By Donald Grushkin
I am proud to say I speak ASL. But, I refuse to use ASL. “Wait, what?” you say. “How can
anybody speak ASL when speech is auditory?” While it is true that most dictionaries will offer a
definition of speech as an orally-produced phenomenon, one must bear in mind that dictionary writers
are undoubtedly all hearing, with the attendant audistic preconceptions and biases that come with
being hearing. However, just as linguists have come to understand that language occurs regardless of
modality, so too do they understand that speaking itself is not modality-specific. Thus, a proper non-
modality-bound definition of to speak will follow along the lines offered by Lexico (associated with
Oxford University Press): “(to) say something in order to convey information or to express a feeling”.
Some of you may think about the sign for 'speak' and immediately object since Deaf people do
not speak with their mouths. Therefore, to use this sign (https://youtu.be/P0_XzW-Im1Q) 1 in
connection with ASL would be wrong, and this objection would be correct since the sign in question
directly references oral speech. However, there is another sign (https://youtu.be/tSFBYh1746A) that is
more applicable to the idea of 'speaking' ASL. If one wants to say 'I speak ASL', the semantically
correct way to sign this would be: (https://youtu.be/gEK01W3aC3o) 2 . Thus, there are two signs to
consider for the concept of 'speaking'. In the first case, we see the concept of ‘speaking’ as done by
people who are not communicating in a signed language such as ASL. In the second case, however,
a respect for ASL and English can be expressed by applying the concept of 'speaking' to both
languages, regardless of modality. That is, it is often the case that English speakers reserve 'speaking'
for oral speech only. However, this adds to perceptions that Deaf people who speak signed languages
such as ASL are not truly communicating if they are not doing so through oral means, incapable of
conveying information or expressing feelings effectively, or are even language impaired. In making the
concept of ‘speaking’ non-modality-specific, we can begin the process of banishing these
misperceptions of Deaf people.
Some others of you may ask “What’s wrong with saying we use ASL?” This question goes to
the heart of why I no longer choose to use this word in reference to our signed language. As an
advocate of ASL, I want to see ASL (and all signed languages) given equal status to oral languages.
Yet, it is my belief that by applying the word “use” in connection with signed languages, we are
inadvertently devaluing our signed languages in comparison to oral languages, such as English. To
illustrate, consider this: what things are typically “used”? Tools, such as hammers, rulers, computers,
phones, and the like. While language is a tool employed by humanity for the purpose of
communication, most people do not think of language as such, nor do hearing people typically refer to
their orally-spoken languages in this manner. That is, while English speakers will often say someone
speaks a language, they will rarely say someone uses a language. In those cases where they do
employ the verb use, this seems to have an ‘othering’ purpose, in that one uses a language that is not
native to them, or is a speaker of a language that is not known to ourselves (“I hope to use Spanish in
the future”, “He uses French all the time”). Yet, we as signers regularly and habitually say we use
ASL. So, what is wrong with that?
Here is the problem: since at least the 1860s, Oralist educators have attempted (with a great
degree of success) to portray ASL as a tool – and an inefficient and inappropriate one at that – for
____
(Continue on the next page)
The Power of ASL
12
Summer 2019 – Issue 14