The “Deaf Grapevine” is a term that is moderately popular but was new to me, and seems to have come from America, so this is an attempt to explain it.  In fact, on closer  inspection, it seems that the the term “grapevine” is from the U.S. as the Oxford English Dictionary (on line version) says, in its definition,

2.a Originally a canard, current during the American Civil War, and shortened from: ‘a despatch by grape-vine telegraph’ (Funk’s Stand. Dict.). Now in general use to indicate the route by which a rumour or a piece of information (often of a secret or private nature) is passed.

The ‘deaf grapevine’ in this context is a network of D/deaf people passing information or rumours from one to the other, through friends and family.  The idea is that deaf people have historically been more reliant on personal contact for information, as they were not able to pick up news or information (or misinformation) from sources open to hearing people, like the radio or (before recent advances in subtitling) television.  Additionally, they would know all the other members of their deaf community pretty well, and by extention have links with a much wider deaf community.

The earliest reference to the phrase I have found, is in an article from American Motorcyclist for March 1958, p.28.  The writer used the term in explaining the origins of a group of deaf motorcyclists  – “By his enthusiasm and persistant entreaties, word spread among the “deaf-grapevine”, that a rendezvous, especially for motorcycle enthusiasts, was planned at his home in Torrance, on February 27, 1957.”  In 1975 we find this from the Indiana State Board of Health Bulletin, Volume 75 p.89 – “The other day, I got a message, via the deaf grapevine, that the John Tracy Clinic is seriously considering total communication.”  By the 1980s the phrase seems fully established, as we see from this article by Stephen K. Chough –

Finally, the area of confidentiality needs to be emphasized more than ever when working professionally with members of the deaf community. The so-called, “deaf grapevine” is a powerful phenomenon. The deaf community is small in number, and most deaf people know each other very well.  Professional persons, whether hearing or deaf, need to remain acutely aware of this undercurrent of thought when working with a deaf person.  That is to say, the deaf client may feel constantly threatened by the possibility that the professional, whether hearing or deaf, may reveal information from therapy sessions to members of the community at large. (Chough, p.18-19)

In 1988 we have this from the Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, Volume 21, p.91, “Finally, peer counseling services are usually provided through a grassroots agency which has been well established in the community as safe and accessible. Clients often hear about the services through the “deaf grapevine” […]”. 

Finally let us take this quotation from Deaf Sport (1991) by David Alan Stewart –

Because the number of Deaf people is small, each individual is able to to maintain contact with a relatively large percentage of a Deaf community. In a smaller Deaf community (less than 1,000) it is not unusual that some Deaf persons know at least by face if not by name nearly all the members of that community.  The efficiency of the Deaf grapevine is also aided by the fact that a high proportion of deaf persons marry other deaf persons; the rate has been estimated to be 90 percent for adults deafened early in life (Schein 1987) or as high as 95 percent For Deaf people in general (Jacobs 1980). Communication about Deaf sport events relies heavily on this grapevine. (p.71)

Schein J. (1987). “The demography of deafness”. In P.C. Higgins and J.E. Nash, Understanding Deafness Socially. Springfield, IL. [RNID YBX G]
Jacobs, Leo M. A Deaf adult speaks out. Washington, D.C : Gallaudet College Press 2nd ed. [RNID Y] (a 3rd edition is available but this is the one Stewart uses above)
Chough, Stephen K., The trust vs. mistrust phenomenon among deaf persons, p.17-19, in Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Deafness, ed. by Douglas Watson et al., Silver Spring, Md. 1983 [RNID Conference Collection, 1981]
OED http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/80817?redirectedFrom=grapevine#eid [accessed 9/2/2015]

UCL Students, and others at a higher education institution, will have access to some of these books now via ‘Project Muse’.  If your college or university subscribes you will find links via your catalogue or electronic content pages.  Ask your home librarian!

We constantly learn from our visitors, or from helping them try to uncover information. Twice in recent weeks I have had students asking about these terms, ‘Linguism’ or ‘linguicism ‘.  Academics often coin new terms or re-use older terms in a very particular sense,  so for me using the terms ‘linguism’ and ‘linguicism’ in relation to sign language was novel. It was difficult to pin them down exactly, despite, or perhaps because of the profusion of material on the web, but what follows seems to be what is meant by academics writing about language.

The OED online defines linguism as either “1 Conversance with, or predilection for, (foreign) languages, or 2 Advocacy of languages on a regional basis” (OED Online). However neither of these terms are the definitions we are after. 

The term(s) in the sense we are interested in here, were coined by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, a researcher based in Denmark. Lingucism refers to

“ideologies, structures, and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate, regulate, and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and immaterial) between groups which are defined on the basis of language.” In other words, linguicism involves an unequal relationship between two or more languages. In such cases, language becomes a means of control and domination. (Wang 2008)

In her definition therefore linguicism is ‘linguistically argued racism’, to use the words of her husband, Robert L.H. Phillipson.  Phillipson wrote a book called Linguistic Imperialism (OUP, 1992), which supports this stance. There is a connection with sign language as explained in these Wikipedia pages.

In 1880, most deaf schools (where sign languages are transmitted from children from deaf families to the children from non-signing hearing families) had adopted oralism, an educational philosophy which prohibits the use of sign languages in favor of oral language. Many sign languages had all but become extinct during this time sometimes called by Deaf people as the “Deaf Dark Ages.” In 1960s, the United States became the first major country to switch back to manualism. Unfortunately, even today, many first-world nations retain oralist educational philosophies and attitudes.

However the view of Phillipson is not without its critics. In a review of Linguistic Imperialism, Alan Davies said,

Two cultures inhabit LI [Linguistic Imperialism]. One is the culture of guilt — colonies should never have happened, empires never existed, and now we should end their perpetuation, which is made through the imposition (however indirect) of English (or presumably any other language of imperialism). The second culture is that of romantic despair — we shouldn’t be doing what we are doing — a theme common to our current cultures of the environment, a Rousseau-like desire to return to nature and to innocence. (Davies 1996)

Davies argues that

in highly multilingual societies, English (or some substitute) is necessary, and that to restrict it (as, for example, in Malaysia) is to reinforce the special privileges of the élite (who have English anyway through private and/or foreign education) as against the masses (who do not have English). (ibid)

Alan Davies (1996): Review Article: Ironising the Myth of Linguicism, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17:6, 485-496

Fang-Yu Wang, Nationalism without Linguism? Reevaluating the Chinese orthography in the context of language revitalization. 2008 

http://tinyurl.com/cyj3sr3

http://tinyurl.com/bsg9yaz