THE WORK OF Seeing Language in Sign Foreword by Oliver Sacks GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY PRESS WASIINGTON, Dc GALLAUDET UMVERSITY UISRART WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002[y8] seeise Laneuaue In gras just kepe on pursuing his interest, thank God, and didn’t let ‘us get him down, Of course, I didn’t know him intimately at the time, s0 [ don’t know what his true feelings were. On the outside he didn’t seem any different, bur on the inside? It mast have hurt, but he never showed it, never even rebutted the criticism 2s far as [am aware? Stokoe did rebut the criticism, batin his own wey, by proving in the end that he was right, As Robbin Battison explains: “He is one stubborn son of a bitch, and he sticks up for principles. 've never seen him back down from anything, I relly never have. Gentle as he i, he sticks up for things he believes in and doesn’t back down. I?’skind of an interesting set of ear contradictions, ‘but that’s Bill.”* | CHAPTER 5 ign Language... bronghr offal and pubic regition of deeper aspect of Deaf people's Woes: their culture ‘Tin Dictionacy of American CAROL PADDENAlthough Bill Stokoe had no tra months of the publication of Sign Language Structure he was ing as a linguist, within six invited to join the Washington Linguistics Club and to deliver amaildress there, “My pleasure in being here and my interest in getting to know all of you,” he told the audience, “ean perhaps hest be measured by my temerity in accepting an invitation to meet you, to join you, and co speak to you, all on che same oceasion."t Hundreds of speeches, workshops, articles, and essays fol- lowed ducing che next thirty-five years as Stokoe’s reputation spread throughout the United States and Europe. He soon stopped apologizing for his “temerity” — he had started a scien- tific revolution, and recognition of his achievement in the form ‘of nvications poured in from the linguistic community. Gordon Hewes, an anthropologist noted for his research on the origins ‘of human language, observed that “before Bill's work was pub lished, few ifany linguists or others considered ASL or any sign language as more than 2 crude derivative of spoken language, fie ill-suited to incellectual communication. Most of the well known linguists of the world regularly dismissed sign language systems as having litle scientific significance. That they were useftl for the profoundly deaf was acknowledged, bur only as 3 substitute for ‘real language,’ (Le., speech).”? Stokoe had developed a new paradigm through which ro view American Sign Lenguage, While linguists embraced his find- ings and deligheed in discussing their merits and applications, snany people at Gallaudet and in the larger deaf-education vom munity experienced the “period of pronounced professional in- omas Kuhn in The Stracture of Scientific security” noted by Revnbations? And that’s putting it nicely. As prophesied by Dennis Cokely, Stokoe at Gallaudet, Stokoe’s work eventually undermined the “significant control” hearing people had gained over eh coralism was introchiced in this countey:* As long os ASL was considered nothing more than a collection of primitive ideographic gestures, he: and teachers of 2 “real” language was not questioned, ‘Thew teachers, Stokce observed, “had determined that there was 2 linguist who later worked t lives of the deal from the time Wg people's superior role as the users cuaerer five [41] nothing deaf people could teach them, and they had a lot to teach deaf people, so it was a one-way sereet.”* Stokoe recalls the reaction to Sign Language Siructare emong, many educators: “Ifthe reception of the first linguistiesrudy ofa sign language of the deaf community was chilly at Gallaudet, it ‘was cryogenic in a large part of special education — at that time 2 closed corporation as hostile to sign language as it was igno- rant of linguistics.”6 Mery Garretson, a Gallaudet graduate who later served 28 a special assistant to the president of Gallandet and became presi- dent of the National Association of the Deaf, recalls the imme- late effect of Stokoe’s work on him as a user of American Sign. Language. Back in 19601 was out West asa teacher and principal of the ‘Montana School for the Deal. Although we were somewhat isolated from the mainstream of happenings in deafness, we did get word char a gentleman by the name of William Stokoe hhad just published 4 “book on signs.” . ‘Asa profoundly deaf individasl who had received all of his education in a residential school, I was keenly aware of the importance of signs in our daily communication activities. Because of this, I had long been concerned about prevailing: attitudes toward sig language. Through my [Gallaudet] col- lege days, this concem grew into a deep resentment toward chose educators who perceived sign language as “back-alley” talk, fic “only for bathrooms” and other private places, away from the scrutiny of the public eye. These attirudes were passed on co parents of young deaf children and to the media in various subtle and not-so-subde ways. So when I learned about the work of Bill Stokve, I felt an inner excitement, I ordered his book immediately. Somehow had a feeling this man was going to light a fase, bring to sign languageanceded measure of recognition and dignity, and cause considerable controversy. . . . Here was someone, I dared to hope, who might blast open the pretense and ignorance of how deaf people communicate with each other; someone who would rockethe boat and create waves in the field of deafness and in the Deafcommunity alloverthe world. saw in Billapotential