Around the World in 100 Years:
The Semantic Creation and Utility of
Geographical/Country Signs
Doug Stringham
Department of ASL & Deaf Studies
Utah Valley University

What we’re not
going to do today:

• Although we will discuss current trends in
geographic/country signs, this is not a workshop
focused on learning the ”new” signs.
• This is not necessarily a sharing session for what
country signs you know or have seen.
• This is not a workshop to formulate political
positions on which signs are ”right” or ”wrong.”

What we are
going to do today:

• Learn about and understand the etymology and
evolution of geographic signs in ASL (Lucas, Bayley,
& Valli, 2001; Stringham, in press)
• Understand and learn about patterns of semantic
creation and a proposed framework for geographic
sign semantics (Palella, 2007; Stringham, in press)

• Understand how Deaf communities use and
identify themselves with certain geographic sign
usage (Stringham, in press)
• Identify, discuss, and infer best practices for using
geographic signs in K-12 classroom interpreting
situations

What was this study about?

Evaluate and analyze
the historical corpora of
geographical or ‘country’
signs from 1909 to 2006.

Literature review

Little to no published
research on geographical
lexemic development.

What we do have are printed
etymologies and dictionaries.

• Historical etymologies of LSF/O-ASL (l’Epée, 1784;
Frishberg in Klima & Bellugi, 1979) and name signs
(e.g. 1833 name sign from PSD [Supalla 1992]); do
we have like sources for geographical signs?
• Modern etymologies of country signs (Long 1909,
Higgins 1923, Michaels 1923, Riekehof 1963, Watson
1964, Shroyer 1982, Sternberg 1994?); validity?
• Extant film evidence from the NAD Preservation
project (1910–1913)

Pennsylvania School for the Deaf name sign (1833)

Long (1909) sample etymologies

Long 1909
GREECE. Place the forefinger of the ”G”
hand upon the nose, pointing upward,
letting the knuckle rest between the
eyes, and then draw the finger down the
length of nose. Note that this indicates
the straight nose of the Greek.

Long 1909
AMERICA signifying the Union. With
palms toward self, lock the ends of the
fingers of the ”5” hands so they are
crossed, one above the other (like rails
on a fence) and drawing the hands
toward the left, swing them around the
front in a semicircle to the right sides.

Long 1909
TURKEY. Placed the closed ”C” hand a little above the
forehead, thus representing the crescent.

Higgins (1923/1944) sample
etymologies

Higgins 1923/1942
CANADA. Right ”A” hand grasps
lapel of coat. N.S.—Supposed stance
of Canadians standing at rest.

Higgins 1923/1942
ENGLISH—Palm of right hand over
and surrounding back of left hand,
left pointing rightward and palm
down, right fingers grasp fleshy part
of little finger edge and gives the left
hand a shake. N.S.—The English
were considered great hand shakers.

Riekehof (1963) sample
etymologies

Riekehof 1963
HOLLAND—Place the
thumb of the right ”Y” on
the lips, then draw the
hand down and out. IDEA:
The pipe used by the Dutch.

Sternberg (1994) sample
etymologies (validity?)

Sternberg 1994
SWEDEN. (swēd’ n) n.
(A ”hairy Swede,” perhaps
borrowed from the image of
the early Swedish explorers.)
Finger the hair on the back
of the hand. This is a
native sign.

Sternberg 1994
BRAZIL. (brə zil’) n. (Possibly
having to do with the feathered
headdress of a native.) The
fingers are placed on the
forehead and the hands moves
in a slight counter-clockwise
direction. A native sign.

Where did these signs
come from?

Methodology

Chose 17 10 dictionaries/corpora for:
• salience and saturation
• Deaf and/or Deaf-World produced
• representative comprehensiveness
• exposure to deaf/hearing SL students
• because of duplicate, anomalous, and/or outlier data, dropped
Michaels (1923), Fant (1964), O’Rourke (1973), Riekehof (1978),
Shroyer (1982), Costello (1983), and Bailey & Dolby (2002)

Long (1909)
The Sign Language:
A Manual of Signs

Higgins (1923/42)
How to talk to the deaf;
the language of gestures, expression,
impersonation, pantomime or acting,
used by all people in all ages and
everywhere

Riekehof (1963)
Talk To The Deaf:
A practical visual guide useful to anyone
wishing to master the sign language and
the manual alphabet

Watson (1964)
Talk With Your Hands

Stokoe, Casterline, &
Croneberg (1965)
A Dictionary of American Sign
Language Based on Linguistic
Principles

Humphries, Padden,
& O’Rourke (1980)
A Basic Course in American
Sign Language

Fant (1983)
The American Sign Language
Phrase Book

Smith, Lentz, & Mikos
(1989)
Signing Naturally (Books I/II)

Sternberg (1994)
American Sign Language
(unabridged edition; ”the classic
authority updated”)

Valli (2006)
The Gallaudet Dictionary of
American Sign Language

Pedagogical
Commercial
Preservationary (Re)discovery
1909 1963 1980 2006

Analyzed ‘countries’ chapters
or alphabetical indices to find
any geographical (and ethnic)
signs in a text

Cross-referenced unique
(lexical, morphological, or
phonological) variations
by chronology

Calculated correlational
statistics (!, " 2, or x) between
various corpora

Data and significant
observations

1. Did world historical events
influence the corpora?

1910

1900 & 1930 European
immigration statistics

Top birthplaces of foreign-born/immigrated United States citizens
correlated with Long 1909 and Higgins 1923 corpora
1900 Long 1909 (n=24) 1930 Long 1909 Higgins 1923 (n=14)
Canada CANADA Canada CANADA CANADA
Germany GERMANY Czechoslovakia
Ireland IRELAND Germany GERMANY GERMAN
Italy ITALY Ireland IRELAND IRISH
Norway NORWAY Italy ITALY ITALIAN
Russia RUSSIA Mexico
Sweden SWEDEN Poland
United Kingdom ENGLAND Soviet Union RUSSIA RUSSIAN
Sweden SWEDEN
United Kingdom ENGLAND ENGLISH
Φ = .434 Φ = .353 Φ = .438

Geographic lexemes in Long (1909)
15
12
9
6
3
0
N/C America S America Africa Europe Asia Oceania
n = 24

1910

Correlation of 1909 European Europe 1909 Long 1909
countries (n=24) and Long Great Britain ENGLAND
Scotland SCOTLAND
1909 (n=24) geographic signs Wales
Ireland IRELAND
Netherlands HOLLAND
Φ = .508 Belgium
Luxembourg
France FRANCE
Spain SPAIN
Portugal
Italy ITALY
Switzerland
Austria-Hungary
German Empire GERMANY
Denmark DENMARK
Norway NORWAY
Sweden SWEDEN
Russia RUSSIA
Bulgaria
Turkey (Ottoman Emp) TURKEY
Greece GREECE
Montenegro
Serbia
Romania

Geographic lexemes in Higgins (1923/42)
10
8
6
4
2
0
N/C America S America Africa Europe Asia Oceania
n = 14

1910

1945

Correlation of main countries Allied/Axis/Neutral countries Higgins 1923/1942
involved in WWII (n=16) and Australia
Higgins 1923/1942 Brazil
geographic signs (n=8) Canada CANADA
New Zealand
Φ = .368 South Africa
Soviet Union RUSSIAN
United Kingdom ENGLISH
United States UNITED STATES
Germany GERMAN
Italy ITALIAN
Japan (in Michaels 1923)
Ireland IRISH
Portugal
Spain SPAIN
Sweden
Switzerland

Geographic lexemes
! Long (1909), ! Higgins (1942), ! Riekehof (1963)
15
12
9
6
3
0
N/C America S America Africa Europe Asia Oceania

Contents of the original Long 1909 corpus
appear to be based on European immigrant
statistics/recognition
(high !/r correlation between 1900/1930
immigration and Higgins 1923/42)

However, there appears to be low correlation that
world historical events influences the increase or
decrease of the corpora:
• corpora decreases in size between WWI and WWII
• corpora doesn’t include lexemes for well-known
countries/empires (e.g. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY,
SWITZERLAND, etc.)

• historically, the corpora have been indifferent to
Latin/South American historical events (coups, wars
of independence)
• Unexplained inclusions/exclusions:
• never SOVIET UNION (1917–1990), always RUSSIA
• despite instability/newsworthiness since late
1970s, Middle/Near Eastern countries excluded
• Valli 2006 includes two signs for YUGOSLAVIA;
Yugoslavia dissolved in 2003

2. Did Deaf world historical
events influence the corpora?

Deaf-World events, however, do appear to impact
geographic lexeme corpora:
• NAD Preservation films (1910–1920)
• Deaf Way I (1989)
• World Games for the Deaf/Deaflympics (1924–)
• Deaf Mosaic (1985–1995)

Robert McGregor (1913) ”A Lay Sermon”
02:00–02:40 (CHINA, LATIN, GREECE, EUROPE); 06:35–07:00 (EGYPT, ITALY, RUSSIA)
07:40–08:00 (JEW, BLACK/NEGRO, YELLOW, WHITE)

Correlation of WGD WGD Host/Year 1909 1923 1963 1989 2006
host countries and Australia (‘05) AUSTRALIA1 AUSTRALIA2 AUSTRALIA2
Austria (‘49)
geographic signs Belgium (‘53)
AUSTRIA2 AUSTRIA2
BELGIUM2
Bulgaria (‘93) BULGARIA
Canada (‘91) CANADA CANADA CANADA CANADA
Denmark (‘49, ‘97) DENMARK DENMARK DENMARK2 DENMARK2
England (’35) ENGLAND ENGLISH ENGLAND ENGLAND ENGLAND2
Finland (’61, ’95) FINLAND FINLAND2 FINLAND2
France (’24, ’79) FRANCE FRENCH FRANCE FRANCE FRANCE
Germany (’31, ’55, ’81) GERMAN GERMAN GERMANY GERMANY GERMANY2
Holland (’28) HOLLAND HOLLAND HOLLAND2 HOLLAND2
Italy (’57, ’83, ’01) ITALY ITALY ITALY ITALY ITALY2
New Zealand (’89) N. ZEALAND
Norway (’53, ’87) NORWAY NORWAY NORWAY NORWAY2
Romania (’77)
Slovakia (’11)
Sweden (’39, ’63, ’73, ’03) SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDEN2 SWEDEN2
Switzerland (’59, ’71, ’99) SWITZ. SWITZ.
• No WGD sites in Africa, Taiwan (’09) TAIWAN TAIWAN
Asia (<2009), or South US (’65, ’75, ’85, ’07) US US (AMERICA) (AMERICA) US
America, Yugoslavia* (’69) YUGOSLAVIA2 YUGOSLAVIA2

Deaf Mosaic
(1985–1995)
S01E06 1985 13:30, 14:02, 25:40
S05E01 1989 25:28, 26:15
S06E06 1990 03:19, 10:40, 12:23, 13:07, 17:00, 18:50
S11E01 1995 18:40

• Deaf Mosaic produced regular episodes focusing on
international Deaf peoples and communities,
featuring indigenous signs
• Deaf Mosaic produced special episodes focusing on
the Deaf Way (1989) gathering in Washington, D.C.
and several WGD spotlights, featuring (for the time)
atraditional geographic/country signs

3. What unique linguistic
observations are present in
the corpora?

a. A case of (rapid) variation

Long 1909
SCOTLAND. Bring the ”5” hands up in
front, palms toward self, the palm of the
right hand resting against the back of the
left in such a way that the fingers of both
hands cross at an angle representing an
”X;” let the hands drop away toward the
sides. Note that the fingers when thus
held represent the plaid.

Long 1918
SCOTLAND. Bring the ”5” hands up in front, palms
toward self, the palm of the right hand resting against
the back of the left in such a way that the fingers of
both hands cross at an angle representing an ”X;” let
the hands drop away toward the sides. Note that the
fingers when thus held represent the plaid.
SCOTLAND. (2) Place back of the extended right hand
across the left arm; draw it across and then turning
the hand over repeat, representing plaids on arm.

Long 1918
SCOTLAND. Bring the “5” hands up in front, palms
toward self, the palm of the right hand resting against
the back of the left in such a way that the fingers of
both hands cross at an angle representing an “X;” let
the hands drop away toward the sides. Note that the
fingers when thus held represent the plaid.
SCOTLAND. (2) Place back of the extended right hand
across the left arm; draw it across and then turning
the hand over repeat, representing plaids on arm.

Higgins 1923
SCOTCH:Palms inward,
open fingers crossed,
hands drawn apart
down to sides; or, tips of
right prone spread
fingers along left sleeve
and then across to
indicate the plaid.

Higgins 1942
SCOTCH:Tips of
right prone spread
fingers along left
sleeve and then
across to indicate
the plaid.

Rapid variation: morphological change
Riekehof Humphries Fant Smith Valli
1963 1980 1983 1989 2006

b. The importance of 1989

Smith et al. (1989) represents a bellwether event in the
geographic corpora:
• first to respond to already-active language
borrowing trend (Lucas 2001a, 2001b) and show
more than one sign for a country (although Watson
1964 did show EUROPE1 and EUROPE2):
• multiple variations: AFRICA, AUSTRIA, DENMARK, FINLAND, HOLLAND,
JAPAN, MEXICO, SWEDEN, YUGOSLAVIA

Smith 1989
First pedagogical text to display ”transitional” or atraditional geographical signs
b C b C
b C b C

• functions as kind of a transitional milepost:
indicates a level of acceptance by the Deaf/ASL
Community = ”it’s okay to use this/these sign(s)”
• first volume to indicate that spelling a country’s
name is an acceptable sign: fs-AUSTRIA, fs-CUBA, fs-
IRAN, fs-IRAQ, #H-K, #P-R (Long 1909, Riekehof 1963
used abbreviatory #N-A, #S-A, and #U-S)
• why were other acceptable borrowings left out?
GERMANY? ITALY? Evidence for these signs seen at
Deaf Way and on Deaf Mosaic (1985, etc.)

• increased sign corpus by 160%
(Smith 1989, n = 42; Fant 1983, n = 26)
• Significant increases to
• Asian signs (Fant 1983, n = 5; Smith 1989, n = 14 inc. variations)
• European (Fant 1983, n = 15; Smith 1989 n = 24 inc. variations)
• North America (Fant 1983, n = 3; Smith 1989, n = 8 inc. variations)
30
20
10
0
N/C America S America Africa Europe Asia Oceania

c. Variation anomalies

Long 1909
AMERICA signifying the Union. With
palms toward self, lock the ends of the
fingers of the ”5” hands so they are
crossed, one above the other (like rails on
a fence) and drawing the hands toward
the left, swing them around the front in a
semicircle to the right sides. Or, (2) With
the right ”A” hand, thumb up, describe a
circle on the back of the left hand.

Long 1909
SWITZERLAND. Place the end of the right ”B” hand against
the forehead; withdraw it, twist the hand around so the
palm is out and strike the side of the head with the back of
the hand. (Not fixed in 1918 printing)

Michaels 1923
EGYPT:
1. Press your middle finger against your nose: flat nose.
2. Make a peak by pulling the palms together with the finger
tips only touching. 3. Move the hands apart in a slanting
way, right hand to the right, left to the left: pyramid. (cf.
McGregor 1913 film)

Michaels 1923
GREENLAND:
1. Index finger of right hand extended and thumb resting
on the middle finger, move the hand in a round about
manner. 2. Sign cold.
ICELAND:
1. Make the sign for ice or freeze.
2. Pass the palm of the right hand under the left forearm
held before you.
early reference to manual coded English variations?

Higgins 1923/1942
UNITED STATES—Fingers of both
hands interlocked or dovetailed, palms
inward, moved right-up-left-down, or
moved left-up-right-down. N.S.—All
united fingers and the circle around to
denote extent and agreement.
• produced with a vertical motion rather than a lateral
motion (only volume to do this)
• UNITED STATES defined as AMERICA (only volume to do
this); hypothesis: predominant media refers to ”United
States” and ”US” during WWI/II?

Watson 1964
EGYPT: end of the open right hand on
the end of the forehead; withdrawn
making circle, bring the end of the
hand at rest on the nose as at first.
• (Long 1909) EGYPT: Place the end of the open right
hand on the end of the nose; withdraw it, describe circle
above the nose, and bring the end of the hand at rest
on the nose as at first.
• cf. Michaels (1923) EGYPT

Riekehof 1978
EGYPT: Make a ”C” with the thumb
and index finger and place it on the
forehead, palm forward.
(Represents the crescent on the
flag of a Moslem country.)
• no additional variations between 1964 and 1978; why
this sign/change?

Stokoe 1965
Poland, Pole, Polish.
Sometime signed with
humorous intent:
but this is regarded by
many signers as an
impolite sign.

Sternberg 1994
• Sign variation anomalies: heavy
emphasis on Caribbean,
Central/South American signs
(Smith 1989, n = 4; Sternberg
1994, n = 14; several dubious
variations, unverified in any
other source)

Sternberg 1994
ARGENTINA 2, n. The COLOMBIA n. (kō lum’ be a; AUSTRALIA 2, n. Both hands
thumbtip of the ”A” the letter ”C.”) The right ”C” are held in the ”8” position,
hand touches both hand, palm facing forward, palms down. The signer
sides of the forehead. makes a counterclockwise flicks out the middle fingers
circle as it rests on the back of of both hands twice. This is
the left hand. A native sign. a native Australian sign.

Sternberg 1994
ECUADOR (ek’ wa dôr) GUATEMALA (gwä te mä’ HONDURAS (hon doo’ ras), n.
n. The right ”E” hand lä) n. The open right hand The downturned right ”V” hand
makes a clockwise rubs the stomach in a moves down an inch or two on
circle at the right counter-clockwise the right side of the body, as if
temple. A native sign. direction. A native sign. putting something into a side
pocket. A native sign.

Sternberg 1994
MEXICO (měk’ se kō), n. ITALY 2, (loc.), n. (A NICARAGUA (nik eh rä’ gwa),
(The sombrero.) Both characteristic Italian gesture.) n. (The letter ”N.”) The right
index fingers describe The thumb and index finger of hand, forming the letter ”N,”
the wide brim of a the right ”F” hand are placed taps the left shoulder twice.
sombrero. against the right cheek, while A native sign.
the hand trembles.

4. What does the data in the
corpora teach us about
evolving attitudes toward race
and ethnicity?

Long 1909
Preservationary texts: inclusion of racial/ethnic signs with geographic signs
NEGRO. Place the fingers JEW/ JEWISH. Placing the INDIAN. Place the end of the ROMAN, LATIN. Place the
of the ”N” hand upon the fingers of the bent ”5” hand on thumb and forefinger of the tips of the ”N” fingers on
end of the nose, and rock the chin, draw them down and closed ”O” hand on the end of the bridge and then the tip
it from side to side with a off, letting the hand assume the nose and then carry it of the nose.
twisting motion. the ”&” position as it leaves around and place it similarly
the chin. against the ear.

Higgins 1923
Preservationary texts: inclusion of racial/ethnic signs with geographic signs
NEGRO: Tip of right vertical JEW: Right bent fingers, palm INDIAN: Joined index and thumb ROMAN: Right ”N” tips at the
index pressing tip of nose, to inward, scratched through the tips of right hand at the lobe of top of the nose, and moved to
indicate soft flat nose of beard near the chin. the ear and then at the nostrils the tip, as if over a large Roman
race. (Sometimes middle tip to indicate the rings worn by nose. (Latin)
of open hand instead of some Indians. (Sometimes this
index tip is used.) sign is used to denote the ”Cent”).

Watson 1964
(Re)discovery texts: inclusion of racial/ethnic signs with geographic signs
and/or stereotypical mnemonic representational devices

Watson 1964
(Re)discovery texts: inclusion of racial/ethnic signs with geographic signs
and/or stereotypical mnemonic representational devices

Racial/ethnic lexeme inclusion
Long Higgins Riekehof Watson Stokoe Riekehof Humphrie Fant Smith Valli
1909 1923/42* 1963 1964 1964 1978 s 1980 1983 1989 2005
NEGRO NEGRO NEGRO NEGRO NEGRO
JEW JEW JEW JEW JEW ISRAEL2 ISRAEL1 ISRAEL1 ISRAEL1,2
INDIAN INDIAN INDIAN INDIAN INDIAN INDIAN NATIVE
AMERIC
ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN ROMAN AN1,2
FILIPINO
* countries
listed
adjectivally,
e.g. SCOTCH,
IRISH, etc.

Racial/ethnic signs kept/change in geographic corpus:
• Race/ethnicity an important component of 20th
century (immigration, civil rights, domestic policy)
American discourse; ASL incorporated this?
• The sign corpus reflects back general 20th century
American xenophobia and the active marginalization
of the Deaf community (Baynton 2006)?
• ASL is a visual language; signs must define
visual differences?

Racial/ethnic signs kept/change in geographic corpus:
• Long 1909, Higgins 1923/42, Michaels 1923, Riekehof
1963 created out of some kind of religious tradition
(identifying salient racial groups); later volumes
merely included the template?
• Humphries 1980, et al. endeavor to change the
paradigm and purpose for ”sign language” books
(social > pedagogical shift)?

A proposed framework for
geographic sign semantics

Little to no published
research on geographical
lexemic development.

Robert Palella
2nd ASL Fest, Gallaudet
University (2007)

Robert Palella, 2nd ASL Fest, Gallaudet University (2007)
14:20–19:30: arguments for loan word theory; 25:55–28:00: intro to classifications

Reasons for applying linguistic concept of ”loan words”
to other signed languages:
• Signs are not necessarily changing as a reaction to so-called
’political correctness’
• Signs are being borrowed because of the identification of
a sign for a country not present in ASL
• Reduces the need for fingerspelling
• Signs perceived as insulting, focus on physical characteristics
• Claimed that other countries consider ASL’s loaned use of
their indigenous sign as ‘respect;’ fosters a globalism at
international conferences and sporting events

Reasons against applying linguistic concept of ”loan
words” to other signed languages:
• A sign already exists for the concept; why replace it with
another sign?
• May be perceived as a quasi-colonial move
• Spoken languages do not use indigenous lexemes/names for
other countries (e.g. Japan/Nippon; Allemagne/Germany;
Inglaterra/England)

Potential framework for
identifying valid & reliable sign
variation & etymology

Sign/lexeme describes a physical,
symbolic, or conceptual
characteristic of a nation’s flag:
GUATEMALA, TURKEY, LEBANON,
vexillogical NICARAGUA

Valli 2006
Vexillogical-based country signs

Valli 2006
Vexillogical-based country signs
?

Valli 2006
Vexillogical-based country signs

Sign/lexeme describes a physical,
topographic, or geographical
characteristic of a nation:
PORTUGAL, JAPAN2, NORWAY2,
geographical SWEDEN2, NAMIBIA

Valli 2006
Geographical-based country signs

Valli 2006
Geographical-based country signs

Valli 2006
Geographical-based country signs

Valli 2006
Geographical-based country signs

Valli 2006
Geographical-based country signs

Sign/lexeme describes a cultural or
personal characteristic of a people:
food military
history transportation
arts/music linguistic
clothing behavior
cultural animals religion
personal feature arts/dance
weather combinations

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs
Smith 1989

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Valli 2006
Culturally-based country signs

Sign/lexeme is produced with the
initials of a nation’s name:
NORTH AMERICA1, SOUTH
AMERICA1, UNITED STATES1 (Long
Ab 1909); HONG KONG (Smith 1989);
COSTA RICA, PUERTO RICO,
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC (Valli 2006)
abbreviatory
• how valid/reliable?
• works only for English variation
of name?

Valli 2006
Abbreviatory-based country signs

Valli 2006
Abbreviatory-based country signs
Smith 1989

Sign/lexeme is produced
seemingly not following any of
the previous characteristics:
? BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BRASIL(?),
COLOMBIA(?), HAITI, HONDURAS,
NIGERIA(?) (all Valli 2006)
arbitrary • how valid/reliable?
• why are these created?
contact/pidgin derivation?

Valli 2006
Arbitrary-based country signs

Valli 2006
Arbitrary-based country signs

Valli 2006
Arbitrary-based country signs

Qualitative evaluation of Deaf
ASL users and geographical/
country sign usage

Methodology

• (February 2010) Invited 232 anonymous Deaf signers
to participate in a two-part online survey (n=149):
• ”Given the choice between two geographic/
country signs for the same country, which do you
tend to use?” (n=16)
• ”Given this sign, which country does it refer to
(a, b, c, don't know, means something else)?”
(n=15, mixture of common and obscure)
• Reasons for choosing country signs (Likert scale)
• Gender, age, deafness label, schooling

Significant results/discussion

• Deaf adult signers, regardless of age or schooling
(read: language exposure) heterogeneously use signs
with which they are comfortable:
• SWEDEN2 and RUSSIA2 are preferred, but not
ENGLAND2 and GERMANY2
• Many idiosyncratic morphological/pronunciation
differences exist = how do accurate signs stay
accurate/get passed on?
• Many ”newer” geographical/country signs are
mistaken for other similarly pronounced ASL signs

Nine out of 16 (56%) of the
”new” geographic/country signs
were preferred

What does this mean for
interpreters?

Using geography/country
signs in K-12 interpreting
environments

What are your K-12 state
geography/social studies
standards?

Linguistic/preparation concerns:
• How are community members expressing these
concepts?
• Interpreters should not be as concerned about the
en vogue sign for a given country as much as they
should be concerned about communicating
consistent meaning
• Is there a semantic difference between CHINA1,
CHINA2, and CHINA3? Arguably, do these signs
represent time periods in these country’s histories?

• Interpreters should understand how to use
country signs to satisfy instructors’ linguistic and
semantic intent:
• real-world orientation (from here, where are
Canada, India; from Mexico, France, where is here?)
• ”In World War II, Germany, Japan, and Italy
constituted the ’Axis Powers.’ (noun)
• ”I like Swedish meatballs.” (proper noun)
• ”The Thai people are friendly.” (modifier/adjective)

Seal (2004)
Best Practices in Educational
Interpreting (2nd edition)

• What is/what should be the interpreter’s role
in the linguistic development of primary-aged
(K-3) students?
• (3-8) ”Successful interpreters are also diligent in
their search for signs that may already
exist....Abundant fingerspelling is also appropriate
when these resources fail to yield a sign-word
match....(89)
• (9-12) Interpreting in AP World Studies, MUN,
language classes

Thank you.
dstringham@gmail.com
Twitter: @stringd