History of language planning in deaf education: The 19th century

Abstract

This dissertation documents historical patterns of language planning activities in American deaf education during the 19th century from a sociolinguistic perspective. This comprehensive study begins in the early 1800s, prior to the opening of the first public school for the deaf in Connecticut, tracing and categorizing available literature related to the language of signs and English as the languages of instruction for the deaf through 1900. Borg and Gall's (1989) historical research methodology was employed to ensure that a consistent historical approach was maintained based upon adequate and/or primary references whenever possible. Utilizing Cooper's (1989) language planning framework, each article in this extensive historical collection was categorized according to one of three major types of language planning activities: status planning (SP), acquisition planning (AP), or corpus planning (CP). Until this time, a comprehensive study of this nature has never been pursued in the field of deaf education. As a result, language planning patterns were discovered and a number of myths based upon inaccurate historical evidence that have long misguided educators of the deaf as well as the Deaf community were revealed. More specifically, these myths are related to the belief that 19th century linguistic analysis and scientific descriptions of the language of signs were nonexistent, and that 19th century literature related to the role, use and structure of the language of signs in education was extremely limited. Additionally this study discovered myths related to the status and use of sign language in this country, the history of deaf education programs, the growth and development of oralism and its impact upon existing programs for the deaf and the employment of deaf teachers. It was also revealed that several terms used in the 19th century have been misinterpreted by educational practitioners today who mistakenly believe they are using strategies that were developed long ago. Therefore, this study attempts to 'correct the record' by using primary sources to bring to light a new understanding of the history of deaf education from a language planning perspective.