implementation of ASL curriculum for both L1 and L2 learners is
necessary, especially given the limited nature of L1 resources and our understanding of L1 needs being in
its infancy. A robust academic preparation for signed language professionals is a critical part of
stewardship as well.
Reference: Bragg, L. (2001). Deaf world: A historical reader and primary sourcebook. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Click here for the SASL Facebook page
The Power of ASL
3
Fall 2016 – Issue 3