SIGN TALK
_A Universal Signal Code, Without Apparatus,
for Use in the Army, the Navy, Camping,
Hunting, and Daily Life_
By
Ernest Thompson Seton
_Author of “Wild Animals I Have Known,”
“Life Histories of Northern Animals,”
“The Book of Woodcraft,” etc., etc._
_Chief of the Woodcraft League of America_
THE GESTURE LANGUAGE OF THE CHEYENNE INDIANS
With additional Signs used by other tribes,
also a few necessary Signs from the code
of the Deaf in Europe and America, and
others that are established among
our Policemen, Firemen,
Railroad Men, and
School Children
IN ALL 1,725
Prepared with assistance from
General Hugh L. Scott, U. S. A.
The French and German equivalent words added by
Lillian Delger Powers, M. D.
700 ILLUSTRATIONS BY THE AUTHOR
GARDEN CITY NEW YORK
DOUBLEDAY, PAGE & COMPANY
1918
_Copyright, 1918, by_
ERNEST THOMPSON SETON
_All rights reserved, including that of
translation into foreign languages,
including the Scandinavian_
PREFACE
In offering this book to the public after having had the manuscript
actually on my desk for more than nine years, let me say frankly that no
one realizes better than myself, now, the magnitude of the subject and
the many faults of my attempt to handle it.
My attention was first directed to the Sign Language in 1882 when I went
to live in Western Manitoba. There I found it used among the various
Indian tribes as a common language, whenever they were unable to
understand each other’s speech. In later years I found it a daily
necessity when traveling among the natives of New Mexico and Montana,
and in 1897, while living among the Crow Indians at their agency near
Fort Custer, I met White Swan, who had served under General George A.
Custer as a Scout. He had been sent across country with a message to
Major Reno, so escaped the fatal battle; but fell in with a party of
Sioux, by whom he was severely wounded, clubbed on the head, and left
for dead. He recovered and escaped, but ever after was deaf and
practically dumb. However, sign-talk was familiar to his people and he
was at little disadvantage in daytime. Always skilled in the gesture
code, he now became very expert; I was glad indeed to be his pupil, and
thus in 1897 began seriously to study the Sign Language.
In 1900 I included a chapter on Sign Language in my projected Woodcraft
Dictionary, and began by collecting all the literature. There was much
more than I expected, for almost all early travellers in our Western
Country have had something to say about this _lingua franca_ of the
Plains.
As the material continued to accumulate, the chapter grew into a
Dictionary, and the work, of course, turned out manifold greater than
was expected. The Deaf, our School children, and various European
nations, as well as the Indians, had large sign vocabularies needing
consideration. With all important print on the subject I am fairly well
conversant, besides which I have had large opportunities in the field
and have tried to avail myself of them to the fullest extent, carrying
my manuscript from one Indian tribe to another, seeking out always the
best sign-talkers among them, collecting and revising, aiming to add all
the best signs in use to those already on record.
* * * * *
The following are the chief printed works on Sign Language:
=1823. The Indian Language of Signs= by Major Stephen H. Long, published
in his Expedition to the Rocky Mts., 1823, Vol. I, pp. 378–394. Gives
104 signs. The earliest extensive vocabulary on record.
=1880. Gesture Signs and Signals of the North American Indians= by
Lieut. Col. Garrick Mallery. An elaborate and valuable 330 page quarto
compilation from many contributors; published by the Bureau of American
Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution, 1880.
It was preliminary to the much more extended work published the year
following, and combines in itself all the important vocabularies
published up to that time, including: _Wm. Dunbar’s List_ pub. Trans.
Am. Phil. Soc., January 16, 1801; about 60 signs; _Prince Maximilian von
Wied-Neuwied’s List_, Reise, Nord. Am., 1832–34, 1837; _Capt. R. F.
Burton’s List_ pub. in “The City of the Saints,” 1862; _Dr. D. G.
MacGowan’s List_ pub. in _Historical Magazine_, Vol. X, 1866, pp. 86–97;
also Manuscript Lists supplied by _Col. R. I. Dodge_, _Dr. William H.
Corbusier_, U. S. A., and about forty other contributors.
=1881. Sign Language Among the North American Indians= compared with
that among other peoples and Deaf Mutes, by Col. Garrick Mallery; 290
page quarto, 286 illustrations, an elaborate examination of the history,
origin, and nature of the Sign Language, with extensive vocabularies.
Published in 1st Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, 1881.
=1885. The Indian Sign Language= by Capt. William Philo Clark, U. S. A.,
244 pp. octavo, quite the best book on the subject, giving over 1,000
signs with photographic exactness; it is also one of the best early
encyclopedic books on Indians in general; unfortunately, it is without
illustrations and is out of print. Published by Hamersly & Co., of
Philadelphia, 1885.
This is practically the only publication quoted in preparing this work.
I have referred to it continually as a standard—as the highest available
authority. (W. P. Clark was born July 27, 1845, at Deer River, Lewis
Co., New York. Graduated from West Point June 15, 1868. Served on the
Plains in 2d Cavalry during the Indian wars of 1876 to 1880. Died at
Washington, D. C., September 23, 1884.)
HADLEY INDIAN SIGN PRINTS
About twenty-five years ago there lived in Anadarko, Indian Territory,
an enthusiastic missionary worker named Lewis F. Hadley, known to the
Indians as Ingonompashi.
He made a study of Sign Language in order to furnish the Indians with a
pictographic writing, based on diagrams of the signs, and meant to be
read by all Indians, without regard to their speech. Pointing to the
Chinese writing as a model and parallel, he made a Sign Language font of
4,000 pictographic types for use in his projected works. He maintained
that 110,793 Indians were at that time sign-talkers and he proposed to
reach them by Sign-Language publications.
In pursuance of his plan, he issued the following:
=1887. List of the Primary Gestures in Indian Sign Talk.= “Only 19
copies were printed.” It was intended as a prodrome to “_extended works
and a magazine in Hands-tal[k]ing_.”
It consists of 63 pages with 684 crude woodblocks of white lines on
black ground, illustrating signs, alphabetically arranged, but without
captions or text of any kind, except the explanation on the title page,
abridged as above.
=1890. A Lesson in Sign Talk=, designed to show the use of the line
showing the movement of the hands in the Indian Gesture Language, by
In-go-nom-pa-shi, Fort Smith, Ark., 1890. Copyrighted by Lewis F.
Hadley, 12 pp. A portrait of him by himself is on p. 11, inscribed
“In-go-nom-pa-shi, drawn by himself at 60 years.”
It devotes 3 pages to general discussion of Sign Talk, 1½ pages to
reform of our spelling, the rest is given to general remarks with 12
poor illustrations in white line, also a Scripture text with 15 signs
drawn, the Lord’s Prayer with 55 drawn signs, and on p. 12, The Indian
Little Star, a novel version of “Twinkle, Twinkle,” rendered in 97 drawn
signs.
=1893. Indian Sign Talk.= Being a Book of Proofs of the matter printed
or equivalent cards designed for teaching sign-talking Indians as much
English as can be explained through the medium of their “Universal”
Gesture Language, by Ingonompashi, copyrighted May 15, 1893, “only 75
copies are saved.”
This is Hadley’s most extended work. It is a dictionary of the Sign
Language, in 268 large octavo leaves printed on one side only of each
sheet.
It consists of 9 pages of Preface and general matter, 192 pp. of
dictionary alphabetically arranged, each page having three gestures
figured and beside each the equivalent in English. A total of 577 signs
(including a double). Pages 193 to 205 are given to small reproductions
of the sign drawings to illustrate “measurements of type”—his font—about
800 illustrations, two pages of appendix with compound sign words, and
14 illustrations, 1 page of black type, 18 in number, 53 pages of
reading matter in signs, the above cited version of “Twinkle, Twinkle,
Little Star” and the story of “Wolf and the White Man” in signs; the
rest being Scripture texts and exhortations and the 19th Psalm, ending
with the Lord’s Prayer.
The cards referred to I have. They consist of 571 separate cards with an
illustrated sign on each and additional matter on the back. Besides
which there are about 100 separate cards each with a scripture text,
chapter, or sermonette on it, about 1,000 illustrations in all. The same
being the matter of the dictionary proper reproduced on separate cards,
the diagram on one side and the text on the other. The front matter and
the type measurements do not, however, appear on the cards. Though poor
as art, the drawings are of some value to the student.
This is the most ambitious work extant on the subject of Sign Language,
but seems to be quite unknown to most ethnologists, and is not in any
library, so far as I can learn, except the Library of Congress, the
Smithsonian Institution, the New York Public Library, the Library of
Prof. J. C. Elsom of Wisconsin State University, and my own collection.
Of the 75 copies issued, only these 5 have been accounted for, but cards
comprising the dictionary part were issued to the extent of 100,000 in
sets of 571 each, and the reading matter on cards to the number of over
27,000.
=1910. The Sign Language=, by Prof. J. Schuyler Long, State School for
the Deaf, Council Bluffs, Iowa, published at Washington, D. C., 1910. A
valuable dictionary of about 1,500 signs used by the deaf, with 500
admirable photographic illustrations. Of these signs a large number seem
to be arbitrary, but many are evidently of good construction and quite
acceptable to Indian sign-talkers.
To these should be added:
=1832. La Mimica=, by Andrea de Jorio. “La mimica degli antichi
investigata nel Gestire Napoletano.” Napoli, 1832, 8vo, 372 pp., 21
plates.
This interesting Italian work on Sign Language was written to show that
the gestures figured on antique vases, etc., may be explained by their
modern parallels, especially as observed in Naples. The 21 plates
illustrate about one hundred of these gestures—about half of these are
reproduced in Mallery’s 1881 publication.
=1854. Dactylologie= by Louis de Mas-Latrie. “Dictionnaire de
Paleographie.” _Tome Quarante-septième_, pp. 179 to 366.
An extended study of Finger-talking as used by the deaf, the savages,
etc. About 30 American Indian signs are described and compared with
those of the deaf. No illustrations.
=1878. The Gesture Language=, by E. B. Tyler, in his studies in “Early
History of Mankind,” third edition, 1878, pp. 14–81.
An interesting but not very important dissertation on the Gesture
Language in use among the deaf, the Cistercian Monks, and the American
Indians. No illustrations.
=1883. Sign Language, Remarks on=, by Wilfred Powells in his “Wanderings
in a Wild Country.” An account of a three years’ residence in New
Britain (to the north of New Guinea), 1883, pp. 254–261, with 14 good
figures, showing the digital origin of numbers.
=1896. Arunta Sign Language=, E. C. Stirling. Rep. Horn Scientific
Exped. to Central Australia; IV, pp. 111–125.
A considerable discourse on the Sign Language as used by the very
primitive races. Many figures.
* * * * *
My thanks are due to General Hugh Lenox Scott, U. S. A., one of the best
living sign-talkers, for a general review of the text, with new signs
and explanations as indicated.
To John Homer Seger of Colony, Oklahoma, for much assistance. He was for
45 years in official control of the Indians at Darlington and Colony,
Oklahoma. They were of the Southern Cheyenne, Kiowa, and Arapaho tribes
chiefly. All his communications with them were in the Sign Language, so
that he became one of our best experts. We have corresponded much, and
during a prolonged visit to his home in August, 1915, we together went
over every sign in this Manual. His signs were of the Cheyenne dialect.
To the Reverend Walter C. Roe (since dead) of Colony, Oklahoma, for many
notes and comments. He was so expert that he preached every Sunday in
the Sign Language.
To Sheeaka, or Cyiaka (The Mudhen), a Yanktonnais Sioux living at
Standing Rock. He worked over my entire manuscript with me in 1912,
endorsing most of the signs given by Clark, as well as adding those that
are accredited to him. He was considered the best sign-talker on the
reservation. His familiarity with the Sign Language was largely due to
the fact that a member of his family was a deaf-mute, so that he has
kept up the method while others of his generation are forgetting it.
Frank Zahn, an intelligent and educated half-breed, acted as interpreter
and helped with many suggestions.
In the autumn of 1916 I took my manuscript to Montana and received
valuable help from the following Blackfoot Indians:
Bearhead, an old-time, full-blooded Piegan Indian, with a pronounced
contempt for modern ways and modern signs; George Starr or Bull Calf, a
half-blood, who acted as interpreter for Bearhead; Medicine Owl, Eagle
Child, Three Bears, Two-Guns Whitecalf; all full-blooded Piegans and
excellent sign-talkers.
Heavy Breast, a half-blood, acted as interpreter, with assistance from
James C. Grant.
I am also indebted to Chasing Bear (Ma-to Hu-wa-pi), a Santee, and to
Chief Tom Frosted, a Yanktonnais; both of Standing Rock. About a dozen
good signs were given me by C. B. Ruggles, of Taos, New Mexico; and
helpful information was received from Thomas La Forge, official
interpreter for the Crow Nation, and Clitzo Dead-man, an educated Navaho
at Ganado, Arizona.
In the spring of 1917 I spent some time among the Cheyennes at Concho,
Oklahoma, checking up my lists. My chief source of information was
Robert Burns, an intelligent and educated Cheyenne, who spoke excellent
English and was also a good sign-talker. At the same time I got much
valuable assistance from Cheyenne Fanny (Mrs. Hamilton), Deafy Fletcher,
and numerous old Cheyennes and Arapahoes about the Post. Father Isadore,
of the St. Patrick’s Mission, Anadarko, Oklahoma, and the Reverend
Sherman Coolidge (Arapahoe), of Sheridan, Wyoming, also contributed.
In the case of special or unusual signs, I give the name of the best of
my authorities; but when, according to my own observation, the sign is
in general use and indorsed by practically all, no authority is cited.
I have to thank my friends James Mooney and F. W. Hodge of the
Smithsonian Institution, and Professor J. Schuyler Long, of Council
Bluffs, Iowa, for much helpful criticism; Professor Elmer D. Read, of
the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf, for a review of the Introduction;
also, Doctor Charles A. Eastman (Ohiyesa), Colonel W. F. Cody (Buffalo
Bill), Hamlin Garland, Miss Frances Densmore, and Mrs. Mary Austin for
contributions or criticism.
For the French and German equivalent words I am chiefly indebted to
Doctor Lillian Delger Powers, of Mt. Kisco, New York. Some assistance
was given by Miss Dorothy Dwenger, of Greenwich, Connecticut, and Harry
G. Seides, Professor of German, Jersey City High School, New Jersey.
The drawings throughout are by myself.
ERNEST THOMPSON SETON.
INTRODUCTION
ITS ANTIQUITY
Many thoughtful men have been trying for a century, at least, to give
mankind a world-speech which would overstep all linguistic barriers, and
one cannot help wondering why they have overlooked the Sign Language,
the one mode common to all mankind, already established and as old as
Babel. Yes, more ancient than the hills.
As far back as the records go, we find the Sign Language in use. General
Hugh L. Scott has pointed out nineteen examples in Homer. Greek vases,
Japanese bronzes, ancient Hindu statuary, as well as songs and legends
older than history, give testimony in like tenor. While Egyptologists
remind us that the oldest records show, not only that the Sign Language
was then used, but that the one original code was much like that in use
to-day. The fact that it is yet found all over the world wherever man is
man, is proof of its being built on human nature in the beginnings. We
might even argue that it is more ancient than speech.
Ideas certainly came before the words that express them. The idea of
“hunger” must be a thousand times as old as any existing “word” for
“hunger.” When it became necessary to communicate to another the idea of
hunger, it certainly was easier and more direct to communicate it by
gesture than by word. The word had, perforce, to be more or less
arbitrary, but the gesture was logical, and could at once indicate the
pain, its place, and even hint at the cause.
The possible variations of a mere squeak in a concealed pipe are
obviously less in number and far less graphic and logical than the
various movements of two active, free-moving, compound, visible parts of
the body that utilize all the dimensions of space, all the suggestions
of speed, motion, physical form and action, juxtaposition, yes, even a
measure of sound, and that could in a multitude of cases reproduce the
very idea itself.
Animals have far more gestures to express thoughts and emotions than
they have sounds, and children instinctively use gestures for various
ideas long before they acquire the sound for them. In all races as a
rule the very young children’s gestures are the same, but the different
words imposed by the different mothers have little or nothing in common,
and no obvious basis in logic. All of which goes to prove the greater
antiquity of eye-talk over ear-talk. To which conclusion we are forced
also by the superiority of sight over hearing as a sense. “Seeing is
believing,” is convincement: hearing is more open to challenge.
Nor can the sign-talk have changed radically, for it is founded on the
basic elements of human make-up, and on mathematics, and is so perfectly
ideographic that no amount of bad presentation can completely divert
attention from the essential thought to the vehicle; while punning is an
impossibility.
It had all the inherent possibilities of speech, was indeed capable of
even greater subtleties, as we have noted, and had a far greater
distance range, three or four times that of spoken words.
In view of the greater antiquity and many advantages that hand gestures
have over spoken language, one is prompted to ask: Why did it not
develop and continue man’s chief mode of inter-communication? The answer
is, doubtless, partly because it was useless in the dark or when the
person was out of sight or partly hidden by intervening things.
Diagrammatically expressed it was thus:
[Illustration]
Speech therefore covers all directions night and day.
Gesture covers one-third of the circle in hours of light.
Therefore speech serves six times as many occasions as gesture.
But the chief reason for the triumph of the appeal to the ear is
doubtless because the hands were in constant use for other things; the
tongue was not; was indeed practically free to specialize for this end.
ITS UNIVERSALITY
Being so fundamental, ancient, and persistent, Sign Language is,
_perforce_, universal. In some measure it is used by every race on earth
to-day. Eskimo and Zulu, Japanese and Frenchman, Turk and Aztec, Greek
and Patagonian. And whenever two men of hopelessly diverse speech have
met, they have found a medium of thought exchange in the old Sign
Language—the pantomimic suggestion of ideas.
Latin races are proverbially hand-talkers, so that the Sign Language is
more widely used among them than with Anglo-Saxons.
But the American Plains Indian is undoubtedly the best sign-talker the
world knows to-day. There are, or were, some thirty different tribes
with a peculiar speech of their own, and each of these communicated with
the others by use of the simple and convenient sign-talk of the plains.
It is, or was, the language of Western trade and diplomacy as far back
as the records go. Every traveller who visited the Buffalo Plains had
need to study and practise this Western Volapuk, and all attest its
simplicity, its picturesqueness, its grace, and its practical utility.
Many of the best observers among these have left us long lists of signs
in use, Alexander Henry in his gossipy journal among the Mandans of the
Missouri in 1806 tells us of the surprise and interest he felt in
watching two Indian chiefs of different tribes who conversed freely for
hours on all subjects of common interest, conveying their ideas
accurately by nothing but simple gestures.
The European races are much less gifted as sign-talkers. But we all have
a measure of it that is a surprise to most persons when first confronted
with the facts. Our school children especially make daily use of the
ancient signals.
AMONG SCHOOL CHILDREN
In taking observations among school-boys and girls, I had this uniform
experience: All denied any knowledge of the Sign Language, _at first_,
but were themselves surprised on discovering how much of it they had in
established use.
One very shy little girl—so shy that she dared not speak—furnished a
good illustration:
“Do you use the Sign Language in your school?” I asked.
She shook her head.
“Do you learn any language but English?”
She nodded.
“What is the use of learning any other than English?”
She raised her right shoulder in the faintest possible shrug and at the
same time turned her right palm slightly up.
“Now,” was my reply, “don’t you see you have answered all my three
questions in signs which you said you did not use?”
Following the subject, I said: “What does this mean?” and held up my
right hand with the first and second fingers crossed.
“Pax,” she whispered; and then, after further trials, I learned that at
least thirty signs were in daily use in that local school.
This was in England. In America the sign “Pax,” or “King’s cross,” is
called “King’s X,” “Fines” or “Fins” or “Fends,” “Bars up” or “Truce,”
meaning always, “I claim immunity.”
This is a very ancient sign and seems to refer to the right of
sanctuary. The name “King’s cross,” used occasionally in England, means
probably the sanctuary in the King’s palace.
In general I found about 150 gesture signals in established use among
American school children, namely:
Me (Tap one’s own chest).
You (Pointing to you).
Yes (Nod).
No (Shake head).
Good (Nod and clap hands).
Bad (Shake head and grimace).
Go (Pushing flat hand forward, palm forward).
Come (Drawing in flat hand, palm toward one).
Hurry (The same repeated vigorously several times).
Come for a moment (Beckon with forefinger, hand unmoved).
Stop (Flat hand held up, palm forward).
Gently (Flat hand held low, palm down, gently waved).
Good-bye (Flat hand held high, palm down and forward, fingers quickly
waved up and down).
Up (Point up).
High (Flat hand, palm down, held up at arm’s length).
Deep (Left flat hand palm down at level of mouth, right palm up, as low
as possible).
Heaven (Point up very high and look up).
Down (Point down).
Forward (Swing index forward and down in a curve).
Backward (Jerk thumb over shoulder).
Across (Hold left hand out flat, palm down, run right index across it).
Over or Above (Hold out flat left, palm down, and above it hold ditto
right).
Under (Reverse of foregoing).
Hush (Index finger on lips).
Listen (Curved hand behind ear).
Look (Flat hand over eyes).
Look there (Point and look in same direction).
Touch (Reach out and touch with index).
Taste (Lay finger on tongue).
Smell (Hold palm to nose).
Friendship (Hand shake).
Warning (Index finger held up).
Threatening (Fist held up).
Weeping (With index finger at each eye, trace course of tears).
Shame on you (Point one index at the person and draw the other along it
several times in same direction).
You make me ashamed (Cover eyes and face with hands).
Mockery (Stick tongue out at person).
Disdain (Snap fingers toward person).
Scorn (Throw an imaginary pinch of sand at person).
Insolent defiance (Thumb to nose, hand spread).
Arrogant (Indicate swelled head).
Pompous (Indicate big chest).
Incredulity (Expose white of eye with finger, as though proving “No
green there”).
I am no fool (Tap one side of the nose).
Joke (Rub side of nose with index).
Connivance (Winking one eye).
Puzzled (Scratch the head).
Crazy (Tap forehead with index then describe a circle with it).
Despair (Pulling the hair).
Sleepy (Put a fist in each eye).
Bellyache (Hands clasped across the belly).
Sick (A grimace and a limp dropping of the hands).
Applause (Clap hands).
Victory (Swing an imaginary flag over head).
Upon my honor (Draw a cross over heart or cross the hands over breast).
I am seeking (Looking about and pointing finger in same directions).
I am thinking (Lay index on brow, lower head and look out under brows).
I have my doubts (Slowly swing head from side to side).
I will not listen (Hold flat hands on ears).
I will not look (Cover eyes with hands).
I forget (Slowly shake head, and brush away something in air, near the
forehead).
I claim exemption, or “Fins” or “Bar up” (Middle finger crossed on
index).
I beg of you (Flat hand palm to palm, pointing to the person).
I pray (Clasped hands held up).
I am afraid, or surrender (Hold up both flat hands, palm forward).
I wind him around my finger (Make the action with right thumb and index
around left index).
I have him under my thumb (Press firmly down with top of right thumb).
You surprise me (Flat hand on open mouth).
I send you a kiss (Kiss the finger tips of right hand and throw it
forward).
Search me (Hold the coat flaps open, one in each hand).
Swim (Strike out with flat hands).
Dive (Flat hands together, moved in a curve, forward and down).
Will you come swimming? (Two fingers in V shape held up level).
Will you? or Is it so? (Look, nod and raise brows).
Fool or Ass (A thumb in each ear, flat hands up).
Cut-throat (Draw index across throat).
Indifference (A shoulder shrug).
Ignorance (A shrug and a head shake).
Pay (Hold out closed hand, palm up, rubbing thumb and index tips
together).
Jew (Flat hands waved near shoulders, palms up).
Bribe (Hold hollow hand, palm up, behind one).
It is in my pocket (Slap pocket with flat hand).
Give me my bill (Beckon, then write on air).
Match (Make the sign of striking a match on the thigh).
Set it afire (Sign match, and then thrust it forward).
Pistol (Making barrel with left index, stock and hammer with right
hooked on; snapping right index from thumb).
That tastes good (Smack the lips).
The food was good (Pat the stomach).
Bad taste (Grimace and spitting out).
Bad smell (Hold the nose).
Bend (With right hand bend left index).
Break (With fists touching, make as though to bend a stick, then swing
the fists apart).
Hot (Wet middle finger in mouth, reach it forward and jerk it back).
Cold (Fists near shoulder and shaken).
Paint (Use flat right as a brush to paint flat left).
Shave (Use finger or thumb on face as a razor).
Wash (Revolve hands on each other as in washing).
Knife (With right fist as though holding knife, whittle left index).
Revolver (Hold out right fist with index extended and thumb up).
Gun or shooting (Hold hands as in aiming a gun).
Drive horses (Work the two fists, side by side).
Give me (Hold out flat hand, palm up).
Write (Make the action with index).
Strike (Strike down with fist).
Fighting (Make the fists menace each other).
Drinking (Lift right hand to mouth as though it held a glass).
Smoking (Make as though holding a pipe and drawing).
Rub it out (Wet tips of right fingers, and seem to rub).
Thank you (Bow and, at the same time, swing flat right, palm up, a
little way down and to one side).
Church (Hands clasped, fingers in, but index fingers up and touching).
Get up (Raise flat right, palm up, from low up high).
Sit down (Drop flat right, palm down, from high, down low).
Here (Pointing down, hand swung in small circle).[1]
In all, 110; besides the compass points, the features of the face, the
parts of the body, the numerals up to 20 or 30, and a great many
half-established signs, such as book, telephone, ring the bell, etc.,
which, if allowed, would bring the number up to nearly 200.
As another line of observation, I have asked New York boys, “How many
signs does the Broadway policeman use in regulating the traffic?” Any
bright child remembers presently that the officer seldom speaks, could
scarcely be heard if he did. Indeed, he relies chiefly on Sign Language
and hourly uses the established signs for “Stop,” “Come on,” “Come
here,” “Go right,” “Go left,” “Go back,” “Hurry up,” “Go easy,” “I warn
you,” “I’ll punish you,” “Pass,” “Keep behind me,” “Scorn,” and,
perhaps, one or two others.
While not infrequently the small boy responds with the sign of “insolent
defiance” that is used the world ’round, and was probably invented by
Cain and Abel.
Similarly, the car conductor uses the signs for “Do you want this car?”
“Do you want transfer?” “How many?” “Go on,” as well as most of the
above.
Evidently, then, the Sign Language is used of necessity in much of our
life where speech is impossible.
CODES, ETC.
It is inevitable that a world-wide language be split into variant forms.
Besides the fragmentary Sign Code among our children, the more copious
list of signs among Latins, and the code of the Cistercian or Trappist
Monks, there are the Deaf Code and the Sign Language of the American
Indians. Only the two last are widely established and at all complete as
languages to-day.
DEAF CODE
The Sign Language used by the deaf was originated in France by Abbé de
l’Epée about 1759, with a view to facilitating the intercommunication of
the deaf. His signs were largely arbitrary or founded on the spelling of
French words, usually in abbreviated form, so that it was merely a
short-hand of French done into finger-spelling.
While this was the case at its beginning, the deaf themselves had
instinctively done so much in the way of introducing pantomime and
expressive gesture, that they have half redeemed the Code from its
unfortunate original plan, and, in so doing, have made themselves
intelligible to an immensely larger audience.
THE INDIAN CODE
So far as I can learn, no student hitherto has compared the various
methods without being convinced that the American Indian Sign Language
is the best extant. It is theoretically perfect and practically
complete. In order to make this evident, I must offer a definition and
some comparative details.
_A true Sign Language is an established code of logical gestures to
convey ideas; and is designed as an appeal to the eye, without the
assistance of sounds, grimaces, apparatus, personal contact, written or
spoken language, or reference to words or letters; preferably made by
using only the hands and adjoining parts of the body._
Measured by these standards, there is only one true Gesture Language in
the field to-day; that is the sign-talk of the American Indians. It is
established over the whole area of the Great Plains; and, though varied
locally, is essentially the same from Saskatchewan to Rio Grande.
In general, it is claimed that there are two well-marked dialects of
this: the northern, which is a _whole hand_ and a _two-hand_ dialect;
the central and southern, which is a _finger_ and _one-hand_ dialect.
The former is better for far signalling; the latter for conversation.
There are, however, many exceptions to these rules; and, in any case,
they are so close akin that Indians from opposite extremes of the Plains
have no difficulty in conversing with each other.
The Cheyennes originally lived in a central region where they had
intercourse with a dozen tribes whose spoken language differed from
their own; so they became very expert sign-talkers, perhaps the best.
They have amplified to the number of several thousand signs, and
simplified until theirs has become largely a one-hand code; therefore,
as far as possible, I make the Cheyenne sign-talk my standard. All signs
herein given I have found in use among the southern Cheyennes and are
understood to be Cheyenne except when another source is specifically
mentioned.
Clark gives first place among gesture talkers to the Cheyennes and their
associates the Arapahoes, whose sign-talk was the same, though their
speech was very different, so that the signs for which he is authority
may also be considered Cheyenne.
The signs given me as Indian by Sheeaka and his friend, Tom Frosted,
should be cautiously received if one would study the ancient code.
Sheeaka had in his family a deaf-mute, who probably imported some signs
from the Deaf Code, as indicated.
In cases where there were different signs for the same idea, I have
selected the simplest and clearest, the least like other signs; or,
other things equal, the one most extensively used, preferring a one-hand
to a two-hand sign.
Usually that sign is best from the locality where the idea is most
familiar. Thus the Sioux sign for “tree squirrel” is poor; the Modoc
sign is very good. The Navaho signs for “domestic sheep” are numerous
and clearly differentiated; those of the north are not, and refer back
to the “bighorn.” Southern signs for “snow” are descriptive and
cumbrous, while those of the northern tribes are simple and perfect.
A COMPARISON OF THE TWO CODES
A comparison of the Deaf and Indian Codes seems to emphasize the
superiority of the Indian. The Deaf was intended to convey, word by
word, a vocal language; it assumes that you know the other man’s speech,
and can spell. Whereas, the Indian was invented to over-ride linguistic
barriers and, knowing nothing of spelling, deals only with ideas.
The next great advantage of Indian style is its picturesqueness. The two
systems can be illustrated and fairly compared by the signs for the
months.
First the Deaf:
January—Sign for _Month_, then _J_, _N_, and _R_, that is 4 signs.
June—Sign for _Month_, then _J_ and _N_, that is 3 signs.
July—Sign for _Month_, then _J_ and _L_, again 3 signs.
Whereas the Indian calls January the _Snow Moon_, thus _moon_ or “Horns
in the sky” and _snow_, that is two signs. June is _Rose Moon_ i.e.,
_horns_ or _Crescent in the sky_ and _rose_ (the right hand plucking an
imaginary petal from each finger tip of the left). July is the _Thunder
Moon_, i.e., _horns in the sky_, then the right index darted downward in
a quick zigzag to imitate _lightning_. All need but two signs each.
The first involving a certain amount of spelling is limited to those who
can read, and who use that word. The second, touching nothing but the
idea, is widely acceptable, much shorter, and visible much farther off.
It was apparently developed for the safe distance beyond arrow range.
Again the Indian method is strong in its dignity. The deaf often spoil
their sign-talk by grimacing, the Indian never does so. One may
occasionally help the idea by facial expression, but it should be used
with great reserve, as there is nothing more unlovely or likely to harm
the study of the Sign Language than the excessive grimacing that one
sometimes sees in an uneducated deaf-mute. The Indian sign-talker’s face
is calm and little changed, his head is moved in graceful sweeps, and
never jerked unless to express some jerky action. His communication is
indeed a study in beautiful, dignified gesture. There is not an Indian
sign in this book that depends on facial expression for its usefulness,
and there are but few that involve the face in any way.
Last year (1910) my friend Hamlin Garland met a party of moving picture
men returning from a business tour among the Indians. He asked, “Did you
get two old chiefs talking together in the Sign Language?” They said
“No, hadn’t heard of it.”
“Then,” he replied, “you have missed one of the most graceful and
rewarding chances for your special art that the western country
affords.”
They were so much impressed with his description that they went back.
Having brought together two chiefs of diverse speech they got results on
their films which amply justified their time and trouble.
Finally a large number of the signs used by the deaf are conventional
and arbitrarily fixed, dating back about 100 years, whereas each Indian
sign is the slow evolutionary product of ages, with its roots deep in
human nature. It is never arbitrary, but so logical and so reasonable
that it is easily and quickly learned.
Every interested person, therefore, must regret profoundly that the
teachers of the deaf should have gone out of their way to fabricate an
unnatural, localized code, when there was awaiting them ready-made, and
already established, a system founded on universal human nature, old as
the hills, full of the charms of grace and poetry, and so logical that
any one of any race can learn it in a tithe of the time required for the
acquisition of the merest smattering of a spoken language, and the
adoption of which would at once have greatly lessened the handicap of
the deaf. One can only suppose that the founders of the code were
unaware of the other’s existence.
Undoubtedly actual service has done much to reform and redeem the Deaf
Code and make it more nearly a true Sign Language, but one cannot help
wishing that their teachers would take the inevitable step at once and
adopt the natural system.
Thus we have logic with us as well as the opinion of ethnologic students
in giving preference to the Indian System. While in the extent of usage
honors are about even, I am credibly assured that about 100,000 people
are daily using the Deaf Code and an equal number using the Indian.
It is my belief that an available popular Manual will soon establish the
latter as the universal code and result in its further and full
development.
ATTITUDE TOWARD THE SIGN LANGUAGE
There are two distinct attitudes toward Indian Sign Language:
_First_, that of the student who sees in it a beautiful product of
evolution, a perfect demonstration of the subtle laws of speech growth,
the outcome of human mind yearning for converse with human mind,
rebellious at its shut-in loneliness, battering with its hands the
prison walls, till it could reach out and signal to the next locked-in,
before it had yet found the way of modulated sounds. This, then, was the
means which responded to the demand for communion and mental fellowship
before there was a spoken speech. It began, as all codes must, with the
broadest, simplest root ideas, and expressed their inter-relationships
at most by context, sequence, proximity, or emphasis, but not by
inflection.
Every student of the Sign Language is impressed by this thought and very
naturally considers every true sign of the old Sign Language a thing
sacred, precious as a pre-Homeric manuscript. He believes that to modify
it or tamper with it would be to rob it of all value as a living
expression of growth, and much like trying to readjust the crystalline
forms on a frost-covered pane by shaping them with a hot iron. The
student recognizes it as his first and highest duty to make faithful,
unadulterated, untooled records of the oldest types of signs. This is
the academic attitude. I am fully in sympathy with it.
_Second_, the practical attitude which realizes that Sign Language,
never dead, is coming to its renaissance and can serve many useful ends
among us here to-day. But to complete its possibilities it must be
brought up to date by the addition of elements that stand for the latest
modern ideas; and therefore does not hesitate to seize on and adopt
these elements wherever they may be found. Thus, it may be held, is a
contamination of the thought by interminglement of spurious recent
creations. But it is merely submitting the code to the ordinary rules of
all language. We should remember, further, that the ancient signs, as
well as the modern, were _invented by men who had need of them_. The
only difference is that the one was invented recently, the other maybe
thousands of years ago; and that without such changes the Sign Language
could not serve its beneficent purpose to-day among the deaf, the
distant, the roar-environed, the moving picture folk, and those of
unknown speech about us. Hand-talk fully developed will find much good
work to do; and it matters little where the elements of the code were
gathered so long as they meet with general acceptation; which implies
that they be _needed_, _serviceable_, and of _sound construction_. The
forty odd Deaf Signs included here have been admitted on this basis.
PROPER NAMES
There is at least one place where all pure Sign Language must fail; that
is in dealing with proper names, especially new proper names. If I wish
to signal “New York State” to an expert sign-talker, I can use the
nickname “Empire State” and signal “_Country great crowned_”; or, for
“Kentucky” I can signal “_Country blue grass_”; or Boston, “_The Hub
City_”; or Chicago “_Windy City_”; but when I come to South America or
Oberammergau or Poughkeepsie, I am obliged to fall back on the white
man’s method and spell the name. For this reason then we begin our
sign-talk by teaching the one-handed sign alphabet of the deaf. The
two-handed will answer, but obviously a one-handed sign is better than a
two-handed, other things equal. We aim at simplicity; and there are many
occasions when one has but one hand free.
TO WHAT PURPOSE?
My own interest in the study had been growing for thirty years, and to
satisfy myself that it was not a mere fad of slight and passing import,
I set down carefully the reasons for studying and using the Sign
Language, not forgetting its limitations. I set these also in hostile
array and will give them first:
It is useless in the dark.
It cannot serve over the telephone.
It can scarcely be written, except by cumbrous pictographs.
It cannot give new proper names; they must be spelled.
But the reasons for the study were more numerous and stronger.
1st. _It develops observation and accurate thinking._ All races that
excel in sign-talking are noted for their keenness of observation. Which
is cause and which effect one cannot certainly determine, but it is sure
that this method of communication is excellent practice to develop
observation, and it makes for a wonderfully graphic descriptive power.
Herein, perhaps, is its most enduring, the least obvious, claim to a
high place. There is a sweet reasonableness, a mathematical accuracy, in
the fabric of the Sign Language that has an insistent and reactionary
effect on the mental processes and pictures of those who use it.
Therefore, it is valuable for the kind of mind it makes.
2d. _It is easily learned._ Unlike most languages, it is very easily
acquired, for most of the signs are natural in concept, and so logical
that they explain themselves where their history is known. Six hundred
signs (that is ideas) make a fairly good sign-talker.
3d. _It is Indian talk._ By means of this you can talk to any Plains
Indian no matter what his speech; and there are many tribes each with
its own tongue or dialect. In some measure it is understood and used by
savages and keen observers all over the globe.
4th. _A cognate code is the talk of the deaf_; and is used the world
round by them in preference to the manual alphabet when possible; so
that a wide use of the much better Indian Sign Language will certainly
result in their accepting it and thus tend to lessen the barrier between
the deaf and their more fortunate brethren.
5th. _It is silent talk._ It can be used on occasions when it is
necessary to give information, but improper or impossible to speak
aloud. Thus, lecturers use it in directing their lanternist; friends use
it for necessary information during musical performances; it is used at
the bedside of the sick, the actors in a moving picture can utilize it,
and so be comprehended the world round; the pantomime stage, forbidden
to use speech, can easily make clear the plot by sign-talk.
In a recent letter, Prof. J. S. Long has furnished me with a touching
instance (one that has since recurred) that indicates another and final
service that the silent method can render: An eminent divine was on his
deathbed. His life had been devoted to ministering to the deaf, he knew
the Sign Language perfectly; for several hours before the end his power
of ordinary speech had deserted him, but his mind was clear, and to the
last he conversed freely with those about him, in this, the universal
talk, the one which for its exercise depended on muscular powers that in
his case were the last of all to fail.
6th. _It allows talk in an uproar._ It can be used when great noise
makes it impossible to use the voice; therefore it can be of daily
service in modern life, city or country, and each year it discovers new
uses. Friends talk across a rackety thoroughfare or from a moving train;
firemen and policemen, or sailors in a storm find it of growing service.
The baseball umpire uses it when the roar of the multitude makes him
voiceless; the catcher talks to the pitcher; the aeroplanist talks to
his friends on earth; the stockholder on the curb buys and sells in it;
the football captain or the army officer issues clear sign orders when
the uproar of fight would drown even the trumpet call. The politician
facing a shrieking mob may find it useful for conveying a few crude
truths to his crude, unruly audience, thus opening the way for a more
usual form of harangue, or failing in the attempt, he can at least
inform his friends of his next move and his audience what he thinks of
them. In St. Paul’s epoch-making address on the stairs of Jerusalem we
have a good illustration of the first part of this.
7th. _It is practical far-talk._ It is a valuable method of talking at a
distance, far beyond earshot. Compared with the other modes of
far-signalling it has the great advantages of speed, for it gives a
sentence while semaphore, Morse, or Myer code give a letter, and of
inconspicuousness at short range, or in a crowd; also it is independent
of apparatus.
8th. _It is a true universal language._ It is already established.
Instinctively the whole world has adopted it in a measure; and daily
proofs of this are seen. Rasmussen among the Eskimo would have been
helpless, he tells us, for he knew not their tongue, and they not a word
of his, but they were expert sign-talkers and the lingual barrier was
swept away. So also Henry among the Mandans, and Butler among the
Basutos, while a thousand other cases could be aligned.
It is so complete that Dr. W. C. Roe and many others regularly _preach_
and _lecture_ in the language of Signs, to congregations in which
several spoken tongues are used and would be necessary to the preacher
were he limited to sounds.
It is so fundamental indeed that it is the easiest means of
communicating with animals; the best trainers of dogs and horses use
Sign Language as the principal medium of command.
But, for lack of standards and codification, its use is much smaller
than it might be; and yet larger than commonly supposed. At least 100 of
the 725 signs herein given are in daily employ among hearing white folk
in America. After a little extension of the study, as is inevitable with
a standard code, one will be able to travel all over Europe, the world
indeed, on Sign Language alone. No matter what the other man’s language
may be, French, German, Russian, Greek, all are the same in the Sign
Language because it expresses _ideas, not words_. This, then, is its
chief obvious strength—_It is a universal language._
It was with this in view that the French and German equivalents were
added after each sign; and since it is impossible to render in one word
a sign that stands for a broad idea and is capable of conveying many
meanings, according to the context and sense, the foreign equivalents
are understood to deal only with the simplest root idea, that which
usually is expressed by the first of the English words given.
It is my earnest hope that we may have an International Society of the
Sign Language whose functions would be to keep it pure, to add new signs
as they are needed, and to aim at its complete development.
Also, that in furtherance of this a thorough, full, and careful record
of the old Indian Sign Language will be made before it is too late; that
is, before all the old-time Indians of the Plains are dead.
My own effort is meant not as a record of the past, but a starting point
for the future.