The Structure and Geography of the ASL Signing Community in the Mid-Nineteenth Century: The Hartford Gatherings of 1850 and 1854
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early decades of the 19th century, the deaf population in the eastern US and Canada was distributed across a vast area. After the 1817 founding of the American School for the Deaf (ASD) in Hartford, CT and the subsequent establishment of schools for the deaf in New York City (NYSD), Philadelphia, and many other US states, hundreds of deaf students called these schools home for several years. After leaving school, the early American Deaf community faced a challenge: How would the community maintain its social and linguistic ties across a vast geographical area once community members had dispersed to their hometowns? In this paper we analyze the attendance registries of two large gatherings of deaf individuals in Hartford in the years 1850 and 1854. These were among the largest and earliest known gatherings of deaf adults. The demographic data included in these registries open a window onto the evolving American Deaf community of the mid-19th century. Our analyses of the attendees’ school affiliations, ages, and marital status show that the signing community that had taken root among students at schools in Hartford and New York persisted among the adult graduates of those schools in towns across the northeastern US. We compare the places of residence of ASD and NYSD alumni in 1850 and 1854 to their hometowns when they first enrolled at school. Our comparisons suggest the mid-19th-century signing community had become more urban; it was centered to a greater extent in populous cities such as New York, Boston, and Hartford than had been true when the attendees had enrolled in school. We consider how the geography of deafness in the 19th century might inform our understanding of the sources of regional variation in ASL. We also consider how early cross-regional interactions may have inhibited such regional variation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".