Deaf People Before Deaf Schools - An Open Letter to Helen Scarlet Fever

 Deaf People Before Deaf Schools
An Open Letter to Helen Scarlet Fever

Hi, wibbly here.

 I have been posting a series of articles on this subreddit discussing sign language writing systems, and in my most recent part I briefly covered Deaf/Sign-Language history. It wasn't a comprehensive overview - just enough to understand how we got to the point we did in recognising the grammar of sign language. It is based on the evidence we have and the mainstream view of sign language development.

 In it I said "sign languages have always existed" and reference Socrates's brief mention of sign languages as evidence. More on that later.

Your (Helen's) comment, which you later turned into a post, challenged that view.

 The key point of your argument is that all deaf people before the establishment of schools for the deaf were isolated and language deprived.

I hold a deep conviction that all of the deaf people who have ever existed before the epoch of deaf schools are likely to have led a life that closely parallels Genie's [language deprivation].

[...]

L'Épée then had a radical idea that would forever change the trajectory for the deaf people. He thought: "what if I just go ahead and take the original signs that these deaf children developed on their own and incorporate that in how I communicate with them during my classes?"

L'Épée was met with a surprise that the deaf children reacted very well to his radical approach. He noticed that the education process of his deaf children spiked up with his approach.

You also say:

So where I'm going with this is that I view the deaf community's proclamation on deaf schools and the development of sign language as the true beginning of the "deaf community" as a harmful one. It is because that worldview ignores the existence of deaf people prior to the emergence of deaf schools. 

And, no, their acknowledgement of records showing the existence of sign language prior to the emergence of deaf schools doesn't count as an acknowledgement of the deaf community prior to the emergence of deaf schools.

 I partially agree - the way that the narratives centre on the deaf schools does sweep over the vast majority of history.

 Your argument appears to be (please correct me if I am wrong) that we need to recognise language deprivation throughout deaf history - and that all deaf people (at one point you also say 99%) were language deprived before the deaf schools.

 But I find your juxtapositioning of your own view and the mainstream view odd because your view is actually perfectly in-line with the "deaf schools are the cradle of deaf communities / sign languages" theory. That very theory states that before deaf schools all deaf children were language deprived and deaf people were isolated. In fact I have heard it before amongst academics. It is in fact this very narrative that I disagree with.

Anyway that is a minor nitpick, back to the point:

I'm willing to be challenged on my take on this. Just know that it'll be a tall order for me to change my view. I mean, after all, this is what I took away from my own reading of the literature that the deaf community produced themselves.

Challenge accepted.

 In linguistics we often have to deal with incomplete evidence. Languages only preserve when written down. You cannot find a language fossil. When we die any words and signs we made are lost if we did not record them.

 This applies to spoken languages as well as sign languages - while we have been able to reconstruct what people likely spoke around 10k years ago and further back and we are clueless. There are lots of theories and guesses but nobody knows. We don't even know if all (spoken) languages originally came from one or not, nor if/how large language families are related.

 So we have to work with the inferences at hand in order to build theories. I do not think the evidence is conclusive either way - but I do think it can be read in such a way that contradicts the theory you put forwards.

I think from the evidence we have there are three valid theories:

  1. A-Priori: Sign languages and Deaf communities began in the deaf schools, with nothing coming before them. Prior to this all deaf people were language deprived.
  2. Re-Occurrence: Sign languages and deaf communities are regularly re-occurring phenomenona under the right conditions. Those include but are not limited to deaf schools. Thus many/most deaf people were language deprived and isolated, but some/many had access to sign and community. 
  3. Continuous Transmission: Sign languages and deaf communities have been transmitted through generations prior to the establishment of deaf schools. Thus many deaf people were language deprived, but some/many had access to sign and community.

These are the dominant categories of arguments I see, but the terms for them are my own.

 In this open letter I will try to look at as much of the evidence as I can get through to see what it supports.

Before we proceed I want to clarify a bit more about myself:

 I am a HH BSL signer who learnt in my teens (started when I was twelve). I'd now say I am fluent and I use BSL for my own accessibility needs. I studied BSL, Deaf Studies and Linguistics at university. I am very involved with my local Deaf community - I am part of a charity that organises events for Deaf youth (amongst other things). One of my jobs (long story) is supporting elderly Deaf people. I grew up speaking English and Welsh and feeling a part of my identity missing. Thems my creds.

Anyway on with the analysis:

Nicaraguan Sign Language (ISN)

 This is possibly the most "recent" form of evidence in that it is evidence of a sign language forming recording in real time as it happened. Deaf children were brought to the newly founded school for deaf children in Nicaragua, and there they - through chatting and playing with their peers - formed an entire language out of nothing. ISN developed in complete isolation from other sign languages for the first few generations of transmission (as the teachers only taught in Spanish), only later becoming exposed to other sign languages like ASL.

 Prior to this no language existed in Nicaragua. There is an example of a woman, Maria Noname (Maria No-Name) at the start of the video who is language deprived. She is deaf and grew up before the establishment of the school. The video says she is communicating with "simple and primitive gestures". It is unclear whether the friend shown in the video taught her these or whether they were a form of home sign. I will be discussing that more later.

But lets look at this through the three lenses:
  1. A-Priori: this is a slam-dunk fit for the a-priori model. It is a case of a sign language and deaf community emerging after the establishment of a deaf school.
  2. Re-Occurrence: this fits re-occurrence pretty well. The re-occurrence model doesn't deny that deaf schools can be a key point in the emergence of sign languages and deaf communities - only that it is not the only trigger.
  3. Continuous Transmission: this is a pretty bad blow against CT out the gate. The only possible argument is that some of these children did have some sign and brought it to the school, but I have not seen much evidence of that. I want to come back to home sign later.

L'Épée's School

Firstly I want to correct something:

 L'Épée was hired to teach at that deaf school and he was instructed to teach his deaf children via the oralist method. He was also given a manual system of signs to convey some basic concepts to his deaf pupils. He proceeded with doing what he was told until he noticed that the deaf children never responded well to the oralist approach and he also noticed that the deaf children at the school became absorbed with the manual signs that were given to them. He noticed that the deaf children began to play with the manual sign structure with each other and that they actually began to develop some original and distinctive signs completely on their own. 

Helen (2026) 

 This is incorrect. L'Épée wasn't hired, he founded the school. He did so after meeting two D/deaf (I use D/d because of the ambiguity) sisters in Paris (he was hired to teach them on a 1:1, or I guess 1:2) and learning about their life experiences, he realised that deaf children had no schools to go to, so founded his own in 1760. Sadly L'Épée had little desire to document their signing

 Now the big question-mark I see is whether those two sisters were part of a pre-established Parisian deaf community or not. Doing a relatively surface level online search I can glean:

  • The sisters were young.
  • They were likely from a poor area.
  • It may have been their mother who wanted them to learn matters of faith, thus requested priests as teachers, of which L'Épée was one.
  • They were signing - whether this is a signed system or signed language is not made clear.
  • They may have been part of a community of 200 other deaf people.
 That last fact comes from the Old French/Parisian Sign Language (VLSF) Wikipedia but has no direct source. At the bottom of the page it lists:
  • Sicard, Roche-Ambroise (1800). Cours d'instruction d'un Sourd-Muet de Naissance.
  • Desloges, Pierre (1779). Observations d'un sourd et muet, sur un cours élémentaire d'éducation des sourds et muets. Amsterdam and B. Morin, Paris: M. l’Abbé Deschamps (Chapelain de l’Église d’Orléans).
 So the author of that page seems to know what they are talking about. Someone would need to go through it all to double-check. I might email one of my old tutors to find out.

 The second of these, Desloges, is a very notable individual. He is known as the first deaf man to ever publish a book. His book argued for sign languages. Notably he writes about the deaf community in Paris and their use of sign language:

"like a Frenchman who sees his language belittled by a German who knows only a few French words, I thought I was obliged to defend my language against the false charges of this author."

His book is sometimes cited as evidence of there being sign language before the deaf school, but he learnt sign language 14 years after the establishment of the deaf school, and his book was published 19 years after the establishment of the deaf school - thus it could be the case that the sign language he learnt came from there. However, notably, he learnt from a deaf Italian man when he was 27, not from practitioners at the school itself - it doesn't say whether that man was an alumni of the school. 

Can an entire language and community take shape enough in just 14 years? If we look at the case of Nicaraguan Sign Language - I think the answer is maybe. But it still feels like a very short time for this to have all come together.

So lets look at this through the lenses:

  1. A-Priori: if you believe L'Épée that the signs of the girls were "beautiful but primitive" then you might draw the conclusion that what they were using was a home sign system. But if the number of 200 deaf Parisians is to be believed, and they used this VLSF, then that ceases to be a home sign system and begins being a small sign language. Plus the evidence for a deaf community prior to the deaf school is pretty strong counter-evidence.
  2. Re-Occurrence: this fits the Re-Occurrence very well actually. Especially if VLSF and the deaf community predates the school but has no obvious ancestors before that point.
  3. Continuous Transmission: this is a big win for CT. It is clear evidence of transmission amongst a deaf community prior to the establishment of a deaf school.

Britain Before BSL - Kent & Leister

 The story of BSL is very similar to the story of ISN. It was the establishment of the Braidwood school in 1760 up in Scotland that saw deaf children flock to stay there from across the country. There they chatted and played amongst themselves, forming BSL together. Older kids taught new younger arrivals.

But before BSL is another matter. There are a fragmentary records.

 Dalgarno (1661): The deaf man has no teacher at all and though necessity may put him upon … using signs, yet those have no affinity to the language by which they that are about him do converse among themselves.

Additionally there is a transcript of a wedding ceremony:

 Thomas Tillsye and Ursula Russel were marryed: and because the sayde Thomas was and is naturally deafe and also dumbe, so that the order of the forme of marriage used usually amongst others which can heare and speake could not for his parte be observed … the sayde Thomas, for the expression of his minde instead of words, of his own accorde used these signs…

 First he embraced her with his armes, and took her by the hande, putt a ring upon her finger and layde his hande upon her harte, and held his hands towards heaven; and to show his continuance to dwell with her to his lyves ende he did it by closing of his eyes with his hands and digging out of the earthe with his foote, and pulling as though he would ring a bell with divers other signs approved.  

In Leicester 1576 

And another:

 Somewhat neerre the place of his birth, there dwelt another, so affected, or rather defected, whose name was Kempe: which two, when they chaunced to meete, would use such kinde embracements, such stranfe, often, and earnest tokenings, and such heartie laughtes, and other passionate gestures, that their want of a tongue, seemed rather an hinderance to other conceiving [understanding] them, then to their conceiving one another.

Richard Carew's Survey of Cornwall (1602), description of Edward Bone

And another:

 Samuel Pepys (1666): But, above all, there comes in the dumb boy that I knew in Oliver’s time, who is mightily acquainted here, and with Downing; and he made strange signs of the fire, and how the King was abroad, and many things they understood, but I could not, which I wondering at, and discoursing with Downing about it, “Why,” says he, “it is only a little use, and you will understand him, and make him understand you with as much ease as may be.”

 That last in particular is either based in or connected to the  village of Maidenstone in Kent, as that is where Downing was schooled.

 This links it to what is known as Old Kentish Sign Language, which was used in Maidenstone as they had an unusually high amount of genetic deafness. This is thought to have contributed to BSL as children from this area were sent to Braidwood and other schools. It is also theorised perhaps to have been the ancestor of Martha's Vineyard Sign Language (MVSL). I will touch more on this later.

There are also more tid-bits:

  • 1428–1486 Princess Joanna of Scotland is reported to have communicated using sign language interpreters.
  • 1450 Publication of History of the Syon Monastery at Lisbon and Brentford, containing descriptions of signs, some still in use.
  • 1648 Publication of John Bulwer’s Philocophus: Or the Deafe and Dumbe Man’s Friende.
  • 1698 Publication of Digiti Lingua, by an anonymous Deaf author, with manual alphabet charts laying the foundation for the BSL two-handed alphabet.
  • 1720 Daniel Defoe publishes The History of the Life and Adventures of Mr Duncan Campbell, Deaf and Dumb, including a manual alphabet chart resembling modern BSL fingerspelling.

All of this before 1760. Before BSL as we know it today.

Lets look at this through the lenses:

  1. A-Priori: you would have to argue that all of this is just home signs / sign systems used by isolated language deprived people. But that would seemingly contradict the evidence saying "they interacted with each-other" and "they could talk about anything".
  2. Re-Occurrence: this would fit re-occurrence theory well enough... but...
  3. Continuous Transmission: this is another big win for CT. If the fact about OKSL becoming MVSL and BSL is true especially.

Northwest-European Sign Language Family

 Swedish Sign Language (and its relatives) has sometimes been analysed to be quite similar to British Sign Language (and its relatives. While they are considered two separate families (SSLF and BASNZSL) the relationship is still mainstream enough within sign language linguistics. This relationship was found by linguistic analysis rather than by studying the histories of said languages.

 Furthermore some other Northwest European Languages seem to share features and be reasonably mutually intelligible despite being seemingly unrelated historically. 

 I have in the past attempted to find any suggestion as to the history of why this might be. Did a deaf teacher travel from Britain to Sweden to teach? Did a family with deaf members move? I have turned up nothing thus far. Thus I bring to you the only explanation I have thus far found:

 Anderson (1979) instead suggested that Swedish Sign, German Sign and British Sign share one origin in a "North-West European" sign language.

I think I have found a the source for this claim but I don't have access.

 It seems like a lot of work in the area of linguistic analysis-based phylogeny of sign languages has been done since the 2020s. As such I think this information has yet to fully percolate out to wider understanding. I have linked a bunch of papers above.

 I sadly do not have institutional access anymore since finishing university so I cannot appraise each of them but they offer tantalising possibilities. 

Lets look at these through the lenses:
  1. A-Priori: you could attempt to argue that this is mainly post deaf school transmission of sign languages - and perhaps influence between sign languages. But I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that the Swedish and British schools / deaf communities interacted much at all.
  2. Re-Occurrence: some of the papers above do seem to categorise these sign languages into clusters, which would make sense with Re-Occurrence.
  3. Continuous Transmission: this is one of the juiciest pieces of evidence for Continuous Transmission. If anything like a North-West European Sign Language Family exists then it would have to have occurred pre-deaf school. It could even indicate that the various Germanic tribes that colonised Britain had deaf members (and a deaf community) who brought their NWESL. I suggest watching this space.

Deaf Villages

 I mentioned Martha's Vineyard Sign Language up above, but it is just one example of many deaf villages around the world. These are communities where there is more genetic deafness than usual, and thus a large number of both hearing and deaf people people in the community sign.

 There are cases like with Kata Kolok and Adamorobe Sign Language which are wholly independent, and emerged out of the homesigns used by the first few deaf generations.

 There are also other cases such as MVSL (debated) and Mayan Sign Language where there is strong indications that these may be linked to sign language families. From the Mayan Sign Language Wikipedia:

In the highlands of Guatemala, Maya use a sign language that belongs to a "sign language complex" known locally in the Kʼicheʼ language as Meemul Chʼaabʼal and Meemul Tziij, "mute language." Researcher Erich Fox Tree reports that it is used by deaf rural Maya throughout the region, as well as some traders and traditional storytellers. These communities and Fox Tree believe that Meemul Chʼaabʼal belongs to an ancient family of Maya sign languages. Fox Tree claims that Yucatec Maya Sign Language is closely related and substantially mutually intelligible.

 Additionally some like Inuit Sign Language(s) seem to form families of their own across numerous communities while still behaving like VSLs.

 These are sometimes called village sign languages (VSLs) and contrast with Deaf Community Sign Languages (DCSLs). VSLs are full sign languages with many of the same sign language grammar structures as DCSLs. That being said - they have their own patterns and differences. They use less classifiers and less verb agreement. They also use cardinal directions more - so instead of left / right they will point towards landmarks. Conversely they have more spatial refences.

Records of deaf villages and VSLs also exist both now and in history, and there is definitely nothing stopping them forming indefinitely far back in history. MVSL is only one example in North America - there are others on the mainland that are less well known.

Even amongst stone age hunter-gatherers all it would take would be a single nomadic tribe to have more deaf people than usual in order for that tribe to become a deaf village of its own - and we do have evidence of palaeolithic people caring for the injured and disabled. It might be an interesting bit of research for someone to do to look into the archaeological record for the earliest deaf village (specifically looking for a high proportion of deaf genes) we can find.

Lets look at the lenses:

  1. A-Priori: this is probably the strongest counter-evidence. These deaf villages occur all over the world and form sign languages and they seemingly have also always existed.
  2. Re-Occurrence: many of these are clear evidence of re-occurrence. These villages will develop a large deaf minority and will develop their own sign languages. 
  3. Continuous Transmission: a number of these are also good evidence for CT, as numerous examples of VSL coming being a part of larger language families.

Monastic Sign Language

Various monastic orders required that the monks in monasteries be silent. As such, they used (and some still use) signs to communicate.

These signs are often very practical based - discussing things one might need for food or daily activities. Additionally they do not have much in the way of their own grammar, with any grammar descriptions I can find being "almost but not quite [spoken language]". As such they were likely more sign system than full sign language.

This is a strong example of hearing people likely creating and using a sign language for their own purposes separate to deaf people. I have heard suggestions before that monasteries might have taken in deaf people as a form of charity. But I cannot find any account of this. Instead it seems like religious people were heavily involved in teaching deaf people out in the community. This was often on a charity 1-to-1 basis - so perhaps it is not surprising that they either learnt signs from or taught signs to said deaf people.

Numerous signs in the video and one of the links above are recognisable in modern BSL.
  • The churchwarden's sign is for one to set two fingers on his eyes and make a motion with his hands as if to pull a hanging bell. - CHURCH (this could easily be happenstance)
  • The sign for nuns is to set your two forefingers on your forehead, then stroke along your cheeks in the sign of the holy veil. - NUN (can't find a video - but it is remarkably close - more than I would expect from happenstance, it even uses the same handshape)
  • The sign of the king is to move your hand down, then seize your head on top with all your fingers in the shape of a crown. - KING (this is remarkably similar, other sign languages I have seen have signed KING in a bunch of different ways).
  • The sign of a layman is to take yourself with both hands by the chin as if taking yourself by the beard. - MAN (while "beard" makes sense as a coincidence, specifically the grabbing handshape not so much)
  • The sign of a laywoman is to move your fingers across your forehead from one ear to the other in the sign of a headband. WOMAN (while obviously different, perhaps the BSL sign is an evolved form - as I have never been able to track down either the icon nor the etymology of WOMAN before).
Lets look at the lenses:
  1. A-Priori: I think you could easily argue this fits within an a-priori framework, as these Monastic Signs aren't really full languages and they were used by hearing people for completely different purposes than Deaf Community Sign Languages. You could also argue that it was those monks that became teachers who brought these signs to the early sign languages, or that it is almost complete coincidence. 
  2. Re-Occurrence: This supports re-occurrence well enough, as it is another case of a sign system  (and community of signers) emerging within the right conditions.
  3. Continuous Transmission: but once again we get tantalising glimpses of the possibility of CT. Signs used in modern BSL appearing within these ancients monastic ones. And many seem more than just coincidental resemblance, along with a clear vector through which transission could have occurred.  

Handtalk

I have talked about Hand Talk before in my articles. It is the language, or set of languages, used by the indigenous people living on the plains of North America as a pidgin (a secondary language by which two or more groups of people communicate when they do not share a spoken language).

They used this in gatherings, trade and warfare to communicate because their languages were too different from one another to be understood or easily learnt by one-another. This is another clear example of hearing people creating or using a sign language for their own purposes.

I have heard rumours of these sign languages either being used by or related to those that deaf people within these communities used... but I have never found strong sources talking about that. But it doesn't seem like a stretch to say that that could happen. That a deaf child would be born into such a community and find themselves within a community that already knew how to sign for a completely different reason.

The vocabulary and grammar of Handtalk are quite limited, waaaay more limited than most other sign languages. It has limited vocabulary and makes only extremely limited use of classifiers, directional verbs etc etc etc, and one source claims it only has around 4000 signs. This may be in large part because it was a trade pidgin, and used overwhelmingly by hearing people - somewhat similar to Monastic Sign "Language"s. But unlike MSLs the grammar was quite different from the grammar of the spoken languages used in the communities, likely again owing to its use as a pidgin.

There is some evidence that Handtalk contributed to ASL, though I haven't seen a full account of which ASL signs descend from Handtalk.

  1. A-Priori: you could argue within an a-priori model that Handtalk is not a "true" sign language. But it does have a unique vocabulary and grammar. I would warn against jumping to this conclusion because it is different from other sign languages. Never-the-less it does lack many of the features that DCSLs would adopt after the establishment of deaf schools. There is also no clear evidence of any deaf community of handtalk users that I have come accross.
  2. Re-Occurrence: this one is strange because of said limits. If all that is necessary for re-occurrence is "some people communicated with their hands" then this fits the bill. If "it was a full sign language" is required then less so. Never the less this shows another condition where a sign-language-like-thing and a community that signs can re-occur outside of just a deaf school.
  3. Continuous Transmission: two questions are of importance here 1) where did Hantalk come from? and 2) did it contribute to ASL? I think its not too hard to imagine that deaf people had a hand (ha, get it) in the creation of Handtalk, but its also not too hard to imagine the opposite. Additionally if it can be believed that Handtalk did contribute to ASL that is a helper towards the CT theory, but not a slam dunk. 

Homesigns

Homesigns are communication systems used by individual deaf people and their loved ones around them. They are developed almost entirely separate from any community and language. 

This is an example of idioglossia - individual language. It is similar to cryptophasia - where twins will creat a language / communication system between themselves that only the two twins know. 

Homesigns can vary a lot in complexity. Some can be very simple systems that amount to gesturing and pointing. Others can get remarkably complex. From the Wikipedia:

However, there are certain "resilient" properties of language whose development can proceed without guidance of a conventional language model. More recent studies of deaf children's gestural systems show systematicity and productivity. Across users, these systems tend to exhibit a stable lexicon, word order tendency, complex sentence usage, and noun-verb pairs. They have also been shown to have the property of recursion, which allows systems to be generative. Deaf children may borrow spoken language gestures, but these gestures are altered to serve as linguistic markers. As the child develops, their utterances grow in size and complexity. Adult home signers use systems that mature to display more linguistic features than the simpler systems used by child home signers.

 All of this is to say that homesigns are both language like and sign language like. When developed to their fullest they end up looking quite like sign languages - with OSV word order, iconicity and consistent NMFs.

Also from the Wikipedia:

Deaf children who use home sign are distinguished from feral children who are deprived of meaningful social and linguistic interaction. Home signing children are socially integrated to an extent with lack of conventional linguistic interaction. Home sign systems have some elements of language, and children who use these systems are able to acquire a natural sign language later in school.

It is notable that homesigns come from nowhere and tend not to be passed on at all. If the deaf person joins a deaf community - the homesigns tend to be lost within a few generations. They could form the basis of a sign language as it is first starting out.

  1. A-Priori: in order to fit this within an a-priori framework you would have to consider homesigns not to be "true" language or "true" sign language. It is true they are not as wide or complete as full sign languages but they do display many of the features. I think this is evidence against a-priori.  
  2. Re-Occurrence: this is the strongest evidence for re-occurrence - that even a single deaf individual along with others around them willing to sign with them and create a system together, is enough for a sign language to form. That is not quite the same thing as a deaf community forming, but it is better than nothing.
  3. Continuous Transmission: the only argument for CT within this framework is that homesigns can become sign languages when deaf people come together. However this seems to be the exception, not the rule, and the vast majority of homesign systems are lost when the deaf person either dies or joins a deaf community.

Ottoman / Harem Sign Language

 This is a fascinating example. In the Ottoman (modern day Türkiye) empire the Sultan's (ruler) court and palace were places where silence was enforced. As such dilsiz (afaik it means "mute") were deaf signing servants who were highly valued because they could communicate silently and could not overhear sensitive information. This started out as two deaf brothers but more were hired as time went by. Their language, (which was variably called Ottoman Sign Language (Osmanlı İşaret Dili), Seraglio Sign Language (Saray İşaret Dili) or Harem Sign Language (Harem İşaret Dili) and I will abbreviate to OİD) became highly respected amongst these Ottoman courts. 

Similar practices also occurred in Africa and the Arab/Muslim world according to some sources.

The Wikipedia page states:

 Nothing is known of it directly, but it is reported that it could communicate ideas of any complexity, and that it was passed on to the young through fables, histories, and scripture.

That sounds like a sign language to me!

 It is unknown whether OİD became modern Turkish Sign Language (TİD) as very little of OİD was recorded.

  1. A-Priori: once again evidence against A-Priori, unless you consider this "like a deaf school" in that it is deaf people being brought together. 
  2. Re-Occurrence: a pretty clear slam-dunk for re-occurrence, especially if we assume OİD to have started with the brothers and not to be related to TİD. There is pretty clear evidence of these deaf people forming a community with OİD being their language.
  3. Continuous Transmission: a juicy possibility for CT. If OİD came from a pre-extant sign language of the deaf community in somewhere like Istanbul/Constantinople (not sure which it was at the time) and is related to TİD (along with both communities being related), then that is a pretty clear case of CT.

Ancient Sign Languages

So ancient mentions of sign languages and deaf people are sporadic but do exist. We have to tease out the implications, we have no smoking gun.

Socrates (recorded by Plato) said the following:

SOCRATES:
Very good; but then how do the primary names which precede analysis show the natures of things, as far as they can be shown; which they must do, if they are to be real names? And here I will ask you a question: Suppose that we had no voice or tongue, and wanted to communicate with one another, should we not, like the deaf and dumb, make signs with the hands and head and the rest of the body?

HERMOGENES:
There would be no choice, Socrates.

SOCRATES:
We should imitate the nature of the thing; the elevation of our hands to heaven would mean lightness and upwardness; heaviness and downwardness would be expressed by letting them drop to the ground; if we were describing the running of a horse, or any other animal, we should make our bodies and their gestures as like as we could to them.

HERMOGENES:
I do not see that we could do anything else.

SOCRATES:
We could not; for by bodily imitation only can the body ever express anything.

HERMOGENES:
Very true.

His focus was not on deaf people themselves, but instead he was making a broader point about words. That words are ultimately only approximations of what they refer to - they are not the same thing as, nor are they the only way to refer to something.

But within this we get indications that he knew of something that deaf people did. He either knew deaf people, or had seen them signing. Even his interlocutor doesn't seem confused by this, he responds basically by saying "yeah sure". This of course doesn't indicate he knows much, but instead that he isn't surprised.

And some of the details Socrates gives are interesting:

  • uses hands - yeah duh
  • uses head - could be NMFs
  • uses the rest of the body - could be NMFs
  • lifting hands up to mean "upward" and "lightness" - abstract thinking
  • dropping them to the ground to mean "down" and "heavy" - abstract thinking
  • pretending to be animals such as horses - could be iconicity or classifiers
Details are scant of course, and you could just as easily interpret this to be a signed system used by a language deprived deaf person. 

This is probably the clearest mention of sign language in the ancient world. There are a few others. In Ancient Egypt there is a papyrus saying:

“one who is deaf and does not hear, to whom men make (signs) with the hand” 

Koller Papyrus dated ca. 1200 BCE (Gardiner 1911) 

But this is exceedingly unclear as to what those signs were like. Additionally there are some African folk legends:

Folk legends from the southern Bantu people mention the woman Luojoyo communicating by sign with her one hand. The “deaf-mute” Muwende-Lutanana and others also used signs (Mutwa 1998). Signed communication was a recognized activity in these stories handed down over centuries.

There is also:

354-430 AD – Augustine believed that “faith cometh by hearing” so deafness is a hindrance to faith. However, he believed that Deaf people could learn and thus were able to receive faith and salvation. He referred to bodily movements, signs, and gestures, and believed that these modes were capable of transmitting thought and belief. He implied they were equal to spoken language in terms of reaching the soul.

  1. A-Priori: you could easily assume that all of the mentioned people were language deprived and were using simple sign systems rather than full sign languages. This is in-line enough with the evidence.
  2. Re-Occurrence: however you could also argue that these are cases of sign languages occurring as far back as we have written records. Not very good records, but still some. That whatever languages / communication systems they used, they likely made themselves.   
  3. Continuous Transmission: there is no evidence of CT here. There is also no evidence against CT here.

Population Estimates

I want to briefly do some napkin maths. Estimates for prevailence of hearing loss vary depending on how wide a net you cast. Lets try to exclude hard of hearing people (by which I mean those who can still use speech under the right conditions) along with late deafened for a moment. I can't exactly account for the amount of children who went deaf at a young age due to diseases such as scatlet fever or meningitis - but up until recently these deseases were far more prevailent than they are now.

About 2 to 3 out of every 1,000 children in the United States are born with a detectable level of hearing loss in one or both ears.

Lets assume 2 out of 3 were hard of hearing, and 1 out of those 3 are severely or profoundly deaf - or otherwise would not acquire spoken language without significant intervention.

So we have a 1 in 1,000 figure.

The population of Paris in 17th-18th century was estimated to be around half a million - so approx 500,000 people. At rates of 1 in 1,000 that would produce 500 severely / profoundly deaf people.

Like I covered way up above - there was estimated to be a community of around 200 deaf people using VLSF. This is within the correct order of magnitude. Perhaps my estimate is incorrect and it is more like 0.5 in 1,000 - or perhaps it is that around half of the 1 in 1,000 ever found eachother and form a community - the other half remaining language deprived.

Also notably - after the establishment of L'Épée's deaf school this community didn't go away. It likely grew as more children were educated in these schools than before - and the school attracted children from around France. Desloges was one-such example (IIRC) who was from a rural area but got sent to the school in Paris.

Similarly during the 5th century BCE when Socrates mentioned this potential sign languages 250,000. If we assume the 1 in 1,000 number then we get around 250 deaf people. If we assume, like we saw with the deaf community in Paris, that round half of those are actually part of a community - then we get a a deaf community of around 175 people.

The threshold to have a deaf community as such would therefore likely be a minimum population of around 50,000 - from which we would expect a tiny deaf community of around 25-50 deaf people. But if there are is a population of 100,000 (50-100 deaf people) or greater - I think the likelihood of forming these urban deaf communities becomes greater and greater. Add to this also the assumption that some of these would be deaf families (either totally or in large part deaf) who form the nucleus of the community. 

Lets look at this through the lenses:
  1. A-Priori: if these urban deaf communities existed, we would have to assume that they only had sign systems in order to be compatible with the a-priori theory. We would assume that they don't meet in childhood but in adulthood and thus are still severely language deprived.
  2. Re-Occurrence: I think this is a pretty big win for re-occurrence. The fact that an urban centre with a certain number of people is mathematically likely to produce a deaf community is very indicative of re-occurrence. It could be assumed that such a community would produce a sign language - perhaps not within the first generation - and perhaps not one all were fluent in - but one that CODAs and deaf people introduced to it young enough would be fluent in. 
  3. Continuous Transmission: I think this is somewhat challenging for CT. While an empire could perhaps spread its sign language as multiple cities rise - the fact that these deaf communities would collapse when a city's population does would make continuous transmission harder. As such these urban sign languages would need other refuges in-between the rise and fall of these urban deaf communities. Some of the above suggestions do provide that.

Evidence of Language Deprivation & Audism

All of the above doesn't negate the fact that yes, a LOT of deaf people in history were language deprived. However it is sometimes hard to distinguish between what is a sign of language deprivation versus audism.

Looking into the history again I am struggling to find concrete examples. But two examples I do know of are those of deaf-blind individuals from Touch, Touch and Touch Again, from Chapter 2 A Sad Case and a Contented Man.

The first is David Gilbert Tale who was described as extremely deprived. He lived in a hovel and moved around largely squatting or on his knees. He interacted with the world by touch and was very emotionally attached to his mother. He didn't seem to communicate and was described over-all as being quite unhappy.

The second is James Eroll Michel. He seems to have lived a much happier life. While unable to communicate he seems to have interacted with both others and the world around him quite a lot. He also seems to have lived to a decent age. It is said 'His "powers of mind" and his "avid curiosity" impressed all those who met him.'

 Deafblind people are even more complicated than deaf people in terms of both history and life experiences. But I raise these two examples to give two quite stark examples of similarly language deprived individuals that had very different life experiences. I highly recommend reading Touch Touch and Touch Again. 

Aristotle also said:

“Those born deaf all become senseless and incapable of reason” 

Is this a case of Aristotle having known some language deprived people and commenting  based on that? Or is this him being ignorant and audist? 

Similarly there is an ancient poem:

99-55 BC – Lucretius, a Latin Poet who wrote only one poem. In his poem, he wrote, “To Instruct the deaf, no art can ever reach, no care to improve them, and no wisdom teach.” His one work was titled De Rerum Natura.

 Once again is this language deprivation or audism? 

I won't be going into all the details and symptoms of language deprivation (I reccomend you check out the Sanjay Gulati paper and/or lecture I have linked above for that), but that being said I think it might be prudent to group types of language deprivation:

  • Absolute Deprivation & Isolation - a person with no language or communication skills whatsosever - may be able to point but that's it.
  • Commutation Capable with Communal Language Deprivation - a person who has a form of communication, be that a sign system or home-signs, but has no communal language they share. Their communication system is likely somewhat limited. These people are not as isolated but still lack any true community participation.
  • Partially Language Deprived - a person who was language deprived (either of the above) but later learnt a language.
These are my own terms and are not exhaustive. My point is to raise that language deprivation is not a monolith and even within it there are multiple levels.

Now the last one of the three is only partially relevant, because for this to be the case we must assume there is a communal language to be had. We see the case of this in some students in the Nicaraguan deaf school. In studies we see that their language skills do develop, but not to the same extent that those who received full language during the entire critical period do.

The middle one is the most complex - and covers examples like Maria Noname. She clearly has some ability and desire to communicate - but it is not at the level most people need.

Lastly the top one is the case of absolute deprivation. This would essentially require that the person has nobody around them even willing to try communicating with them. I think this is rarer than some of the "lesser" (but still bad) forms of language deprivation as it basically requires that you are neglected as well as deprived of language. I think this is likely true in history also.

Conclusions

During your post you wrote;

I hold a deep conviction that all of the deaf people who have ever existed before the epoch of deaf schools are likely to have led a life that closely parallels Genie's [language deprivation].

 [...]

So where I'm going with this is that I view the deaf community's proclamation on deaf schools and the development of sign language as the true beginning of the "deaf community" as a harmful one. It is because that worldview ignores the existence of deaf people prior to the emergence of deaf schools. 

And, no, their acknowledgement of records showing the existence of sign language prior to the emergence of deaf schools doesn't count as an acknowledgement of the deaf community prior to the emergence of deaf schools.

 I am a little confused what your view is. Is it that these schools are the start of sign languages / deaf communities or aren't?

 Either way I think it depends on what you call "the deaf community". Of course nothing like Deaf communities nor the Deaf World as we know it today existed. That does seem to have started with the deaf schools - and we have evidence of early local, national and international communities forming pretty soon after the deaf schools were established.

But what would count?

  • Does the Ottoman court count? Or is that too much of a "flash in the pan" moment?
  • Do deaf villages count? Or are they too spread out?
  • Do urban centres where deaf people know each-other count? I cannot think of a good counter-argument here.
 My contention here is not with the concept that many/most deaf people were language deprived. That seems an obvious fact. Even the existence of large national sign languages doesn't stop that happening today. My contention is with "all". With the concept that sign languages and deaf communities started with the deaf schools, with no antecedents before them.

So… yeah. I really do think 99% of the history of deaf people is full of Genies walking around and living a very cold and dark existence.

 99% is still a large percentage. I fully agree that a LARGE portion experienced this. But I my argument, on the whole, was that there were significant pockets of those who experienced community. Yes they still likely experienced language deprivation too, but they had a community and forms of communication.

 And the way you describe it as "cold and dark" for all of that 99% troubles me a little too. Of course I do not mean to minimise the suffering that language deprivation often brings - but like I tried to emphasise in the part above - it is not a monolith. 

 Genie's case is particularly bad precisely because she was a victim of neglect and abuse. But there are different experiences within language deprivation much like any condition. Additionally those who have an extensive system of homesigns (enough to be bordering on language) are not considered language deprived in the same way that fully language deprived people are. I think to write off language deprived people in history as all having lived "cold and dark" lives is premature - many seemingly lived as part of their communities as best that their communities could accommodate them at the time. 

 I think perhaps its useful for us to go through the possible lives of deaf people in history (pre-deaf school). 
  1. If you were born in a rural area with no other deaf people, and a family unwilling to sign to you, you would likely have been language deprived. This probably accounts for most deaf people.
  2. If you were born to the same as the above but with a family willing to sign - you might create a home sign system of your own. You may still be somewhat language deprived, but not quite as language deprived.
  3. If you were born in a large urban centre then you may have been in contact with other deaf individuals. Hopefully contact with them occurred early enough for you to acquire some language. Even if not, then hopefully you could claw some language use and community back. 
  4. If you were born into one of the lucky scenarios were hearing people used sign languages for another purpose (Monastic, Handtak etc) then you might learn that as a language.
  5. If you were born to a village or area with a high amount of genetic deafness - then you would find yourself lucky to be part of a community that can sign
 I don't think I can easily put percentage values on any of these, but I don't think any of them are 99% (that is to say overwhelming majorities). But even if the majority are absolutely language deprived - the deaf community has always been a small minority - and it only takes a small community of dedicated users to keep a language going.

 None of this is of course to say that it would have been easy being a deaf person in history, or that deaf life was utopian before hearing people tried to interfere.

For the various theories here is my verdict:

    A-Priori

 While tempting at first I think there is enough counter-evidence to rule out a strong version of this claim. There are clearly other conditions that produce or preserve sign languages and deaf communities - and clear evidence that there were contributors to sign languages outside of and before the deaf schools. Deaf schools (and educators of the deaf) did not create sign languages and deaf communities out of nothing - they existed before that. The deaf schools did, however, make sign languages and deaf communities what they are today.

    Re-Occurrence

 This seems like the most reasonable of all the theories. The conditions for sign language, and thus for deaf signers / deaf communities, aren't just limited to the establishment of deaf schools. Thus it is likely that sign languages and signing communities have been popping up and disappearing like bubbles on the surface of a boiling pan of water for all of human history. And where/when they did occur - they benefitted the lives of deaf people who would have otherwise been language deprived.

    Continuous Transmission

 But despite the above I cannot get continuous transmission out of my head. The evidence is all circumstantial. There are clear cases of sign languages transmitting, but this cannot easily be woven into a bigger picture. There is lots of evidence which could point in the direction, but could also be a mirage.

 Continuous Transmission is therefore my hot take. That more sign languages are connected globally than we currently realise because who transmitted them when has been lost. That perhaps even British and French sign languages are related by a number of forgotten connections way back in history during the Roman Empire. Perhaps even that sign language Socrates spoke of is related via the Greek's connections with the Romans.

 Within this model sign languages form initially as home sign systems, if they are lucky they get adopted by hearing people for a separate purpose, an urban deaf community or a village with a high proportion of deaf people. From there these sign languages are passed back and forth like a hot potato. A village sign language can become an urban sign language when a said villagers moves to a city. An urban sign language does the opposite when populations drop and former city-dwellers begin living in villages. The sign languages that hearing people use for their own purposes are either learnt from or taught to deaf people sometimes, influencing and being influenced by deaf signers.

I cannot prove this. But it is my belief.

//

I want to say to you, Helen, that this letter / article is not meant to be completely tearing down your view. I think it is mostly a respectable one. It is just one I disagree with.

I don't pretend to know all the answers or the answers I present here be the be-all-end-all of the discussion.