SASL Journal Vol. 1, No. 1 - Page 71

ASL Literature Byrne approach is via the creation of a pedagogical canon in which individual colleges or universities develop a concrete list of reading texts for each course. “The wider pedagogical canon is made up of the most frequently taught texts, a list that is empirically verifiable” (Gallagher, 2001, p. 54). In addition, Guillory (1995) explains that a canonical work in a spoken language is reproduced for, and used by generations of readers. At the present time, there is no evidence that the ASL Literature Series and the works by Valli and Lentz are incorporated into syllabi and consistently taught to generations of students in American and Canadian colleges and universities that offer programs in ASL and/or Deaf Studies. A study could be put together to examine whether ASL literary works such as the ASL Literature Series and the works of Valli and Lentz, which were published close to 30 years ago, have been consistently used and taught in ASL and/or Deaf studies courses in the period since their publication (the equivalent of one generation). Conclusion In this paper, four main topics have been discussed and reframed for a better and clearer understanding of what constitutes ASL literature. The present status of ASL literature is fairly strong. We are a far cry from the time when Nancy Frishberg scrambled in the 1980s to convince the American and Canadian academia about the vitality of oral literature and that ASL has literary capacity. Not only does the comprehensive ASL literature definition in this paper support the legitimacy and quality of the literary language of the deaf community, it serves as a benchmark for the additions to come in the future. A consideration of how ASL literature should best be taught in schools for the deaf will need to be part of this important undertaking. Accomplished ASL performers will need to share their input as well. General knowledge of ASL literature, through familiarity with the works listed in the database as well as critical and theoretical analyses, ASL teaching experience, and native fluency in ASL, can support the task of creating a canon of ASL literature. References Abrams, M. H., & Harpham, G. G. (2015). A glossary of literary terms (11 th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. Bahan, B. (1992). ASL literature: Inside the story. In J. Cebe (Ed.), Deaf studies: What’s up?: 1991 conference proceedings (pp. 153–164). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University, College for Continuing Education. Bahan, B. (2006). Face-to-face tradition in the American deaf community. In H-D. L. Bauman, J. L. Nelson, & H. M. Rose (Eds.), Signing the body poetic: Essays on American Sign Language literature (pp. 21–50). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bahan, B. (2014). Bleeva: A narrative of our existence. Presented at the 6 th Biennial Deaf Studies Today! Conference in Orem, UT on Saturday, April 12, 2014. Retrieved from https://www.uvu.edu/asl/dst/docs/Bleeva%20-%20DST%202014.pdf Bauman, H-D. L., Nelson, J. L., & Rose, H. M. (Eds.). (2006). Signing the body poetic: Essays on American Sign Language literature. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. SASLJ, Vol. 1, No. 1 – Fall/Winter 2017 71