From kittila at mappi.helsinki.fi Mon May 5 08:04:46 2014 From: kittila at mappi.helsinki.fi (Seppo Kittil=?UTF-8?Q?=C3=83=C2=A4?=) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:04:46 +0300 Subject: Cfp: Expression of evidentiality in Uralic languages Message-ID: (apologies for multiple postings, the call can be forwarded to anyone potentially interested in the topic) Symposium: Expressions of evidentiality in Uralic languages At the XII International Congress for Finno-Ugric Studies at the University of Oulu from August 17 to August 21, 2015 (see: http://www.oulu.fi/suomenkieli/fuxii/englanti/etusivu). Language: English, Organized by Evidego (Seppo Kittilä & Lotta Jalava) Call for papers Evidentiality as a linguistic notion refers to the source of information speakers have for their statements. The statements can be based on, for example, direct sensory evidence, hearsay, inference, or on shared or private information. All languages can refer to the source of information somehow, but languages differ according to whether evidentiality is an obligatory category or not. In Uralic languages evidentiality is usually not an obligatory category, i.e. many of these languages lack grammaticalized evidentials. However, in Uralic languages lexical elements such as specialized particles (such as 'näköjään' (based on the verb 'see') and kuulemma (based on the verb 'hear') of Finnish) or verbs of sensory perception ('see', 'hear', 'taste' etc,) may be used to indicate the kind of evidence the speaker has for her/his statement. In some of the Uralic languages indirect evidence may be expressed as part of the modal system of the language, or, as secondary use of other verbal categories such as tense and aspect (e.g. perfects or resultatives), while in others there are also grammatical evidentials for hearsay or non-visual sensory evidence, that is, elements that indicate source of information as their primary function. In recent years, evidentiality has been a popular topic also in research of languages lacking obligatory evidentiality, especially when it comes to (Indo-)European languages. As for Uralic languages, expressions of evidentiality are much less studied. This theme session aims to explore how source of information is expressed in Uralic languages. It brings together scholars studying evidentiality and related phenomena in different Uralic languages/language groups and in their contact languages. The main focus is on the analysis of evidential strategies/expression in Uralic languages, especially from a typological perspective (or from the viewpoint of what Uralic data can provide for our understanding of evidentiality). We encourage contributors to take any descriptive, theoretical, comparative or historical perspective on the topic. Specific topics to be discussed include, but are not limited to: - Description/analysis of evidentiality system/of a particular evidential expression in one or more Uralic languages - Evidentiality as secondary function of other (verbal) categories, or, evidential expressions in relation to other linguistic categories - Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality - Evidentiality in context: encoding source of information in different genres of text and types of discourse - Evidentiality and interaction: evidentiality and intersubjectivity; the effect of personal knowledge or involvement - History/grammaticalization/etymology/change of one or more particular evidential expressions in one or more Uralic languages (and their contact languages) Please submit an abstract of a maximum of 3000 characters (including references, data, etc.) by September 30, 2014, following the guidelines of The XII International Congress for Finno-Ugric Studies. The abstract must be submitted through EasyChair, see the conference site http://www.oulu.fi/suomenkieli/fuxii/englanti/abstraktit. Notifications of acceptance will be sent by October 31, 2014. The organizers of the symposium Seppo Kittilä (kittila(at)mappi.helsinki.fi) and Lotta Jalava (lotta.jalava(at)helsinki.fi) are happy to answer any questions regarding the symposium. From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon May 5 20:31:43 2014 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. Bischoff) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 16:31:43 -0400 Subject: Language Documentation/Revitalization Programs Message-ID: Hello all, As a result of a discussion on the ILAT listserve I have created a list of programs that offer Language Documentation and/or Revitalization training or specialization in their programs. The list can be accessed at the following link: http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/LDR_Programs.html If you would like me to add your program please let me know. Regards, Shannon From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Tue May 6 03:54:54 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:54:54 +0800 Subject: Language Documentation/Revitalization Programs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Language documentation is the core of one of the concentrations (streams) that can be chosen as part of the BA in Linguistics and Multilingual Studies at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore: http://linguistics.hss.ntu.edu.sg/ProspectiveStudents/UndergraduateProgrammes/Pages/Home.aspx Many of our postgraduate students are also working on language documentation, particularly on Southeast Asian languages. Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA (罗仁地)| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ On May 6, 2014, at 4:31 AM, s.t. Bischoff wrote: > Hello all, > > As a result of a discussion on the ILAT listserve I have created a list of > programs that offer Language Documentation and/or Revitalization training > or specialization in their programs. The list can be accessed at the > following link: > > http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/LDR_Programs.html > > If you would like me to add your program please let me know. > > Regards, > Shannon From bbs.lists at gmail.com Tue May 6 06:50:07 2014 From: bbs.lists at gmail.com (bbs lists) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 23:50:07 -0700 Subject: Summer School of Chinese Linguistics, Palack=?utf-8?Q?=C3=BD_University_Olomouc=2C_Czech_Republic=2C_June_30_=E2=80?= =?utf-8?Q?=93_?=July 5, 2014 Message-ID: International Summer School *Dates: *June 30 – July 5, 2014 * Venue:* Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic *Tuition fee:* free of charge *Language:* English *Organizers:* Project CHINET, Department of Asian Studies, Palacký University Olomouc, Czech Republic ------------------------------ Palacký University Olomouc welcomes all students of Chinese language to participate in a one week international summer school. Aims and objectives: - students are expected to have a basic knowledge of Chinese language and linguistics and to speak English on a level sufficient to communicate - all courses are taught in English so that they are accessible for students with all levels of Chinese - courses are designed to build up and reinforce a systematic knowledge of Chinese grammar as well as to extend students’ horizons through lectures on various research topics - a chance to exchange ideas and find inspiration for new research projects Registration guidelines: *Application deadline:* 1 June 2014 Please fill out the *online application before June 1, 2014*. Acceptance of your application will be confirmed by email before June 8, 2014. Invitation letters will be provided on request. Evaluation methods: Students can receive 5 credits for active participation in the summer school. Apart from attendance, students will be asked to give a presentation (15­-30 min) related to topics discussed during the course. Students may form groups of 3­-4 people for this purpose but should take care to make each participant’s responsibility for his or her part of the presentation transparent. Successful participants will obtain a certificate of participation. Credits: This summer school is accredited by the Department of Asian Studies, Faculty of Arts Palacký University Olomouc. However, these credits are not ECTS Credits. Students are usually able to have these credits recognized by their home institution, and we will be happy to assist you in any way we can, however please be aware that the decision to award credits rests with your home institution. Tuition fee: Tuition for the whole week is free of charge. Participants will however need to cover all their personal costs, including transportation, accommodation, visa, trips etc. Programme and speakers:* - 5 morning sessions of the comprehensive course on Chinese Grammar - 3 afternoon sessions on specific linguistics topics given by expert speakers - 1 afternoon session of student presentations - optional half-day trip and 1 whole-day trip *During April, the final schedule for the summer course will be released. For program updates, please, visit this website regularly. *Intensive course:* *Prof. Jyun-gwang Chen*, National Taiwan Normal University - Comprehensive Chinese Grammar Course (10 lectures) *Lectures by honoured guests:* *Prof. J. Packard*, University of Illinois - Chinese word grammar, Chinese sentence grammar, Chinese sentence processing *Prof. Tao Hongyin*, University of California - Issues in Chinese discourse pragmatics: Theory and application, Corpus linguistic approaches to Chinese: Resources, tools, and products *Dr. Lu Wei-lun*, Masaryk University - Cognitive semantic analysis of spatial particles in Mandarin Chinese Accommodation: Recommended budget accommodation in Olomouc: 1. Ubytovna Marie (10 EUR) -www.ubytovnamarie.cz 2. Poets’ Corner Hostel (24-27 Eur) - www.hostelolomouc.com 3. Palacký University Dormitory (11 EUR) - please contact szokalova.katerina(at)gmail.com for reservation For more information and other inquires, please contact Ms. Michaela Zahradníková, *e­-mail:* chinet.upol at gmail.com, michaela.zahradnikova at upol.cz *tel:* +420 585 633 466 From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Thu May 8 10:45:20 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:45:20 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture Message-ID: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 Folks, This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.”" Dan From wilcox at unm.edu Thu May 8 21:20:03 2014 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:20:03 -0600 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <427aa6119c7f4d0788e60bd971c95f84@BLUPR07MB401.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: On 8 May 2014, at 4:45, Everett, Daniel wrote: > I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and > typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum." Of course, many linguists, anthropologists, and others have been saying this for decades. One example from hundreds: "Communication by a system of gesture is not an exclusively human activity, so that in a broad sense of the term, sign language is as old as the race itself ..." (W.C. Stokoe, "Sign Language Structure," 1960, page 1) -- Sherman Wilcox Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Thu May 8 21:22:34 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 21:22:34 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <9F3487AD-F826-456B-811B-04974AA2148E@unm.edu> Message-ID: This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. Dan Sent from my iPhone > On May 9, 2014, at 0:20, "Sherman Wilcox" wrote: > >> On 8 May 2014, at 4:45, Everett, Daniel wrote: >> >> I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum." > > Of course, many linguists, anthropologists, and others have been saying this for decades. One example from hundreds: > > "Communication by a system of gesture is not an exclusively human activity, so that in a broad sense of the term, sign language is as old as the race itself ..." (W.C. Stokoe, "Sign Language Structure," 1960, page 1) > > -- > Sherman Wilcox > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico From wilcox at unm.edu Thu May 8 21:30:54 2014 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:30:54 -0600 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: > This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign > language, though that is part of the continuum. My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. -- Sherman From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Thu May 8 21:33:52 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 21:33:52 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <102DDB2D-4C01-47EB-A258-84B9762E07F4@unm.edu> Message-ID: Obviously I am not talking about people who have “spent their careers” doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: > >> This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. > > My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. > > -- > Sherman From sweetser at berkeley.edu Thu May 8 22:42:43 2014 From: sweetser at berkeley.edu (Eve E. SWEETSER) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:42:43 -0700 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <13C97972-85F7-4828-82C2-0301AF96B9E3@bentley.edu> Message-ID: Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. Eve On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > Obviously I am not talking about people who have “spent their careers” > doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. > > However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that > the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. > > Dan > > On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > > > On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: > > > >> This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign > language, though that is part of the continuum. > > > > My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots > of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a > long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been > working in a gesture vacuum. > > > > -- > > Sherman > > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Thu May 8 22:45:36 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 22:45:36 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: And I think that I mention those folks in my review. Once again, however, I am talking about the average linguist. In fact, more than that, Eve and Sherman, I am simply urging upon linguists of all persuasions the need to engage themselves in exactly what you are doing. The claim is not that all linguists everywhere are ignoring gesture. The claim is that no one interested in language should ignore it. There is nothing in my abstract language and certainly nothing in the paper that would disagree/contradict anything you or Sherman is saying. All best, Dan On May 9, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Eve E. SWEETSER > wrote: Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. Eve On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: Obviously I am not talking about people who have “spent their careers” doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox > wrote: > On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: > >> This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. > > My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. > > -- > Sherman From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Fri May 9 02:21:35 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 10:21:35 +0800 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <512E0A73-3278-476B-934C-FA83D1B36328@bentley.edu> Message-ID: This goes to the issue of how one sees linguistics. If one sees linguistics as about language, then it is easy to ignore gesture. If one sees linguistics as about communication, then language is only one way that we create communicative acts, or one part of the total communicative act, and it is not at all necessary for communication. Even some linguists who "take gesture into account" see language as the core of communication (in a coding-decoding model), and gesture as something extra, much the way pragmatics was treated before we figured out it was core to everything. If we don't take language as the core of communication, we can see that there is little difference functionally between gesture and language, and neurological studies show they are processed in the same areas of the brain. Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA (罗仁地)| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ On May 9, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > And I think that I mention those folks in my review. Once again, however, I am talking about the average linguist. In fact, more than that, Eve and Sherman, I am simply urging upon linguists of all persuasions the need to engage themselves in exactly what you are doing. The claim is not that all linguists everywhere are ignoring gesture. The claim is that no one interested in language should ignore it. > > There is nothing in my abstract language and certainly nothing in the paper that would disagree/contradict anything you or Sherman is saying. > > All best, > > Dan > On May 9, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Eve E. SWEETSER > wrote: > > Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. > > Eve > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: > Obviously I am not talking about people who have “spent their careers” doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. > > However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. > > Dan > > On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox > wrote: > >> On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: >> >>> This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. >> >> My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. >> >> -- >> Sherman > > > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Fri May 9 03:28:36 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 03:28:36 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Randy, You should read more about gesture. What you stated is quite a ways off the mark However it is exactly what I would have said myself before undertaking this project. Not only is gesture important for the evolution of grammar, without it there is no language. But there is communication. This is all I will say here. One could read my 13,000 word review article. Or better yet the primary sources. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 5:21, "Randy LaPolla" > wrote: This goes to the issue of how one sees linguistics. If one sees linguistics as about language, then it is easy to ignore gesture. If one sees linguistics as about communication, then language is only one way that we create communicative acts, or one part of the total communicative act, and it is not at all necessary for communication. Even some linguists who "take gesture into account" see language as the core of communication (in a coding-decoding model), and gesture as something extra, much the way pragmatics was treated before we figured out it was core to everything. If we don't take language as the core of communication, we can see that there is little difference functionally between gesture and language, and neurological studies show they are processed in the same areas of the brain. Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA (罗仁地)| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ On May 9, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: And I think that I mention those folks in my review. Once again, however, I am talking about the average linguist. In fact, more than that, Eve and Sherman, I am simply urging upon linguists of all persuasions the need to engage themselves in exactly what you are doing. The claim is not that all linguists everywhere are ignoring gesture. The claim is that no one interested in language should ignore it. There is nothing in my abstract language and certainly nothing in the paper that would disagree/contradict anything you or Sherman is saying. All best, Dan On May 9, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Eve E. SWEETSER > wrote: Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. Eve On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: Obviously I am not talking about people who have “spent their careers” doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox > wrote: On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. -- Sherman From jrubba at calpoly.edu Fri May 9 16:50:00 2014 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 09:50:00 -0700 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a society without being able to communicate about abstractions, hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel 805.756.2596 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ******************************************* "Justice is what love looks like in public." - Cornel West On May 8, 2014, at 8:28 PM, "Everett, Daniel" wrote: > Randy, > > You should read more about gesture. What you stated is quite a ways off the mark However it is exactly what I would have said myself before undertaking this project. > > Not only is gesture important for the evolution of grammar, without it there is no language. But there is communication. > > This is all I will say here. One could read my 13,000 word review article. Or better yet the primary sources. > > Dan > > > > On May 9, 2014, at 5:21, "Randy LaPolla" > wrote: > > This goes to the issue of how one sees linguistics. If one sees linguistics as about language, then it is easy to ignore gesture. If one sees linguistics as about communication, then language is only one way that we create communicative acts, or one part of the total communicative act, and it is not at all necessary for communication. Even some linguists who "take gesture into account" see language as the core of communication (in a coding-decoding model), and gesture as something extra, much the way pragmatics was treated before we figured out it was core to everything. If we don't take language as the core of communication, we can see that there is little difference functionally between gesture and language, and neurological studies show they are processed in the same areas of the brain. > > Randy > > ----- > Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA (罗仁地)| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University > HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ > > On May 9, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > > And I think that I mention those folks in my review. Once again, however, I am talking about the average linguist. In fact, more than that, Eve and Sherman, I am simply urging upon linguists of all persuasions the need to engage themselves in exactly what you are doing. The claim is not that all linguists everywhere are ignoring gesture. The claim is that no one interested in language should ignore it. > > There is nothing in my abstract language and certainly nothing in the paper that would disagree/contradict anything you or Sherman is saying. > > All best, > > Dan > On May 9, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Eve E. SWEETSER > wrote: > > Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. > > Eve > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: > Obviously I am not talking about people who have “spent their careers” doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. > > However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. > > Dan > > On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox > wrote: > > On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: > > This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. > > My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. > > -- > Sherman > > > > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Fri May 9 16:55:37 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 16:55:37 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I take up this stuff in Language: The Cultural Tool (Vintage/Pantheon). Again at a more general level of psychology (against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology) in Dark Matter of the Mind (to appear, U of Chicago Press). And then again in The Origin of Language (to appear 2016, WW Norton). Language is a species of communication. As Derek Bickerton says (in one of the few things I agree with he has said), just about all creatures communicate, but language only arose in the genus Homo. I highly recommend the David McNeill trilogy, Kendon’s work, the journal Gesture, and many of the other fantastic research programs on gesture that have been developed since the pioneering work of Boas’s student, David Efron. — Dan On May 9, 2014, at 7:50 PM, Johanna Rubba > wrote: Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a society without being able to communicate about abstractions, hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel 805.756.2596 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ******************************************* "Justice is what love looks like in public." - Cornel West On May 8, 2014, at 8:28 PM, "Everett, Daniel" > wrote: Randy, You should read more about gesture. What you stated is quite a ways off the mark However it is exactly what I would have said myself before undertaking this project. Not only is gesture important for the evolution of grammar, without it there is no language. But there is communication. This is all I will say here. One could read my 13,000 word review article. Or better yet the primary sources. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 5:21, "Randy LaPolla" > wrote: This goes to the issue of how one sees linguistics. If one sees linguistics as about language, then it is easy to ignore gesture. If one sees linguistics as about communication, then language is only one way that we create communicative acts, or one part of the total communicative act, and it is not at all necessary for communication. Even some linguists who "take gesture into account" see language as the core of communication (in a coding-decoding model), and gesture as something extra, much the way pragmatics was treated before we figured out it was core to everything. If we don't take language as the core of communication, we can see that there is little difference functionally between gesture and language, and neurological studies show they are processed in the same areas of the brain. Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA (罗仁地)| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ On May 9, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: And I think that I mention those folks in my review. Once again, however, I am talking about the average linguist. In fact, more than that, Eve and Sherman, I am simply urging upon linguists of all persuasions the need to engage themselves in exactly what you are doing. The claim is not that all linguists everywhere are ignoring gesture. The claim is that no one interested in language should ignore it. There is nothing in my abstract language and certainly nothing in the paper that would disagree/contradict anything you or Sherman is saying. All best, Dan On May 9, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Eve E. SWEETSER > wrote: Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. Eve On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: Obviously I am not talking about people who have “spent their careers” doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox > wrote: On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. -- Sherman From ceford at wisc.edu Fri May 9 17:58:31 2014 From: ceford at wisc.edu (Cecilia E. Ford) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 12:58:31 -0500 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <74f0827120392.536d173c@wiscmail.wisc.edu> Message-ID: Consider the foundational work that embodied, visible actions do in real time interaction -- precisely timed to encode basic semantic stuff - e.g., reference, epistemic stance. Where and how "gesture" accompanies the "system" of language, as developed in/for co-present "communication" and collaborative action, simply cannot be cleaved off of the subject matter of linguistics, unless we are accountable for doing this separation for methodological convenience and in enactment of the salience of orthography for literate societies and for us as scholars. Ceci Professor of English and Sociology Hoefs Professor of English __________________________________________________ UW Interaction Interest Group (UWIIG): http://uwiig.blogspot.com/uwiig.blogspot.com Websites: http://mendota.english.wisc.edu/~ceford/ From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Fri May 9 18:00:06 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 18:00:06 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <7700c0e320ca3.536cd0f7@wiscmail.wisc.edu> Message-ID: Excellent points, Ceci. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Cecilia E. Ford wrote: > Consider the foundational work that embodied, visible actions do in real time interaction -- precisely timed to encode basic semantic stuff - e.g., reference, epistemic stance. Where and how "gesture" accompanies the "system" of language, as developed in/for co-present "communication" and collaborative action, simply cannot be cleaved off of the subject matter of linguistics, unless we are accountable for doing this separation for methodological convenience and in enactment of the salience of orthography for literate societies and for us as scholars. > Ceci > > Professor of English and Sociology > Hoefs Professor of English > > __________________________________________________ > UW Interaction Interest Group (UWIIG): http://uwiig.blogspot.com/uwiig.blogspot.com > Websites: http://mendota.english.wisc.edu/~ceford/ > > From twood at uwc.ac.za Mon May 12 07:53:33 2014 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:53:33 +0200 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language "in order to express" those thoughts (!) Tahir From twood at uwc.ac.za Mon May 12 07:57:11 2014 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:11 +0200 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <17EA8195-ACEA-414E-B9BB-CB4C19492D4C@bentley.edu> Message-ID: >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language "in order to express" those thoughts (!) Tahir From mwmbombay at gmail.com Mon May 12 09:27:53 2014 From: mwmbombay at gmail.com (Mike Morgan) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:12:53 +0545 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <53709AF70200006900117240@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Namaskar to all, from hot and sunny Kathmandu! Okay, I hope nobody minds if I put in my 18 rupees worth (at current exchange rates, US 2 cents)... First, to be honest, I haven't (yet!) read Dan's review article which started this thread... i WILL, but it is number 17 on my "to read list" Second, for the sake of full disclosure (and because it SEEMS to influence the regard which some people give comments), I am a sign language linguist. BUT I wasn't always one (just as i wasn't always an Asian); I started out as an Indo-Euorpeanist and got into sign languages by kismet. Because of my background and interests, I do a lot of comparative and typological stuff (I am a fluent signer of 7 sign languages, belonging, by conservative estimates, to 3 different sign language families), but I mostly publish on morpho-syntax (and specifically morpho-syntax IN discourse). I agree that gesture research IS becoming more and more familiar to linguists at large ... IN THE WEST (and am not sure, MAYBE I include Japan in that West). For the rest of the world (or at least the broad swathes of Asia and Africa where I have been living and working for years) that is NOT the case. AND, alas, sign languages also are seen as closer to gesture than they are to spoken languages (even the Linguistic Society of Nepal, which, by Asian standards, is a fairly linguistically sophisticated group, always schedules sign language presentations at their annual conference in sessions with presentations on gesture ... and other miscellanea!). I haven't lived in the West for decades, but I suspect that despite gradual inroads among certain groups (functional and cognitive linguists?), gesture is still NOT something the average Western linguist thinks of when s/he talks about language structure. i.e. gesture is a beast apart, separate form language ... and, I suspect, if pushed to take a side, most linguists would say it was "a lesser beast". I got into sign languages, as I said, by (fortunate) accident... and the first topic I chose was something I have done off and on since: structure of natural discourse. This was in the early 90s, and Sign Linguistics had been around for decades, and so I could read a wide(ish) variety of papers (though rather limited pickings on sign language discourse at that time). And so I had a list of what kinds of things to look at (and look for)... but fortunately I think in the long run, I decided to IGNORE that list, and just to transcribe EVERYTHING (visual) that was being done by the signer that seemed even remotely to have potential for communicative goals (ignoring of course that communication is but ONE use of language)... or at least I would transcribe everything I could pick up on. I suspected that a lot of that extra transcribing would turn out to be "wasted time", but I also suspected that if i didn't transcribe EVERTHING i saw -- or if I just followed the list taken from works done on other (western) sign languages -- I would MISS a lot of important stuff as well. (And indeed, among other discoveries, this is how I discovered that sideways head-tilt in Japanese Sign Language was an evidential marker.) ANYWAYS, so as not to make this too much of a story, over the years I have decided -- as Dan seems to have decided -- that linguistics (and linguists .. though of course NOT the linguist of THIS august group) have drawn a false line in the sand .. based on the limitations of their experience. Spoken language linguists (except for the enlightened few?) draw the line thus: if it comes out of your mouth, it is language; if it doesn't come out of your mouth, it is NOT (and CANNOT BE) language (i.e. it is MERE gesture). They may not actually say it in these words, but in DEED that is how they analyse language. Even many sign language linguists seem to get ti wrong when they put sign languages as a beats apart (albeit, to us a SUPERIOR beast!) .. and I point out in a review of *Markus Steinbach* and *Annika* Herrmann (eds), Nonmanuals in Sign Language for e-Language which I don't think has yet hit cyberspace, where in the introduction the editors make such a categorical statement about spoken languages : that gesture CANNOT be linguistic, that there is something about the visual modality of gestures versus the oral modality of spoken languages that keeps them forever and always in separate categories. BUT, I don't think this is true. or at least not NECESSARILY true. And because of the possibilities that gesture (or at least SOME gesture) not only interacts with gesture in what I refer to as the Communicative Semiotic, but in fact (some) gesture might in fact BE language. (My mental picture of what the relationship is between the Communicative Semiotic and the Linguistic Semiotic still has the latter inside the former, Venn diagram style, but the size of the latter is growing and the boundary is becoming more and more porous.) SEEMS to me that choosing to ignore the potential of gesture IN language is like choosing to ignore tone when describing a Himalayan Tibeto-Burman language;YES, it is POSSIBLE that tone is not significant ... but based on experience, this is NOT likely. ok, think maybe I gave a bit more than 18 rupees-worth... apologies if apologies are needed! On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: > >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language > "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > Tahir > -- mwm || *U*C> || mike || माईक || માઈક || মাঈক || மாஈக || مایک ||мика || 戊流岸マイク (aka Dr Michael W Morgan) sign language linguist / linguistic typologist academic adviser, Nepal Sign Language Training and Research NDFN, Kathmandu, Nepal From cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu Mon May 12 18:08:13 2014 From: cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu (Goodwin, Charles) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:08:13 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <3598B529-5E9A-4056-80C2-CF79CE240EB1@bentley.edu> Message-ID: A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 Folks, This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.”" Dan From Nick.Enfield at mpi.nl Mon May 12 20:06:25 2014 From: Nick.Enfield at mpi.nl (Nick Enfield) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 22:06:25 +0200 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <4B67F72F-6D6A-4319-BF8A-24BA65AD36A5@humnet.ucla.edu> Message-ID: “Might be relevant”? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between “language and gesture”. I’d like to add a comment on the ‘language and gesture’ issue, related to Mike Morgan’s comments, among others. The term ‘gesture’ is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ’the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking’. Other times it means ‘the “imagistic, gradient, holistic” component of an utterance’. It’s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ‘semiotic continuum’ from symbolic to ‘imagistic’ is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ‘tone of voice’). One cannot equate ’the visible part of the spoken language utterance’ with ‘the non-linguistic part of the utterance’. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ‘language’ (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective—Cornelia Müller’s work is a good example—we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers’ co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: “A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ‘speech’ and ‘gesture’.” This is why he now eschews use of the term ‘gesture’ entirely. Nick On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 Folks, This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.”" Dan From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Mon May 12 20:15:25 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:15:25 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the review, I look at the very careful work of Kendon and McNeill on explaining the “gesture continuum.” They do a very good job of distinguishing these things. In any case, those who already do work in gesture will know most of the things discussed in my review, though I do offer some interpretations that I think are novel. Those who have not followed research on gesture may find it to be a concise intro to the topic, in the sense that it summarizes some of the work of Kendon and McNeill. But one thing that this discussion shows, of course, is that research on gesture is not simply an add-on, of secondary importance or complexity to “real” or “core” studies of language, but that it is a vital component of a theory of human language, human grammar in fact. This is not/was not intended to be news for folks already doing the research and following the debates. But it might be of use to those who, like myself, write grammars without paying attention to gesture or theorize about the evolution of language without paying attention to some of the very important findings of gesture researchers. — Dan On May 12, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Nick Enfield wrote: > “Might be relevant”? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between “language and gesture”. > > I’d like to add a comment on the ‘language and gesture’ issue, related to Mike Morgan’s comments, among others. The term ‘gesture’ is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ’the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking’. Other times it means ‘the “imagistic, gradient, holistic” component of an utterance’. It’s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ‘semiotic continuum’ from symbolic to ‘imagistic’ is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ‘tone of voice’). One cannot equate ’the visible part of the spoken language utterance’ with ‘the non-linguistic part of the utterance’. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ‘language’ (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective—Cornelia Müller’s work is a good example—we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers’ co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: “A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ‘speech’ and ‘gesture’.” This is why he now eschews use of the term ‘gesture’ entirely. > > Nick > > > > > > > On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: > > A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: > > 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf > > ======================== > Charles Goodwin > cgoodwinCharles Goodwin > Applied Linguistics > 3300 Rolfe Hall > UCLA > Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 > > cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu > http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ > > > > > On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: > > http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 > > Folks, > > This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: > > "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.”" > > Dan > > > From cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu Mon May 12 21:00:21 2014 From: cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu (Goodwin, Charles) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:00:21 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <2B6C8FAA-776B-444B-89F4-193EC41F7E7F@bentley.edu> Message-ID: I think that one issue with the approach you describe might be taking gesture or gesture and language as a self-contained phenomena and as the primary way that embodied phenomena beyond the stream of speech are relevant to language. If we conceptualize language as being organized within, and emerging from, human frameworks for building action co-operatively, then other forms of embodied action, such as as the ways in which hearers use posture, gaze etc. to demonstrate attention to, and co-participation in utterances as they emerge (which can lead to changes in the emerging structure of a speaker's sentence), might be as important to language as gesture. As noted by both Kendon and myself such participation frameworks create environments within which other forms of semiosis, such as process in which language and gesture mutually elaborate each other to build relevant action, can flourish. Focusing primarily on gesture can obscure the intrinsically co-operative sociality that is so central to how language manifests itself as one resource (with gesture and other forms of semiotic structure inherited from our predecessors) for building meaning and action in concert with others. Chuck ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 12, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: In the review, I look at the very careful work of Kendon and McNeill on explaining the “gesture continuum.” They do a very good job of distinguishing these things. In any case, those who already do work in gesture will know most of the things discussed in my review, though I do offer some interpretations that I think are novel. Those who have not followed research on gesture may find it to be a concise intro to the topic, in the sense that it summarizes some of the work of Kendon and McNeill. But one thing that this discussion shows, of course, is that research on gesture is not simply an add-on, of secondary importance or complexity to “real” or “core” studies of language, but that it is a vital component of a theory of human language, human grammar in fact. This is not/was not intended to be news for folks already doing the research and following the debates. But it might be of use to those who, like myself, write grammars without paying attention to gesture or theorize about the evolution of language without paying attention to some of the very important findings of gesture researchers. — Dan On May 12, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Nick Enfield > wrote: “Might be relevant”? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between “language and gesture”. I’d like to add a comment on the ‘language and gesture’ issue, related to Mike Morgan’s comments, among others. The term ‘gesture’ is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ’the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking’. Other times it means ‘the “imagistic, gradient, holistic” component of an utterance’. It’s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ‘semiotic continuum’ from symbolic to ‘imagistic’ is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ‘tone of voice’). One cannot equate ’the visible part of the spoken language utterance’ with ‘the non-linguistic part of the utterance’. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ‘language’ (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective—Cornelia Müller’s work is a good example—we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers’ co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: “A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ‘speech’ and ‘gesture’.” This is why he now eschews use of the term ‘gesture’ entirely. Nick On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 Folks, This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.”" Dan From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Mon May 12 22:58:18 2014 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:58:18 -0700 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <734BDB01-0E7D-44E5-BBA4-80D846001F9B@humnet.ucla.edu> Message-ID: I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses of prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might even think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's back. --Wally On 5/12/2014 2:00 PM, Goodwin, Charles wrote: > I think that one issue with the approach you describe might be taking gesture or gesture and language as a self-contained phenomena and as the primary way that embodied phenomena beyond the stream of speech are relevant to language. If we conceptualize language as being organized within, and emerging from, human frameworks for building action co-operatively, then other forms of embodied action, such as as the ways in which hearers use posture, gaze etc. to demonstrate attention to, and co-participation in utterances as they emerge (which can lead to changes in the emerging structure of a speaker's sentence), might be as important to language as gesture. As noted by both Kendon and myself such participation frameworks create environments within which other forms of semiosis, such as process in which language and gesture mutually elaborate each other to build relevant action, can flourish. Focusing primarily on gesture can obscure the intrinsically co-operative sociality that is so central to how language manifests itself as one resource (with gesture and other forms of semiotic structure inherited from our predecessors) for building meaning and action in concert with others. > > Chuck > > ======================== > Charles Goodwin > cgoodwinCharles Goodwin > Applied Linguistics > 3300 Rolfe Hall > UCLA > Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 > > cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu > http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ > > > > > On May 12, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: > > In the review, I look at the very careful work of Kendon and McNeill on explaining the “gesture continuum.” They do a very good job of distinguishing these things. > > In any case, those who already do work in gesture will know most of the things discussed in my review, though I do offer some interpretations that I think are novel. > > Those who have not followed research on gesture may find it to be a concise intro to the topic, in the sense that it summarizes some of the work of Kendon and McNeill. > > But one thing that this discussion shows, of course, is that research on gesture is not simply an add-on, of secondary importance or complexity to “real” or “core” studies of language, but that it is a vital component of a theory of human language, human grammar in fact. > > This is not/was not intended to be news for folks already doing the research and following the debates. But it might be of use to those who, like myself, write grammars without paying attention to gesture or theorize about the evolution of language without paying attention to some of the very important findings of gesture researchers. > > — Dan > > On May 12, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Nick Enfield > wrote: > > “Might be relevant”? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between “language and gesture”. > > I’d like to add a comment on the ‘language and gesture’ issue, related to Mike Morgan’s comments, among others. The term ‘gesture’ is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ’the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking’. Other times it means ‘the “imagistic, gradient, holistic” component of an utterance’. It’s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ‘semiotic continuum’ from symbolic to ‘imagistic’ is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ‘tone of voice’). One cannot equate ’the visible part of the spoken language utterance’ with ‘the non-linguistic part of the utterance’. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ‘language’ (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective—Cornelia Müller’s work is a good example—we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers’ co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: “A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ‘speech’ and ‘gesture’.” This is why he now eschews use of the term ‘gesture’ entirely. > > Nick > > > > > > > On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: > > A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: > > 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf > > ======================== > Charles Goodwin > cgoodwinCharles Goodwin > Applied Linguistics > 3300 Rolfe Hall > UCLA > Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 > > cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu > http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ > > > > > On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: > > http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 > > Folks, > > This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: > > "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.”" > > Dan > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Mon May 12 23:45:15 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:45:15 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <5371520A.5020102@linguistics.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: I also agree with this Wally. And McNeill makes this point too. Dan Sent from my iPhone > On May 13, 2014, at 1:58, "Wallace Chafe" wrote: > > I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses of prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might even think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's back. > > --Wally > >> On 5/12/2014 2:00 PM, Goodwin, Charles wrote: >> I think that one issue with the approach you describe might be taking gesture or gesture and language as a self-contained phenomena and as the primary way that embodied phenomena beyond the stream of speech are relevant to language. If we conceptualize language as being organized within, and emerging from, human frameworks for building action co-operatively, then other forms of embodied action, such as as the ways in which hearers use posture, gaze etc. to demonstrate attention to, and co-participation in utterances as they emerge (which can lead to changes in the emerging structure of a speaker's sentence), might be as important to language as gesture. As noted by both Kendon and myself such participation frameworks create environments within which other forms of semiosis, such as process in which language and gesture mutually elaborate each other to build relevant action, can flourish. Focusing primarily on gesture can obscure the intrinsically co-operative sociality that is so central to how language manifests itself as one resource (with gesture and other forms of semiotic structure inherited from our predecessors) for building meaning and action in concert with others. >> >> Chuck >> >> ======================== >> Charles Goodwin >> cgoodwinCharles Goodwin >> Applied Linguistics >> 3300 Rolfe Hall >> UCLA >> Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 >> >> cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu >> http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ >> >> >> >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: >> >> In the review, I look at the very careful work of Kendon and McNeill on explaining the “gesture continuum.” They do a very good job of distinguishing these things. >> >> In any case, those who already do work in gesture will know most of the things discussed in my review, though I do offer some interpretations that I think are novel. >> >> Those who have not followed research on gesture may find it to be a concise intro to the topic, in the sense that it summarizes some of the work of Kendon and McNeill. >> >> But one thing that this discussion shows, of course, is that research on gesture is not simply an add-on, of secondary importance or complexity to “real” or “core” studies of language, but that it is a vital component of a theory of human language, human grammar in fact. >> >> This is not/was not intended to be news for folks already doing the research and following the debates. But it might be of use to those who, like myself, write grammars without paying attention to gesture or theorize about the evolution of language without paying attention to some of the very important findings of gesture researchers. >> >> — Dan >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Nick Enfield > wrote: >> >> “Might be relevant”? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between “language and gesture”. >> >> I’d like to add a comment on the ‘language and gesture’ issue, related to Mike Morgan’s comments, among others. The term ‘gesture’ is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ’the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking’. Other times it means ‘the “imagistic, gradient, holistic” component of an utterance’. It’s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ‘semiotic continuum’ from symbolic to ‘imagistic’ is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ‘tone of voice’). One cannot equate ’the visible part of the spoken language utterance’ with ‘the non-linguistic part of the utterance’. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ‘language’ (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective—Cornelia Müller’s work is a good example—we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers’ co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: “A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ‘speech’ and ‘gesture’.” This is why he now eschews use of the term ‘gesture’ entirely. >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: >> >> A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: >> >> 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. >> >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf >> >> ======================== >> Charles Goodwin >> cgoodwinCharles Goodwin >> Applied Linguistics >> 3300 Rolfe Hall >> UCLA >> Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 >> >> cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu >> http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ >> >> >> >> >> On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: >> >> http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 >> >> Folks, >> >> This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: >> >> "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.”" >> >> Dan > > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Mon May 12 23:44:00 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:44:00 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <734BDB01-0E7D-44E5-BBA4-80D846001F9B@humnet.ucla.edu> Message-ID: Chuck, I could not agree more. Dan Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2014, at 0:00, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: I think that one issue with the approach you describe might be taking gesture or gesture and language as a self-contained phenomena and as the primary way that embodied phenomena beyond the stream of speech are relevant to language. If we conceptualize language as being organized within, and emerging from, human frameworks for building action co-operatively, then other forms of embodied action, such as as the ways in which hearers use posture, gaze etc. to demonstrate attention to, and co-participation in utterances as they emerge (which can lead to changes in the emerging structure of a speaker's sentence), might be as important to language as gesture. As noted by both Kendon and myself such participation frameworks create environments within which other forms of semiosis, such as process in which language and gesture mutually elaborate each other to build relevant action, can flourish. Focusing primarily on gesture can obscure the intrinsically co-operative sociality that is so central to how language manifests itself as one resource (with gesture and other forms of semiotic structure inherited from our predecessors) for building meaning and action in concert with others. Chuck ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 12, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: In the review, I look at the very careful work of Kendon and McNeill on explaining the “gesture continuum.” They do a very good job of distinguishing these things. In any case, those who already do work in gesture will know most of the things discussed in my review, though I do offer some interpretations that I think are novel. Those who have not followed research on gesture may find it to be a concise intro to the topic, in the sense that it summarizes some of the work of Kendon and McNeill. But one thing that this discussion shows, of course, is that research on gesture is not simply an add-on, of secondary importance or complexity to “real” or “core” studies of language, but that it is a vital component of a theory of human language, human grammar in fact. This is not/was not intended to be news for folks already doing the research and following the debates. But it might be of use to those who, like myself, write grammars without paying attention to gesture or theorize about the evolution of language without paying attention to some of the very important findings of gesture researchers. — Dan On May 12, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Nick Enfield > wrote: “Might be relevant”? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between “language and gesture”. I’d like to add a comment on the ‘language and gesture’ issue, related to Mike Morgan’s comments, among others. The term ‘gesture’ is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ’the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking’. Other times it means ‘the “imagistic, gradient, holistic” component of an utterance’. It’s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ‘semiotic continuum’ from symbolic to ‘imagistic’ is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ‘tone of voice’). One cannot equate ’the visible part of the spoken language utterance’ with ‘the non-linguistic part of the utterance’. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ‘language’ (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective—Cornelia Müller’s work is a good example—we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers’ co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: “A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ‘speech’ and ‘gesture’.” This is why he now eschews use of the term ‘gesture’ entirely. Nick On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 Folks, This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.”" Dan From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Tue May 13 01:47:59 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 09:47:59 +0800 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <53709AF70200006900117240@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: As Karl Popper said (Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976), Page 29): "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you." It seems several people took what I said in the wrong way. Although Popper didn't understand it, the reason why his observation is correct is that communication isn't based on coding and decoding of a shared code. To answer Johanna Rubba, communication happens when one person does something with the intention of another person guessing the reason for them doing it, and when the other person gets it right, you get communication. That is it, there is nothing more to communication. This view of communication argues that a basic mechanism for making sense of phenomena we experience in the world is abductive inference: we observe a phenomenon or event (possibly using inductive inference to first make a generalization about it), and then use abductive inference to posit a hypothesis to explain why the phenomenon is the way it is or why some event happened the way it did. This involves creating a context of interpretation, using available assumptions, in which the phenomenon or event “makes sense” to us. This sort of inference is non-demonstrative (non-deductive), so the conclusion is not necessarily true, but we generally assume our conclusion is true until persuaded otherwise by further evidence of some type. The particular context of interpretation created will depend on the assumptions available to the individual, and as each individual has had different life experiences, the assumptions available will differ with each individual, and so all meaning-creation (understanding) will be subjective. Abductive inference is seen as the major mechanism by which we make sense of the world, and so is what gave rise to religion, philosophy, and ultimately science (which added the step of testing the hypothesis to try to falsify it), as well as most of our every-day beliefs. It is seen as a survival technique, as understanding the reason for some phenomenon or event can lead to us better dealing with that phenomenon or event. One application of this survival instinct is inferring the intentions of other humans, which we do instinctively in order to survive, particularly if their action is out of the ordinary, such as walk towards us with a knife in their hand. Most of the time people don’t intend for us to infer their intentions, but there are times when someone does something with the intention of another person inferring their intention in doing it, and if the other person does infer the intention correctly, communication has happened. That is all there is to communication. Communication is seen not as a coding-decoding process, but as involving one person showing the intention to communicate, intending for the other person to infer their intention in doing the communicative act, and abductive inference, creating a context of interpretation in which the ostensive act makes sense. Even the recognition of the communicative act as a communicative act requires abductive inference. As the inferential process involved in communication is the same as the one we use in understanding the natural world, understanding communication gives us a way towards a general theory of meaning creation. Language is not seen as crucial for communication in this view, but when used, the role of language is to constrain the creation of the context of interpretation by eliminating certain assumptions that might otherwise be included in the context of interpretation. Language is seen not as an object, but as interactional behavior which conventionalizes at the societal level and habitualizes at the individual level (much the same as any other societal convention or personal habit). Language behavior conventionalizes as speakers repeatedly use the same forms over and over to constrain the hearer’s creation of the context of interpretation in particular ways. Each society of speakers will chose different aspects of meaning to consistently constrain the interpretation of, and they will do it to different degrees if they do it at all, and they will use different mechanisms to do so, so we can investigate the structure of languages from the point of view of these three aspects. And as constraining the interpretation with extra linguistic material requires extra effort on the part of the speakers, for them to do this it must be important to them that the hearer understand that aspect of the meaning better than other aspects, and so all conventionalized aspects of language use are seen to reflect aspects of the cognition of the particular speakers of the language at the time the form was conventionalized. Over time the original motivation for using the form can be lost, but out of habit and convention the form will often continue to be used, and so will seem unmotivated (arbitrary), but it would not have conventionalized initially had it not been important to constrain that particular aspect of the interpretation at the time it conventionalized. Each language then is seen as uniquely reflecting the cognition of a particular society of speakers. This cognition involves construing and even perceiving the world differently in each language. This discussion has focused on language and gesture, but as Wally said, there are other aspects, such as prosody, that are equally relevant. Gumperz talked about many of these things as "contextualization cues". For me, all of what we do in a communicative situation can be a contextualization cue (I don't see a distinction between conceptual information and contextualization cues the way Gumperz did, or between conceptual and procedural information the way Relevance Theory does: everything helps in the creation of the context of interpretation). As Nick says, you have to take the whole communicative situation into account and see all aspects as working together towards the same goal, whether it involves "language" or "gesture" or "prosody" or whatever. Also, communication doesn't necessarily involve language or gesture or prosody. It can be leaving an item out in a conspicuous place, as when my part-time cook left out the almost-empty container of rice in order to communicate that I needed to buy more rice, or another time when she left a cup in the sink to communicate that the faucet was leaking and so I should have it fixed. Anything can be used in communication. We most often combine all of these elements together. If whatever we did to communicate worked, we will use it again when the same or similar situation arises, and then that can become a personal habit and a societal convention. This includes conventionalization of conversational routines, and also of gestures, as well as linguistic forms. All forms and conventions used in the communicative act have the same function: they constrain the creation of the context of inference of the addressee, that is, constrain the addressee's search for the relevance of the communicator's action. This is possible because of the Cooperative Principle, which at its core is really saying we assume people are rational, and so when they do something there must be a reason, and we can guess (using abductive inference) what that reason is, and thereby infer the person's communicative intent. Communication is never fully deterministic, as Popper points out, but by constraining the interpretation to a more appropriate extent (for the situation) you can be more likely to have the person infer what you intend for the person to infer. This is a very brief summary of a theory of language development and communication that I have developed over the last 20 years out of the intersection of my work in documenting languages radically different from IE languages, in historical linguistics, in typology, and in pragmatics. I teach a whole semester course on this. I recorded the class this past semester, and have begun putting the audio of the lectures and the slides on iTunes U (https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/pragmatics/id849441717 ). The first four or so hours go into great detail about how this works, with many natural examples, to show how abduction works and how it isn't coding and decoding and how anything can be communicative and how meaning creation generally works. (Somehow my assistant put them up in a way that the numbering is reversed, so start with item 17 ad work up, or just hit the sort button to reverse the sort. The slides to go with the audio are called "Notes" on the site.) The course is officially called Pragmatic Theory, but for me it is Meaning Creation, as it is all about how we create meaning in our minds (the only place where meaning is--there is no meaning in letters or sounds, any meaning we "get" is created in our minds based on our experiences). I also have some papers presenting the theory, and some also applying the theory to things like the nature of grammatical relations: LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. "Grammaticalization as the fossilization of constraints on interpretation: Towards a single theory of cognition, communication, and the development of language". Paper presented to the City University of Hong Kong Seminar in Linguistics, November 6, 1997. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla-1997-Grammaticalization_as_the_Fossilization_of_Constraints_on_Interpretation.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In David Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 113-144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2003_Why_languages_differ_-_Variation_in_the_conventionalization_of_constraints_on_inference.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2005. Typology and complexity. In James W. Minett and William S-Y. Wang (eds.), Language acquisition, change and emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics, 465-493. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2005_Typology_and_Complexity.PDF LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification. In Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language), 139-151. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2006_On_Grammatical_Relations_as_Constraints_on_Referent_Identification.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. The how and why of syntactic relations. Invited plenary address and keynote of the Centre for Research on Language Change Workshop on Grammatical Change at the Annual Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society, University of Queensland, 7-9 July, 2006. To appear in Christian Lehmann, Stavros Skopeteas, Christian Marschke (eds.), Evolution of syntactic relations (Trends in Linguistics Series). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_Draft_The_how_and_why_of_syntactic_relations.pdf LaPolla, R. J. 2010. “On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure”. Paper presented at the 10th RCLT International Workshop, “The Shaping of Language: The Relationship between the Structures of Languages and their Social, Cultural, Historical, and Natural Environments”, 14 July 2010. https://www.dropbox.com/s/zijgwtkkr0qtadq/LaPolla-2010-On_the_Logical_Necessity_of_a_Cultural_Connection_for_All_Aspects_of_Linguistic_Structure.pdf Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA (罗仁地)| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://randylapolla.net/ On May 12, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > Tahir On May 10, 2014, at 12:50 AM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > > Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a society without being able to communicate about abstractions, hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. > > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Department > Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo > Tel. 805.756.2184 > Dept. Tel 805.756.2596 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > ******************************************* > "Justice is what love looks like in public." > - Cornel West From wilcox at unm.edu Tue May 13 03:40:02 2014 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:40:02 -0600 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <6f32c03b69ec493393939148a628b47a@BLUPR07MB401.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Thanks for this wonderful post, Randy. It's a feast! -- Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Humanities 112 400 Yale Blvd. NE Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA On 12 May 2014, at 19:47, Randy LaPolla wrote: > As Karl Popper said (Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography > (1976), Page 29): "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in > such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some > who misunderstand you." It seems several people took what I said in > the wrong way. > > Although Popper didn't understand it, the reason why his observation > is correct is that communication isn't based on coding and decoding of > a shared code. > > To answer Johanna Rubba, communication happens when one person does > something with the intention of another person guessing the reason for > them doing it, and when the other person gets it right, you get > communication. That is it, there is nothing more to communication. > > This view of communication argues that a basic mechanism for making > sense of phenomena we experience in the world is abductive inference: > we observe a phenomenon or event (possibly using inductive inference > to first make a generalization about it), and then use abductive > inference to posit a hypothesis to explain why the phenomenon is the > way it is or why some event happened the way it did. This involves > creating a context of interpretation, using available assumptions, in > which the phenomenon or event “makes sense” to us. This sort of > inference is non-demonstrative (non-deductive), so the conclusion is > not necessarily true, but we generally assume our conclusion is true > until persuaded otherwise by further evidence of some type. The > particular context of interpretation created will depend on the > assumptions available to the individual, and as each individual has > had different life experiences, the assumptions available will differ > with each individual, and so all meaning-creation (understanding) will > be subjective. Abductive inference is seen as the major mechanism by > which we make sense of the world, and so is what gave rise to > religion, philosophy, and ultimately science (which added the step of > testing the hypothesis to try to falsify it), as well as most of our > every-day beliefs. It is seen as a survival technique, as > understanding the reason for some phenomenon or event can lead to us > better dealing with that phenomenon or event. > > One application of this survival instinct is inferring the intentions > of other humans, which we do instinctively in order to survive, > particularly if their action is out of the ordinary, such as walk > towards us with a knife in their hand. Most of the time people don’t > intend for us to infer their intentions, but there are times when > someone does something with the intention of another person inferring > their intention in doing it, and if the other person does infer the > intention correctly, communication has happened. That is all there is > to communication. Communication is seen not as a coding-decoding > process, but as involving one person showing the intention to > communicate, intending for the other person to infer their intention > in doing the communicative act, and abductive inference, creating a > context of interpretation in which the ostensive act makes sense. Even > the recognition of the communicative act as a communicative act > requires abductive inference. As the inferential process involved in > communication is the same as the one we use in understanding the > natural world, understanding communication gives us a way towards a > general theory of meaning creation. > > Language is not seen as crucial for communication in this view, but > when used, the role of language is to constrain the creation of the > context of interpretation by eliminating certain assumptions that > might otherwise be included in the context of interpretation. Language > is seen not as an object, but as interactional behavior which > conventionalizes at the societal level and habitualizes at the > individual level (much the same as any other societal convention or > personal habit). Language behavior conventionalizes as speakers > repeatedly use the same forms over and over to constrain the > hearer’s creation of the context of interpretation in particular > ways. Each society of speakers will chose different aspects of meaning > to consistently constrain the interpretation of, and they will do it > to different degrees if they do it at all, and they will use different > mechanisms to do so, so we can investigate the structure of languages > from the point of view of these three aspects. And as constraining the > interpretation with extra linguistic material requires extra effort on > the part of the speakers, for them to do this it must be important to > them that the hearer understand that aspect of the meaning better than > other aspects, and so all conventionalized aspects of language use are > seen to reflect aspects of the cognition of the particular speakers of > the language at the time the form was conventionalized. Over time the > original motivation for using the form can be lost, but out of habit > and convention the form will often continue to be used, and so will > seem unmotivated (arbitrary), but it would not have conventionalized > initially had it not been important to constrain that particular > aspect of the interpretation at the time it conventionalized. Each > language then is seen as uniquely reflecting the cognition of a > particular society of speakers. This cognition involves construing and > even perceiving the world differently in each language. > > This discussion has focused on language and gesture, but as Wally > said, there are other aspects, such as prosody, that are equally > relevant. Gumperz talked about many of these things as > "contextualization cues". For me, all of what we do in a communicative > situation can be a contextualization cue (I don't see a distinction > between conceptual information and contextualization cues the way > Gumperz did, or between conceptual and procedural information the way > Relevance Theory does: everything helps in the creation of the context > of interpretation). As Nick says, you have to take the whole > communicative situation into account and see all aspects as working > together towards the same goal, whether it involves "language" or > "gesture" or "prosody" or whatever. Also, communication doesn't > necessarily involve language or gesture or prosody. It can be leaving > an item out in a conspicuous place, as when my part-time cook left out > the almost-empty container of rice in order to communicate that I > needed to buy more rice, or another time when she left a cup in the > sink to communicate that the faucet was leaking and so I should have > it fixed. Anything can be used in communication. We most often combine > all of these elements together. If whatever we did to communicate > worked, we will use it again when the same or similar situation > arises, and then that can become a personal habit and a societal > convention. This includes conventionalization of conversational > routines, and also of gestures, as well as linguistic forms. All forms > and conventions used in the communicative act have the same function: > they constrain the creation of the context of inference of the > addressee, that is, constrain the addressee's search for the relevance > of the communicator's action. This is possible because of the > Cooperative Principle, which at its core is really saying we assume > people are rational, and so when they do something there must be a > reason, and we can guess (using abductive inference) what that reason > is, and thereby infer the person's communicative intent. Communication > is never fully deterministic, as Popper points out, but by > constraining the interpretation to a more appropriate extent (for the > situation) you can be more likely to have the person infer what you > intend for the person to infer. > > This is a very brief summary of a theory of language development and > communication that I have developed over the last 20 years out of the > intersection of my work in documenting languages radically different > from IE languages, in historical linguistics, in typology, and in > pragmatics. I teach a whole semester course on this. I recorded the > class this past semester, and have begun putting the audio of the > lectures and the slides on iTunes U > (https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/pragmatics/id849441717 ). The > first four or so hours go into great detail about how this works, with > many natural examples, to show how abduction works and how it isn't > coding and decoding and how anything can be communicative and how > meaning creation generally works. (Somehow my assistant put them up in > a way that the numbering is reversed, so start with item 17 ad work > up, or just hit the sort button to reverse the sort. The slides to go > with the audio are called "Notes" on the site.) The course is > officially called Pragmatic Theory, but for me it is Meaning Creation, > as it is all about how we create meaning in our minds (the only place > where meaning is--there is no meaning in letters or sounds, any > meaning we "get" is created in our minds based on our experiences). > > I also have some papers presenting the theory, and some also applying > the theory to things like the nature of grammatical relations: > > LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. "Grammaticalization as the fossilization of > constraints on interpretation: Towards a single theory of cognition, > communication, and the development of language". Paper presented to > the City University of Hong Kong Seminar in Linguistics, November 6, > 1997. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla-1997-Grammaticalization_as_the_Fossilization_of_Constraints_on_Interpretation.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Why languages differ: Variation in the > conventionalization of constraints on inference. In David Bradley, > Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Language > variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the > Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 113-144. Canberra: Pacific > Linguistics. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2003_Why_languages_differ_-_Variation_in_the_conventionalization_of_constraints_on_inference.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2005. Typology and complexity. In James W. Minett > and William S-Y. Wang (eds.), Language acquisition, change and > emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics, 465-493. Hong Kong: > City University of Hong Kong Press. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2005_Typology_and_Complexity.PDF > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. On grammatical relations as constraints on > referent identification. In Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama (eds.), > Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani > (Typological Studies in Language), 139-151. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: > John Benjamins Pub. Co. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2006_On_Grammatical_Relations_as_Constraints_on_Referent_Identification.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. The how and why of syntactic relations. > Invited plenary address and keynote of the Centre for Research on > Language Change Workshop on Grammatical Change at the Annual > Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society, University of > Queensland, 7-9 July, 2006. To appear in Christian Lehmann, Stavros > Skopeteas, Christian Marschke (eds.), Evolution of syntactic relations > (Trends in Linguistics Series). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_Draft_The_how_and_why_of_syntactic_relations.pdf > > > > LaPolla, R. J. 2010. “On the logical necessity of a cultural > connection for all aspects of linguistic structure”. Paper presented > at the 10th RCLT International Workshop, “The Shaping of Language: > The Relationship between the Structures of Languages and their Social, > Cultural, Historical, and Natural Environments”, 14 July 2010. > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/zijgwtkkr0qtadq/LaPolla-2010-On_the_Logical_Necessity_of_a_Cultural_Connection_for_All_Aspects_of_Linguistic_Structure.pdf > > > Randy > ----- > Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA (罗仁地)| Head, Division of > Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological > University > HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 > GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://randylapolla.net/ > > On May 12, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: > >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all >> necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty >> elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and >> only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have >> made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which >> itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes >> again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the >> mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we >> do and so they developed language "in order to express" those >> thoughts (!) >> Tahir > > On May 10, 2014, at 12:50 AM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > >> >> Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask >> Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form >> of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a >> society without being able to communicate about abstractions, >> hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. >> I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says >> that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I >> don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with >> abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, >> although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication >> can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. >> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all >> necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty >> elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Department >> Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo >> Tel. 805.756.2184 >> Dept. Tel 805.756.2596 >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> ******************************************* >> "Justice is what love looks like in public." >> - Cornel West From wilcox at unm.edu Tue May 13 03:50:24 2014 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:50:24 -0600 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <0d5e8b91b9b9453fbba10c2ef1d3315e@BLUPR07MB401.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: One of my favorite people to read about this is Dwight Bolinger, especially "Intonation and Its Parts" and also his wonderful essay in American Speech, "Intonation and Gesture." -- Sherman On 12 May 2014, at 16:58, Wallace Chafe wrote: > I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I > wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in > passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody > (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses > of > prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might > even > think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a > monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's > back. > > --Wally From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Tue May 13 04:39:05 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 12:39:05 +0800 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <25EBB8E0-2FF6-4E1A-9AAC-EDBD88C3B91B@unm.edu> Message-ID: Yes, Bolinger was way ahead of the pack very early on in many ways (like Wally). Another one who has always taken prosody seriously is Michael Halliday (being a student of Firth probably helped in that regard!), seeing it as part of the grammar. Bill Greaves, who wrote a book with Michael on Intonation in English (M.A.K. Halliday and W. Greaves, Intonation in the Grammar of English, LONDON: EQUINOX. 2008. PP. IX, 224. CD ROM) will not talk about linguistic forms without intonation, calling them "dead words"! Randy On May 13, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > One of my favorite people to read about this is Dwight Bolinger, especially "Intonation and Its Parts" and also his wonderful essay in American Speech, "Intonation and Gesture." > -- > Sherman > > On 12 May 2014, at 16:58, Wallace Chafe wrote: > >> I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I >> wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in >> passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody >> (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses of >> prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might even >> think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a >> monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's back. >> >> --Wally From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Tue May 13 04:54:30 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 04:54:30 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: All of these are important names. But the influence behind a lot of this was Pike. Sent from my iPhone > On May 13, 2014, at 7:39, "Randy LaPolla" wrote: > > Yes, Bolinger was way ahead of the pack very early on in many ways (like Wally). Another one who has always taken prosody seriously is Michael Halliday (being a student of Firth probably helped in that regard!), seeing it as part of the grammar. Bill Greaves, who wrote a book with Michael on Intonation in English (M.A.K. Halliday and W. Greaves, Intonation in the Grammar of English, LONDON: EQUINOX. 2008. PP. IX, 224. CD ROM) will not talk about linguistic forms without intonation, calling them "dead words"! > > Randy > >> On May 13, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >> >> One of my favorite people to read about this is Dwight Bolinger, especially "Intonation and Its Parts" and also his wonderful essay in American Speech, "Intonation and Gesture." >> -- >> Sherman >> >>> On 12 May 2014, at 16:58, Wallace Chafe wrote: >>> >>> I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I >>> wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in >>> passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody >>> (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses of >>> prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might even >>> think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a >>> monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's back. >>> >>> --Wally > From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Tue May 13 09:32:11 2014 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:11 +0100 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Don't think it's been mentioned before, but there's some interesting work on the role of gesture in second language acquisition. Stam (2010) highlights the correlation between gestural and linguistic expressions of 'path' and 'motion' in a Spanish learner of English. She also published the first (and possibly only) book on SLA and geatures. Anne Marie > From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu > To: randy.lapolla at gmail.com > Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 04:54:30 +0000 > CC: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > > All of these are important names. But the influence behind a lot of this was Pike. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On May 13, 2014, at 7:39, "Randy LaPolla" wrote: > > > > Yes, Bolinger was way ahead of the pack very early on in many ways (like Wally). Another one who has always taken prosody seriously is Michael Halliday (being a student of Firth probably helped in that regard!), seeing it as part of the grammar. Bill Greaves, who wrote a book with Michael on Intonation in English (M.A.K. Halliday and W. Greaves, Intonation in the Grammar of English, LONDON: EQUINOX. 2008. PP. IX, 224. CD ROM) will not talk about linguistic forms without intonation, calling them "dead words"! > > > > Randy > > > >> On May 13, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > >> > >> One of my favorite people to read about this is Dwight Bolinger, especially "Intonation and Its Parts" and also his wonderful essay in American Speech, "Intonation and Gesture." > >> -- > >> Sherman > >> > >>> On 12 May 2014, at 16:58, Wallace Chafe wrote: > >>> > >>> I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I > >>> wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in > >>> passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody > >>> (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses of > >>> prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might even > >>> think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a > >>> monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's back. > >>> > >>> --Wally > > From rchen at csusb.edu Tue May 13 17:16:15 2014 From: rchen at csusb.edu (Rong Chen) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:16:15 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Randy, Thanks and I would accept almost all of your points. "Almost" because I felt that your views 1) downplay the role of language a bit too much so that 2) communication is seen as entirely subjective. I start with the first point. I agree that language is the result of conventionalization. But I also think that the process of conventionalization has a biological aspect to it. The fact that human beings share the same biological makeup has to mean something, although what it means is up for debate (and has been debated for decades). So, for instance, the way our eyes are "constructed" is believed to have led to the way language presents reality in particular ways (the figure and ground gestalt, among others). Our articulators are "constructed" in the same way so that different languages draw from a common inventory of sounds. Our whatever--heart? mind? Body?--is constructed in the same way that causes us to have a similar set of emotions. (I am convinced that you are among the first to acknowledge all this, given your vast experience documenting and studying languages.) This will lead to some commonalities among languages, rendering language capable of transcending specific speech situations across time and space. Even socialization could transcend speech situations. No one I know denies the specificity of each life experience. The fact is that there is no exact replica of any experience. But there is also something in common about these experiences and/or the human mind is capable of extracting "sameness" from different experiences. There could even be something inherently similar in different human experiences. In other words, different communities at different times may share a set of general social principles, whatever they might turn out to be (intentionality of speech? Cooperation? Assuming truth in communication unless there are reasons not to? Desire to retain autonomy?). If these things do exist (and again I expect your agreement on this), they exist because, I think, of something socially natural (which would possibly be an oxymoron to you) about human beings. In the sense that human beings strive to survive, and survival often requires coexistence with each other in a community, we could have, due to our shared survival instinct and the way our brain is constructed, collectively "discovered" or "formed" these principles, things that offer us the best chance for coexistence, for survival. So, I am of the opinion that because of the shared biological makeup and general social principles, language is the codification (or extraction) of shared life experience that has in part resulted from conventionalization. It hence provides a system for speakers to use as signposts for hearers (leading to an intended destination) rather than a means to constrain hearers (from going aimlessly in all directions). It makes sense for the human mind to choose the shorter route to an end (rationality), and to direct someone to a place seems to be a shorter route than to prevent that someone from going to unintended places. Now, the second and consequential point, about the subjectivity of language and communication. The view that completely denies the transcending prowess of language seems to be based on the argument along the lines of "Since language is always used in social context and social contexts differ, language is social and social only (hence subjective, elusive, unfixed, relational, dynamic)." I have always felt a bit uncomfortable about that claim. First, it is unfalsifiable. Second, it seems to require a leap of logic. If that statement stands, so should the following: "Since language is always used when there is sufficient amount of nitrogen and oxygen (for the speaker to stay living), it has to do with nitrogen and oxygen. Further, since all human beings depend on nitrogen and oxygen for survival, language is the same for all humans." (I apologize for making the statement sound sillier than it is and for making myself sound ruder than what I think I am.) Further, if we say communication is entirely subjective because speakers have different life experiences, we are implying that understanding is a miraculous rarity. I am not sure that is the case. Listening to Bach played by different performers in different places at different times, one notices the uniqueness of each pianist. (Uniqueness is, for the most part, why one goes to a concert in the first place.) But one also notices something Bach in all of them. Shakespeare is read by English speakers (non-English speakers, too) all over the globe for the past three hundred years and we all have our own takes about each work, but I think if we round up a group of readers across time and space in one room, we would discover an amazing amount of shared interpretation. If I count successes and failures of my communication on an average day, I think I the number of successes would exceed that of failures. You (someone living and working in Australia) and I (growing up on a Chinese farm but now living in North America) met for the first time and conversed a bit a few years ago in Beijing, and we seemed to understand each other quite well (at least in my view). Those who believe that communication is entirely subjective will have to grabble with this reality. But this reality would be a bit easier to explain if we give language and other communication media--gesture, prosody and others--a bit more credit. Rong Chen -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Randy LaPolla Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 6:48 PM To: Funknet List Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture As Karl Popper said (Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976), Page 29): "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you." It seems several people took what I said in the wrong way. Although Popper didn't understand it, the reason why his observation is correct is that communication isn't based on coding and decoding of a shared code. To answer Johanna Rubba, communication happens when one person does something with the intention of another person guessing the reason for them doing it, and when the other person gets it right, you get communication. That is it, there is nothing more to communication. This view of communication argues that a basic mechanism for making sense of phenomena we experience in the world is abductive inference: we observe a phenomenon or event (possibly using inductive inference to first make a generalization about it), and then use abductive inference to posit a hypothesis to explain why the phenomenon is the way it is or why some event happened the way it did. This involves creating a context of interpretation, using available assumptions, in which the phenomenon or event “makes sense” to us. This sort of inference is non-demonstrative (non-deductive), so the conclusion is not necessarily true, but we generally assume our conclusion is true until persuaded otherwise by further evidence of some type. The particular context of interpretation created will depend on the assumptions available to the individual, and as each individual has had different life experiences, the assumptions available will differ with each individual, and so all meaning-creation (understanding) will be subjective. Abductive inference is seen as the major mechanism by which we make sense of the world, and so is what gave rise to religion, philosophy, and ultimately science (which added the step of testing the hypothesis to try to falsify it), as well as most of our every-day beliefs. It is seen as a survival technique, as understanding the reason for some phenomenon or event can lead to us better dealing with that phenomenon or event. One application of this survival instinct is inferring the intentions of other humans, which we do instinctively in order to survive, particularly if their action is out of the ordinary, such as walk towards us with a knife in their hand. Most of the time people don’t intend for us to infer their intentions, but there are times when someone does something with the intention of another person inferring their intention in doing it, and if the other person does infer the intention correctly, communication has happened. That is all there is to communication. Communication is seen not as a coding-decoding process, but as involving one person showing the intention to communicate, intending for the other person to infer their intention in doing the communicative act, and abductive inference, creating a context of interpretation in which the ostensive act makes sense. Even the recognition of the communicative act as a communicative act requires abductive inference. As the inferential process involved in communication is the same as the one we use in understanding the natural world, understanding communication gives us a way towards a general theory of meaning creation. Language is not seen as crucial for communication in this view, but when used, the role of language is to constrain the creation of the context of interpretation by eliminating certain assumptions that might otherwise be included in the context of interpretation. Language is seen not as an object, but as interactional behavior which conventionalizes at the societal level and habitualizes at the individual level (much the same as any other societal convention or personal habit). Language behavior conventionalizes as speakers repeatedly use the same forms over and over to constrain the hearer’s creation of the context of interpretation in particular ways. Each society of speakers will chose different aspects of meaning to consistently constrain the interpretation of, and they will do it to different degrees if they do it at all, and they will use different mechanisms to do so, so we can investigate the structure of languages from the point of view of these three aspects. And as constraining the interpretation with extra linguistic material requires extra effort on the part of the speakers, for them to do this it must be important to them that the hearer understand that aspect of the meaning better than other aspects, and so all conventionalized aspects of language use are seen to reflect aspects of the cognition of the particular speakers of the language at the time the form was conventionalized. Over time the original motivation for using the form can be lost, but out of habit and convention the form will often continue to be used, and so will seem unmotivated (arbitrary), but it would not have conventionalized initially had it not been important to constrain that particular aspect of the interpretation at the time it conventionalized. Each language then is seen as uniquely reflecting the cognition of a particular society of speakers. This cognition involves construing and even perceiving the world differently in each language. This discussion has focused on language and gesture, but as Wally said, there are other aspects, such as prosody, that are equally relevant. Gumperz talked about many of these things as "contextualization cues". For me, all of what we do in a communicative situation can be a contextualization cue (I don't see a distinction between conceptual information and contextualization cues the way Gumperz did, or between conceptual and procedural information the way Relevance Theory does: everything helps in the creation of the context of interpretation). As Nick says, you have to take the whole communicative situation into account and see all aspects as working together towards the same goal, whether it involves "language" or "gesture" or "prosody" or whatever. Also, communication doesn't necessarily involve language or gesture or prosody. It can be leaving an item out in a conspicuous place, as when my part-time cook left out the almost-empty container of rice in order to communicate that I needed to buy more rice, or another time when she left a cup in the sink to communicate that the faucet was leaking and so I should have it fixed. Anything can be used in communication. We most often combine all of these elements together. If whatever we did to communicate worked, we will use it again when the same or similar situation arises, and then that can become a personal habit and a societal convention. This includes conventionalization of conversational routines, and also of gestures, as well as linguistic forms. All forms and conventions used in the communicative act have the same function: they constrain the creation of the context of inference of the addressee, that is, constrain the addressee's search for the relevance of the communicator's action. This is possible because of the Cooperative Principle, which at its core is really saying we assume people are rational, and so when they do something there must be a reason, and we can guess (using abductive inference) what that reason is, and thereby infer the person's communicative intent. Communication is never fully deterministic, as Popper points out, but by constraining the interpretation to a more appropriate extent (for the situation) you can be more likely to have the person infer what you intend for the person to infer. This is a very brief summary of a theory of language development and communication that I have developed over the last 20 years out of the intersection of my work in documenting languages radically different from IE languages, in historical linguistics, in typology, and in pragmatics. I teach a whole semester course on this. I recorded the class this past semester, and have begun putting the audio of the lectures and the slides on iTunes U (https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/pragmatics/id849441717 ). The first four or so hours go into great detail about how this works, with many natural examples, to show how abduction works and how it isn't coding and decoding and how anything can be communicative and how meaning creation generally works. (Somehow my assistant put them up in a way that the numbering is reversed, so start with item 17 ad work up, or just hit the sort button to reverse the sort. The slides to go with the audio are called "Notes" on the site.) The course is officially called Pragmatic Theory, but for me it is Meaning Creation, as it is all about how we create meaning in our minds (the only place where meaning is--there is no meaning in letters or sounds, any meaning we "get" is created in our minds based on our experiences). I also have some papers presenting the theory, and some also applying the theory to things like the nature of grammatical relations: LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. "Grammaticalization as the fossilization of constraints on interpretation: Towards a single theory of cognition, communication, and the development of language". Paper presented to the City University of Hong Kong Seminar in Linguistics, November 6, 1997. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla-1997-Grammaticalization_as_the_Fossilization_of_Constraints_on_Interpretation.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In David Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 113-144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2003_Why_languages_differ_-_Variation_in_the_conventionalization_of_constraints_on_inference.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2005. Typology and complexity. In James W. Minett and William S-Y. Wang (eds.), Language acquisition, change and emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics, 465-493. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2005_Typology_and_Complexity.PDF LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification. In Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language), 139-151. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2006_On_Grammatical_Relations_as_Constraints_on_Referent_Identification.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. The how and why of syntactic relations. Invited plenary address and keynote of the Centre for Research on Language Change Workshop on Grammatical Change at the Annual Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society, University of Queensland, 7-9 July, 2006. To appear in Christian Lehmann, Stavros Skopeteas, Christian Marschke (eds.), Evolution of syntactic relations (Trends in Linguistics Series). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_Draft_The_how_and_why_of_syntactic_relations.pdf LaPolla, R. J. 2010. “On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure”. Paper presented at the 10th RCLT International Workshop, “The Shaping of Language: The Relationship between the Structures of Languages and their Social, Cultural, Historical, and Natural Environments”, 14 July 2010. https://www.dropbox.com/s/zijgwtkkr0qtadq/LaPolla-2010-On_the_Logical_Necessity_of_a_Cultural_Connection_for_All_Aspects_of_Linguistic_Structure.pdf Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA (罗仁地)| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://randylapolla.net/ On May 12, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and > only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have > made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which > itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes > again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the > mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we do > and so they developed language "in order to express" those thoughts > (!) Tahir On May 10, 2014, at 12:50 AM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > > Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a society without being able to communicate about abstractions, hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. > > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Department > Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel > 805.756.2596 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > ******************************************* > "Justice is what love looks like in public." > - Cornel West From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Wed May 14 06:53:53 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 14:53:53 +0800 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <4033F8EF7E1BD54AA3231850422D85DD8B2715BB@EXCHSTORE6.csusb.edu> Message-ID: Hi Rong Chen, As I mentioned in my post, that summary was very brief; there are many other aspects and implications I cover as part of the theory. I have been trying to get a book out, but due to moving several times in the last couple of years and much too much admin work all the time, I haven't been able to get it together yet. I do talk about shared biological makeup and common reactions to environmental factors as factors involved in the commonalities we find across languages. I compare this with the structure of the shark and the whale: both evolved tails in response to living in water, but what is interesting is that the whale's tail goes up and down, while the shark's tail goes back and forth. This is like some languages similarly constraining the interpretation of, for example, the possessor of bodyparts, but doing it in different ways (like in I'm washing my hands vs. Je me lave le mains). (Some languages, of course, like Chinese, don't obligatorily constrain the interpretation of the possessor in this construction.) With a usage-based approach, which I adopt, one generalizes across experiences to create exemplars, and these are what we think of in terms of conventionalization. There are principles, such as the assumption of rationality (Hempel even tried to make this into a covering law in his attempts to make the social sciences scientific, i.e. follow the deductive-nomological model), that we appeal to in talking about all languages, and much flows from this. The relationship between conventions and use/experience is kind of chicken and egg, in that experience of how other people use the forms informs our understanding of the conventions and how we create the exemplars we then use to create new forms, but in creating new forms we are constantly changing the exemplars, and these can then become conventionalized. (See, for example, Paul Hopper's work on this, e.g. his 2011 paper in the book Constructions: emerging and emergent). My claim was about the subjectivity of meaning-creation, and is not at all based on what you said (and I don't even know what you mean by "denies the transcending power of language"). It is based on my observations of my own meaning creation processes and trying to figure out how they work. Most of my examples involve me, as I know what happened in my head to create the meaning in that situation. The fact, as Micheal Reddy pointed out way back in 1979 ("The conduit metaphor"), is that we can never know what is going on in someone else's head. We can make guesses about it, but these guesses are based on our own knowledge-base, experiences, and personality, so will never be fully objective. Reddy actually did argue that we should not assume that communication happens easily: "Human communication will almost always go astray unless real energy is expended . . .Partial miscommunication, or divergence of readings from a single text, are not aberrations. They are tendencies inherent in the system . . ." (p. 295). You can only recognize the Bach-ness in a piece of Bach's music if you have at some time previously had experience of Bach's music. We can all experience such things, but how we experience it is subjective and personal, even if we have been taught how to experience it (e.g. in music appreciation classes). The interesting thing is that the view of epistemology that arises from this theory is that all of our beliefs and knowledge are seen as not only subjective, but serendipitous, as they are formed by our experiences (who we had as teachers, what books we've read, who we've talked to, etc.), which themselves are serendipitous. For example, I was greatly affected in developing this theory by reading Sperber and Wilson's Relevance, but I only read that book because I saw a copy of it for sale for $6 in Moe's used bookshop in Berkeley many years ago as a poor grad student, and it affected me the way it did because of the kind of work I happened to be doing at the time, and the problems I was trying to solve. Each time one reads a book one can get more out of it because the subjective context of interpretation within which the relevance is found changes with experience, even the experience of having read the book before. I read that book three times cover to cover, and got something different out of it each time. I've read MAK Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar at least 12 times, and have gotten something new out of it each time I've read it. You and I can learn the same forms of English or Chinese, but that doesn't mean we will understand the use of those forms the same way (even for native speakers), or derive the same relevance from the forms or the communicative intent, as our experiences with the use of those forms will have been different, and our understanding of those experiences will be influenced by earlier experiences. For example, I told my mother once I had plantar's fascitis, and she asked me what that had to do with warts. It has nothing to do with warts, but my mother's only experience with the word "plantar's" was in the expression "plantar's warts", and so she assumed "plantar's fascitis" must also be about warts. A student I had in China back in 1980 had had only one book during the cultural revolution, and so memorized it. It happened to be an English dictionary. So he knew all the words, but often had trouble understanding or being understood in English because he didn't have any experience with how the words are used, and so used them in ways native speakers wouldn't. Your spelling of "grapple" as "grabble" reflects your Chinese background and your experience not only of that word but of the distinction between voiced and voiceless stops more generally, also subjective and serendipitous. Even when, for example Chinese and American politicians think they have understood each other (whatever language they have used), in fact many times they have talked past each other and not really understood what each other meant. This can have grave consequences. All the best, Randy On May 14, 2014, at 1:16 AM, Rong Chen wrote: > Randy, > > Thanks and I would accept almost all of your points. "Almost" because I felt that your views 1) downplay the role of language a bit too much so that 2) communication is seen as entirely subjective. I start with the first point. > > I agree that language is the result of conventionalization. But I also think that the process of conventionalization has a biological aspect to it. The fact that human beings share the same biological makeup has to mean something, although what it means is up for debate (and has been debated for decades). So, for instance, the way our eyes are "constructed" is believed to have led to the way language presents reality in particular ways (the figure and ground gestalt, among others). Our articulators are "constructed" in the same way so that different languages draw from a common inventory of sounds. Our whatever--heart? mind? Body?--is constructed in the same way that causes us to have a similar set of emotions. (I am convinced that you are among the first to acknowledge all this, given your vast experience documenting and studying languages.) This will lead to some commonalities among languages, rendering language capable of transcending specific speech situations across time and space. > > Even socialization could transcend speech situations. No one I know denies the specificity of each life experience. The fact is that there is no exact replica of any experience. But there is also something in common about these experiences and/or the human mind is capable of extracting "sameness" from different experiences. There could even be something inherently similar in different human experiences. In other words, different communities at different times may share a set of general social principles, whatever they might turn out to be (intentionality of speech? Cooperation? Assuming truth in communication unless there are reasons not to? Desire to retain autonomy?). If these things do exist (and again I expect your agreement on this), they exist because, I think, of something socially natural (which would possibly be an oxymoron to you) about human beings. In the sense that human beings strive to survive, and survival often requires coexistence with each other in a community, we could have, due to our shared survival instinct and the way our brain is constructed, collectively "discovered" or "formed" these principles, things that offer us the best chance for coexistence, for survival. > > So, I am of the opinion that because of the shared biological makeup and general social principles, language is the codification (or extraction) of shared life experience that has in part resulted from conventionalization. It hence provides a system for speakers to use as signposts for hearers (leading to an intended destination) rather than a means to constrain hearers (from going aimlessly in all directions). It makes sense for the human mind to choose the shorter route to an end (rationality), and to direct someone to a place seems to be a shorter route than to prevent that someone from going to unintended places. > > Now, the second and consequential point, about the subjectivity of language and communication. The view that completely denies the transcending prowess of language seems to be based on the argument along the lines of "Since language is always used in social context and social contexts differ, language is social and social only (hence subjective, elusive, unfixed, relational, dynamic)." I have always felt a bit uncomfortable about that claim. First, it is unfalsifiable. Second, it seems to require a leap of logic. If that statement stands, so should the following: "Since language is always used when there is sufficient amount of nitrogen and oxygen (for the speaker to stay living), it has to do with nitrogen and oxygen. Further, since all human beings depend on nitrogen and oxygen for survival, language is the same for all humans." (I apologize for making the statement sound sillier than it is and for making myself sound ruder than what I think I am.) > > Further, if we say communication is entirely subjective because speakers have different life experiences, we are implying that understanding is a miraculous rarity. I am not sure that is the case. Listening to Bach played by different performers in different places at different times, one notices the uniqueness of each pianist. (Uniqueness is, for the most part, why one goes to a concert in the first place.) But one also notices something Bach in all of them. Shakespeare is read by English speakers (non-English speakers, too) all over the globe for the past three hundred years and we all have our own takes about each work, but I think if we round up a group of readers across time and space in one room, we would discover an amazing amount of shared interpretation. If I count successes and failures of my communication on an average day, I think I the number of successes would exceed that of failures. You (someone living and working in Australia) and I (growing up on a Chinese farm but now living in North America) met for the first time and conversed a bit a few years ago in Beijing, and we seemed to understand each other quite well (at least in my view). Those who believe that communication is entirely subjective will have to grabble with this reality. But this reality would be a bit easier to explain if we give language and other communication media--gesture, prosody and others--a bit more credit. > > Rong Chen > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Randy LaPolla > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 6:48 PM > To: Funknet List > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > > As Karl Popper said (Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976), Page 29): "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you." It seems several people took what I said in the wrong way. > > Although Popper didn't understand it, the reason why his observation is correct is that communication isn't based on coding and decoding of a shared code. > > To answer Johanna Rubba, communication happens when one person does something with the intention of another person guessing the reason for them doing it, and when the other person gets it right, you get communication. That is it, there is nothing more to communication. > > This view of communication argues that a basic mechanism for making sense of phenomena we experience in the world is abductive inference: we observe a phenomenon or event (possibly using inductive inference to first make a generalization about it), and then use abductive inference to posit a hypothesis to explain why the phenomenon is the way it is or why some event happened the way it did. This involves creating a context of interpretation, using available assumptions, in which the phenomenon or event “makes sense” to us. This sort of inference is non-demonstrative (non-deductive), so the conclusion is not necessarily true, but we generally assume our conclusion is true until persuaded otherwise by further evidence of some type. The particular context of interpretation created will depend on the assumptions available to the individual, and as each individual has had different life experiences, the assumptions available will differ with each individual, and so all meaning-creation (understanding) will be subjective. Abductive inference is seen as the major mechanism by which we make sense of the world, and so is what gave rise to religion, philosophy, and ultimately science (which added the step of testing the hypothesis to try to falsify it), as well as most of our every-day beliefs. It is seen as a survival technique, as understanding the reason for some phenomenon or event can lead to us better dealing with that phenomenon or event. > > One application of this survival instinct is inferring the intentions of other humans, which we do instinctively in order to survive, particularly if their action is out of the ordinary, such as walk towards us with a knife in their hand. Most of the time people don’t intend for us to infer their intentions, but there are times when someone does something with the intention of another person inferring their intention in doing it, and if the other person does infer the intention correctly, communication has happened. That is all there is to communication. Communication is seen not as a coding-decoding process, but as involving one person showing the intention to communicate, intending for the other person to infer their intention in doing the communicative act, and abductive inference, creating a context of interpretation in which the ostensive act makes sense. Even the recognition of the communicative act as a communicative act requires abductive inference. As the inferential process involved in communication is the same as the one we use in understanding the natural world, understanding communication gives us a way towards a general theory of meaning creation. > > Language is not seen as crucial for communication in this view, but when used, the role of language is to constrain the creation of the context of interpretation by eliminating certain assumptions that might otherwise be included in the context of interpretation. Language is seen not as an object, but as interactional behavior which conventionalizes at the societal level and habitualizes at the individual level (much the same as any other societal convention or personal habit). Language behavior conventionalizes as speakers repeatedly use the same forms over and over to constrain the hearer’s creation of the context of interpretation in particular ways. Each society of speakers will chose different aspects of meaning to consistently constrain the interpretation of, and they will do it to different degrees if they do it at all, and they will use different mechanisms to do so, so we can investigate the structure of languages from the point of view of these three aspects. And as constraining the interpretation with extra linguistic material requires extra effort on the part of the speakers, for them to do this it must be important to them that the hearer understand that aspect of the meaning better than other aspects, and so all conventionalized aspects of language use are seen to reflect aspects of the cognition of the particular speakers of the language at the time the form was conventionalized. Over time the original motivation for using the form can be lost, but out of habit and convention the form will often continue to be used, and so will seem unmotivated (arbitrary), but it would not have conventionalized initially had it not been important to constrain that particular aspect of the interpretation at the time it conventionalized. Each language then is seen as uniquely reflecting the cognition of a particular society of speakers. This cognition involves construing and even perceiving the world differently in each language. > > This discussion has focused on language and gesture, but as Wally said, there are other aspects, such as prosody, that are equally relevant. Gumperz talked about many of these things as "contextualization cues". For me, all of what we do in a communicative situation can be a contextualization cue (I don't see a distinction between conceptual information and contextualization cues the way Gumperz did, or between conceptual and procedural information the way Relevance Theory does: everything helps in the creation of the context of interpretation). As Nick says, you have to take the whole communicative situation into account and see all aspects as working together towards the same goal, whether it involves "language" or "gesture" or "prosody" or whatever. Also, communication doesn't necessarily involve language or gesture or prosody. It can be leaving an item out in a conspicuous place, as when my part-time cook left out the almost-empty container of rice in order to communicate that I needed to buy more rice, or another time when she left a cup in the sink to communicate that the faucet was leaking and so I should have it fixed. Anything can be used in communication. We most often combine all of these elements together. If whatever we did to communicate worked, we will use it again when the same or similar situation arises, and then that can become a personal habit and a societal convention. This includes conventionalization of conversational routines, and also of gestures, as well as linguistic forms. All forms and conventions used in the communicative act have the same function: they constrain the creation of the context of inference of the addressee, that is, constrain the addressee's search for the relevance of the communicator's action. This is possible because of the Cooperative Principle, which at its core is really saying we assume people are rational, and so when they do something there must be a reason, and we can guess (using abductive inference) what that reason is, and thereby infer the person's communicative intent. Communication is never fully deterministic, as Popper points out, but by constraining the interpretation to a more appropriate extent (for the situation) you can be more likely to have the person infer what you intend for the person to infer. > > This is a very brief summary of a theory of language development and communication that I have developed over the last 20 years out of the intersection of my work in documenting languages radically different from IE languages, in historical linguistics, in typology, and in pragmatics. I teach a whole semester course on this. I recorded the class this past semester, and have begun putting the audio of the lectures and the slides on iTunes U (https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/pragmatics/id849441717 ). The first four or so hours go into great detail about how this works, with many natural examples, to show how abduction works and how it isn't coding and decoding and how anything can be communicative and how meaning creation generally works. (Somehow my assistant put them up in a way that the numbering is reversed, so start with item 17 ad work up, or just hit the sort button to reverse the sort. The slides to go with the audio are called "Notes" on the site.) The course is officially called Pragmatic Theory, but for me it is Meaning Creation, as it is all about how we create meaning in our minds (the only place where meaning is--there is no meaning in letters or sounds, any meaning we "get" is created in our minds based on our experiences). > > I also have some papers presenting the theory, and some also applying the theory to things like the nature of grammatical relations: > > LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. "Grammaticalization as the fossilization of constraints on interpretation: Towards a single theory of cognition, communication, and the development of language". Paper presented to the City University of Hong Kong Seminar in Linguistics, November 6, 1997. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla-1997-Grammaticalization_as_the_Fossilization_of_Constraints_on_Interpretation.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In David Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 113-144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2003_Why_languages_differ_-_Variation_in_the_conventionalization_of_constraints_on_inference.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2005. Typology and complexity. In James W. Minett and William S-Y. Wang (eds.), Language acquisition, change and emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics, 465-493. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2005_Typology_and_Complexity.PDF > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification. In Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language), 139-151. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2006_On_Grammatical_Relations_as_Constraints_on_Referent_Identification.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. The how and why of syntactic relations. Invited plenary address and keynote of the Centre for Research on Language Change Workshop on Grammatical Change at the Annual Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society, University of Queensland, 7-9 July, 2006. To appear in Christian Lehmann, Stavros Skopeteas, Christian Marschke (eds.), Evolution of syntactic relations (Trends in Linguistics Series). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_Draft_The_how_and_why_of_syntactic_relations.pdf > > > > LaPolla, R. J. 2010. “On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure”. Paper presented at the 10th RCLT International Workshop, “The Shaping of Language: The Relationship between the Structures of Languages and their Social, Cultural, Historical, and Natural Environments”, 14 July 2010. > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/zijgwtkkr0qtadq/LaPolla-2010-On_the_Logical_Necessity_of_a_Cultural_Connection_for_All_Aspects_of_Linguistic_Structure.pdf > > > Randy > ----- > Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA (罗仁地)| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://randylapolla.net/ > > On May 12, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: > >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and >> only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have >> made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which >> itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes >> again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the >> mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we do >> and so they developed language "in order to express" those thoughts >> (!) Tahir > > On May 10, 2014, at 12:50 AM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > >> >> Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a society without being able to communicate about abstractions, hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. >> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Department >> Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel >> 805.756.2596 >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> ******************************************* >> "Justice is what love looks like in public." >> - Cornel West > > > > > From wallis.reid at gse.rutgers.edu Wed May 14 12:53:19 2014 From: wallis.reid at gse.rutgers.edu (Wallis Reid) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 08:53:19 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about evolution Message-ID: A reply to Johanna Rubba As I have always understood the mechanism of evolution, it is not teleologically-driven, so nothing ever evolves so at to meet a pre-existing need. It's the reverse. Things become needed as the result of having evolved. So, for instance, creatures didn't evolve eyes because they needed to see; we now need to see because we evolved eyes. Or to put it in a less paradoxical way, the evolution of eyes led to countless other changes in behavior, ecological niche, feeding, social relations etc. that took advantage of sight, with the result that sight became crucial to our survival. The same would apply to language. It didn't evolve because people needed it; it is now needed because its evolution radically changed how people lived, related and perhaps thought. Wallis Reid >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) > 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) > 3. Re: Review of research on gesture (Mike Morgan) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:53:33 +0200 > From: "Tahir Wood" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > To: > Message-ID: <53709A1D020000690011723A at uwc.ac.za> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language > "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > Tahir > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:11 +0200 > From: "Tahir Wood" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > To: > Message-ID: <53709AF70200006900117240 at uwc.ac.za> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language > "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > Tahir > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:12:53 +0545 > From: Mike Morgan > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > To: Funknet List > Message-ID: > uQmSLP4iucB9RsQ at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Namaskar to all, from hot and sunny Kathmandu! > > Okay, I hope nobody minds if I put in my 18 rupees worth (at current > exchange rates, US 2 cents)... > > First, to be honest, I haven't (yet!) read Dan's review article which > started this thread... i WILL, but it is number 17 on my "to read list" > > Second, for the sake of full disclosure (and because it SEEMS to influence > the regard which some people give comments), I am a sign language linguist. > BUT I wasn't always one (just as i wasn't always an Asian); I started out > as an Indo-Euorpeanist and got into sign languages by kismet. Because of my > background and interests, I do a lot of comparative and typological stuff > (I am a fluent signer of 7 sign languages, belonging, by conservative > estimates, to 3 different sign language families), but I mostly publish on > morpho-syntax (and specifically morpho-syntax IN discourse). > > I agree that gesture research IS becoming more and more familiar to > linguists at large ... IN THE WEST (and am not sure, MAYBE I include Japan > in that West). For the rest of the world (or at least the broad swathes of > Asia and Africa where I have been living and working for years) that is NOT > the case. AND, alas, sign languages also are seen as closer to gesture than > they are to spoken languages (even the Linguistic Society of Nepal, which, > by Asian standards, is a fairly linguistically sophisticated group, always > schedules sign language presentations at their annual conference in > sessions with presentations on gesture ... and other miscellanea!). I > haven't lived in the West for decades, but I suspect that despite gradual > inroads among certain groups (functional and cognitive linguists?), gesture > is still NOT something the average Western linguist thinks of when s/he > talks about language structure. i.e. gesture is a beast apart, separate > form language ... and, I suspect, if pushed to take a side, most linguists > would say it was "a lesser beast". > > I got into sign languages, as I said, by (fortunate) accident... and the > first topic I chose was something I have done off and on since: structure > of natural discourse. This was in the early 90s, and Sign Linguistics had > been around for decades, and so I could read a wide(ish) variety of papers > (though rather limited pickings on sign language discourse at that time). > And so I had a list of what kinds of things to look at (and look for)... > but fortunately I think in the long run, I decided to IGNORE that list, and > just to transcribe EVERYTHING (visual) that was being done by the signer > that seemed even remotely to have potential for communicative goals > (ignoring of course that communication is but ONE use of language)... or at > least I would transcribe everything I could pick up on. I suspected that a > lot of that extra transcribing would turn out to be "wasted time", but I > also suspected that if i didn't transcribe EVERTHING i saw -- or if I just > followed the list taken from works done on other (western) sign languages > -- I would MISS a lot of important stuff as well. (And indeed, among other > discoveries, this is how I discovered that sideways head-tilt in Japanese > Sign Language was an evidential marker.) > > ANYWAYS, so as not to make this too much of a story, over the years I have > decided -- as Dan seems to have decided -- that linguistics (and linguists > .. though of course NOT the linguist of THIS august group) have drawn a > false line in the sand .. based on the limitations of their experience. > Spoken language linguists (except for the enlightened few?) draw the line > thus: if it comes out of your mouth, it is language; if it doesn't come out > of your mouth, it is NOT (and CANNOT BE) language (i.e. it is MERE > gesture). They may not actually say it in these words, but in DEED that is > how they analyse language. Even many sign language linguists seem to get ti > wrong when they put sign languages as a beats apart (albeit, to us a > SUPERIOR beast!) .. and I point out in a review of *Markus Steinbach* and > *Annika* Herrmann (eds), Nonmanuals in Sign Language for e-Language which I > don't think has yet hit cyberspace, where in the introduction the editors > make such a categorical statement about spoken languages : that gesture > CANNOT be linguistic, that there is something about the visual modality of > gestures versus the oral modality of spoken languages that keeps them > forever and always in separate categories. > > BUT, I don't think this is true. or at least not NECESSARILY true. And > because of the possibilities that gesture (or at least SOME gesture) not > only interacts with gesture in what I refer to as the Communicative > Semiotic, but in fact (some) gesture might in fact BE language. (My mental > picture of what the relationship is between the Communicative Semiotic and > the Linguistic Semiotic still has the latter inside the former, Venn > diagram style, but the size of the latter is growing and the boundary is > becoming more and more porous.) > > SEEMS to me that choosing to ignore the potential of gesture IN language is > like choosing to ignore tone when describing a Himalayan Tibeto-Burman > language;YES, it is POSSIBLE that tone is not significant ... but based on > experience, this is NOT likely. > > > ok, think maybe I gave a bit more than 18 rupees-worth... apologies if > apologies are needed! > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: > > > >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > > emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > > later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > > huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > > have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > > this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > > humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed > language > > "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > > Tahir > > > > > > -- > mwm || *U*C> || mike || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? ||???? || > ?????? > (aka Dr Michael W Morgan) > sign language linguist / linguistic typologist > academic adviser, Nepal Sign Language Training and Research > NDFN, Kathmandu, Nepal > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 > *************************************** > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Wed May 14 12:59:21 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 12:59:21 +0000 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about evolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Although I agree that evolution is not teleologically driven, one still has to provide some account of the evolutionary pressures that led to language development. There are many proposals (and I go into these at length in a book in progress for WW Norton). One that I discuss in Language: The Cultural Tool is what Aristotle called the "social instinct" (raised in the context as "Aristotle's Answer," a response to what some linguists call "Plato's Problem" - also see work by many folks on the related "Interactional Instinct" - though I do not really think that there is much evidence for behavioral instincts, including language, of any kind). The need for community, uniquely strong in the genus Homo, would have exerted strong selectional pressure on the development of more and more complex communication systems, of which language is the most complex we know. But, as I say, there are many proposals out there. What all of these proposals share, though, is an attempt to understand the non-teleological forces exerted on language evolution. Boyd and Richerson provide in a number of works a lot of good ideas plus the math necessary to understand cultural evolution and cultural pressures on different solutions to different kinds of problems. -- Dan On May 14, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Wallis Reid wrote: > A reply to Johanna Rubba > As I have always understood the mechanism of evolution, it is not > teleologically-driven, so nothing ever evolves so at to meet a pre-existing > need. It's the reverse. Things become needed as the result of having > evolved. So, for instance, creatures didn't evolve eyes because they needed > to see; we now need to see because we evolved eyes. Or to put it in a less > paradoxical way, the evolution of eyes led to countless other changes in > behavior, ecological niche, feeding, social relations etc. that took > advantage of sight, with the result that sight became crucial to our > survival. The same would apply to language. It didn't evolve because people > needed it; it is now needed because its evolution radically changed how > people lived, related and perhaps thought. > Wallis Reid > >>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > >> Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to >> funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) >> 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) >> 3. Re: Review of research on gesture (Mike Morgan) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:53:33 +0200 >> From: "Tahir Wood" >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >> To: >> Message-ID: <53709A1D020000690011723A at uwc.ac.za> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary >> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only >> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it >> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language >> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >> Tahir >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:11 +0200 >> From: "Tahir Wood" >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >> To: >> Message-ID: <53709AF70200006900117240 at uwc.ac.za> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary >> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only >> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it >> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language >> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >> Tahir >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:12:53 +0545 >> From: Mike Morgan >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >> To: Funknet List >> Message-ID: >> > uQmSLP4iucB9RsQ at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> Namaskar to all, from hot and sunny Kathmandu! >> >> Okay, I hope nobody minds if I put in my 18 rupees worth (at current >> exchange rates, US 2 cents)... >> >> First, to be honest, I haven't (yet!) read Dan's review article which >> started this thread... i WILL, but it is number 17 on my "to read list" >> >> Second, for the sake of full disclosure (and because it SEEMS to influence >> the regard which some people give comments), I am a sign language linguist. >> BUT I wasn't always one (just as i wasn't always an Asian); I started out >> as an Indo-Euorpeanist and got into sign languages by kismet. Because of my >> background and interests, I do a lot of comparative and typological stuff >> (I am a fluent signer of 7 sign languages, belonging, by conservative >> estimates, to 3 different sign language families), but I mostly publish on >> morpho-syntax (and specifically morpho-syntax IN discourse). >> >> I agree that gesture research IS becoming more and more familiar to >> linguists at large ... IN THE WEST (and am not sure, MAYBE I include Japan >> in that West). For the rest of the world (or at least the broad swathes of >> Asia and Africa where I have been living and working for years) that is NOT >> the case. AND, alas, sign languages also are seen as closer to gesture than >> they are to spoken languages (even the Linguistic Society of Nepal, which, >> by Asian standards, is a fairly linguistically sophisticated group, always >> schedules sign language presentations at their annual conference in >> sessions with presentations on gesture ... and other miscellanea!). I >> haven't lived in the West for decades, but I suspect that despite gradual >> inroads among certain groups (functional and cognitive linguists?), gesture >> is still NOT something the average Western linguist thinks of when s/he >> talks about language structure. i.e. gesture is a beast apart, separate >> form language ... and, I suspect, if pushed to take a side, most linguists >> would say it was "a lesser beast". >> >> I got into sign languages, as I said, by (fortunate) accident... and the >> first topic I chose was something I have done off and on since: structure >> of natural discourse. This was in the early 90s, and Sign Linguistics had >> been around for decades, and so I could read a wide(ish) variety of papers >> (though rather limited pickings on sign language discourse at that time). >> And so I had a list of what kinds of things to look at (and look for)... >> but fortunately I think in the long run, I decided to IGNORE that list, and >> just to transcribe EVERYTHING (visual) that was being done by the signer >> that seemed even remotely to have potential for communicative goals >> (ignoring of course that communication is but ONE use of language)... or at >> least I would transcribe everything I could pick up on. I suspected that a >> lot of that extra transcribing would turn out to be "wasted time", but I >> also suspected that if i didn't transcribe EVERTHING i saw -- or if I just >> followed the list taken from works done on other (western) sign languages >> -- I would MISS a lot of important stuff as well. (And indeed, among other >> discoveries, this is how I discovered that sideways head-tilt in Japanese >> Sign Language was an evidential marker.) >> >> ANYWAYS, so as not to make this too much of a story, over the years I have >> decided -- as Dan seems to have decided -- that linguistics (and linguists >> .. though of course NOT the linguist of THIS august group) have drawn a >> false line in the sand .. based on the limitations of their experience. >> Spoken language linguists (except for the enlightened few?) draw the line >> thus: if it comes out of your mouth, it is language; if it doesn't come out >> of your mouth, it is NOT (and CANNOT BE) language (i.e. it is MERE >> gesture). They may not actually say it in these words, but in DEED that is >> how they analyse language. Even many sign language linguists seem to get ti >> wrong when they put sign languages as a beats apart (albeit, to us a >> SUPERIOR beast!) .. and I point out in a review of *Markus Steinbach* and >> *Annika* Herrmann (eds), Nonmanuals in Sign Language for e-Language which I >> don't think has yet hit cyberspace, where in the introduction the editors >> make such a categorical statement about spoken languages : that gesture >> CANNOT be linguistic, that there is something about the visual modality of >> gestures versus the oral modality of spoken languages that keeps them >> forever and always in separate categories. >> >> BUT, I don't think this is true. or at least not NECESSARILY true. And >> because of the possibilities that gesture (or at least SOME gesture) not >> only interacts with gesture in what I refer to as the Communicative >> Semiotic, but in fact (some) gesture might in fact BE language. (My mental >> picture of what the relationship is between the Communicative Semiotic and >> the Linguistic Semiotic still has the latter inside the former, Venn >> diagram style, but the size of the latter is growing and the boundary is >> becoming more and more porous.) >> >> SEEMS to me that choosing to ignore the potential of gesture IN language is >> like choosing to ignore tone when describing a Himalayan Tibeto-Burman >> language;YES, it is POSSIBLE that tone is not significant ... but based on >> experience, this is NOT likely. >> >> >> ok, think maybe I gave a bit more than 18 rupees-worth... apologies if >> apologies are needed! >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: >> >>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary >>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >>> >>> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >>> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only >>> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >>> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >>> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it >>> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >>> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed >> language >>> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >>> Tahir >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> mwm || *U*C> || mike || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? ||???? || >> ?????? >> (aka Dr Michael W Morgan) >> sign language linguist / linguistic typologist >> academic adviser, Nepal Sign Language Training and Research >> NDFN, Kathmandu, Nepal >> >> >> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 >> *************************************** >> From Freek.VanDeVelde at arts.kuleuven.be Thu May 15 10:11:24 2014 From: Freek.VanDeVelde at arts.kuleuven.be (Freek Van de Velde) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:11:24 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture Message-ID: Hi Dan and others, I must admit that I haven't kept close tabs on the thread on gesture on FUNKNET lately, but if you adhere to the Heine & Kuteva (2007) view that grammaticalization and the evolution of language are linked, then the investigation of the role of gesture in language evolution can maybe benefit from a paper by my colleague-next-door that has just been published online (today, actually): Schoonjans, Steven. 2013. 'Is gesture subject to grammaticalization?'. Studies van de BKL/Etudes du CBL 8. (http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/linguist/SBKL/Vol8.htm). He is defending his PhD on gesture later this month. A happy coincidence, that I gladly use as an excuse to promote Steven's work. All the best, Freek Van de Velde http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/qlvl/freek.htm -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:00 PM To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 8 Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to funknet at mailman.rice.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu You can reach the person managing the list at funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Rong Chen) 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Randy LaPolla) 3. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about evolution (Wallis Reid) 4. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about evolution (Everett, Daniel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Thu May 15 10:29:16 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:29:16 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <5B16B08BAD5E9F4A8A8B12FD94B994C11099FCEA@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> Message-ID: Dear Freek, Thanks so much for this. I was very much hoping to learn about other work and receive comments on the gesture paper, or simply gesture more generally, when I posted the link to my gesture review,. I will definitely look at Steven’s work. Sounds fascinating - as do some of the other books and papers people have been mentioning, such as Sherman Wilcox’s new book. Dan On May 15, 2014, at 6:11 AM, Freek Van de Velde wrote: > Hi Dan and others, > I must admit that I haven't kept close tabs on the thread on gesture on FUNKNET lately, but if you adhere to the Heine & Kuteva (2007) view that grammaticalization and the evolution of language are linked, then the investigation of the role of gesture in language evolution can maybe benefit from a paper by my colleague-next-door that has just been published online (today, actually): > Schoonjans, Steven. 2013. 'Is gesture subject to grammaticalization?'. Studies van de BKL/Etudes du CBL 8. (http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/linguist/SBKL/Vol8.htm). > He is defending his PhD on gesture later this month. > A happy coincidence, that I gladly use as an excuse to promote Steven's work. > All the best, > > Freek Van de Velde > http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/qlvl/freek.htm > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:00 PM > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 8 > > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Rong Chen) > 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Randy LaPolla) > 3. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about > evolution (Wallis Reid) > 4. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about > evolution (Everett, Daniel) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From asanso at gmail.com Thu May 15 11:28:54 2014 From: asanso at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Andrea_Sans=C3=B2?=) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:28:54 +0200 Subject: Reminder: Deadline approaching - Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers, and Modal Particles. Message-ID: International Workshop - Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: What do we know and where do we go from here? Università dell'Insubria, Como (Italy), 16-17 October 2014 Website: http://sites.google.com/site/pragmaworkshopcomo E-mail: workshopcomo (at) gmail (dot) com Description The workshop aims to contribute to the discussion on the emergence and use of pragmatic markers (PMs), discourse markers (DMs) and modal particles (MPs). Although terminologies and classifications dramatically diverge in this field, for the sake of clarity PMs can be broadly defined as markers of functions belonging to the domains of social cohesion (the hearer-speaker relationship, the social identity of H and S, the type of social act performed; e.g. please, danke, if I may interrupt, etc.), DMs as strategies to ensure textual cohesion (discourse planning, discourse managing, information status; e.g. utterance initial usages of but, anyway, still, etc.), and MPs as signals of personal stance (the speaker’s perspective towards the discourse and the interlocutor; e.g. German ja, eben, doch etc.). In pragmatics and in grammaticalization studies PMs, DMs, and MPs have been the object of extensive investigation. However, their heterogeneous character – along with the fact that they derive from many different sources, and that these items are often multifunctional – has often resulted in fragmentary descriptions that fit well the facts of a given language or group of languages, but may be seriously challenged when one tries to apply the lessons learnt from the analysis of a single language to other languages. The workshop, organized as part of the Italian National Research Program “Linguistic Representations of Identity. Sociolinguistic Models and Historical Linguistics” (www.mediling.eu), welcomes papers providing new insights into classical issues such as the delimitation and categorization of the three categories of PMs, DMs and MPs, as well as papers exploring other crucial (but somewhat less discussed) issues, such as, for instance, the sociolinguistics of PMs, DMs and MPs. Particularly encouraged are cross-linguistic or contrastive studies that take into account the languages of the Mediterranean area, which are the focus of the Research Program, but contributions on other languages and language families (especially underdescribed ones) are equally welcome. The following is a non-exhaustive list of relevant questions, clustering around a few thematic foci: (i) Universality vs. language specificity: are PMs, DMs and MPs cross-linguistically relevant (universal) or language-specific categories? If they are universal, which are the criteria for their classification and for distinguishing them? Are these criteria formal or functional in nature? Are they onomasiological or semasiological? Do these criteria apply equally for the three classes? If they are not universal, which approach to grammar is the most suitable to model their behavior (e.g. constructionist approaches)? (ii) PMs, DMs and MPs and their functional equivalents: some of these categories are particularly easy to recognize in some languages. A case in point are MPs in Germanic languages. In other languages, it is more difficult to single out a class of MPs, DMs and/or PMs. How do these languages perform the functions carried out by MPs, DMs and PMs in other languages? Are there any universal tendencies in the (potentially open-ended) class of functional and formal equivalents of PMs, DMs and MPs? (iii) The sources of PMs, DMs and MPs: which are the most frequent sources for PMs, DMs and MPs? Are there any regularities across languages in the processes leading from definable sets of source items via comparable stages of development to these three types of markers? Through which path(s) do verbs (e.g. Italian guarda ‘look!’), adverbs (well, eben) and other word classes develop into PMs? What do comparative diachronic data reveal about their emergence? Are their paths of development (partially) parallel, or do they display salient divergences in some cases? Are there any ‘pragmatic cycles’, comparable to Jespersen’s cycles, that can account for the diachronic renewal of PMs, DMs and MPs? (iv) PMs, DMs and MPs in contact situations: how do these markers behave in contact situations? Are there any borrowability hierarchies among these types of markers? Are more hearer-sided markers (such as e.g. PMs as opposed to MPs) more prone to be borrowed in asymmetric contact situations? Or is borrowability simply a matter of (lack of) syntactic integration? (v) PMs, DMs and MPs as markers of sociolinguistic identity: to what extent can these markers function as signals of sociolinguistic identity? Is there any other type of social significance attached to variation in the use of PMs, DMs and MPs within a given linguistic community? (vi) PMs, DMs, and MPs as markers of subjectivity: when and how do they function to express the speaker’s perspective towards the content s/he’s conveying, towards the interlocutor, or towards the communicative situation? What do we know about markers that are used to build, refine, negotiate, compare or express the speaker’s identity in discourse? Invited Speakers Kate Beeching (University of the West of England) Yael Maschler (University of Haifa) Mario Squartini (University of Turin) Call for papers Authors are invited to submit a one-page abstract (with one additional page for examples), keeping in mind that the slot for their communication will last 30 min. including discussion. Abstracts should be anonymous and should be sent as attachments in PDF format to: workshopcomo at gmail.com Author(s) name(s) and affiliation should be indicated in the body of the e-mail. The abstracts will be anonymously reviewed by two members of the Scientific Committee. The publication of a selection of the papers as a book or a special issue of an international journal is envisaged. Important dates: --- 30 May 2014: deadline for abstract submission --- 30 June 2014: notification of acceptance; (free) registration starts --- 9 October 2014: registration ends --- 16-17 October 2014: workshop Organizing Committee: Andrea Sansò (Università dell’Insubria) – andrea.sanso (at) uninsubria.it (contact person) Pierluigi Cuzzolin (Università di Bergamo) – pierluigi.cuzzolin (at) unibg.it Chiara Fedriani (Università di Bergamo) – chiara.fedriani (at) unibg.it Chiara Ghezzi (Università di Bergamo) – chiara.ghezzi (at) unibg.it Anna Giacalone Ramat (Università di Pavia) - annaram (at) unipv.it Caterina Mauri (Università di Pavia) - caterina.mauri (at) unipv.it Piera Molinelli (Università di Bergamo) - piera.molinelli (at) unibg.it Scientific Committee: Pierluigi Cuzzolin (University of Bergamo), Silvia Dal Negro (Free University of Bozen), Chiara Fedriani (University of Bergamo), Chiara Ghezzi (University of Bergamo), Anna Giacalone Ramat (University of Pavia), Gianguido Manzelli (University of Pavia), Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia), Piera Molinelli (University of Bergamo), Paolo Ramat (IUSS Institute), Andrea Sansò (Insubria University - Como), Federica Venier (University of Bergamo), Alessandro Vietti (Free University of Bozen). From wallis.reid at gse.rutgers.edu Fri May 16 20:03:00 2014 From: wallis.reid at gse.rutgers.edu (Wallis Reid) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 16:03:00 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 Need vs. communicative function Message-ID: Agreed! Specifying the selective advantage of each step in an evolutionary process is an integral part of the account. But having a selective advantage is not the same as fulfilling a pre-existing need, which was my point. This may sound like nitpicking, but talk about "need' is a barrier to developing functional accounts of linguistic structure. No one would create a noun gender system if designing a language from scratch; that is, gender systems don't fulfill a pre-existing need. But it does not follow that gender systems have no communicative function in the languages that have them. Once they are in place, their impact on the deployment of other features of structure creates a synchronic systemic "need" for them that didn't exist before their development. Wallis Reid On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > Although I agree that evolution is not teleologically driven, one still > has to provide some account of the evolutionary pressures that led to > language development. There are many proposals (and I go into these at > length in a book in progress for WW Norton). One that I discuss in > Language: The Cultural Tool is what Aristotle called the "social instinct" > (raised in the context as "Aristotle's Answer," a response to what some > linguists call "Plato's Problem" - also see work by many folks on the > related "Interactional Instinct" - though I do not really think that there > is much evidence for behavioral instincts, including language, of any > kind). The need for community, uniquely strong in the genus Homo, would > have exerted strong selectional pressure on the development of more and > more complex communication systems, of which language is the most complex > we know. But, as I say, there are many proposals out there. What all of > these proposals share, though, is an attempt to understand the > non-teleological forces exerted on language evolution. Boyd and Richerson > provide in a number of works a lot of good ideas plus the math necessary to > understand cultural evolution and cultural pressures on different solutions > to different kinds of problems. > > -- Dan > > > On May 14, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Wallis Reid > wrote: > > > A reply to Johanna Rubba > > As I have always understood the mechanism of evolution, it is not > > teleologically-driven, so nothing ever evolves so at to meet a > pre-existing > > need. It's the reverse. Things become needed as the result of having > > evolved. So, for instance, creatures didn't evolve eyes because they > needed > > to see; we now need to see because we evolved eyes. Or to put it in a > less > > paradoxical way, the evolution of eyes led to countless other changes in > > behavior, ecological niche, feeding, social relations etc. that took > > advantage of sight, with the result that sight became crucial to our > > survival. The same would apply to language. It didn't evolve because > people > > needed it; it is now needed because its evolution radically changed how > > people lived, related and perhaps thought. > > Wallis Reid > > > >>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, > wrote: > > > >> Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > >> funknet at mailman.rice.edu > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >> funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > >> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > >> funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > >> > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >> than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > >> > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) > >> 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) > >> 3. Re: Review of research on gesture (Mike Morgan) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:53:33 +0200 > >> From: "Tahir Wood" > >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > >> To: > >> Message-ID: <53709A1D020000690011723A at uwc.ac.za> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> > >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all > necessary > >> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > >> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > >> > >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > >> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > >> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > >> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > >> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > >> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed > language > >> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > >> Tahir > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 2 > >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:11 +0200 > >> From: "Tahir Wood" > >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > >> To: > >> Message-ID: <53709AF70200006900117240 at uwc.ac.za> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> > >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all > necessary > >> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > >> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > >> > >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > >> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > >> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > >> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > >> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > >> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed > language > >> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > >> Tahir > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 3 > >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:12:53 +0545 > >> From: Mike Morgan > >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > >> To: Funknet List > >> Message-ID: > >> >> uQmSLP4iucB9RsQ at mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >> > >> Namaskar to all, from hot and sunny Kathmandu! > >> > >> Okay, I hope nobody minds if I put in my 18 rupees worth (at current > >> exchange rates, US 2 cents)... > >> > >> First, to be honest, I haven't (yet!) read Dan's review article which > >> started this thread... i WILL, but it is number 17 on my "to read list" > >> > >> Second, for the sake of full disclosure (and because it SEEMS to > influence > >> the regard which some people give comments), I am a sign language > linguist. > >> BUT I wasn't always one (just as i wasn't always an Asian); I started > out > >> as an Indo-Euorpeanist and got into sign languages by kismet. Because > of my > >> background and interests, I do a lot of comparative and typological > stuff > >> (I am a fluent signer of 7 sign languages, belonging, by conservative > >> estimates, to 3 different sign language families), but I mostly publish > on > >> morpho-syntax (and specifically morpho-syntax IN discourse). > >> > >> I agree that gesture research IS becoming more and more familiar to > >> linguists at large ... IN THE WEST (and am not sure, MAYBE I include > Japan > >> in that West). For the rest of the world (or at least the broad swathes > of > >> Asia and Africa where I have been living and working for years) that is > NOT > >> the case. AND, alas, sign languages also are seen as closer to gesture > than > >> they are to spoken languages (even the Linguistic Society of Nepal, > which, > >> by Asian standards, is a fairly linguistically sophisticated group, > always > >> schedules sign language presentations at their annual conference in > >> sessions with presentations on gesture ... and other miscellanea!). I > >> haven't lived in the West for decades, but I suspect that despite > gradual > >> inroads among certain groups (functional and cognitive linguists?), > gesture > >> is still NOT something the average Western linguist thinks of when s/he > >> talks about language structure. i.e. gesture is a beast apart, separate > >> form language ... and, I suspect, if pushed to take a side, most > linguists > >> would say it was "a lesser beast". > >> > >> I got into sign languages, as I said, by (fortunate) accident... and the > >> first topic I chose was something I have done off and on since: > structure > >> of natural discourse. This was in the early 90s, and Sign Linguistics > had > >> been around for decades, and so I could read a wide(ish) variety of > papers > >> (though rather limited pickings on sign language discourse at that > time). > >> And so I had a list of what kinds of things to look at (and look for)... > >> but fortunately I think in the long run, I decided to IGNORE that list, > and > >> just to transcribe EVERYTHING (visual) that was being done by the signer > >> that seemed even remotely to have potential for communicative goals > >> (ignoring of course that communication is but ONE use of language)... > or at > >> least I would transcribe everything I could pick up on. I suspected > that a > >> lot of that extra transcribing would turn out to be "wasted time", but I > >> also suspected that if i didn't transcribe EVERTHING i saw -- or if I > just > >> followed the list taken from works done on other (western) sign > languages > >> -- I would MISS a lot of important stuff as well. (And indeed, among > other > >> discoveries, this is how I discovered that sideways head-tilt in > Japanese > >> Sign Language was an evidential marker.) > >> > >> ANYWAYS, so as not to make this too much of a story, over the years I > have > >> decided -- as Dan seems to have decided -- that linguistics (and > linguists > >> .. though of course NOT the linguist of THIS august group) have drawn a > >> false line in the sand .. based on the limitations of their experience. > >> Spoken language linguists (except for the enlightened few?) draw the > line > >> thus: if it comes out of your mouth, it is language; if it doesn't come > out > >> of your mouth, it is NOT (and CANNOT BE) language (i.e. it is MERE > >> gesture). They may not actually say it in these words, but in DEED that > is > >> how they analyse language. Even many sign language linguists seem to > get ti > >> wrong when they put sign languages as a beats apart (albeit, to us a > >> SUPERIOR beast!) .. and I point out in a review of *Markus Steinbach* > and > >> *Annika* Herrmann (eds), Nonmanuals in Sign Language for e-Language > which I > >> don't think has yet hit cyberspace, where in the introduction the > editors > >> make such a categorical statement about spoken languages : that gesture > >> CANNOT be linguistic, that there is something about the visual modality > of > >> gestures versus the oral modality of spoken languages that keeps them > >> forever and always in separate categories. > >> > >> BUT, I don't think this is true. or at least not NECESSARILY true. And > >> because of the possibilities that gesture (or at least SOME gesture) not > >> only interacts with gesture in what I refer to as the Communicative > >> Semiotic, but in fact (some) gesture might in fact BE language. (My > mental > >> picture of what the relationship is between the Communicative Semiotic > and > >> the Linguistic Semiotic still has the latter inside the former, Venn > >> diagram style, but the size of the latter is growing and the boundary is > >> becoming more and more porous.) > >> > >> SEEMS to me that choosing to ignore the potential of gesture IN > language is > >> like choosing to ignore tone when describing a Himalayan Tibeto-Burman > >> language;YES, it is POSSIBLE that tone is not significant ... but based > on > >> experience, this is NOT likely. > >> > >> > >> ok, think maybe I gave a bit more than 18 rupees-worth... apologies if > >> apologies are needed! > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: > >> > >>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all > necessary > >>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system > to > >>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > >>> > >>> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > >>> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and > only > >>> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > >>> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > >>> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining > it > >>> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > >>> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed > >> language > >>> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > >>> Tahir > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> mwm || *U*C> || mike || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? ||???? || > >> ?????? > >> (aka Dr Michael W Morgan) > >> sign language linguist / linguistic typologist > >> academic adviser, Nepal Sign Language Training and Research > >> NDFN, Kathmandu, Nepal > >> > >> > >> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 > >> *************************************** > >> > > From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Mon May 19 15:07:00 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:07:00 +0800 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 Need vs. communicative function In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From Dan: >> Although I agree that evolution is not teleologically driven, one still >> has to provide some account of the evolutionary pressures that led to >> language development. From Wallis: > Once they are in place, their impact on the deployment of other > features of structure creates a synchronic systemic "need" for them that > didn't exist before their development. We understand (natural) language as an emergent phenomenon, that is, it is not purposely created, but emerges as a "byproduct" of people trying to communicate, just as an economy emerges from the cumulation of many people doing their individual transactions, and a path through a field emerges from many people walking the same way through the field in order to get from point A to point B. They don't intend to create the language/economy/path, so it can't be teleological. I have not been concerned with the origin of language in our species, but in the development of languages, and argue that it is driven by concerns of the speakers to constrain certain aspects of the interpretation. That is, the speakers decide which aspects of the meaning they will constrain the interpretation of, and they do this because that aspect of the interpretation is important to them, and so they work harder to get the addressee to make the inferences intended. So a noun class system might develop in a language where speakers are concerned with constraining the interpretation of reference in discourse. Once the convention of constraining the interpretation in this way in the society and the habit of constraining the interpretation in this way in the individual are established, then even when the motivation is not there it can be continued, as the habit itself becomes an itch that needs to be scratched. This is the "need" that Wallis mentioned. It can be seen clearly as the source of substratum influence and non-native speaker mistakes (e.g. English speakers will feel uncomfortable speaking Chinese initially because there is no tense marking. They will invariably grab onto the perfective aspect marker and use it in any context that would call for past tense in English, just to scratch that itch.) Randy On May 17, 2014, at 4:03 AM, Wallis Reid wrote: > Agreed! Specifying the selective advantage of each step in an evolutionary > process is an integral part of the account. But having a selective > advantage is not the same as fulfilling a pre-existing need, which was my > point. This may sound like nitpicking, but talk about "need' is a barrier > to developing functional accounts of linguistic structure. No one would > create a noun gender system if designing a language from scratch; that is, > gender systems don't fulfill a pre-existing need. But it does not follow > that gender systems have no communicative function in the languages that > have them. Once they are in place, their impact on the deployment of other > features of structure creates a synchronic systemic "need" for them that > didn't exist before their development. > Wallis Reid > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > >> Although I agree that evolution is not teleologically driven, one still >> has to provide some account of the evolutionary pressures that led to >> language development. There are many proposals (and I go into these at >> length in a book in progress for WW Norton). One that I discuss in >> Language: The Cultural Tool is what Aristotle called the "social instinct" >> (raised in the context as "Aristotle's Answer," a response to what some >> linguists call "Plato's Problem" - also see work by many folks on the >> related "Interactional Instinct" - though I do not really think that there >> is much evidence for behavioral instincts, including language, of any >> kind). The need for community, uniquely strong in the genus Homo, would >> have exerted strong selectional pressure on the development of more and >> more complex communication systems, of which language is the most complex >> we know. But, as I say, there are many proposals out there. What all of >> these proposals share, though, is an attempt to understand the >> non-teleological forces exerted on language evolution. Boyd and Richerson >> provide in a number of works a lot of good ideas plus the math necessary to >> understand cultural evolution and cultural pressures on different solutions >> to different kinds of problems. >> >> -- Dan >> >> >> On May 14, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Wallis Reid >> wrote: >> >>> A reply to Johanna Rubba >>> As I have always understood the mechanism of evolution, it is not >>> teleologically-driven, so nothing ever evolves so at to meet a >> pre-existing >>> need. It's the reverse. Things become needed as the result of having >>> evolved. So, for instance, creatures didn't evolve eyes because they >> needed >>> to see; we now need to see because we evolved eyes. Or to put it in a >> less >>> paradoxical way, the evolution of eyes led to countless other changes in >>> behavior, ecological niche, feeding, social relations etc. that took >>> advantage of sight, with the result that sight became crucial to our >>> survival. The same would apply to language. It didn't evolve because >> people >>> needed it; it is now needed because its evolution radically changed how >>> people lived, related and perhaps thought. >>> Wallis Reid >>> >>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary >>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, >> wrote: >>> >>>> Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to >>>> funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>>> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>> funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu >>>> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>> funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu >>>> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>> than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." >>>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) >>>> 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) >>>> 3. Re: Review of research on gesture (Mike Morgan) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:53:33 +0200 >>>> From: "Tahir Wood" >>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >>>> To: >>>> Message-ID: <53709A1D020000690011723A at uwc.ac.za> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>>> >>>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >>>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all >> necessary >>>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >>>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >>>> >>>> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >>>> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only >>>> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >>>> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >>>> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it >>>> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >>>> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed >> language >>>> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >>>> Tahir >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 2 >>>> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:11 +0200 >>>> From: "Tahir Wood" >>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >>>> To: >>>> Message-ID: <53709AF70200006900117240 at uwc.ac.za> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>>> >>>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >>>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all >> necessary >>>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >>>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >>>> >>>> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >>>> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only >>>> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >>>> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >>>> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it >>>> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >>>> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed >> language >>>> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >>>> Tahir >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 3 >>>> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:12:53 +0545 >>>> From: Mike Morgan >>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >>>> To: Funknet List >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >>> uQmSLP4iucB9RsQ at mail.gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>>> >>>> Namaskar to all, from hot and sunny Kathmandu! >>>> >>>> Okay, I hope nobody minds if I put in my 18 rupees worth (at current >>>> exchange rates, US 2 cents)... >>>> >>>> First, to be honest, I haven't (yet!) read Dan's review article which >>>> started this thread... i WILL, but it is number 17 on my "to read list" >>>> >>>> Second, for the sake of full disclosure (and because it SEEMS to >> influence >>>> the regard which some people give comments), I am a sign language >> linguist. >>>> BUT I wasn't always one (just as i wasn't always an Asian); I started >> out >>>> as an Indo-Euorpeanist and got into sign languages by kismet. Because >> of my >>>> background and interests, I do a lot of comparative and typological >> stuff >>>> (I am a fluent signer of 7 sign languages, belonging, by conservative >>>> estimates, to 3 different sign language families), but I mostly publish >> on >>>> morpho-syntax (and specifically morpho-syntax IN discourse). >>>> >>>> I agree that gesture research IS becoming more and more familiar to >>>> linguists at large ... IN THE WEST (and am not sure, MAYBE I include >> Japan >>>> in that West). For the rest of the world (or at least the broad swathes >> of >>>> Asia and Africa where I have been living and working for years) that is >> NOT >>>> the case. AND, alas, sign languages also are seen as closer to gesture >> than >>>> they are to spoken languages (even the Linguistic Society of Nepal, >> which, >>>> by Asian standards, is a fairly linguistically sophisticated group, >> always >>>> schedules sign language presentations at their annual conference in >>>> sessions with presentations on gesture ... and other miscellanea!). I >>>> haven't lived in the West for decades, but I suspect that despite >> gradual >>>> inroads among certain groups (functional and cognitive linguists?), >> gesture >>>> is still NOT something the average Western linguist thinks of when s/he >>>> talks about language structure. i.e. gesture is a beast apart, separate >>>> form language ... and, I suspect, if pushed to take a side, most >> linguists >>>> would say it was "a lesser beast". >>>> >>>> I got into sign languages, as I said, by (fortunate) accident... and the >>>> first topic I chose was something I have done off and on since: >> structure >>>> of natural discourse. This was in the early 90s, and Sign Linguistics >> had >>>> been around for decades, and so I could read a wide(ish) variety of >> papers >>>> (though rather limited pickings on sign language discourse at that >> time). >>>> And so I had a list of what kinds of things to look at (and look for)... >>>> but fortunately I think in the long run, I decided to IGNORE that list, >> and >>>> just to transcribe EVERYTHING (visual) that was being done by the signer >>>> that seemed even remotely to have potential for communicative goals >>>> (ignoring of course that communication is but ONE use of language)... >> or at >>>> least I would transcribe everything I could pick up on. I suspected >> that a >>>> lot of that extra transcribing would turn out to be "wasted time", but I >>>> also suspected that if i didn't transcribe EVERTHING i saw -- or if I >> just >>>> followed the list taken from works done on other (western) sign >> languages >>>> -- I would MISS a lot of important stuff as well. (And indeed, among >> other >>>> discoveries, this is how I discovered that sideways head-tilt in >> Japanese >>>> Sign Language was an evidential marker.) >>>> >>>> ANYWAYS, so as not to make this too much of a story, over the years I >> have >>>> decided -- as Dan seems to have decided -- that linguistics (and >> linguists >>>> .. though of course NOT the linguist of THIS august group) have drawn a >>>> false line in the sand .. based on the limitations of their experience. >>>> Spoken language linguists (except for the enlightened few?) draw the >> line >>>> thus: if it comes out of your mouth, it is language; if it doesn't come >> out >>>> of your mouth, it is NOT (and CANNOT BE) language (i.e. it is MERE >>>> gesture). They may not actually say it in these words, but in DEED that >> is >>>> how they analyse language. Even many sign language linguists seem to >> get ti >>>> wrong when they put sign languages as a beats apart (albeit, to us a >>>> SUPERIOR beast!) .. and I point out in a review of *Markus Steinbach* >> and >>>> *Annika* Herrmann (eds), Nonmanuals in Sign Language for e-Language >> which I >>>> don't think has yet hit cyberspace, where in the introduction the >> editors >>>> make such a categorical statement about spoken languages : that gesture >>>> CANNOT be linguistic, that there is something about the visual modality >> of >>>> gestures versus the oral modality of spoken languages that keeps them >>>> forever and always in separate categories. >>>> >>>> BUT, I don't think this is true. or at least not NECESSARILY true. And >>>> because of the possibilities that gesture (or at least SOME gesture) not >>>> only interacts with gesture in what I refer to as the Communicative >>>> Semiotic, but in fact (some) gesture might in fact BE language. (My >> mental >>>> picture of what the relationship is between the Communicative Semiotic >> and >>>> the Linguistic Semiotic still has the latter inside the former, Venn >>>> diagram style, but the size of the latter is growing and the boundary is >>>> becoming more and more porous.) >>>> >>>> SEEMS to me that choosing to ignore the potential of gesture IN >> language is >>>> like choosing to ignore tone when describing a Himalayan Tibeto-Burman >>>> language;YES, it is POSSIBLE that tone is not significant ... but based >> on >>>> experience, this is NOT likely. >>>> >>>> >>>> ok, think maybe I gave a bit more than 18 rupees-worth... apologies if >>>> apologies are needed! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >>>>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all >> necessary >>>>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system >> to >>>>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >>>>> >>>>> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >>>>> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and >> only >>>>> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >>>>> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >>>>> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining >> it >>>>> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >>>>> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed >>>> language >>>>> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >>>>> Tahir >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> mwm || *U*C> || mike || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? ||???? || >>>> ?????? >>>> (aka Dr Michael W Morgan) >>>> sign language linguist / linguistic typologist >>>> academic adviser, Nepal Sign Language Training and Research >>>> NDFN, Kathmandu, Nepal >>>> >>>> >>>> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 >>>> *************************************** >>>> >> >> From collfitz at gmail.com Wed May 28 22:39:32 2014 From: collfitz at gmail.com (Colleen Fitzgerald) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 17:39:32 -0500 Subject: CoLang 2014 Updates Message-ID: We are now less than three weeks away from the kickoff of CoLang 2014, the 2014 Institute on Collaborative Language Research, which takes place in June and July 2014, hosted by The University of Texas at Arlington, with Dr. Colleen Fitzgerald as Director. CoLang, which only occurs once every two years, offers an opportunity for undergraduate and graduate students, practicing linguists, language professionals and indigenous community members to develop and refine skills and approaches to language documentation and revitalization. The Institute is designed to provide an opportunity for a diverse range of participants to become trained in a wide range of skills in language documentation and revitalization. The institute consists of two parts: the Workshops - two weeks of intensive workshops on practices, principals and models of language documentation and revitalization, followed by a four-week field methods course, working with speakers of select indigenous languages applying hands-on techniques in language documentation. Participants may choose to enroll only in the two-week Workshops. Workshops: June 16-27 2014 Field Methods/Practicum: June 30 – July 25, 2014. We have four field methods classes, each of which still has room for additional people to enroll. The four languages for this year are Alabama (a Muskogean language spoken in Texas), Enya (a Bantu language spoken in the Democratic Reuplic of Congo), Innu (or Cree, an Algonquian language spoken in Canada), and Apoala Mixtec (an Otomanguean language of Mexico). The Mixtec section will be a Spanish-medium course, so people must have sufficient proficiency in Spanish to do all elicitation and other class work with the speakers. In order to make CoLang 2014 prices affordable to as many people as we can, we have decided to keep early bird registration prices in effect up until the first day of CoLang 2014, June 16. Onsite registration will be possible with a cashier’s check or credit card, or a wire transfer made by June 10. (Contact us for details on a wire transfer.) Registration is $750 for the two weeks session, and $2250 for the six weeks session. We still have room in the field methods sections. We’re also in the process of opening additional second sections in various topics, including Orthography, Grantwriting, Transcription, and Life in Communities, among others. For housing and/or meal purchases to be guaranteed, they must be purchased and paid in full by Wednesday, June 4. With participants and instructors numbering around 200 people, representing over 20 different North American tribes and 15 different countries worldwide, we expect a lively and engaging environment for all who attend. In addition to the many workshops scheduled for registered participants, we will also have a number of public talks on language documentation and revitalization projects, including from First Nations projects in British Columbia, the Chickasaw Language Revitalization Program, Wuqu’ Kawoq in Guatemala, Yunnan Province in China, and northeast India. CoLang 2014 will feature the Texas-premiere of two movies, Navajo Star Wars (the sci-fi classic dubbed into the Navajo language, with English subtitles), and “Language Healers,” with award-winning director Brian McDermott on hand for a q&a. Full information on CoLang activities can be found online at http://tinyurl.com/colang2014 and our registration site is at http://tinyurl.com/Register4CoLang , with links to paper registration if needed. For more questions, email us at uta2014institute at gmail.com or phone us at 817-272-7608. From kittila at mappi.helsinki.fi Mon May 5 08:04:46 2014 From: kittila at mappi.helsinki.fi (Seppo Kittil=?UTF-8?Q?=C3=83=C2=A4?=) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:04:46 +0300 Subject: Cfp: Expression of evidentiality in Uralic languages Message-ID: (apologies for multiple postings, the call can be forwarded to anyone potentially interested in the topic) Symposium: Expressions of evidentiality in Uralic languages At the XII International Congress for Finno-Ugric Studies at the University of Oulu from August 17 to August 21, 2015 (see: http://www.oulu.fi/suomenkieli/fuxii/englanti/etusivu). Language: English, Organized by Evidego (Seppo Kittil? & Lotta Jalava) Call for papers Evidentiality as a linguistic notion refers to the source of information speakers have for their statements. The statements can be based on, for example, direct sensory evidence, hearsay, inference, or on shared or private information. All languages can refer to the source of information somehow, but languages differ according to whether evidentiality is an obligatory category or not. In Uralic languages evidentiality is usually not an obligatory category, i.e. many of these languages lack grammaticalized evidentials. However, in Uralic languages lexical elements such as specialized particles (such as 'n?k?j??n' (based on the verb 'see') and kuulemma (based on the verb 'hear') of Finnish) or verbs of sensory perception ('see', 'hear', 'taste' etc,) may be used to indicate the kind of evidence the speaker has for her/his statement. In some of the Uralic languages indirect evidence may be expressed as part of the modal system of the language, or, as secondary use of other verbal categories such as tense and aspect (e.g. perfects or resultatives), while in others there are also grammatical evidentials for hearsay or non-visual sensory evidence, that is, elements that indicate source of information as their primary function. In recent years, evidentiality has been a popular topic also in research of languages lacking obligatory evidentiality, especially when it comes to (Indo-)European languages. As for Uralic languages, expressions of evidentiality are much less studied. This theme session aims to explore how source of information is expressed in Uralic languages. It brings together scholars studying evidentiality and related phenomena in different Uralic languages/language groups and in their contact languages. The main focus is on the analysis of evidential strategies/expression in Uralic languages, especially from a typological perspective (or from the viewpoint of what Uralic data can provide for our understanding of evidentiality). We encourage contributors to take any descriptive, theoretical, comparative or historical perspective on the topic. Specific topics to be discussed include, but are not limited to: - Description/analysis of evidentiality system/of a particular evidential expression in one or more Uralic languages - Evidentiality as secondary function of other (verbal) categories, or, evidential expressions in relation to other linguistic categories - Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality - Evidentiality in context: encoding source of information in different genres of text and types of discourse - Evidentiality and interaction: evidentiality and intersubjectivity; the effect of personal knowledge or involvement - History/grammaticalization/etymology/change of one or more particular evidential expressions in one or more Uralic languages (and their contact languages) Please submit an abstract of a maximum of 3000 characters (including references, data, etc.) by September 30, 2014, following the guidelines of The XII International Congress for Finno-Ugric Studies. The abstract must be submitted through EasyChair, see the conference site http://www.oulu.fi/suomenkieli/fuxii/englanti/abstraktit. Notifications of acceptance will be sent by October 31, 2014. The organizers of the symposium Seppo Kittil? (kittila(at)mappi.helsinki.fi) and Lotta Jalava (lotta.jalava(at)helsinki.fi) are happy to answer any questions regarding the symposium. From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon May 5 20:31:43 2014 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. Bischoff) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 16:31:43 -0400 Subject: Language Documentation/Revitalization Programs Message-ID: Hello all, As a result of a discussion on the ILAT listserve I have created a list of programs that offer Language Documentation and/or Revitalization training or specialization in their programs. The list can be accessed at the following link: http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/LDR_Programs.html If you would like me to add your program please let me know. Regards, Shannon From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Tue May 6 03:54:54 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:54:54 +0800 Subject: Language Documentation/Revitalization Programs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Language documentation is the core of one of the concentrations (streams) that can be chosen as part of the BA in Linguistics and Multilingual Studies at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore: http://linguistics.hss.ntu.edu.sg/ProspectiveStudents/UndergraduateProgrammes/Pages/Home.aspx Many of our postgraduate students are also working on language documentation, particularly on Southeast Asian languages. Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA ?????| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ On May 6, 2014, at 4:31 AM, s.t. Bischoff wrote: > Hello all, > > As a result of a discussion on the ILAT listserve I have created a list of > programs that offer Language Documentation and/or Revitalization training > or specialization in their programs. The list can be accessed at the > following link: > > http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/LDR_Programs.html > > If you would like me to add your program please let me know. > > Regards, > Shannon From bbs.lists at gmail.com Tue May 6 06:50:07 2014 From: bbs.lists at gmail.com (bbs lists) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 23:50:07 -0700 Subject: Summer School of Chinese Linguistics, Palack=?utf-8?Q?=C3=BD_University_Olomouc=2C_Czech_Republic=2C_June_30_=E2=80?= =?utf-8?Q?=93_?=July 5, 2014 Message-ID: International Summer School *Dates: *June 30 ? July 5, 2014 * Venue:* Palack? University Olomouc, Czech Republic *Tuition fee:* free of charge *Language:* English *Organizers:* Project CHINET, Department of Asian Studies, Palack? University Olomouc, Czech Republic ------------------------------ Palack? University Olomouc welcomes all students of Chinese language to participate in a one week international summer school. Aims and objectives: - students are expected to have a basic knowledge of Chinese language and linguistics and to speak English on a level sufficient to communicate - all courses are taught in English so that they are accessible for students with all levels of Chinese - courses are designed to build up and reinforce a systematic knowledge of Chinese grammar as well as to extend students? horizons through lectures on various research topics - a chance to exchange ideas and find inspiration for new research projects Registration guidelines: *Application deadline:* 1 June 2014 Please fill out the *online application before June 1, 2014*. Acceptance of your application will be confirmed by email before June 8, 2014. Invitation letters will be provided on request. Evaluation methods: Students can receive 5 credits for active participation in the summer school. Apart from attendance, students will be asked to give a presentation (15?-30 min) related to topics discussed during the course. Students may form groups of 3?-4 people for this purpose but should take care to make each participant?s responsibility for his or her part of the presentation transparent. Successful participants will obtain a certificate of participation. Credits: This summer school is accredited by the Department of Asian Studies, Faculty of Arts Palack? University Olomouc. However, these credits are not ECTS Credits. Students are usually able to have these credits recognized by their home institution, and we will be happy to assist you in any way we can, however please be aware that the decision to award credits rests with your home institution. Tuition fee: Tuition for the whole week is free of charge. Participants will however need to cover all their personal costs, including transportation, accommodation, visa, trips etc. Programme and speakers:* - 5 morning sessions of the comprehensive course on Chinese Grammar - 3 afternoon sessions on specific linguistics topics given by expert speakers - 1 afternoon session of student presentations - optional half-day trip and 1 whole-day trip *During April, the final schedule for the summer course will be released. For program updates, please, visit this website regularly. *Intensive course:* *Prof. Jyun-gwang Chen*, National Taiwan Normal University - Comprehensive Chinese Grammar Course (10 lectures) *Lectures by honoured guests:* *Prof. J. Packard*, University of Illinois - Chinese word grammar, Chinese sentence grammar, Chinese sentence processing *Prof. Tao Hongyin*, University of California - Issues in Chinese discourse pragmatics: Theory and application, Corpus linguistic approaches to Chinese: Resources, tools, and products *Dr. Lu Wei-lun*, Masaryk University - Cognitive semantic analysis of spatial particles in Mandarin Chinese Accommodation: Recommended budget accommodation in Olomouc: 1. Ubytovna Marie (10 EUR) -www.ubytovnamarie.cz 2. Poets? Corner Hostel (24-27 Eur) - www.hostelolomouc.com 3. Palack? University Dormitory (11 EUR) - please contact szokalova.katerina(at)gmail.com for reservation For more information and other inquires, please contact Ms. Michaela Zahradn?kov?, *e?-mail:* chinet.upol at gmail.com, michaela.zahradnikova at upol.cz *tel:* +420 585 633 466 From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Thu May 8 10:45:20 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:45:20 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture Message-ID: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 Folks, This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.?" Dan From wilcox at unm.edu Thu May 8 21:20:03 2014 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:20:03 -0600 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <427aa6119c7f4d0788e60bd971c95f84@BLUPR07MB401.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: On 8 May 2014, at 4:45, Everett, Daniel wrote: > I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and > typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum." Of course, many linguists, anthropologists, and others have been saying this for decades. One example from hundreds: "Communication by a system of gesture is not an exclusively human activity, so that in a broad sense of the term, sign language is as old as the race itself ..." (W.C. Stokoe, "Sign Language Structure," 1960, page 1) -- Sherman Wilcox Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Thu May 8 21:22:34 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 21:22:34 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <9F3487AD-F826-456B-811B-04974AA2148E@unm.edu> Message-ID: This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. Dan Sent from my iPhone > On May 9, 2014, at 0:20, "Sherman Wilcox" wrote: > >> On 8 May 2014, at 4:45, Everett, Daniel wrote: >> >> I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum." > > Of course, many linguists, anthropologists, and others have been saying this for decades. One example from hundreds: > > "Communication by a system of gesture is not an exclusively human activity, so that in a broad sense of the term, sign language is as old as the race itself ..." (W.C. Stokoe, "Sign Language Structure," 1960, page 1) > > -- > Sherman Wilcox > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico From wilcox at unm.edu Thu May 8 21:30:54 2014 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:30:54 -0600 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: > This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign > language, though that is part of the continuum. My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. -- Sherman From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Thu May 8 21:33:52 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 21:33:52 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <102DDB2D-4C01-47EB-A258-84B9762E07F4@unm.edu> Message-ID: Obviously I am not talking about people who have ?spent their careers? doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: > >> This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. > > My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. > > -- > Sherman From sweetser at berkeley.edu Thu May 8 22:42:43 2014 From: sweetser at berkeley.edu (Eve E. SWEETSER) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:42:43 -0700 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <13C97972-85F7-4828-82C2-0301AF96B9E3@bentley.edu> Message-ID: Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. Eve On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > Obviously I am not talking about people who have ?spent their careers? > doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. > > However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that > the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. > > Dan > > On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > > > On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: > > > >> This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign > language, though that is part of the continuum. > > > > My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots > of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a > long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been > working in a gesture vacuum. > > > > -- > > Sherman > > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Thu May 8 22:45:36 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 22:45:36 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: And I think that I mention those folks in my review. Once again, however, I am talking about the average linguist. In fact, more than that, Eve and Sherman, I am simply urging upon linguists of all persuasions the need to engage themselves in exactly what you are doing. The claim is not that all linguists everywhere are ignoring gesture. The claim is that no one interested in language should ignore it. There is nothing in my abstract language and certainly nothing in the paper that would disagree/contradict anything you or Sherman is saying. All best, Dan On May 9, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Eve E. SWEETSER > wrote: Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. Eve On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: Obviously I am not talking about people who have ?spent their careers? doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox > wrote: > On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: > >> This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. > > My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. > > -- > Sherman From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Fri May 9 02:21:35 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 10:21:35 +0800 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <512E0A73-3278-476B-934C-FA83D1B36328@bentley.edu> Message-ID: This goes to the issue of how one sees linguistics. If one sees linguistics as about language, then it is easy to ignore gesture. If one sees linguistics as about communication, then language is only one way that we create communicative acts, or one part of the total communicative act, and it is not at all necessary for communication. Even some linguists who "take gesture into account" see language as the core of communication (in a coding-decoding model), and gesture as something extra, much the way pragmatics was treated before we figured out it was core to everything. If we don't take language as the core of communication, we can see that there is little difference functionally between gesture and language, and neurological studies show they are processed in the same areas of the brain. Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA ?????| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ On May 9, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > And I think that I mention those folks in my review. Once again, however, I am talking about the average linguist. In fact, more than that, Eve and Sherman, I am simply urging upon linguists of all persuasions the need to engage themselves in exactly what you are doing. The claim is not that all linguists everywhere are ignoring gesture. The claim is that no one interested in language should ignore it. > > There is nothing in my abstract language and certainly nothing in the paper that would disagree/contradict anything you or Sherman is saying. > > All best, > > Dan > On May 9, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Eve E. SWEETSER > wrote: > > Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. > > Eve > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: > Obviously I am not talking about people who have ?spent their careers? doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. > > However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. > > Dan > > On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox > wrote: > >> On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: >> >>> This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. >> >> My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. >> >> -- >> Sherman > > > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Fri May 9 03:28:36 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 03:28:36 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Randy, You should read more about gesture. What you stated is quite a ways off the mark However it is exactly what I would have said myself before undertaking this project. Not only is gesture important for the evolution of grammar, without it there is no language. But there is communication. This is all I will say here. One could read my 13,000 word review article. Or better yet the primary sources. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 5:21, "Randy LaPolla" > wrote: This goes to the issue of how one sees linguistics. If one sees linguistics as about language, then it is easy to ignore gesture. If one sees linguistics as about communication, then language is only one way that we create communicative acts, or one part of the total communicative act, and it is not at all necessary for communication. Even some linguists who "take gesture into account" see language as the core of communication (in a coding-decoding model), and gesture as something extra, much the way pragmatics was treated before we figured out it was core to everything. If we don't take language as the core of communication, we can see that there is little difference functionally between gesture and language, and neurological studies show they are processed in the same areas of the brain. Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA ?????| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ On May 9, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: And I think that I mention those folks in my review. Once again, however, I am talking about the average linguist. In fact, more than that, Eve and Sherman, I am simply urging upon linguists of all persuasions the need to engage themselves in exactly what you are doing. The claim is not that all linguists everywhere are ignoring gesture. The claim is that no one interested in language should ignore it. There is nothing in my abstract language and certainly nothing in the paper that would disagree/contradict anything you or Sherman is saying. All best, Dan On May 9, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Eve E. SWEETSER > wrote: Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. Eve On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: Obviously I am not talking about people who have ?spent their careers? doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox > wrote: On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. -- Sherman From jrubba at calpoly.edu Fri May 9 16:50:00 2014 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 09:50:00 -0700 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a society without being able to communicate about abstractions, hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel 805.756.2596 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ******************************************* "Justice is what love looks like in public." - Cornel West On May 8, 2014, at 8:28 PM, "Everett, Daniel" wrote: > Randy, > > You should read more about gesture. What you stated is quite a ways off the mark However it is exactly what I would have said myself before undertaking this project. > > Not only is gesture important for the evolution of grammar, without it there is no language. But there is communication. > > This is all I will say here. One could read my 13,000 word review article. Or better yet the primary sources. > > Dan > > > > On May 9, 2014, at 5:21, "Randy LaPolla" > wrote: > > This goes to the issue of how one sees linguistics. If one sees linguistics as about language, then it is easy to ignore gesture. If one sees linguistics as about communication, then language is only one way that we create communicative acts, or one part of the total communicative act, and it is not at all necessary for communication. Even some linguists who "take gesture into account" see language as the core of communication (in a coding-decoding model), and gesture as something extra, much the way pragmatics was treated before we figured out it was core to everything. If we don't take language as the core of communication, we can see that there is little difference functionally between gesture and language, and neurological studies show they are processed in the same areas of the brain. > > Randy > > ----- > Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA ?????| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University > HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ > > On May 9, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > > And I think that I mention those folks in my review. Once again, however, I am talking about the average linguist. In fact, more than that, Eve and Sherman, I am simply urging upon linguists of all persuasions the need to engage themselves in exactly what you are doing. The claim is not that all linguists everywhere are ignoring gesture. The claim is that no one interested in language should ignore it. > > There is nothing in my abstract language and certainly nothing in the paper that would disagree/contradict anything you or Sherman is saying. > > All best, > > Dan > On May 9, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Eve E. SWEETSER > wrote: > > Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. > > Eve > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: > Obviously I am not talking about people who have ?spent their careers? doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. > > However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. > > Dan > > On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox > wrote: > > On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: > > This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. > > My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. > > -- > Sherman > > > > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Fri May 9 16:55:37 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 16:55:37 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I take up this stuff in Language: The Cultural Tool (Vintage/Pantheon). Again at a more general level of psychology (against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology) in Dark Matter of the Mind (to appear, U of Chicago Press). And then again in The Origin of Language (to appear 2016, WW Norton). Language is a species of communication. As Derek Bickerton says (in one of the few things I agree with he has said), just about all creatures communicate, but language only arose in the genus Homo. I highly recommend the David McNeill trilogy, Kendon?s work, the journal Gesture, and many of the other fantastic research programs on gesture that have been developed since the pioneering work of Boas?s student, David Efron. ? Dan On May 9, 2014, at 7:50 PM, Johanna Rubba > wrote: Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a society without being able to communicate about abstractions, hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel 805.756.2596 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ******************************************* "Justice is what love looks like in public." - Cornel West On May 8, 2014, at 8:28 PM, "Everett, Daniel" > wrote: Randy, You should read more about gesture. What you stated is quite a ways off the mark However it is exactly what I would have said myself before undertaking this project. Not only is gesture important for the evolution of grammar, without it there is no language. But there is communication. This is all I will say here. One could read my 13,000 word review article. Or better yet the primary sources. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 5:21, "Randy LaPolla" > wrote: This goes to the issue of how one sees linguistics. If one sees linguistics as about language, then it is easy to ignore gesture. If one sees linguistics as about communication, then language is only one way that we create communicative acts, or one part of the total communicative act, and it is not at all necessary for communication. Even some linguists who "take gesture into account" see language as the core of communication (in a coding-decoding model), and gesture as something extra, much the way pragmatics was treated before we figured out it was core to everything. If we don't take language as the core of communication, we can see that there is little difference functionally between gesture and language, and neurological studies show they are processed in the same areas of the brain. Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA ?????| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ On May 9, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: And I think that I mention those folks in my review. Once again, however, I am talking about the average linguist. In fact, more than that, Eve and Sherman, I am simply urging upon linguists of all persuasions the need to engage themselves in exactly what you are doing. The claim is not that all linguists everywhere are ignoring gesture. The claim is that no one interested in language should ignore it. There is nothing in my abstract language and certainly nothing in the paper that would disagree/contradict anything you or Sherman is saying. All best, Dan On May 9, 2014, at 1:42 AM, Eve E. SWEETSER > wrote: Well, although Sherman is quite right, let me emphasize that it's not ONLY sign linguists. There are quite a few linguists in the International Society for Gesture Studies meetings, and there are now regularly sessions on co-speech gesture at cognitive linguistic meetings such as ICLC and CSDL. It may be true that outside of functionalist and cognitivist linguistics, linguistics is done without consideration of gesture; it is even true that MOST cog and funk linguists are still ignoring gesture. But there is a lively interdisciplinary group of linguists (sign linguists and spoken-language linguists) who do regularly and seriously consider language in multimodal context. Eve On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: Obviously I am not talking about people who have ?spent their careers? doing this. I am talking to the average linguist. However, the fact that you use sign language as your example suggests that the work of McNeill might be profitably be explored. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Sherman Wilcox > wrote: On 8 May 2014, at 15:22, Everett, Daniel wrote: This doesn't quite get the point, Sherman. Gesture is not sign language, though that is part of the continuum. My point was not that gesture is sign language. My point was that lots of people have been exploring the relation of language and gesture for a long time. Those of us who have spent our careers doing this have not been working in a gesture vacuum. -- Sherman From ceford at wisc.edu Fri May 9 17:58:31 2014 From: ceford at wisc.edu (Cecilia E. Ford) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 12:58:31 -0500 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <74f0827120392.536d173c@wiscmail.wisc.edu> Message-ID: Consider the foundational work that embodied, visible actions do in real time interaction -- precisely timed to encode basic semantic stuff - e.g., reference, epistemic stance. Where and how "gesture" accompanies the "system" of language, as developed in/for co-present "communication" and collaborative action, simply cannot be cleaved off of the subject matter of linguistics, unless we are accountable for doing this separation for methodological convenience and in enactment of the salience of orthography for literate societies and for us as scholars. Ceci Professor of English and Sociology Hoefs Professor of English __________________________________________________ UW Interaction Interest Group (UWIIG): http://uwiig.blogspot.com/uwiig.blogspot.com Websites: http://mendota.english.wisc.edu/~ceford/ From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Fri May 9 18:00:06 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 18:00:06 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <7700c0e320ca3.536cd0f7@wiscmail.wisc.edu> Message-ID: Excellent points, Ceci. Dan On May 9, 2014, at 8:58 PM, Cecilia E. Ford wrote: > Consider the foundational work that embodied, visible actions do in real time interaction -- precisely timed to encode basic semantic stuff - e.g., reference, epistemic stance. Where and how "gesture" accompanies the "system" of language, as developed in/for co-present "communication" and collaborative action, simply cannot be cleaved off of the subject matter of linguistics, unless we are accountable for doing this separation for methodological convenience and in enactment of the salience of orthography for literate societies and for us as scholars. > Ceci > > Professor of English and Sociology > Hoefs Professor of English > > __________________________________________________ > UW Interaction Interest Group (UWIIG): http://uwiig.blogspot.com/uwiig.blogspot.com > Websites: http://mendota.english.wisc.edu/~ceford/ > > From twood at uwc.ac.za Mon May 12 07:53:33 2014 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:53:33 +0200 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language "in order to express" those thoughts (!) Tahir From twood at uwc.ac.za Mon May 12 07:57:11 2014 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:11 +0200 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <17EA8195-ACEA-414E-B9BB-CB4C19492D4C@bentley.edu> Message-ID: >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language "in order to express" those thoughts (!) Tahir From mwmbombay at gmail.com Mon May 12 09:27:53 2014 From: mwmbombay at gmail.com (Mike Morgan) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:12:53 +0545 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <53709AF70200006900117240@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Namaskar to all, from hot and sunny Kathmandu! Okay, I hope nobody minds if I put in my 18 rupees worth (at current exchange rates, US 2 cents)... First, to be honest, I haven't (yet!) read Dan's review article which started this thread... i WILL, but it is number 17 on my "to read list" Second, for the sake of full disclosure (and because it SEEMS to influence the regard which some people give comments), I am a sign language linguist. BUT I wasn't always one (just as i wasn't always an Asian); I started out as an Indo-Euorpeanist and got into sign languages by kismet. Because of my background and interests, I do a lot of comparative and typological stuff (I am a fluent signer of 7 sign languages, belonging, by conservative estimates, to 3 different sign language families), but I mostly publish on morpho-syntax (and specifically morpho-syntax IN discourse). I agree that gesture research IS becoming more and more familiar to linguists at large ... IN THE WEST (and am not sure, MAYBE I include Japan in that West). For the rest of the world (or at least the broad swathes of Asia and Africa where I have been living and working for years) that is NOT the case. AND, alas, sign languages also are seen as closer to gesture than they are to spoken languages (even the Linguistic Society of Nepal, which, by Asian standards, is a fairly linguistically sophisticated group, always schedules sign language presentations at their annual conference in sessions with presentations on gesture ... and other miscellanea!). I haven't lived in the West for decades, but I suspect that despite gradual inroads among certain groups (functional and cognitive linguists?), gesture is still NOT something the average Western linguist thinks of when s/he talks about language structure. i.e. gesture is a beast apart, separate form language ... and, I suspect, if pushed to take a side, most linguists would say it was "a lesser beast". I got into sign languages, as I said, by (fortunate) accident... and the first topic I chose was something I have done off and on since: structure of natural discourse. This was in the early 90s, and Sign Linguistics had been around for decades, and so I could read a wide(ish) variety of papers (though rather limited pickings on sign language discourse at that time). And so I had a list of what kinds of things to look at (and look for)... but fortunately I think in the long run, I decided to IGNORE that list, and just to transcribe EVERYTHING (visual) that was being done by the signer that seemed even remotely to have potential for communicative goals (ignoring of course that communication is but ONE use of language)... or at least I would transcribe everything I could pick up on. I suspected that a lot of that extra transcribing would turn out to be "wasted time", but I also suspected that if i didn't transcribe EVERTHING i saw -- or if I just followed the list taken from works done on other (western) sign languages -- I would MISS a lot of important stuff as well. (And indeed, among other discoveries, this is how I discovered that sideways head-tilt in Japanese Sign Language was an evidential marker.) ANYWAYS, so as not to make this too much of a story, over the years I have decided -- as Dan seems to have decided -- that linguistics (and linguists .. though of course NOT the linguist of THIS august group) have drawn a false line in the sand .. based on the limitations of their experience. Spoken language linguists (except for the enlightened few?) draw the line thus: if it comes out of your mouth, it is language; if it doesn't come out of your mouth, it is NOT (and CANNOT BE) language (i.e. it is MERE gesture). They may not actually say it in these words, but in DEED that is how they analyse language. Even many sign language linguists seem to get ti wrong when they put sign languages as a beats apart (albeit, to us a SUPERIOR beast!) .. and I point out in a review of *Markus Steinbach* and *Annika* Herrmann (eds), Nonmanuals in Sign Language for e-Language which I don't think has yet hit cyberspace, where in the introduction the editors make such a categorical statement about spoken languages : that gesture CANNOT be linguistic, that there is something about the visual modality of gestures versus the oral modality of spoken languages that keeps them forever and always in separate categories. BUT, I don't think this is true. or at least not NECESSARILY true. And because of the possibilities that gesture (or at least SOME gesture) not only interacts with gesture in what I refer to as the Communicative Semiotic, but in fact (some) gesture might in fact BE language. (My mental picture of what the relationship is between the Communicative Semiotic and the Linguistic Semiotic still has the latter inside the former, Venn diagram style, but the size of the latter is growing and the boundary is becoming more and more porous.) SEEMS to me that choosing to ignore the potential of gesture IN language is like choosing to ignore tone when describing a Himalayan Tibeto-Burman language;YES, it is POSSIBLE that tone is not significant ... but based on experience, this is NOT likely. ok, think maybe I gave a bit more than 18 rupees-worth... apologies if apologies are needed! On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: > >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language > "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > Tahir > -- mwm || *U*C> || mike || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? ||???? || ?????? (aka Dr Michael W Morgan) sign language linguist / linguistic typologist academic adviser, Nepal Sign Language Training and Research NDFN, Kathmandu, Nepal From cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu Mon May 12 18:08:13 2014 From: cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu (Goodwin, Charles) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 18:08:13 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <3598B529-5E9A-4056-80C2-CF79CE240EB1@bentley.edu> Message-ID: A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 Folks, This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.?" Dan From Nick.Enfield at mpi.nl Mon May 12 20:06:25 2014 From: Nick.Enfield at mpi.nl (Nick Enfield) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 22:06:25 +0200 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <4B67F72F-6D6A-4319-BF8A-24BA65AD36A5@humnet.ucla.edu> Message-ID: ?Might be relevant?? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between ?language and gesture?. I?d like to add a comment on the ?language and gesture? issue, related to Mike Morgan?s comments, among others. The term ?gesture? is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ?the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking?. Other times it means ?the ?imagistic, gradient, holistic? component of an utterance?. It?s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ?semiotic continuum? from symbolic to ?imagistic? is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ?tone of voice?). One cannot equate ?the visible part of the spoken language utterance? with ?the non-linguistic part of the utterance?. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ?language? (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective?Cornelia M?ller?s work is a good example?we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers? co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: ?A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ?speech? and ?gesture?.? This is why he now eschews use of the term ?gesture? entirely. Nick On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 Folks, This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.?" Dan From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Mon May 12 20:15:25 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:15:25 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the review, I look at the very careful work of Kendon and McNeill on explaining the ?gesture continuum.? They do a very good job of distinguishing these things. In any case, those who already do work in gesture will know most of the things discussed in my review, though I do offer some interpretations that I think are novel. Those who have not followed research on gesture may find it to be a concise intro to the topic, in the sense that it summarizes some of the work of Kendon and McNeill. But one thing that this discussion shows, of course, is that research on gesture is not simply an add-on, of secondary importance or complexity to ?real? or ?core? studies of language, but that it is a vital component of a theory of human language, human grammar in fact. This is not/was not intended to be news for folks already doing the research and following the debates. But it might be of use to those who, like myself, write grammars without paying attention to gesture or theorize about the evolution of language without paying attention to some of the very important findings of gesture researchers. ? Dan On May 12, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Nick Enfield wrote: > ?Might be relevant?? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between ?language and gesture?. > > I?d like to add a comment on the ?language and gesture? issue, related to Mike Morgan?s comments, among others. The term ?gesture? is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ?the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking?. Other times it means ?the ?imagistic, gradient, holistic? component of an utterance?. It?s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ?semiotic continuum? from symbolic to ?imagistic? is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ?tone of voice?). One cannot equate ?the visible part of the spoken language utterance? with ?the non-linguistic part of the utterance?. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ?language? (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective?Cornelia M?ller?s work is a good example?we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers? co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: ?A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ?speech? and ?gesture?.? This is why he now eschews use of the term ?gesture? entirely. > > Nick > > > > > > > On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: > > A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: > > 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf > > ======================== > Charles Goodwin > cgoodwinCharles Goodwin > Applied Linguistics > 3300 Rolfe Hall > UCLA > Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 > > cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu > http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ > > > > > On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: > > http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 > > Folks, > > This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: > > "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.?" > > Dan > > > From cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu Mon May 12 21:00:21 2014 From: cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu (Goodwin, Charles) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:00:21 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <2B6C8FAA-776B-444B-89F4-193EC41F7E7F@bentley.edu> Message-ID: I think that one issue with the approach you describe might be taking gesture or gesture and language as a self-contained phenomena and as the primary way that embodied phenomena beyond the stream of speech are relevant to language. If we conceptualize language as being organized within, and emerging from, human frameworks for building action co-operatively, then other forms of embodied action, such as as the ways in which hearers use posture, gaze etc. to demonstrate attention to, and co-participation in utterances as they emerge (which can lead to changes in the emerging structure of a speaker's sentence), might be as important to language as gesture. As noted by both Kendon and myself such participation frameworks create environments within which other forms of semiosis, such as process in which language and gesture mutually elaborate each other to build relevant action, can flourish. Focusing primarily on gesture can obscure the intrinsically co-operative sociality that is so central to how language manifests itself as one resource (with gesture and other forms of semiotic structure inherited from our predecessors) for building meaning and action in concert with others. Chuck ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 12, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: In the review, I look at the very careful work of Kendon and McNeill on explaining the ?gesture continuum.? They do a very good job of distinguishing these things. In any case, those who already do work in gesture will know most of the things discussed in my review, though I do offer some interpretations that I think are novel. Those who have not followed research on gesture may find it to be a concise intro to the topic, in the sense that it summarizes some of the work of Kendon and McNeill. But one thing that this discussion shows, of course, is that research on gesture is not simply an add-on, of secondary importance or complexity to ?real? or ?core? studies of language, but that it is a vital component of a theory of human language, human grammar in fact. This is not/was not intended to be news for folks already doing the research and following the debates. But it might be of use to those who, like myself, write grammars without paying attention to gesture or theorize about the evolution of language without paying attention to some of the very important findings of gesture researchers. ? Dan On May 12, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Nick Enfield > wrote: ?Might be relevant?? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between ?language and gesture?. I?d like to add a comment on the ?language and gesture? issue, related to Mike Morgan?s comments, among others. The term ?gesture? is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ?the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking?. Other times it means ?the ?imagistic, gradient, holistic? component of an utterance?. It?s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ?semiotic continuum? from symbolic to ?imagistic? is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ?tone of voice?). One cannot equate ?the visible part of the spoken language utterance? with ?the non-linguistic part of the utterance?. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ?language? (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective?Cornelia M?ller?s work is a good example?we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers? co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: ?A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ?speech? and ?gesture?.? This is why he now eschews use of the term ?gesture? entirely. Nick On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 Folks, This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.?" Dan From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Mon May 12 22:58:18 2014 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:58:18 -0700 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <734BDB01-0E7D-44E5-BBA4-80D846001F9B@humnet.ucla.edu> Message-ID: I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses of prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might even think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's back. --Wally On 5/12/2014 2:00 PM, Goodwin, Charles wrote: > I think that one issue with the approach you describe might be taking gesture or gesture and language as a self-contained phenomena and as the primary way that embodied phenomena beyond the stream of speech are relevant to language. If we conceptualize language as being organized within, and emerging from, human frameworks for building action co-operatively, then other forms of embodied action, such as as the ways in which hearers use posture, gaze etc. to demonstrate attention to, and co-participation in utterances as they emerge (which can lead to changes in the emerging structure of a speaker's sentence), might be as important to language as gesture. As noted by both Kendon and myself such participation frameworks create environments within which other forms of semiosis, such as process in which language and gesture mutually elaborate each other to build relevant action, can flourish. Focusing primarily on gesture can obscure the intrinsically co-operative sociality that is so central to how language manifests itself as one resource (with gesture and other forms of semiotic structure inherited from our predecessors) for building meaning and action in concert with others. > > Chuck > > ======================== > Charles Goodwin > cgoodwinCharles Goodwin > Applied Linguistics > 3300 Rolfe Hall > UCLA > Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 > > cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu > http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ > > > > > On May 12, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: > > In the review, I look at the very careful work of Kendon and McNeill on explaining the ?gesture continuum.? They do a very good job of distinguishing these things. > > In any case, those who already do work in gesture will know most of the things discussed in my review, though I do offer some interpretations that I think are novel. > > Those who have not followed research on gesture may find it to be a concise intro to the topic, in the sense that it summarizes some of the work of Kendon and McNeill. > > But one thing that this discussion shows, of course, is that research on gesture is not simply an add-on, of secondary importance or complexity to ?real? or ?core? studies of language, but that it is a vital component of a theory of human language, human grammar in fact. > > This is not/was not intended to be news for folks already doing the research and following the debates. But it might be of use to those who, like myself, write grammars without paying attention to gesture or theorize about the evolution of language without paying attention to some of the very important findings of gesture researchers. > > ? Dan > > On May 12, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Nick Enfield > wrote: > > ?Might be relevant?? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between ?language and gesture?. > > I?d like to add a comment on the ?language and gesture? issue, related to Mike Morgan?s comments, among others. The term ?gesture? is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ?the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking?. Other times it means ?the ?imagistic, gradient, holistic? component of an utterance?. It?s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ?semiotic continuum? from symbolic to ?imagistic? is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ?tone of voice?). One cannot equate ?the visible part of the spoken language utterance? with ?the non-linguistic part of the utterance?. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ?language? (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective?Cornelia M?ller?s work is a good example?we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers? co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: ?A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ?speech? and ?gesture?.? This is why he now eschews use of the term ?gesture? entirely. > > Nick > > > > > > > On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: > > A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: > > 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf > > ======================== > Charles Goodwin > cgoodwinCharles Goodwin > Applied Linguistics > 3300 Rolfe Hall > UCLA > Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 > > cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu > http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ > > > > > On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: > > http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 > > Folks, > > This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: > > "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.?" > > Dan > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Mon May 12 23:45:15 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:45:15 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <5371520A.5020102@linguistics.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: I also agree with this Wally. And McNeill makes this point too. Dan Sent from my iPhone > On May 13, 2014, at 1:58, "Wallace Chafe" wrote: > > I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses of prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might even think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's back. > > --Wally > >> On 5/12/2014 2:00 PM, Goodwin, Charles wrote: >> I think that one issue with the approach you describe might be taking gesture or gesture and language as a self-contained phenomena and as the primary way that embodied phenomena beyond the stream of speech are relevant to language. If we conceptualize language as being organized within, and emerging from, human frameworks for building action co-operatively, then other forms of embodied action, such as as the ways in which hearers use posture, gaze etc. to demonstrate attention to, and co-participation in utterances as they emerge (which can lead to changes in the emerging structure of a speaker's sentence), might be as important to language as gesture. As noted by both Kendon and myself such participation frameworks create environments within which other forms of semiosis, such as process in which language and gesture mutually elaborate each other to build relevant action, can flourish. Focusing primarily on gesture can obscure the intrinsically co-operative sociality that is so central to how language manifests itself as one resource (with gesture and other forms of semiotic structure inherited from our predecessors) for building meaning and action in concert with others. >> >> Chuck >> >> ======================== >> Charles Goodwin >> cgoodwinCharles Goodwin >> Applied Linguistics >> 3300 Rolfe Hall >> UCLA >> Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 >> >> cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu >> http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ >> >> >> >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: >> >> In the review, I look at the very careful work of Kendon and McNeill on explaining the ?gesture continuum.? They do a very good job of distinguishing these things. >> >> In any case, those who already do work in gesture will know most of the things discussed in my review, though I do offer some interpretations that I think are novel. >> >> Those who have not followed research on gesture may find it to be a concise intro to the topic, in the sense that it summarizes some of the work of Kendon and McNeill. >> >> But one thing that this discussion shows, of course, is that research on gesture is not simply an add-on, of secondary importance or complexity to ?real? or ?core? studies of language, but that it is a vital component of a theory of human language, human grammar in fact. >> >> This is not/was not intended to be news for folks already doing the research and following the debates. But it might be of use to those who, like myself, write grammars without paying attention to gesture or theorize about the evolution of language without paying attention to some of the very important findings of gesture researchers. >> >> ? Dan >> >> On May 12, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Nick Enfield > wrote: >> >> ?Might be relevant?? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between ?language and gesture?. >> >> I?d like to add a comment on the ?language and gesture? issue, related to Mike Morgan?s comments, among others. The term ?gesture? is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ?the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking?. Other times it means ?the ?imagistic, gradient, holistic? component of an utterance?. It?s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ?semiotic continuum? from symbolic to ?imagistic? is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ?tone of voice?). One cannot equate ?the visible part of the spoken language utterance? with ?the non-linguistic part of the utterance?. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ?language? (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective?Cornelia M?ller?s work is a good example?we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers? co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: ?A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ?speech? and ?gesture?.? This is why he now eschews use of the term ?gesture? entirely. >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: >> >> A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: >> >> 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. >> >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf >> >> ======================== >> Charles Goodwin >> cgoodwinCharles Goodwin >> Applied Linguistics >> 3300 Rolfe Hall >> UCLA >> Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 >> >> cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu >> http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ >> >> >> >> >> On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: >> >> http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 >> >> Folks, >> >> This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: >> >> "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.?" >> >> Dan > > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Mon May 12 23:44:00 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:44:00 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <734BDB01-0E7D-44E5-BBA4-80D846001F9B@humnet.ucla.edu> Message-ID: Chuck, I could not agree more. Dan Sent from my iPhone On May 13, 2014, at 0:00, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: I think that one issue with the approach you describe might be taking gesture or gesture and language as a self-contained phenomena and as the primary way that embodied phenomena beyond the stream of speech are relevant to language. If we conceptualize language as being organized within, and emerging from, human frameworks for building action co-operatively, then other forms of embodied action, such as as the ways in which hearers use posture, gaze etc. to demonstrate attention to, and co-participation in utterances as they emerge (which can lead to changes in the emerging structure of a speaker's sentence), might be as important to language as gesture. As noted by both Kendon and myself such participation frameworks create environments within which other forms of semiosis, such as process in which language and gesture mutually elaborate each other to build relevant action, can flourish. Focusing primarily on gesture can obscure the intrinsically co-operative sociality that is so central to how language manifests itself as one resource (with gesture and other forms of semiotic structure inherited from our predecessors) for building meaning and action in concert with others. Chuck ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 12, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: In the review, I look at the very careful work of Kendon and McNeill on explaining the ?gesture continuum.? They do a very good job of distinguishing these things. In any case, those who already do work in gesture will know most of the things discussed in my review, though I do offer some interpretations that I think are novel. Those who have not followed research on gesture may find it to be a concise intro to the topic, in the sense that it summarizes some of the work of Kendon and McNeill. But one thing that this discussion shows, of course, is that research on gesture is not simply an add-on, of secondary importance or complexity to ?real? or ?core? studies of language, but that it is a vital component of a theory of human language, human grammar in fact. This is not/was not intended to be news for folks already doing the research and following the debates. But it might be of use to those who, like myself, write grammars without paying attention to gesture or theorize about the evolution of language without paying attention to some of the very important findings of gesture researchers. ? Dan On May 12, 2014, at 11:06 PM, Nick Enfield > wrote: ?Might be relevant?? LOL Chuck Goodwin, here being characteristically modest (like a number of others in this thread), is a pioneer and inspiration in work on the relation between ?language and gesture?. I?d like to add a comment on the ?language and gesture? issue, related to Mike Morgan?s comments, among others. The term ?gesture? is hopelessly ambiguous, in a way that sabotages much discussion on the topic. Sometimes it means ?the communicative movements people make with their hands when talking?. Other times it means ?the ?imagistic, gradient, holistic? component of an utterance?. It?s often the case that these two things correlate, but they are not equivalent. The same ?semiotic continuum? from symbolic to ?imagistic? is seen within the modality of visible bodily movements as is seen within audible vocalisation (from lexical items to ?tone of voice?). One cannot equate ?the visible part of the spoken language utterance? with ?the non-linguistic part of the utterance?. The problem must be approached starting with a semiotic characterisation of the whole utterance and its components, not from the idea of ?language? (as if any of us, when pushed, can draw a clear line between what does and does not count). From this perspective?Cornelia M?ller?s work is a good example?we begin to see grammar-like properties in speakers? co-speech hand movements. As Adam Kendon put it in 1986: ?A theory of utterance should not begin with a division between ?speech? and ?gesture?.? This is why he now eschews use of the term ?gesture? entirely. Nick On 12/05/14 20:08, "Goodwin, Charles" > wrote: A paper that might be relevant to this discussion: 2007 Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. Susan Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Levy, eds. Pp. 195-212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3327733/Papers PDF/Goodwin Environmentally Gestures.pdf ======================== Charles Goodwin cgoodwinCharles Goodwin Applied Linguistics 3300 Rolfe Hall UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1531 cgoodwin at humnet.ucla.edu http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/clic/cgoodwin/ On May 8, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Everett, Daniel > wrote: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002084 Folks, This paper reviews the very important research on gestures of David McNeill and many others, as well as the history of gesture studies and their significance for language evolution, as well as for psycholingusitics, typology, functional and formal linguistics. The abstract: "This paper is a review article about the pioneering work of G. David McNeill and various others on the interaction of gestures with human language and their vital role in the evolution of human language. McNeill argues, for example, that language and gesture must have begun together, that neither could have preceded the other. He also makes the case that the gesture-syntax connection was the most important step in language evolution and that compositionality and recursion played lesser, secondary (though extremely important) roles. I argue that McNeill's work is compatible with various papers and books of my own, especially Everett (2012). I further argue that McNeill's work supports the research program of "embodied cogntion." I argue that linguistic field researchers, theoreticians, and typologists cannot continue to work in a "gesture vacuum.?" Dan From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Tue May 13 01:47:59 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 09:47:59 +0800 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <53709AF70200006900117240@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: As Karl Popper said (Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976), Page 29): "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you." It seems several people took what I said in the wrong way. Although Popper didn't understand it, the reason why his observation is correct is that communication isn't based on coding and decoding of a shared code. To answer Johanna Rubba, communication happens when one person does something with the intention of another person guessing the reason for them doing it, and when the other person gets it right, you get communication. That is it, there is nothing more to communication. This view of communication argues that a basic mechanism for making sense of phenomena we experience in the world is abductive inference: we observe a phenomenon or event (possibly using inductive inference to first make a generalization about it), and then use abductive inference to posit a hypothesis to explain why the phenomenon is the way it is or why some event happened the way it did. This involves creating a context of interpretation, using available assumptions, in which the phenomenon or event ?makes sense? to us. This sort of inference is non-demonstrative (non-deductive), so the conclusion is not necessarily true, but we generally assume our conclusion is true until persuaded otherwise by further evidence of some type. The particular context of interpretation created will depend on the assumptions available to the individual, and as each individual has had different life experiences, the assumptions available will differ with each individual, and so all meaning-creation (understanding) will be subjective. Abductive inference is seen as the major mechanism by which we make sense of the world, and so is what gave rise to religion, philosophy, and ultimately science (which added the step of testing the hypothesis to try to falsify it), as well as most of our every-day beliefs. It is seen as a survival technique, as understanding the reason for some phenomenon or event can lead to us better dealing with that phenomenon or event. One application of this survival instinct is inferring the intentions of other humans, which we do instinctively in order to survive, particularly if their action is out of the ordinary, such as walk towards us with a knife in their hand. Most of the time people don?t intend for us to infer their intentions, but there are times when someone does something with the intention of another person inferring their intention in doing it, and if the other person does infer the intention correctly, communication has happened. That is all there is to communication. Communication is seen not as a coding-decoding process, but as involving one person showing the intention to communicate, intending for the other person to infer their intention in doing the communicative act, and abductive inference, creating a context of interpretation in which the ostensive act makes sense. Even the recognition of the communicative act as a communicative act requires abductive inference. As the inferential process involved in communication is the same as the one we use in understanding the natural world, understanding communication gives us a way towards a general theory of meaning creation. Language is not seen as crucial for communication in this view, but when used, the role of language is to constrain the creation of the context of interpretation by eliminating certain assumptions that might otherwise be included in the context of interpretation. Language is seen not as an object, but as interactional behavior which conventionalizes at the societal level and habitualizes at the individual level (much the same as any other societal convention or personal habit). Language behavior conventionalizes as speakers repeatedly use the same forms over and over to constrain the hearer?s creation of the context of interpretation in particular ways. Each society of speakers will chose different aspects of meaning to consistently constrain the interpretation of, and they will do it to different degrees if they do it at all, and they will use different mechanisms to do so, so we can investigate the structure of languages from the point of view of these three aspects. And as constraining the interpretation with extra linguistic material requires extra effort on the part of the speakers, for them to do this it must be important to them that the hearer understand that aspect of the meaning better than other aspects, and so all conventionalized aspects of language use are seen to reflect aspects of the cognition of the particular speakers of the language at the time the form was conventionalized. Over time the original motivation for using the form can be lost, but out of habit and convention the form will often continue to be used, and so will seem unmotivated (arbitrary), but it would not have conventionalized initially had it not been important to constrain that particular aspect of the interpretation at the time it conventionalized. Each language then is seen as uniquely reflecting the cognition of a particular society of speakers. This cognition involves construing and even perceiving the world differently in each language. This discussion has focused on language and gesture, but as Wally said, there are other aspects, such as prosody, that are equally relevant. Gumperz talked about many of these things as "contextualization cues". For me, all of what we do in a communicative situation can be a contextualization cue (I don't see a distinction between conceptual information and contextualization cues the way Gumperz did, or between conceptual and procedural information the way Relevance Theory does: everything helps in the creation of the context of interpretation). As Nick says, you have to take the whole communicative situation into account and see all aspects as working together towards the same goal, whether it involves "language" or "gesture" or "prosody" or whatever. Also, communication doesn't necessarily involve language or gesture or prosody. It can be leaving an item out in a conspicuous place, as when my part-time cook left out the almost-empty container of rice in order to communicate that I needed to buy more rice, or another time when she left a cup in the sink to communicate that the faucet was leaking and so I should have it fixed. Anything can be used in communication. We most often combine all of these elements together. If whatever we did to communicate worked, we will use it again when the same or similar situation arises, and then that can become a personal habit and a societal convention. This includes conventionalization of conversational routines, and also of gestures, as well as linguistic forms. All forms and conventions used in the communicative act have the same function: they constrain the creation of the context of inference of the addressee, that is, constrain the addressee's search for the relevance of the communicator's action. This is possible because of the Cooperative Principle, which at its core is really saying we assume people are rational, and so when they do something there must be a reason, and we can guess (using abductive inference) what that reason is, and thereby infer the person's communicative intent. Communication is never fully deterministic, as Popper points out, but by constraining the interpretation to a more appropriate extent (for the situation) you can be more likely to have the person infer what you intend for the person to infer. This is a very brief summary of a theory of language development and communication that I have developed over the last 20 years out of the intersection of my work in documenting languages radically different from IE languages, in historical linguistics, in typology, and in pragmatics. I teach a whole semester course on this. I recorded the class this past semester, and have begun putting the audio of the lectures and the slides on iTunes U (https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/pragmatics/id849441717 ). The first four or so hours go into great detail about how this works, with many natural examples, to show how abduction works and how it isn't coding and decoding and how anything can be communicative and how meaning creation generally works. (Somehow my assistant put them up in a way that the numbering is reversed, so start with item 17 ad work up, or just hit the sort button to reverse the sort. The slides to go with the audio are called "Notes" on the site.) The course is officially called Pragmatic Theory, but for me it is Meaning Creation, as it is all about how we create meaning in our minds (the only place where meaning is--there is no meaning in letters or sounds, any meaning we "get" is created in our minds based on our experiences). I also have some papers presenting the theory, and some also applying the theory to things like the nature of grammatical relations: LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. "Grammaticalization as the fossilization of constraints on interpretation: Towards a single theory of cognition, communication, and the development of language". Paper presented to the City University of Hong Kong Seminar in Linguistics, November 6, 1997. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla-1997-Grammaticalization_as_the_Fossilization_of_Constraints_on_Interpretation.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In David Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 113-144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2003_Why_languages_differ_-_Variation_in_the_conventionalization_of_constraints_on_inference.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2005. Typology and complexity. In James W. Minett and William S-Y. Wang (eds.), Language acquisition, change and emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics, 465-493. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2005_Typology_and_Complexity.PDF LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification. In Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language), 139-151. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2006_On_Grammatical_Relations_as_Constraints_on_Referent_Identification.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. The how and why of syntactic relations. Invited plenary address and keynote of the Centre for Research on Language Change Workshop on Grammatical Change at the Annual Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society, University of Queensland, 7-9 July, 2006. To appear in Christian Lehmann, Stavros Skopeteas, Christian Marschke (eds.), Evolution of syntactic relations (Trends in Linguistics Series). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_Draft_The_how_and_why_of_syntactic_relations.pdf LaPolla, R. J. 2010. ?On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure?. Paper presented at the 10th RCLT International Workshop, ?The Shaping of Language: The Relationship between the Structures of Languages and their Social, Cultural, Historical, and Natural Environments?, 14 July 2010. https://www.dropbox.com/s/zijgwtkkr0qtadq/LaPolla-2010-On_the_Logical_Necessity_of_a_Cultural_Connection_for_All_Aspects_of_Linguistic_Structure.pdf Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA ?????| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://randylapolla.net/ On May 12, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > Tahir On May 10, 2014, at 12:50 AM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > > Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a society without being able to communicate about abstractions, hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. > > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Department > Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo > Tel. 805.756.2184 > Dept. Tel 805.756.2596 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > ******************************************* > "Justice is what love looks like in public." > - Cornel West From wilcox at unm.edu Tue May 13 03:40:02 2014 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:40:02 -0600 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <6f32c03b69ec493393939148a628b47a@BLUPR07MB401.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Thanks for this wonderful post, Randy. It's a feast! -- Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Humanities 112 400 Yale Blvd. NE Albuquerque, NM 87131 USA On 12 May 2014, at 19:47, Randy LaPolla wrote: > As Karl Popper said (Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography > (1976), Page 29): "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in > such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some > who misunderstand you." It seems several people took what I said in > the wrong way. > > Although Popper didn't understand it, the reason why his observation > is correct is that communication isn't based on coding and decoding of > a shared code. > > To answer Johanna Rubba, communication happens when one person does > something with the intention of another person guessing the reason for > them doing it, and when the other person gets it right, you get > communication. That is it, there is nothing more to communication. > > This view of communication argues that a basic mechanism for making > sense of phenomena we experience in the world is abductive inference: > we observe a phenomenon or event (possibly using inductive inference > to first make a generalization about it), and then use abductive > inference to posit a hypothesis to explain why the phenomenon is the > way it is or why some event happened the way it did. This involves > creating a context of interpretation, using available assumptions, in > which the phenomenon or event ?makes sense? to us. This sort of > inference is non-demonstrative (non-deductive), so the conclusion is > not necessarily true, but we generally assume our conclusion is true > until persuaded otherwise by further evidence of some type. The > particular context of interpretation created will depend on the > assumptions available to the individual, and as each individual has > had different life experiences, the assumptions available will differ > with each individual, and so all meaning-creation (understanding) will > be subjective. Abductive inference is seen as the major mechanism by > which we make sense of the world, and so is what gave rise to > religion, philosophy, and ultimately science (which added the step of > testing the hypothesis to try to falsify it), as well as most of our > every-day beliefs. It is seen as a survival technique, as > understanding the reason for some phenomenon or event can lead to us > better dealing with that phenomenon or event. > > One application of this survival instinct is inferring the intentions > of other humans, which we do instinctively in order to survive, > particularly if their action is out of the ordinary, such as walk > towards us with a knife in their hand. Most of the time people don?t > intend for us to infer their intentions, but there are times when > someone does something with the intention of another person inferring > their intention in doing it, and if the other person does infer the > intention correctly, communication has happened. That is all there is > to communication. Communication is seen not as a coding-decoding > process, but as involving one person showing the intention to > communicate, intending for the other person to infer their intention > in doing the communicative act, and abductive inference, creating a > context of interpretation in which the ostensive act makes sense. Even > the recognition of the communicative act as a communicative act > requires abductive inference. As the inferential process involved in > communication is the same as the one we use in understanding the > natural world, understanding communication gives us a way towards a > general theory of meaning creation. > > Language is not seen as crucial for communication in this view, but > when used, the role of language is to constrain the creation of the > context of interpretation by eliminating certain assumptions that > might otherwise be included in the context of interpretation. Language > is seen not as an object, but as interactional behavior which > conventionalizes at the societal level and habitualizes at the > individual level (much the same as any other societal convention or > personal habit). Language behavior conventionalizes as speakers > repeatedly use the same forms over and over to constrain the > hearer?s creation of the context of interpretation in particular > ways. Each society of speakers will chose different aspects of meaning > to consistently constrain the interpretation of, and they will do it > to different degrees if they do it at all, and they will use different > mechanisms to do so, so we can investigate the structure of languages > from the point of view of these three aspects. And as constraining the > interpretation with extra linguistic material requires extra effort on > the part of the speakers, for them to do this it must be important to > them that the hearer understand that aspect of the meaning better than > other aspects, and so all conventionalized aspects of language use are > seen to reflect aspects of the cognition of the particular speakers of > the language at the time the form was conventionalized. Over time the > original motivation for using the form can be lost, but out of habit > and convention the form will often continue to be used, and so will > seem unmotivated (arbitrary), but it would not have conventionalized > initially had it not been important to constrain that particular > aspect of the interpretation at the time it conventionalized. Each > language then is seen as uniquely reflecting the cognition of a > particular society of speakers. This cognition involves construing and > even perceiving the world differently in each language. > > This discussion has focused on language and gesture, but as Wally > said, there are other aspects, such as prosody, that are equally > relevant. Gumperz talked about many of these things as > "contextualization cues". For me, all of what we do in a communicative > situation can be a contextualization cue (I don't see a distinction > between conceptual information and contextualization cues the way > Gumperz did, or between conceptual and procedural information the way > Relevance Theory does: everything helps in the creation of the context > of interpretation). As Nick says, you have to take the whole > communicative situation into account and see all aspects as working > together towards the same goal, whether it involves "language" or > "gesture" or "prosody" or whatever. Also, communication doesn't > necessarily involve language or gesture or prosody. It can be leaving > an item out in a conspicuous place, as when my part-time cook left out > the almost-empty container of rice in order to communicate that I > needed to buy more rice, or another time when she left a cup in the > sink to communicate that the faucet was leaking and so I should have > it fixed. Anything can be used in communication. We most often combine > all of these elements together. If whatever we did to communicate > worked, we will use it again when the same or similar situation > arises, and then that can become a personal habit and a societal > convention. This includes conventionalization of conversational > routines, and also of gestures, as well as linguistic forms. All forms > and conventions used in the communicative act have the same function: > they constrain the creation of the context of inference of the > addressee, that is, constrain the addressee's search for the relevance > of the communicator's action. This is possible because of the > Cooperative Principle, which at its core is really saying we assume > people are rational, and so when they do something there must be a > reason, and we can guess (using abductive inference) what that reason > is, and thereby infer the person's communicative intent. Communication > is never fully deterministic, as Popper points out, but by > constraining the interpretation to a more appropriate extent (for the > situation) you can be more likely to have the person infer what you > intend for the person to infer. > > This is a very brief summary of a theory of language development and > communication that I have developed over the last 20 years out of the > intersection of my work in documenting languages radically different > from IE languages, in historical linguistics, in typology, and in > pragmatics. I teach a whole semester course on this. I recorded the > class this past semester, and have begun putting the audio of the > lectures and the slides on iTunes U > (https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/pragmatics/id849441717 ). The > first four or so hours go into great detail about how this works, with > many natural examples, to show how abduction works and how it isn't > coding and decoding and how anything can be communicative and how > meaning creation generally works. (Somehow my assistant put them up in > a way that the numbering is reversed, so start with item 17 ad work > up, or just hit the sort button to reverse the sort. The slides to go > with the audio are called "Notes" on the site.) The course is > officially called Pragmatic Theory, but for me it is Meaning Creation, > as it is all about how we create meaning in our minds (the only place > where meaning is--there is no meaning in letters or sounds, any > meaning we "get" is created in our minds based on our experiences). > > I also have some papers presenting the theory, and some also applying > the theory to things like the nature of grammatical relations: > > LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. "Grammaticalization as the fossilization of > constraints on interpretation: Towards a single theory of cognition, > communication, and the development of language". Paper presented to > the City University of Hong Kong Seminar in Linguistics, November 6, > 1997. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla-1997-Grammaticalization_as_the_Fossilization_of_Constraints_on_Interpretation.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Why languages differ: Variation in the > conventionalization of constraints on inference. In David Bradley, > Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Language > variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the > Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 113-144. Canberra: Pacific > Linguistics. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2003_Why_languages_differ_-_Variation_in_the_conventionalization_of_constraints_on_inference.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2005. Typology and complexity. In James W. Minett > and William S-Y. Wang (eds.), Language acquisition, change and > emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics, 465-493. Hong Kong: > City University of Hong Kong Press. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2005_Typology_and_Complexity.PDF > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. On grammatical relations as constraints on > referent identification. In Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama (eds.), > Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani > (Typological Studies in Language), 139-151. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: > John Benjamins Pub. Co. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2006_On_Grammatical_Relations_as_Constraints_on_Referent_Identification.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. The how and why of syntactic relations. > Invited plenary address and keynote of the Centre for Research on > Language Change Workshop on Grammatical Change at the Annual > Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society, University of > Queensland, 7-9 July, 2006. To appear in Christian Lehmann, Stavros > Skopeteas, Christian Marschke (eds.), Evolution of syntactic relations > (Trends in Linguistics Series). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_Draft_The_how_and_why_of_syntactic_relations.pdf > > > > LaPolla, R. J. 2010. ?On the logical necessity of a cultural > connection for all aspects of linguistic structure?. Paper presented > at the 10th RCLT International Workshop, ?The Shaping of Language: > The Relationship between the Structures of Languages and their Social, > Cultural, Historical, and Natural Environments?, 14 July 2010. > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/zijgwtkkr0qtadq/LaPolla-2010-On_the_Logical_Necessity_of_a_Cultural_Connection_for_All_Aspects_of_Linguistic_Structure.pdf > > > Randy > ----- > Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA ?????| Head, Division of > Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological > University > HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 > GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://randylapolla.net/ > > On May 12, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: > >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all >> necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty >> elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and >> only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have >> made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which >> itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes >> again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the >> mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we >> do and so they developed language "in order to express" those >> thoughts (!) >> Tahir > > On May 10, 2014, at 12:50 AM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > >> >> Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask >> Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form >> of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a >> society without being able to communicate about abstractions, >> hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. >> I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says >> that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I >> don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with >> abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, >> although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication >> can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. >> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all >> necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty >> elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Department >> Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo >> Tel. 805.756.2184 >> Dept. Tel 805.756.2596 >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> ******************************************* >> "Justice is what love looks like in public." >> - Cornel West From wilcox at unm.edu Tue May 13 03:50:24 2014 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:50:24 -0600 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <0d5e8b91b9b9453fbba10c2ef1d3315e@BLUPR07MB401.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: One of my favorite people to read about this is Dwight Bolinger, especially "Intonation and Its Parts" and also his wonderful essay in American Speech, "Intonation and Gesture." -- Sherman On 12 May 2014, at 16:58, Wallace Chafe wrote: > I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I > wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in > passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody > (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses > of > prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might > even > think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a > monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's > back. > > --Wally From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Tue May 13 04:39:05 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 12:39:05 +0800 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <25EBB8E0-2FF6-4E1A-9AAC-EDBD88C3B91B@unm.edu> Message-ID: Yes, Bolinger was way ahead of the pack very early on in many ways (like Wally). Another one who has always taken prosody seriously is Michael Halliday (being a student of Firth probably helped in that regard!), seeing it as part of the grammar. Bill Greaves, who wrote a book with Michael on Intonation in English (M.A.K. Halliday and W. Greaves, Intonation in the Grammar of English, LONDON: EQUINOX. 2008. PP. IX, 224. CD ROM) will not talk about linguistic forms without intonation, calling them "dead words"! Randy On May 13, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > One of my favorite people to read about this is Dwight Bolinger, especially "Intonation and Its Parts" and also his wonderful essay in American Speech, "Intonation and Gesture." > -- > Sherman > > On 12 May 2014, at 16:58, Wallace Chafe wrote: > >> I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I >> wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in >> passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody >> (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses of >> prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might even >> think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a >> monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's back. >> >> --Wally From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Tue May 13 04:54:30 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 04:54:30 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: All of these are important names. But the influence behind a lot of this was Pike. Sent from my iPhone > On May 13, 2014, at 7:39, "Randy LaPolla" wrote: > > Yes, Bolinger was way ahead of the pack very early on in many ways (like Wally). Another one who has always taken prosody seriously is Michael Halliday (being a student of Firth probably helped in that regard!), seeing it as part of the grammar. Bill Greaves, who wrote a book with Michael on Intonation in English (M.A.K. Halliday and W. Greaves, Intonation in the Grammar of English, LONDON: EQUINOX. 2008. PP. IX, 224. CD ROM) will not talk about linguistic forms without intonation, calling them "dead words"! > > Randy > >> On May 13, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >> >> One of my favorite people to read about this is Dwight Bolinger, especially "Intonation and Its Parts" and also his wonderful essay in American Speech, "Intonation and Gesture." >> -- >> Sherman >> >>> On 12 May 2014, at 16:58, Wallace Chafe wrote: >>> >>> I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I >>> wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in >>> passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody >>> (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses of >>> prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might even >>> think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a >>> monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's back. >>> >>> --Wally > From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Tue May 13 09:32:11 2014 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:32:11 +0100 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Don't think it's been mentioned before, but there's some interesting work on the role of gesture in second language acquisition. Stam (2010) highlights the correlation between gestural and linguistic expressions of 'path' and 'motion' in a Spanish learner of English. She also published the first (and possibly only) book on SLA and geatures. Anne Marie > From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu > To: randy.lapolla at gmail.com > Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 04:54:30 +0000 > CC: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > > All of these are important names. But the influence behind a lot of this was Pike. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On May 13, 2014, at 7:39, "Randy LaPolla" wrote: > > > > Yes, Bolinger was way ahead of the pack very early on in many ways (like Wally). Another one who has always taken prosody seriously is Michael Halliday (being a student of Firth probably helped in that regard!), seeing it as part of the grammar. Bill Greaves, who wrote a book with Michael on Intonation in English (M.A.K. Halliday and W. Greaves, Intonation in the Grammar of English, LONDON: EQUINOX. 2008. PP. IX, 224. CD ROM) will not talk about linguistic forms without intonation, calling them "dead words"! > > > > Randy > > > >> On May 13, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > >> > >> One of my favorite people to read about this is Dwight Bolinger, especially "Intonation and Its Parts" and also his wonderful essay in American Speech, "Intonation and Gesture." > >> -- > >> Sherman > >> > >>> On 12 May 2014, at 16:58, Wallace Chafe wrote: > >>> > >>> I have no wish to stir up another hornet's nest on this topic, but I > >>> wanted to point to something I think has already been mentioned in > >>> passing a couple times: that is, parallels between gesture and prosody > >>> (pitch, volume, timing, and voice quality). At least some of the uses of > >>> prosody appear to have things in common with gesture, and one might even > >>> think of prosody as gesturing by the lungs and larynx. Speaking in a > >>> monotone is a little like speaking with one's hands tied behind one's back. > >>> > >>> --Wally > > From rchen at csusb.edu Tue May 13 17:16:15 2014 From: rchen at csusb.edu (Rong Chen) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:16:15 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Randy, Thanks and I would accept almost all of your points. "Almost" because I felt that your views 1) downplay the role of language a bit too much so that 2) communication is seen as entirely subjective. I start with the first point. I agree that language is the result of conventionalization. But I also think that the process of conventionalization has a biological aspect to it. The fact that human beings share the same biological makeup has to mean something, although what it means is up for debate (and has been debated for decades). So, for instance, the way our eyes are "constructed" is believed to have led to the way language presents reality in particular ways (the figure and ground gestalt, among others). Our articulators are "constructed" in the same way so that different languages draw from a common inventory of sounds. Our whatever--heart? mind? Body?--is constructed in the same way that causes us to have a similar set of emotions. (I am convinced that you are among the first to acknowledge all this, given your vast experience documenting and studying languages.) This will lead to some commonalities among languages, rendering language capable of transcending specific speech situations across time and space. Even socialization could transcend speech situations. No one I know denies the specificity of each life experience. The fact is that there is no exact replica of any experience. But there is also something in common about these experiences and/or the human mind is capable of extracting "sameness" from different experiences. There could even be something inherently similar in different human experiences. In other words, different communities at different times may share a set of general social principles, whatever they might turn out to be (intentionality of speech? Cooperation? Assuming truth in communication unless there are reasons not to? Desire to retain autonomy?). If these things do exist (and again I expect your agreement on this), they exist because, I think, of something socially natural (which would possibly be an oxymoron to you) about human beings. In the sense that human beings strive to survive, and survival often requires coexistence with each other in a community, we could have, due to our shared survival instinct and the way our brain is constructed, collectively "discovered" or "formed" these principles, things that offer us the best chance for coexistence, for survival. So, I am of the opinion that because of the shared biological makeup and general social principles, language is the codification (or extraction) of shared life experience that has in part resulted from conventionalization. It hence provides a system for speakers to use as signposts for hearers (leading to an intended destination) rather than a means to constrain hearers (from going aimlessly in all directions). It makes sense for the human mind to choose the shorter route to an end (rationality), and to direct someone to a place seems to be a shorter route than to prevent that someone from going to unintended places. Now, the second and consequential point, about the subjectivity of language and communication. The view that completely denies the transcending prowess of language seems to be based on the argument along the lines of "Since language is always used in social context and social contexts differ, language is social and social only (hence subjective, elusive, unfixed, relational, dynamic)." I have always felt a bit uncomfortable about that claim. First, it is unfalsifiable. Second, it seems to require a leap of logic. If that statement stands, so should the following: "Since language is always used when there is sufficient amount of nitrogen and oxygen (for the speaker to stay living), it has to do with nitrogen and oxygen. Further, since all human beings depend on nitrogen and oxygen for survival, language is the same for all humans." (I apologize for making the statement sound sillier than it is and for making myself sound ruder than what I think I am.) Further, if we say communication is entirely subjective because speakers have different life experiences, we are implying that understanding is a miraculous rarity. I am not sure that is the case. Listening to Bach played by different performers in different places at different times, one notices the uniqueness of each pianist. (Uniqueness is, for the most part, why one goes to a concert in the first place.) But one also notices something Bach in all of them. Shakespeare is read by English speakers (non-English speakers, too) all over the globe for the past three hundred years and we all have our own takes about each work, but I think if we round up a group of readers across time and space in one room, we would discover an amazing amount of shared interpretation. If I count successes and failures of my communication on an average day, I think I the number of successes would exceed that of failures. You (someone living and working in Australia) and I (growing up on a Chinese farm but now living in North America) met for the first time and conversed a bit a few years ago in Beijing, and we seemed to understand each other quite well (at least in my view). Those who believe that communication is entirely subjective will have to grabble with this reality. But this reality would be a bit easier to explain if we give language and other communication media--gesture, prosody and others--a bit more credit. Rong Chen -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Randy LaPolla Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 6:48 PM To: Funknet List Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture As Karl Popper said (Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976), Page 29): "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you." It seems several people took what I said in the wrong way. Although Popper didn't understand it, the reason why his observation is correct is that communication isn't based on coding and decoding of a shared code. To answer Johanna Rubba, communication happens when one person does something with the intention of another person guessing the reason for them doing it, and when the other person gets it right, you get communication. That is it, there is nothing more to communication. This view of communication argues that a basic mechanism for making sense of phenomena we experience in the world is abductive inference: we observe a phenomenon or event (possibly using inductive inference to first make a generalization about it), and then use abductive inference to posit a hypothesis to explain why the phenomenon is the way it is or why some event happened the way it did. This involves creating a context of interpretation, using available assumptions, in which the phenomenon or event ?makes sense? to us. This sort of inference is non-demonstrative (non-deductive), so the conclusion is not necessarily true, but we generally assume our conclusion is true until persuaded otherwise by further evidence of some type. The particular context of interpretation created will depend on the assumptions available to the individual, and as each individual has had different life experiences, the assumptions available will differ with each individual, and so all meaning-creation (understanding) will be subjective. Abductive inference is seen as the major mechanism by which we make sense of the world, and so is what gave rise to religion, philosophy, and ultimately science (which added the step of testing the hypothesis to try to falsify it), as well as most of our every-day beliefs. It is seen as a survival technique, as understanding the reason for some phenomenon or event can lead to us better dealing with that phenomenon or event. One application of this survival instinct is inferring the intentions of other humans, which we do instinctively in order to survive, particularly if their action is out of the ordinary, such as walk towards us with a knife in their hand. Most of the time people don?t intend for us to infer their intentions, but there are times when someone does something with the intention of another person inferring their intention in doing it, and if the other person does infer the intention correctly, communication has happened. That is all there is to communication. Communication is seen not as a coding-decoding process, but as involving one person showing the intention to communicate, intending for the other person to infer their intention in doing the communicative act, and abductive inference, creating a context of interpretation in which the ostensive act makes sense. Even the recognition of the communicative act as a communicative act requires abductive inference. As the inferential process involved in communication is the same as the one we use in understanding the natural world, understanding communication gives us a way towards a general theory of meaning creation. Language is not seen as crucial for communication in this view, but when used, the role of language is to constrain the creation of the context of interpretation by eliminating certain assumptions that might otherwise be included in the context of interpretation. Language is seen not as an object, but as interactional behavior which conventionalizes at the societal level and habitualizes at the individual level (much the same as any other societal convention or personal habit). Language behavior conventionalizes as speakers repeatedly use the same forms over and over to constrain the hearer?s creation of the context of interpretation in particular ways. Each society of speakers will chose different aspects of meaning to consistently constrain the interpretation of, and they will do it to different degrees if they do it at all, and they will use different mechanisms to do so, so we can investigate the structure of languages from the point of view of these three aspects. And as constraining the interpretation with extra linguistic material requires extra effort on the part of the speakers, for them to do this it must be important to them that the hearer understand that aspect of the meaning better than other aspects, and so all conventionalized aspects of language use are seen to reflect aspects of the cognition of the particular speakers of the language at the time the form was conventionalized. Over time the original motivation for using the form can be lost, but out of habit and convention the form will often continue to be used, and so will seem unmotivated (arbitrary), but it would not have conventionalized initially had it not been important to constrain that particular aspect of the interpretation at the time it conventionalized. Each language then is seen as uniquely reflecting the cognition of a particular society of speakers. This cognition involves construing and even perceiving the world differently in each language. This discussion has focused on language and gesture, but as Wally said, there are other aspects, such as prosody, that are equally relevant. Gumperz talked about many of these things as "contextualization cues". For me, all of what we do in a communicative situation can be a contextualization cue (I don't see a distinction between conceptual information and contextualization cues the way Gumperz did, or between conceptual and procedural information the way Relevance Theory does: everything helps in the creation of the context of interpretation). As Nick says, you have to take the whole communicative situation into account and see all aspects as working together towards the same goal, whether it involves "language" or "gesture" or "prosody" or whatever. Also, communication doesn't necessarily involve language or gesture or prosody. It can be leaving an item out in a conspicuous place, as when my part-time cook left out the almost-empty container of rice in order to communicate that I needed to buy more rice, or another time when she left a cup in the sink to communicate that the faucet was leaking and so I should have it fixed. Anything can be used in communication. We most often combine all of these elements together. If whatever we did to communicate worked, we will use it again when the same or similar situation arises, and then that can become a personal habit and a societal convention. This includes conventionalization of conversational routines, and also of gestures, as well as linguistic forms. All forms and conventions used in the communicative act have the same function: they constrain the creation of the context of inference of the addressee, that is, constrain the addressee's search for the relevance of the communicator's action. This is possible because of the Cooperative Principle, which at its core is really saying we assume people are rational, and so when they do something there must be a reason, and we can guess (using abductive inference) what that reason is, and thereby infer the person's communicative intent. Communication is never fully deterministic, as Popper points out, but by constraining the interpretation to a more appropriate extent (for the situation) you can be more likely to have the person infer what you intend for the person to infer. This is a very brief summary of a theory of language development and communication that I have developed over the last 20 years out of the intersection of my work in documenting languages radically different from IE languages, in historical linguistics, in typology, and in pragmatics. I teach a whole semester course on this. I recorded the class this past semester, and have begun putting the audio of the lectures and the slides on iTunes U (https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/pragmatics/id849441717 ). The first four or so hours go into great detail about how this works, with many natural examples, to show how abduction works and how it isn't coding and decoding and how anything can be communicative and how meaning creation generally works. (Somehow my assistant put them up in a way that the numbering is reversed, so start with item 17 ad work up, or just hit the sort button to reverse the sort. The slides to go with the audio are called "Notes" on the site.) The course is officially called Pragmatic Theory, but for me it is Meaning Creation, as it is all about how we create meaning in our minds (the only place where meaning is--there is no meaning in letters or sounds, any meaning we "get" is created in our minds based on our experiences). I also have some papers presenting the theory, and some also applying the theory to things like the nature of grammatical relations: LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. "Grammaticalization as the fossilization of constraints on interpretation: Towards a single theory of cognition, communication, and the development of language". Paper presented to the City University of Hong Kong Seminar in Linguistics, November 6, 1997. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla-1997-Grammaticalization_as_the_Fossilization_of_Constraints_on_Interpretation.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In David Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 113-144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2003_Why_languages_differ_-_Variation_in_the_conventionalization_of_constraints_on_inference.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2005. Typology and complexity. In James W. Minett and William S-Y. Wang (eds.), Language acquisition, change and emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics, 465-493. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2005_Typology_and_Complexity.PDF LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification. In Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language), 139-151. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2006_On_Grammatical_Relations_as_Constraints_on_Referent_Identification.pdf LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. The how and why of syntactic relations. Invited plenary address and keynote of the Centre for Research on Language Change Workshop on Grammatical Change at the Annual Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society, University of Queensland, 7-9 July, 2006. To appear in Christian Lehmann, Stavros Skopeteas, Christian Marschke (eds.), Evolution of syntactic relations (Trends in Linguistics Series). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_Draft_The_how_and_why_of_syntactic_relations.pdf LaPolla, R. J. 2010. ?On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure?. Paper presented at the 10th RCLT International Workshop, ?The Shaping of Language: The Relationship between the Structures of Languages and their Social, Cultural, Historical, and Natural Environments?, 14 July 2010. https://www.dropbox.com/s/zijgwtkkr0qtadq/LaPolla-2010-On_the_Logical_Necessity_of_a_Cultural_Connection_for_All_Aspects_of_Linguistic_Structure.pdf Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA ?????| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://randylapolla.net/ On May 12, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and > only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have > made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which > itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes > again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the > mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we do > and so they developed language "in order to express" those thoughts > (!) Tahir On May 10, 2014, at 12:50 AM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > > Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a society without being able to communicate about abstractions, hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. > > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Department > Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel > 805.756.2596 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > ******************************************* > "Justice is what love looks like in public." > - Cornel West From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Wed May 14 06:53:53 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 14:53:53 +0800 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <4033F8EF7E1BD54AA3231850422D85DD8B2715BB@EXCHSTORE6.csusb.edu> Message-ID: Hi Rong Chen, As I mentioned in my post, that summary was very brief; there are many other aspects and implications I cover as part of the theory. I have been trying to get a book out, but due to moving several times in the last couple of years and much too much admin work all the time, I haven't been able to get it together yet. I do talk about shared biological makeup and common reactions to environmental factors as factors involved in the commonalities we find across languages. I compare this with the structure of the shark and the whale: both evolved tails in response to living in water, but what is interesting is that the whale's tail goes up and down, while the shark's tail goes back and forth. This is like some languages similarly constraining the interpretation of, for example, the possessor of bodyparts, but doing it in different ways (like in I'm washing my hands vs. Je me lave le mains). (Some languages, of course, like Chinese, don't obligatorily constrain the interpretation of the possessor in this construction.) With a usage-based approach, which I adopt, one generalizes across experiences to create exemplars, and these are what we think of in terms of conventionalization. There are principles, such as the assumption of rationality (Hempel even tried to make this into a covering law in his attempts to make the social sciences scientific, i.e. follow the deductive-nomological model), that we appeal to in talking about all languages, and much flows from this. The relationship between conventions and use/experience is kind of chicken and egg, in that experience of how other people use the forms informs our understanding of the conventions and how we create the exemplars we then use to create new forms, but in creating new forms we are constantly changing the exemplars, and these can then become conventionalized. (See, for example, Paul Hopper's work on this, e.g. his 2011 paper in the book Constructions: emerging and emergent). My claim was about the subjectivity of meaning-creation, and is not at all based on what you said (and I don't even know what you mean by "denies the transcending power of language"). It is based on my observations of my own meaning creation processes and trying to figure out how they work. Most of my examples involve me, as I know what happened in my head to create the meaning in that situation. The fact, as Micheal Reddy pointed out way back in 1979 ("The conduit metaphor"), is that we can never know what is going on in someone else's head. We can make guesses about it, but these guesses are based on our own knowledge-base, experiences, and personality, so will never be fully objective. Reddy actually did argue that we should not assume that communication happens easily: "Human communication will almost always go astray unless real energy is expended . . .Partial miscommunication, or divergence of readings from a single text, are not aberrations. They are tendencies inherent in the system . . ." (p. 295). You can only recognize the Bach-ness in a piece of Bach's music if you have at some time previously had experience of Bach's music. We can all experience such things, but how we experience it is subjective and personal, even if we have been taught how to experience it (e.g. in music appreciation classes). The interesting thing is that the view of epistemology that arises from this theory is that all of our beliefs and knowledge are seen as not only subjective, but serendipitous, as they are formed by our experiences (who we had as teachers, what books we've read, who we've talked to, etc.), which themselves are serendipitous. For example, I was greatly affected in developing this theory by reading Sperber and Wilson's Relevance, but I only read that book because I saw a copy of it for sale for $6 in Moe's used bookshop in Berkeley many years ago as a poor grad student, and it affected me the way it did because of the kind of work I happened to be doing at the time, and the problems I was trying to solve. Each time one reads a book one can get more out of it because the subjective context of interpretation within which the relevance is found changes with experience, even the experience of having read the book before. I read that book three times cover to cover, and got something different out of it each time. I've read MAK Halliday's Introduction to Functional Grammar at least 12 times, and have gotten something new out of it each time I've read it. You and I can learn the same forms of English or Chinese, but that doesn't mean we will understand the use of those forms the same way (even for native speakers), or derive the same relevance from the forms or the communicative intent, as our experiences with the use of those forms will have been different, and our understanding of those experiences will be influenced by earlier experiences. For example, I told my mother once I had plantar's fascitis, and she asked me what that had to do with warts. It has nothing to do with warts, but my mother's only experience with the word "plantar's" was in the expression "plantar's warts", and so she assumed "plantar's fascitis" must also be about warts. A student I had in China back in 1980 had had only one book during the cultural revolution, and so memorized it. It happened to be an English dictionary. So he knew all the words, but often had trouble understanding or being understood in English because he didn't have any experience with how the words are used, and so used them in ways native speakers wouldn't. Your spelling of "grapple" as "grabble" reflects your Chinese background and your experience not only of that word but of the distinction between voiced and voiceless stops more generally, also subjective and serendipitous. Even when, for example Chinese and American politicians think they have understood each other (whatever language they have used), in fact many times they have talked past each other and not really understood what each other meant. This can have grave consequences. All the best, Randy On May 14, 2014, at 1:16 AM, Rong Chen wrote: > Randy, > > Thanks and I would accept almost all of your points. "Almost" because I felt that your views 1) downplay the role of language a bit too much so that 2) communication is seen as entirely subjective. I start with the first point. > > I agree that language is the result of conventionalization. But I also think that the process of conventionalization has a biological aspect to it. The fact that human beings share the same biological makeup has to mean something, although what it means is up for debate (and has been debated for decades). So, for instance, the way our eyes are "constructed" is believed to have led to the way language presents reality in particular ways (the figure and ground gestalt, among others). Our articulators are "constructed" in the same way so that different languages draw from a common inventory of sounds. Our whatever--heart? mind? Body?--is constructed in the same way that causes us to have a similar set of emotions. (I am convinced that you are among the first to acknowledge all this, given your vast experience documenting and studying languages.) This will lead to some commonalities among languages, rendering language capable of transcending specific speech situations across time and space. > > Even socialization could transcend speech situations. No one I know denies the specificity of each life experience. The fact is that there is no exact replica of any experience. But there is also something in common about these experiences and/or the human mind is capable of extracting "sameness" from different experiences. There could even be something inherently similar in different human experiences. In other words, different communities at different times may share a set of general social principles, whatever they might turn out to be (intentionality of speech? Cooperation? Assuming truth in communication unless there are reasons not to? Desire to retain autonomy?). If these things do exist (and again I expect your agreement on this), they exist because, I think, of something socially natural (which would possibly be an oxymoron to you) about human beings. In the sense that human beings strive to survive, and survival often requires coexistence with each other in a community, we could have, due to our shared survival instinct and the way our brain is constructed, collectively "discovered" or "formed" these principles, things that offer us the best chance for coexistence, for survival. > > So, I am of the opinion that because of the shared biological makeup and general social principles, language is the codification (or extraction) of shared life experience that has in part resulted from conventionalization. It hence provides a system for speakers to use as signposts for hearers (leading to an intended destination) rather than a means to constrain hearers (from going aimlessly in all directions). It makes sense for the human mind to choose the shorter route to an end (rationality), and to direct someone to a place seems to be a shorter route than to prevent that someone from going to unintended places. > > Now, the second and consequential point, about the subjectivity of language and communication. The view that completely denies the transcending prowess of language seems to be based on the argument along the lines of "Since language is always used in social context and social contexts differ, language is social and social only (hence subjective, elusive, unfixed, relational, dynamic)." I have always felt a bit uncomfortable about that claim. First, it is unfalsifiable. Second, it seems to require a leap of logic. If that statement stands, so should the following: "Since language is always used when there is sufficient amount of nitrogen and oxygen (for the speaker to stay living), it has to do with nitrogen and oxygen. Further, since all human beings depend on nitrogen and oxygen for survival, language is the same for all humans." (I apologize for making the statement sound sillier than it is and for making myself sound ruder than what I think I am.) > > Further, if we say communication is entirely subjective because speakers have different life experiences, we are implying that understanding is a miraculous rarity. I am not sure that is the case. Listening to Bach played by different performers in different places at different times, one notices the uniqueness of each pianist. (Uniqueness is, for the most part, why one goes to a concert in the first place.) But one also notices something Bach in all of them. Shakespeare is read by English speakers (non-English speakers, too) all over the globe for the past three hundred years and we all have our own takes about each work, but I think if we round up a group of readers across time and space in one room, we would discover an amazing amount of shared interpretation. If I count successes and failures of my communication on an average day, I think I the number of successes would exceed that of failures. You (someone living and working in Australia) and I (growing up on a Chinese farm but now living in North America) met for the first time and conversed a bit a few years ago in Beijing, and we seemed to understand each other quite well (at least in my view). Those who believe that communication is entirely subjective will have to grabble with this reality. But this reality would be a bit easier to explain if we give language and other communication media--gesture, prosody and others--a bit more credit. > > Rong Chen > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Randy LaPolla > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 6:48 PM > To: Funknet List > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > > As Karl Popper said (Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1976), Page 29): "Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you." It seems several people took what I said in the wrong way. > > Although Popper didn't understand it, the reason why his observation is correct is that communication isn't based on coding and decoding of a shared code. > > To answer Johanna Rubba, communication happens when one person does something with the intention of another person guessing the reason for them doing it, and when the other person gets it right, you get communication. That is it, there is nothing more to communication. > > This view of communication argues that a basic mechanism for making sense of phenomena we experience in the world is abductive inference: we observe a phenomenon or event (possibly using inductive inference to first make a generalization about it), and then use abductive inference to posit a hypothesis to explain why the phenomenon is the way it is or why some event happened the way it did. This involves creating a context of interpretation, using available assumptions, in which the phenomenon or event ?makes sense? to us. This sort of inference is non-demonstrative (non-deductive), so the conclusion is not necessarily true, but we generally assume our conclusion is true until persuaded otherwise by further evidence of some type. The particular context of interpretation created will depend on the assumptions available to the individual, and as each individual has had different life experiences, the assumptions available will differ with each individual, and so all meaning-creation (understanding) will be subjective. Abductive inference is seen as the major mechanism by which we make sense of the world, and so is what gave rise to religion, philosophy, and ultimately science (which added the step of testing the hypothesis to try to falsify it), as well as most of our every-day beliefs. It is seen as a survival technique, as understanding the reason for some phenomenon or event can lead to us better dealing with that phenomenon or event. > > One application of this survival instinct is inferring the intentions of other humans, which we do instinctively in order to survive, particularly if their action is out of the ordinary, such as walk towards us with a knife in their hand. Most of the time people don?t intend for us to infer their intentions, but there are times when someone does something with the intention of another person inferring their intention in doing it, and if the other person does infer the intention correctly, communication has happened. That is all there is to communication. Communication is seen not as a coding-decoding process, but as involving one person showing the intention to communicate, intending for the other person to infer their intention in doing the communicative act, and abductive inference, creating a context of interpretation in which the ostensive act makes sense. Even the recognition of the communicative act as a communicative act requires abductive inference. As the inferential process involved in communication is the same as the one we use in understanding the natural world, understanding communication gives us a way towards a general theory of meaning creation. > > Language is not seen as crucial for communication in this view, but when used, the role of language is to constrain the creation of the context of interpretation by eliminating certain assumptions that might otherwise be included in the context of interpretation. Language is seen not as an object, but as interactional behavior which conventionalizes at the societal level and habitualizes at the individual level (much the same as any other societal convention or personal habit). Language behavior conventionalizes as speakers repeatedly use the same forms over and over to constrain the hearer?s creation of the context of interpretation in particular ways. Each society of speakers will chose different aspects of meaning to consistently constrain the interpretation of, and they will do it to different degrees if they do it at all, and they will use different mechanisms to do so, so we can investigate the structure of languages from the point of view of these three aspects. And as constraining the interpretation with extra linguistic material requires extra effort on the part of the speakers, for them to do this it must be important to them that the hearer understand that aspect of the meaning better than other aspects, and so all conventionalized aspects of language use are seen to reflect aspects of the cognition of the particular speakers of the language at the time the form was conventionalized. Over time the original motivation for using the form can be lost, but out of habit and convention the form will often continue to be used, and so will seem unmotivated (arbitrary), but it would not have conventionalized initially had it not been important to constrain that particular aspect of the interpretation at the time it conventionalized. Each language then is seen as uniquely reflecting the cognition of a particular society of speakers. This cognition involves construing and even perceiving the world differently in each language. > > This discussion has focused on language and gesture, but as Wally said, there are other aspects, such as prosody, that are equally relevant. Gumperz talked about many of these things as "contextualization cues". For me, all of what we do in a communicative situation can be a contextualization cue (I don't see a distinction between conceptual information and contextualization cues the way Gumperz did, or between conceptual and procedural information the way Relevance Theory does: everything helps in the creation of the context of interpretation). As Nick says, you have to take the whole communicative situation into account and see all aspects as working together towards the same goal, whether it involves "language" or "gesture" or "prosody" or whatever. Also, communication doesn't necessarily involve language or gesture or prosody. It can be leaving an item out in a conspicuous place, as when my part-time cook left out the almost-empty container of rice in order to communicate that I needed to buy more rice, or another time when she left a cup in the sink to communicate that the faucet was leaking and so I should have it fixed. Anything can be used in communication. We most often combine all of these elements together. If whatever we did to communicate worked, we will use it again when the same or similar situation arises, and then that can become a personal habit and a societal convention. This includes conventionalization of conversational routines, and also of gestures, as well as linguistic forms. All forms and conventions used in the communicative act have the same function: they constrain the creation of the context of inference of the addressee, that is, constrain the addressee's search for the relevance of the communicator's action. This is possible because of the Cooperative Principle, which at its core is really saying we assume people are rational, and so when they do something there must be a reason, and we can guess (using abductive inference) what that reason is, and thereby infer the person's communicative intent. Communication is never fully deterministic, as Popper points out, but by constraining the interpretation to a more appropriate extent (for the situation) you can be more likely to have the person infer what you intend for the person to infer. > > This is a very brief summary of a theory of language development and communication that I have developed over the last 20 years out of the intersection of my work in documenting languages radically different from IE languages, in historical linguistics, in typology, and in pragmatics. I teach a whole semester course on this. I recorded the class this past semester, and have begun putting the audio of the lectures and the slides on iTunes U (https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/pragmatics/id849441717 ). The first four or so hours go into great detail about how this works, with many natural examples, to show how abduction works and how it isn't coding and decoding and how anything can be communicative and how meaning creation generally works. (Somehow my assistant put them up in a way that the numbering is reversed, so start with item 17 ad work up, or just hit the sort button to reverse the sort. The slides to go with the audio are called "Notes" on the site.) The course is officially called Pragmatic Theory, but for me it is Meaning Creation, as it is all about how we create meaning in our minds (the only place where meaning is--there is no meaning in letters or sounds, any meaning we "get" is created in our minds based on our experiences). > > I also have some papers presenting the theory, and some also applying the theory to things like the nature of grammatical relations: > > LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. "Grammaticalization as the fossilization of constraints on interpretation: Towards a single theory of cognition, communication, and the development of language". Paper presented to the City University of Hong Kong Seminar in Linguistics, November 6, 1997. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla-1997-Grammaticalization_as_the_Fossilization_of_Constraints_on_Interpretation.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In David Bradley, Randy J. LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.), Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, 113-144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2003_Why_languages_differ_-_Variation_in_the_conventionalization_of_constraints_on_inference.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2005. Typology and complexity. In James W. Minett and William S-Y. Wang (eds.), Language acquisition, change and emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics, 465-493. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2005_Typology_and_Complexity.PDF > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification. In Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language), 139-151. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_2006_On_Grammatical_Relations_as_Constraints_on_Referent_Identification.pdf > > > > LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. The how and why of syntactic relations. Invited plenary address and keynote of the Centre for Research on Language Change Workshop on Grammatical Change at the Annual Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society, University of Queensland, 7-9 July, 2006. To appear in Christian Lehmann, Stavros Skopeteas, Christian Marschke (eds.), Evolution of syntactic relations (Trends in Linguistics Series). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. > > http://tibeto-burman.net/rjlapolla/papers/LaPolla_Draft_The_how_and_why_of_syntactic_relations.pdf > > > > LaPolla, R. J. 2010. ?On the logical necessity of a cultural connection for all aspects of linguistic structure?. Paper presented at the 10th RCLT International Workshop, ?The Shaping of Language: The Relationship between the Structures of Languages and their Social, Cultural, Historical, and Natural Environments?, 14 July 2010. > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/zijgwtkkr0qtadq/LaPolla-2010-On_the_Logical_Necessity_of_a_Cultural_Connection_for_All_Aspects_of_Linguistic_Structure.pdf > > > Randy > ----- > Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA ?????| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://randylapolla.net/ > > On May 12, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: > >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and >> only later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have >> made a huge difference in the potentials for communication, which >> itself would have reflected back into enhanced thought processes >> again. Explaining it this way does have the merit of avoiding the >> mechanistic view, in which humans initially had thoughts just as we do >> and so they developed language "in order to express" those thoughts >> (!) Tahir > > On May 10, 2014, at 12:50 AM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > >> >> Language "not at all necessary for communication"? I'd like to ask Randy to define communication. Certainly language isn't the only form of communication, but I can't imagine how people would build a society without being able to communicate about abstractions, hypotheticals, inner thoughts and feelings, the past, and the future. I guess it would be helpful also for Randy to define gesture. He says that it isn't sign language, and indeed that it isn't language. But I don't know of any non-language communication system that deals with abstractions, which are certainly essential to human culture. And, although media like phones and writing lack gesture, communication can still happen through them, albeit incomplete. >> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Department >> Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel >> 805.756.2596 >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> ******************************************* >> "Justice is what love looks like in public." >> - Cornel West > > > > > From wallis.reid at gse.rutgers.edu Wed May 14 12:53:19 2014 From: wallis.reid at gse.rutgers.edu (Wallis Reid) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 08:53:19 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about evolution Message-ID: A reply to Johanna Rubba As I have always understood the mechanism of evolution, it is not teleologically-driven, so nothing ever evolves so at to meet a pre-existing need. It's the reverse. Things become needed as the result of having evolved. So, for instance, creatures didn't evolve eyes because they needed to see; we now need to see because we evolved eyes. Or to put it in a less paradoxical way, the evolution of eyes led to countless other changes in behavior, ecological niche, feeding, social relations etc. that took advantage of sight, with the result that sight became crucial to our survival. The same would apply to language. It didn't evolve because people needed it; it is now needed because its evolution radically changed how people lived, related and perhaps thought. Wallis Reid >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to have evolved in the absence of a need for it. On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) > 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) > 3. Re: Review of research on gesture (Mike Morgan) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:53:33 +0200 > From: "Tahir Wood" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > To: > Message-ID: <53709A1D020000690011723A at uwc.ac.za> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language > "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > Tahir > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:11 +0200 > From: "Tahir Wood" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > To: > Message-ID: <53709AF70200006900117240 at uwc.ac.za> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language > "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > Tahir > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:12:53 +0545 > From: Mike Morgan > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > To: Funknet List > Message-ID: > uQmSLP4iucB9RsQ at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Namaskar to all, from hot and sunny Kathmandu! > > Okay, I hope nobody minds if I put in my 18 rupees worth (at current > exchange rates, US 2 cents)... > > First, to be honest, I haven't (yet!) read Dan's review article which > started this thread... i WILL, but it is number 17 on my "to read list" > > Second, for the sake of full disclosure (and because it SEEMS to influence > the regard which some people give comments), I am a sign language linguist. > BUT I wasn't always one (just as i wasn't always an Asian); I started out > as an Indo-Euorpeanist and got into sign languages by kismet. Because of my > background and interests, I do a lot of comparative and typological stuff > (I am a fluent signer of 7 sign languages, belonging, by conservative > estimates, to 3 different sign language families), but I mostly publish on > morpho-syntax (and specifically morpho-syntax IN discourse). > > I agree that gesture research IS becoming more and more familiar to > linguists at large ... IN THE WEST (and am not sure, MAYBE I include Japan > in that West). For the rest of the world (or at least the broad swathes of > Asia and Africa where I have been living and working for years) that is NOT > the case. AND, alas, sign languages also are seen as closer to gesture than > they are to spoken languages (even the Linguistic Society of Nepal, which, > by Asian standards, is a fairly linguistically sophisticated group, always > schedules sign language presentations at their annual conference in > sessions with presentations on gesture ... and other miscellanea!). I > haven't lived in the West for decades, but I suspect that despite gradual > inroads among certain groups (functional and cognitive linguists?), gesture > is still NOT something the average Western linguist thinks of when s/he > talks about language structure. i.e. gesture is a beast apart, separate > form language ... and, I suspect, if pushed to take a side, most linguists > would say it was "a lesser beast". > > I got into sign languages, as I said, by (fortunate) accident... and the > first topic I chose was something I have done off and on since: structure > of natural discourse. This was in the early 90s, and Sign Linguistics had > been around for decades, and so I could read a wide(ish) variety of papers > (though rather limited pickings on sign language discourse at that time). > And so I had a list of what kinds of things to look at (and look for)... > but fortunately I think in the long run, I decided to IGNORE that list, and > just to transcribe EVERYTHING (visual) that was being done by the signer > that seemed even remotely to have potential for communicative goals > (ignoring of course that communication is but ONE use of language)... or at > least I would transcribe everything I could pick up on. I suspected that a > lot of that extra transcribing would turn out to be "wasted time", but I > also suspected that if i didn't transcribe EVERTHING i saw -- or if I just > followed the list taken from works done on other (western) sign languages > -- I would MISS a lot of important stuff as well. (And indeed, among other > discoveries, this is how I discovered that sideways head-tilt in Japanese > Sign Language was an evidential marker.) > > ANYWAYS, so as not to make this too much of a story, over the years I have > decided -- as Dan seems to have decided -- that linguistics (and linguists > .. though of course NOT the linguist of THIS august group) have drawn a > false line in the sand .. based on the limitations of their experience. > Spoken language linguists (except for the enlightened few?) draw the line > thus: if it comes out of your mouth, it is language; if it doesn't come out > of your mouth, it is NOT (and CANNOT BE) language (i.e. it is MERE > gesture). They may not actually say it in these words, but in DEED that is > how they analyse language. Even many sign language linguists seem to get ti > wrong when they put sign languages as a beats apart (albeit, to us a > SUPERIOR beast!) .. and I point out in a review of *Markus Steinbach* and > *Annika* Herrmann (eds), Nonmanuals in Sign Language for e-Language which I > don't think has yet hit cyberspace, where in the introduction the editors > make such a categorical statement about spoken languages : that gesture > CANNOT be linguistic, that there is something about the visual modality of > gestures versus the oral modality of spoken languages that keeps them > forever and always in separate categories. > > BUT, I don't think this is true. or at least not NECESSARILY true. And > because of the possibilities that gesture (or at least SOME gesture) not > only interacts with gesture in what I refer to as the Communicative > Semiotic, but in fact (some) gesture might in fact BE language. (My mental > picture of what the relationship is between the Communicative Semiotic and > the Linguistic Semiotic still has the latter inside the former, Venn > diagram style, but the size of the latter is growing and the boundary is > becoming more and more porous.) > > SEEMS to me that choosing to ignore the potential of gesture IN language is > like choosing to ignore tone when describing a Himalayan Tibeto-Burman > language;YES, it is POSSIBLE that tone is not significant ... but based on > experience, this is NOT likely. > > > ok, think maybe I gave a bit more than 18 rupees-worth... apologies if > apologies are needed! > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: > > > >>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > > > There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > > emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > > later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > > huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > > have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > > this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > > humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed > language > > "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > > Tahir > > > > > > -- > mwm || *U*C> || mike || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? ||???? || > ?????? > (aka Dr Michael W Morgan) > sign language linguist / linguistic typologist > academic adviser, Nepal Sign Language Training and Research > NDFN, Kathmandu, Nepal > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 > *************************************** > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Wed May 14 12:59:21 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 12:59:21 +0000 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about evolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Although I agree that evolution is not teleologically driven, one still has to provide some account of the evolutionary pressures that led to language development. There are many proposals (and I go into these at length in a book in progress for WW Norton). One that I discuss in Language: The Cultural Tool is what Aristotle called the "social instinct" (raised in the context as "Aristotle's Answer," a response to what some linguists call "Plato's Problem" - also see work by many folks on the related "Interactional Instinct" - though I do not really think that there is much evidence for behavioral instincts, including language, of any kind). The need for community, uniquely strong in the genus Homo, would have exerted strong selectional pressure on the development of more and more complex communication systems, of which language is the most complex we know. But, as I say, there are many proposals out there. What all of these proposals share, though, is an attempt to understand the non-teleological forces exerted on language evolution. Boyd and Richerson provide in a number of works a lot of good ideas plus the math necessary to understand cultural evolution and cultural pressures on different solutions to different kinds of problems. -- Dan On May 14, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Wallis Reid wrote: > A reply to Johanna Rubba > As I have always understood the mechanism of evolution, it is not > teleologically-driven, so nothing ever evolves so at to meet a pre-existing > need. It's the reverse. Things become needed as the result of having > evolved. So, for instance, creatures didn't evolve eyes because they needed > to see; we now need to see because we evolved eyes. Or to put it in a less > paradoxical way, the evolution of eyes led to countless other changes in > behavior, ecological niche, feeding, social relations etc. that took > advantage of sight, with the result that sight became crucial to our > survival. The same would apply to language. It didn't evolve because people > needed it; it is now needed because its evolution radically changed how > people lived, related and perhaps thought. > Wallis Reid > >>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > >> Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to >> funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) >> 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) >> 3. Re: Review of research on gesture (Mike Morgan) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:53:33 +0200 >> From: "Tahir Wood" >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >> To: >> Message-ID: <53709A1D020000690011723A at uwc.ac.za> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary >> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only >> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it >> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language >> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >> Tahir >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:11 +0200 >> From: "Tahir Wood" >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >> To: >> Message-ID: <53709AF70200006900117240 at uwc.ac.za> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary >> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >> >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only >> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it >> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed language >> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >> Tahir >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:12:53 +0545 >> From: Mike Morgan >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >> To: Funknet List >> Message-ID: >> > uQmSLP4iucB9RsQ at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> Namaskar to all, from hot and sunny Kathmandu! >> >> Okay, I hope nobody minds if I put in my 18 rupees worth (at current >> exchange rates, US 2 cents)... >> >> First, to be honest, I haven't (yet!) read Dan's review article which >> started this thread... i WILL, but it is number 17 on my "to read list" >> >> Second, for the sake of full disclosure (and because it SEEMS to influence >> the regard which some people give comments), I am a sign language linguist. >> BUT I wasn't always one (just as i wasn't always an Asian); I started out >> as an Indo-Euorpeanist and got into sign languages by kismet. Because of my >> background and interests, I do a lot of comparative and typological stuff >> (I am a fluent signer of 7 sign languages, belonging, by conservative >> estimates, to 3 different sign language families), but I mostly publish on >> morpho-syntax (and specifically morpho-syntax IN discourse). >> >> I agree that gesture research IS becoming more and more familiar to >> linguists at large ... IN THE WEST (and am not sure, MAYBE I include Japan >> in that West). For the rest of the world (or at least the broad swathes of >> Asia and Africa where I have been living and working for years) that is NOT >> the case. AND, alas, sign languages also are seen as closer to gesture than >> they are to spoken languages (even the Linguistic Society of Nepal, which, >> by Asian standards, is a fairly linguistically sophisticated group, always >> schedules sign language presentations at their annual conference in >> sessions with presentations on gesture ... and other miscellanea!). I >> haven't lived in the West for decades, but I suspect that despite gradual >> inroads among certain groups (functional and cognitive linguists?), gesture >> is still NOT something the average Western linguist thinks of when s/he >> talks about language structure. i.e. gesture is a beast apart, separate >> form language ... and, I suspect, if pushed to take a side, most linguists >> would say it was "a lesser beast". >> >> I got into sign languages, as I said, by (fortunate) accident... and the >> first topic I chose was something I have done off and on since: structure >> of natural discourse. This was in the early 90s, and Sign Linguistics had >> been around for decades, and so I could read a wide(ish) variety of papers >> (though rather limited pickings on sign language discourse at that time). >> And so I had a list of what kinds of things to look at (and look for)... >> but fortunately I think in the long run, I decided to IGNORE that list, and >> just to transcribe EVERYTHING (visual) that was being done by the signer >> that seemed even remotely to have potential for communicative goals >> (ignoring of course that communication is but ONE use of language)... or at >> least I would transcribe everything I could pick up on. I suspected that a >> lot of that extra transcribing would turn out to be "wasted time", but I >> also suspected that if i didn't transcribe EVERTHING i saw -- or if I just >> followed the list taken from works done on other (western) sign languages >> -- I would MISS a lot of important stuff as well. (And indeed, among other >> discoveries, this is how I discovered that sideways head-tilt in Japanese >> Sign Language was an evidential marker.) >> >> ANYWAYS, so as not to make this too much of a story, over the years I have >> decided -- as Dan seems to have decided -- that linguistics (and linguists >> .. though of course NOT the linguist of THIS august group) have drawn a >> false line in the sand .. based on the limitations of their experience. >> Spoken language linguists (except for the enlightened few?) draw the line >> thus: if it comes out of your mouth, it is language; if it doesn't come out >> of your mouth, it is NOT (and CANNOT BE) language (i.e. it is MERE >> gesture). They may not actually say it in these words, but in DEED that is >> how they analyse language. Even many sign language linguists seem to get ti >> wrong when they put sign languages as a beats apart (albeit, to us a >> SUPERIOR beast!) .. and I point out in a review of *Markus Steinbach* and >> *Annika* Herrmann (eds), Nonmanuals in Sign Language for e-Language which I >> don't think has yet hit cyberspace, where in the introduction the editors >> make such a categorical statement about spoken languages : that gesture >> CANNOT be linguistic, that there is something about the visual modality of >> gestures versus the oral modality of spoken languages that keeps them >> forever and always in separate categories. >> >> BUT, I don't think this is true. or at least not NECESSARILY true. And >> because of the possibilities that gesture (or at least SOME gesture) not >> only interacts with gesture in what I refer to as the Communicative >> Semiotic, but in fact (some) gesture might in fact BE language. (My mental >> picture of what the relationship is between the Communicative Semiotic and >> the Linguistic Semiotic still has the latter inside the former, Venn >> diagram style, but the size of the latter is growing and the boundary is >> becoming more and more porous.) >> >> SEEMS to me that choosing to ignore the potential of gesture IN language is >> like choosing to ignore tone when describing a Himalayan Tibeto-Burman >> language;YES, it is POSSIBLE that tone is not significant ... but based on >> experience, this is NOT likely. >> >> >> ok, think maybe I gave a bit more than 18 rupees-worth... apologies if >> apologies are needed! >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: >> >>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary >>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >>> >>> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >>> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only >>> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >>> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >>> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it >>> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >>> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed >> language >>> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >>> Tahir >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> mwm || *U*C> || mike || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? ||???? || >> ?????? >> (aka Dr Michael W Morgan) >> sign language linguist / linguistic typologist >> academic adviser, Nepal Sign Language Training and Research >> NDFN, Kathmandu, Nepal >> >> >> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 >> *************************************** >> From Freek.VanDeVelde at arts.kuleuven.be Thu May 15 10:11:24 2014 From: Freek.VanDeVelde at arts.kuleuven.be (Freek Van de Velde) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:11:24 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture Message-ID: Hi Dan and others, I must admit that I haven't kept close tabs on the thread on gesture on FUNKNET lately, but if you adhere to the Heine & Kuteva (2007) view that grammaticalization and the evolution of language are linked, then the investigation of the role of gesture in language evolution can maybe benefit from a paper by my colleague-next-door that has just been published online (today, actually): Schoonjans, Steven. 2013. 'Is gesture subject to grammaticalization?'. Studies van de BKL/Etudes du CBL 8. (http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/linguist/SBKL/Vol8.htm). He is defending his PhD on gesture later this month. A happy coincidence, that I gladly use as an excuse to promote Steven's work. All the best, Freek Van de Velde http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/qlvl/freek.htm -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:00 PM To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 8 Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to funknet at mailman.rice.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu You can reach the person managing the list at funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Rong Chen) 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Randy LaPolla) 3. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about evolution (Wallis Reid) 4. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about evolution (Everett, Daniel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Thu May 15 10:29:16 2014 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:29:16 +0000 Subject: Review of research on gesture In-Reply-To: <5B16B08BAD5E9F4A8A8B12FD94B994C11099FCEA@ICTS-S-MBX5.luna.kuleuven.be> Message-ID: Dear Freek, Thanks so much for this. I was very much hoping to learn about other work and receive comments on the gesture paper, or simply gesture more generally, when I posted the link to my gesture review,. I will definitely look at Steven?s work. Sounds fascinating - as do some of the other books and papers people have been mentioning, such as Sherman Wilcox?s new book. Dan On May 15, 2014, at 6:11 AM, Freek Van de Velde wrote: > Hi Dan and others, > I must admit that I haven't kept close tabs on the thread on gesture on FUNKNET lately, but if you adhere to the Heine & Kuteva (2007) view that grammaticalization and the evolution of language are linked, then the investigation of the role of gesture in language evolution can maybe benefit from a paper by my colleague-next-door that has just been published online (today, actually): > Schoonjans, Steven. 2013. 'Is gesture subject to grammaticalization?'. Studies van de BKL/Etudes du CBL 8. (http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/linguist/SBKL/Vol8.htm). > He is defending his PhD on gesture later this month. > A happy coincidence, that I gladly use as an excuse to promote Steven's work. > All the best, > > Freek Van de Velde > http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/qlvl/freek.htm > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:00 PM > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 8 > > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Rong Chen) > 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Randy LaPolla) > 3. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about > evolution (Wallis Reid) > 4. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 A short note about > evolution (Everett, Daniel) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From asanso at gmail.com Thu May 15 11:28:54 2014 From: asanso at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Andrea_Sans=C3=B2?=) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:28:54 +0200 Subject: Reminder: Deadline approaching - Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers, and Modal Particles. Message-ID: International Workshop - Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: What do we know and where do we go from here? Universit? dell'Insubria, Como (Italy), 16-17 October 2014 Website: http://sites.google.com/site/pragmaworkshopcomo E-mail: workshopcomo (at) gmail (dot) com Description The workshop aims to contribute to the discussion on the emergence and use of pragmatic markers (PMs), discourse markers (DMs) and modal particles (MPs). Although terminologies and classifications dramatically diverge in this field, for the sake of clarity PMs can be broadly defined as markers of functions belonging to the domains of social cohesion (the hearer-speaker relationship, the social identity of H and S, the type of social act performed; e.g. please, danke, if I may interrupt, etc.), DMs as strategies to ensure textual cohesion (discourse planning, discourse managing, information status; e.g. utterance initial usages of but, anyway, still, etc.), and MPs as signals of personal stance (the speaker?s perspective towards the discourse and the interlocutor; e.g. German ja, eben, doch etc.). In pragmatics and in grammaticalization studies PMs, DMs, and MPs have been the object of extensive investigation. However, their heterogeneous character ? along with the fact that they derive from many different sources, and that these items are often multifunctional ? has often resulted in fragmentary descriptions that fit well the facts of a given language or group of languages, but may be seriously challenged when one tries to apply the lessons learnt from the analysis of a single language to other languages. The workshop, organized as part of the Italian National Research Program ?Linguistic Representations of Identity. Sociolinguistic Models and Historical Linguistics? (www.mediling.eu), welcomes papers providing new insights into classical issues such as the delimitation and categorization of the three categories of PMs, DMs and MPs, as well as papers exploring other crucial (but somewhat less discussed) issues, such as, for instance, the sociolinguistics of PMs, DMs and MPs. Particularly encouraged are cross-linguistic or contrastive studies that take into account the languages of the Mediterranean area, which are the focus of the Research Program, but contributions on other languages and language families (especially underdescribed ones) are equally welcome. The following is a non-exhaustive list of relevant questions, clustering around a few thematic foci: (i) Universality vs. language specificity: are PMs, DMs and MPs cross-linguistically relevant (universal) or language-specific categories? If they are universal, which are the criteria for their classification and for distinguishing them? Are these criteria formal or functional in nature? Are they onomasiological or semasiological? Do these criteria apply equally for the three classes? If they are not universal, which approach to grammar is the most suitable to model their behavior (e.g. constructionist approaches)? (ii) PMs, DMs and MPs and their functional equivalents: some of these categories are particularly easy to recognize in some languages. A case in point are MPs in Germanic languages. In other languages, it is more difficult to single out a class of MPs, DMs and/or PMs. How do these languages perform the functions carried out by MPs, DMs and PMs in other languages? Are there any universal tendencies in the (potentially open-ended) class of functional and formal equivalents of PMs, DMs and MPs? (iii) The sources of PMs, DMs and MPs: which are the most frequent sources for PMs, DMs and MPs? Are there any regularities across languages in the processes leading from definable sets of source items via comparable stages of development to these three types of markers? Through which path(s) do verbs (e.g. Italian guarda ?look!?), adverbs (well, eben) and other word classes develop into PMs? What do comparative diachronic data reveal about their emergence? Are their paths of development (partially) parallel, or do they display salient divergences in some cases? Are there any ?pragmatic cycles?, comparable to Jespersen?s cycles, that can account for the diachronic renewal of PMs, DMs and MPs? (iv) PMs, DMs and MPs in contact situations: how do these markers behave in contact situations? Are there any borrowability hierarchies among these types of markers? Are more hearer-sided markers (such as e.g. PMs as opposed to MPs) more prone to be borrowed in asymmetric contact situations? Or is borrowability simply a matter of (lack of) syntactic integration? (v) PMs, DMs and MPs as markers of sociolinguistic identity: to what extent can these markers function as signals of sociolinguistic identity? Is there any other type of social significance attached to variation in the use of PMs, DMs and MPs within a given linguistic community? (vi) PMs, DMs, and MPs as markers of subjectivity: when and how do they function to express the speaker?s perspective towards the content s/he?s conveying, towards the interlocutor, or towards the communicative situation? What do we know about markers that are used to build, refine, negotiate, compare or express the speaker?s identity in discourse? Invited Speakers Kate Beeching (University of the West of England) Yael Maschler (University of Haifa) Mario Squartini (University of Turin) Call for papers Authors are invited to submit a one-page abstract (with one additional page for examples), keeping in mind that the slot for their communication will last 30 min. including discussion. Abstracts should be anonymous and should be sent as attachments in PDF format to: workshopcomo at gmail.com Author(s) name(s) and affiliation should be indicated in the body of the e-mail. The abstracts will be anonymously reviewed by two members of the Scientific Committee. The publication of a selection of the papers as a book or a special issue of an international journal is envisaged. Important dates: --- 30 May 2014: deadline for abstract submission --- 30 June 2014: notification of acceptance; (free) registration starts --- 9 October 2014: registration ends --- 16-17 October 2014: workshop Organizing Committee: Andrea Sans? (Universit? dell?Insubria) ? andrea.sanso (at) uninsubria.it (contact person) Pierluigi Cuzzolin (Universit? di Bergamo) ? pierluigi.cuzzolin (at) unibg.it Chiara Fedriani (Universit? di Bergamo) ? chiara.fedriani (at) unibg.it Chiara Ghezzi (Universit? di Bergamo) ? chiara.ghezzi (at) unibg.it Anna Giacalone Ramat (Universit? di Pavia) - annaram (at) unipv.it Caterina Mauri (Universit? di Pavia) - caterina.mauri (at) unipv.it Piera Molinelli (Universit? di Bergamo) - piera.molinelli (at) unibg.it Scientific Committee: Pierluigi Cuzzolin (University of Bergamo), Silvia Dal Negro (Free University of Bozen), Chiara Fedriani (University of Bergamo), Chiara Ghezzi (University of Bergamo), Anna Giacalone Ramat (University of Pavia), Gianguido Manzelli (University of Pavia), Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia), Piera Molinelli (University of Bergamo), Paolo Ramat (IUSS Institute), Andrea Sans? (Insubria University - Como), Federica Venier (University of Bergamo), Alessandro Vietti (Free University of Bozen). From wallis.reid at gse.rutgers.edu Fri May 16 20:03:00 2014 From: wallis.reid at gse.rutgers.edu (Wallis Reid) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 16:03:00 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 Need vs. communicative function Message-ID: Agreed! Specifying the selective advantage of each step in an evolutionary process is an integral part of the account. But having a selective advantage is not the same as fulfilling a pre-existing need, which was my point. This may sound like nitpicking, but talk about "need' is a barrier to developing functional accounts of linguistic structure. No one would create a noun gender system if designing a language from scratch; that is, gender systems don't fulfill a pre-existing need. But it does not follow that gender systems have no communicative function in the languages that have them. Once they are in place, their impact on the deployment of other features of structure creates a synchronic systemic "need" for them that didn't exist before their development. Wallis Reid On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > Although I agree that evolution is not teleologically driven, one still > has to provide some account of the evolutionary pressures that led to > language development. There are many proposals (and I go into these at > length in a book in progress for WW Norton). One that I discuss in > Language: The Cultural Tool is what Aristotle called the "social instinct" > (raised in the context as "Aristotle's Answer," a response to what some > linguists call "Plato's Problem" - also see work by many folks on the > related "Interactional Instinct" - though I do not really think that there > is much evidence for behavioral instincts, including language, of any > kind). The need for community, uniquely strong in the genus Homo, would > have exerted strong selectional pressure on the development of more and > more complex communication systems, of which language is the most complex > we know. But, as I say, there are many proposals out there. What all of > these proposals share, though, is an attempt to understand the > non-teleological forces exerted on language evolution. Boyd and Richerson > provide in a number of works a lot of good ideas plus the math necessary to > understand cultural evolution and cultural pressures on different solutions > to different kinds of problems. > > -- Dan > > > On May 14, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Wallis Reid > wrote: > > > A reply to Johanna Rubba > > As I have always understood the mechanism of evolution, it is not > > teleologically-driven, so nothing ever evolves so at to meet a > pre-existing > > need. It's the reverse. Things become needed as the result of having > > evolved. So, for instance, creatures didn't evolve eyes because they > needed > > to see; we now need to see because we evolved eyes. Or to put it in a > less > > paradoxical way, the evolution of eyes led to countless other changes in > > behavior, ecological niche, feeding, social relations etc. that took > > advantage of sight, with the result that sight became crucial to our > > survival. The same would apply to language. It didn't evolve because > people > > needed it; it is now needed because its evolution radically changed how > > people lived, related and perhaps thought. > > Wallis Reid > > > >>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > > Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary > > to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > > have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > > > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, > wrote: > > > >> Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > >> funknet at mailman.rice.edu > >> > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >> funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > >> > >> You can reach the person managing the list at > >> funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > >> > >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >> than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > >> > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) > >> 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) > >> 3. Re: Review of research on gesture (Mike Morgan) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:53:33 +0200 > >> From: "Tahir Wood" > >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > >> To: > >> Message-ID: <53709A1D020000690011723A at uwc.ac.za> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> > >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all > necessary > >> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > >> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > >> > >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > >> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > >> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > >> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > >> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > >> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed > language > >> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > >> Tahir > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 2 > >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:11 +0200 > >> From: "Tahir Wood" > >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > >> To: > >> Message-ID: <53709AF70200006900117240 at uwc.ac.za> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >> > >>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > >> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all > necessary > >> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to > >> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > >> > >> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > >> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only > >> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > >> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > >> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it > >> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > >> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed > language > >> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > >> Tahir > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Message: 3 > >> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:12:53 +0545 > >> From: Mike Morgan > >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture > >> To: Funknet List > >> Message-ID: > >> >> uQmSLP4iucB9RsQ at mail.gmail.com> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >> > >> Namaskar to all, from hot and sunny Kathmandu! > >> > >> Okay, I hope nobody minds if I put in my 18 rupees worth (at current > >> exchange rates, US 2 cents)... > >> > >> First, to be honest, I haven't (yet!) read Dan's review article which > >> started this thread... i WILL, but it is number 17 on my "to read list" > >> > >> Second, for the sake of full disclosure (and because it SEEMS to > influence > >> the regard which some people give comments), I am a sign language > linguist. > >> BUT I wasn't always one (just as i wasn't always an Asian); I started > out > >> as an Indo-Euorpeanist and got into sign languages by kismet. Because > of my > >> background and interests, I do a lot of comparative and typological > stuff > >> (I am a fluent signer of 7 sign languages, belonging, by conservative > >> estimates, to 3 different sign language families), but I mostly publish > on > >> morpho-syntax (and specifically morpho-syntax IN discourse). > >> > >> I agree that gesture research IS becoming more and more familiar to > >> linguists at large ... IN THE WEST (and am not sure, MAYBE I include > Japan > >> in that West). For the rest of the world (or at least the broad swathes > of > >> Asia and Africa where I have been living and working for years) that is > NOT > >> the case. AND, alas, sign languages also are seen as closer to gesture > than > >> they are to spoken languages (even the Linguistic Society of Nepal, > which, > >> by Asian standards, is a fairly linguistically sophisticated group, > always > >> schedules sign language presentations at their annual conference in > >> sessions with presentations on gesture ... and other miscellanea!). I > >> haven't lived in the West for decades, but I suspect that despite > gradual > >> inroads among certain groups (functional and cognitive linguists?), > gesture > >> is still NOT something the average Western linguist thinks of when s/he > >> talks about language structure. i.e. gesture is a beast apart, separate > >> form language ... and, I suspect, if pushed to take a side, most > linguists > >> would say it was "a lesser beast". > >> > >> I got into sign languages, as I said, by (fortunate) accident... and the > >> first topic I chose was something I have done off and on since: > structure > >> of natural discourse. This was in the early 90s, and Sign Linguistics > had > >> been around for decades, and so I could read a wide(ish) variety of > papers > >> (though rather limited pickings on sign language discourse at that > time). > >> And so I had a list of what kinds of things to look at (and look for)... > >> but fortunately I think in the long run, I decided to IGNORE that list, > and > >> just to transcribe EVERYTHING (visual) that was being done by the signer > >> that seemed even remotely to have potential for communicative goals > >> (ignoring of course that communication is but ONE use of language)... > or at > >> least I would transcribe everything I could pick up on. I suspected > that a > >> lot of that extra transcribing would turn out to be "wasted time", but I > >> also suspected that if i didn't transcribe EVERTHING i saw -- or if I > just > >> followed the list taken from works done on other (western) sign > languages > >> -- I would MISS a lot of important stuff as well. (And indeed, among > other > >> discoveries, this is how I discovered that sideways head-tilt in > Japanese > >> Sign Language was an evidential marker.) > >> > >> ANYWAYS, so as not to make this too much of a story, over the years I > have > >> decided -- as Dan seems to have decided -- that linguistics (and > linguists > >> .. though of course NOT the linguist of THIS august group) have drawn a > >> false line in the sand .. based on the limitations of their experience. > >> Spoken language linguists (except for the enlightened few?) draw the > line > >> thus: if it comes out of your mouth, it is language; if it doesn't come > out > >> of your mouth, it is NOT (and CANNOT BE) language (i.e. it is MERE > >> gesture). They may not actually say it in these words, but in DEED that > is > >> how they analyse language. Even many sign language linguists seem to > get ti > >> wrong when they put sign languages as a beats apart (albeit, to us a > >> SUPERIOR beast!) .. and I point out in a review of *Markus Steinbach* > and > >> *Annika* Herrmann (eds), Nonmanuals in Sign Language for e-Language > which I > >> don't think has yet hit cyberspace, where in the introduction the > editors > >> make such a categorical statement about spoken languages : that gesture > >> CANNOT be linguistic, that there is something about the visual modality > of > >> gestures versus the oral modality of spoken languages that keeps them > >> forever and always in separate categories. > >> > >> BUT, I don't think this is true. or at least not NECESSARILY true. And > >> because of the possibilities that gesture (or at least SOME gesture) not > >> only interacts with gesture in what I refer to as the Communicative > >> Semiotic, but in fact (some) gesture might in fact BE language. (My > mental > >> picture of what the relationship is between the Communicative Semiotic > and > >> the Linguistic Semiotic still has the latter inside the former, Venn > >> diagram style, but the size of the latter is growing and the boundary is > >> becoming more and more porous.) > >> > >> SEEMS to me that choosing to ignore the potential of gesture IN > language is > >> like choosing to ignore tone when describing a Himalayan Tibeto-Burman > >> language;YES, it is POSSIBLE that tone is not significant ... but based > on > >> experience, this is NOT likely. > >> > >> > >> ok, think maybe I gave a bit more than 18 rupees-worth... apologies if > >> apologies are needed! > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: > >> > >>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> > >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all > necessary > >>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system > to > >>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. > >>> > >>> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language > >>> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and > only > >>> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a > >>> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would > >>> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining > it > >>> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which > >>> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed > >> language > >>> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) > >>> Tahir > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> mwm || *U*C> || mike || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? ||???? || > >> ?????? > >> (aka Dr Michael W Morgan) > >> sign language linguist / linguistic typologist > >> academic adviser, Nepal Sign Language Training and Research > >> NDFN, Kathmandu, Nepal > >> > >> > >> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 > >> *************************************** > >> > > From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Mon May 19 15:07:00 2014 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:07:00 +0800 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 Need vs. communicative function In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From Dan: >> Although I agree that evolution is not teleologically driven, one still >> has to provide some account of the evolutionary pressures that led to >> language development. From Wallis: > Once they are in place, their impact on the deployment of other > features of structure creates a synchronic systemic "need" for them that > didn't exist before their development. We understand (natural) language as an emergent phenomenon, that is, it is not purposely created, but emerges as a "byproduct" of people trying to communicate, just as an economy emerges from the cumulation of many people doing their individual transactions, and a path through a field emerges from many people walking the same way through the field in order to get from point A to point B. They don't intend to create the language/economy/path, so it can't be teleological. I have not been concerned with the origin of language in our species, but in the development of languages, and argue that it is driven by concerns of the speakers to constrain certain aspects of the interpretation. That is, the speakers decide which aspects of the meaning they will constrain the interpretation of, and they do this because that aspect of the interpretation is important to them, and so they work harder to get the addressee to make the inferences intended. So a noun class system might develop in a language where speakers are concerned with constraining the interpretation of reference in discourse. Once the convention of constraining the interpretation in this way in the society and the habit of constraining the interpretation in this way in the individual are established, then even when the motivation is not there it can be continued, as the habit itself becomes an itch that needs to be scratched. This is the "need" that Wallis mentioned. It can be seen clearly as the source of substratum influence and non-native speaker mistakes (e.g. English speakers will feel uncomfortable speaking Chinese initially because there is no tense marking. They will invariably grab onto the perfective aspect marker and use it in any context that would call for past tense in English, just to scratch that itch.) Randy On May 17, 2014, at 4:03 AM, Wallis Reid wrote: > Agreed! Specifying the selective advantage of each step in an evolutionary > process is an integral part of the account. But having a selective > advantage is not the same as fulfilling a pre-existing need, which was my > point. This may sound like nitpicking, but talk about "need' is a barrier > to developing functional accounts of linguistic structure. No one would > create a noun gender system if designing a language from scratch; that is, > gender systems don't fulfill a pre-existing need. But it does not follow > that gender systems have no communicative function in the languages that > have them. Once they are in place, their impact on the deployment of other > features of structure creates a synchronic systemic "need" for them that > didn't exist before their development. > Wallis Reid > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Everett, Daniel wrote: > >> Although I agree that evolution is not teleologically driven, one still >> has to provide some account of the evolutionary pressures that led to >> language development. There are many proposals (and I go into these at >> length in a book in progress for WW Norton). One that I discuss in >> Language: The Cultural Tool is what Aristotle called the "social instinct" >> (raised in the context as "Aristotle's Answer," a response to what some >> linguists call "Plato's Problem" - also see work by many folks on the >> related "Interactional Instinct" - though I do not really think that there >> is much evidence for behavioral instincts, including language, of any >> kind). The need for community, uniquely strong in the genus Homo, would >> have exerted strong selectional pressure on the development of more and >> more complex communication systems, of which language is the most complex >> we know. But, as I say, there are many proposals out there. What all of >> these proposals share, though, is an attempt to understand the >> non-teleological forces exerted on language evolution. Boyd and Richerson >> provide in a number of works a lot of good ideas plus the math necessary to >> understand cultural evolution and cultural pressures on different solutions >> to different kinds of problems. >> >> -- Dan >> >> >> On May 14, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Wallis Reid >> wrote: >> >>> A reply to Johanna Rubba >>> As I have always understood the mechanism of evolution, it is not >>> teleologically-driven, so nothing ever evolves so at to meet a >> pre-existing >>> need. It's the reverse. Things become needed as the result of having >>> evolved. So, for instance, creatures didn't evolve eyes because they >> needed >>> to see; we now need to see because we evolved eyes. Or to put it in a >> less >>> paradoxical way, the evolution of eyes led to countless other changes in >>> behavior, ecological niche, feeding, social relations etc. that took >>> advantage of sight, with the result that sight became crucial to our >>> survival. The same would apply to language. It didn't evolve because >> people >>> needed it; it is now needed because its evolution radically changed how >>> people lived, related and perhaps thought. >>> Wallis Reid >>> >>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all necessary >>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, >> wrote: >>> >>>> Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to >>>> funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>>> >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>>> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet >>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>>> funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu >>>> >>>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>>> funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu >>>> >>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>>> than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." >>>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) >>>> 2. Re: Review of research on gesture (Tahir Wood) >>>> 3. Re: Review of research on gesture (Mike Morgan) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:53:33 +0200 >>>> From: "Tahir Wood" >>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >>>> To: >>>> Message-ID: <53709A1D020000690011723A at uwc.ac.za> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>>> >>>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >>>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all >> necessary >>>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >>>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >>>> >>>> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >>>> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only >>>> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >>>> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >>>> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it >>>> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >>>> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed >> language >>>> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >>>> Tahir >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 2 >>>> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:11 +0200 >>>> From: "Tahir Wood" >>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >>>> To: >>>> Message-ID: <53709AF70200006900117240 at uwc.ac.za> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>>> >>>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >>>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all >> necessary >>>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system to >>>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >>>> >>>> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >>>> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and only >>>> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >>>> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >>>> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining it >>>> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >>>> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed >> language >>>> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >>>> Tahir >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 3 >>>> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 15:12:53 +0545 >>>> From: Mike Morgan >>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Review of research on gesture >>>> To: Funknet List >>>> Message-ID: >>>> >>> uQmSLP4iucB9RsQ at mail.gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >>>> >>>> Namaskar to all, from hot and sunny Kathmandu! >>>> >>>> Okay, I hope nobody minds if I put in my 18 rupees worth (at current >>>> exchange rates, US 2 cents)... >>>> >>>> First, to be honest, I haven't (yet!) read Dan's review article which >>>> started this thread... i WILL, but it is number 17 on my "to read list" >>>> >>>> Second, for the sake of full disclosure (and because it SEEMS to >> influence >>>> the regard which some people give comments), I am a sign language >> linguist. >>>> BUT I wasn't always one (just as i wasn't always an Asian); I started >> out >>>> as an Indo-Euorpeanist and got into sign languages by kismet. Because >> of my >>>> background and interests, I do a lot of comparative and typological >> stuff >>>> (I am a fluent signer of 7 sign languages, belonging, by conservative >>>> estimates, to 3 different sign language families), but I mostly publish >> on >>>> morpho-syntax (and specifically morpho-syntax IN discourse). >>>> >>>> I agree that gesture research IS becoming more and more familiar to >>>> linguists at large ... IN THE WEST (and am not sure, MAYBE I include >> Japan >>>> in that West). For the rest of the world (or at least the broad swathes >> of >>>> Asia and Africa where I have been living and working for years) that is >> NOT >>>> the case. AND, alas, sign languages also are seen as closer to gesture >> than >>>> they are to spoken languages (even the Linguistic Society of Nepal, >> which, >>>> by Asian standards, is a fairly linguistically sophisticated group, >> always >>>> schedules sign language presentations at their annual conference in >>>> sessions with presentations on gesture ... and other miscellanea!). I >>>> haven't lived in the West for decades, but I suspect that despite >> gradual >>>> inroads among certain groups (functional and cognitive linguists?), >> gesture >>>> is still NOT something the average Western linguist thinks of when s/he >>>> talks about language structure. i.e. gesture is a beast apart, separate >>>> form language ... and, I suspect, if pushed to take a side, most >> linguists >>>> would say it was "a lesser beast". >>>> >>>> I got into sign languages, as I said, by (fortunate) accident... and the >>>> first topic I chose was something I have done off and on since: >> structure >>>> of natural discourse. This was in the early 90s, and Sign Linguistics >> had >>>> been around for decades, and so I could read a wide(ish) variety of >> papers >>>> (though rather limited pickings on sign language discourse at that >> time). >>>> And so I had a list of what kinds of things to look at (and look for)... >>>> but fortunately I think in the long run, I decided to IGNORE that list, >> and >>>> just to transcribe EVERYTHING (visual) that was being done by the signer >>>> that seemed even remotely to have potential for communicative goals >>>> (ignoring of course that communication is but ONE use of language)... >> or at >>>> least I would transcribe everything I could pick up on. I suspected >> that a >>>> lot of that extra transcribing would turn out to be "wasted time", but I >>>> also suspected that if i didn't transcribe EVERTHING i saw -- or if I >> just >>>> followed the list taken from works done on other (western) sign >> languages >>>> -- I would MISS a lot of important stuff as well. (And indeed, among >> other >>>> discoveries, this is how I discovered that sideways head-tilt in >> Japanese >>>> Sign Language was an evidential marker.) >>>> >>>> ANYWAYS, so as not to make this too much of a story, over the years I >> have >>>> decided -- as Dan seems to have decided -- that linguistics (and >> linguists >>>> .. though of course NOT the linguist of THIS august group) have drawn a >>>> false line in the sand .. based on the limitations of their experience. >>>> Spoken language linguists (except for the enlightened few?) draw the >> line >>>> thus: if it comes out of your mouth, it is language; if it doesn't come >> out >>>> of your mouth, it is NOT (and CANNOT BE) language (i.e. it is MERE >>>> gesture). They may not actually say it in these words, but in DEED that >> is >>>> how they analyse language. Even many sign language linguists seem to >> get ti >>>> wrong when they put sign languages as a beats apart (albeit, to us a >>>> SUPERIOR beast!) .. and I point out in a review of *Markus Steinbach* >> and >>>> *Annika* Herrmann (eds), Nonmanuals in Sign Language for e-Language >> which I >>>> don't think has yet hit cyberspace, where in the introduction the >> editors >>>> make such a categorical statement about spoken languages : that gesture >>>> CANNOT be linguistic, that there is something about the visual modality >> of >>>> gestures versus the oral modality of spoken languages that keeps them >>>> forever and always in separate categories. >>>> >>>> BUT, I don't think this is true. or at least not NECESSARILY true. And >>>> because of the possibilities that gesture (or at least SOME gesture) not >>>> only interacts with gesture in what I refer to as the Communicative >>>> Semiotic, but in fact (some) gesture might in fact BE language. (My >> mental >>>> picture of what the relationship is between the Communicative Semiotic >> and >>>> the Linguistic Semiotic still has the latter inside the former, Venn >>>> diagram style, but the size of the latter is growing and the boundary is >>>> becoming more and more porous.) >>>> >>>> SEEMS to me that choosing to ignore the potential of gesture IN >> language is >>>> like choosing to ignore tone when describing a Himalayan Tibeto-Burman >>>> language;YES, it is POSSIBLE that tone is not significant ... but based >> on >>>> experience, this is NOT likely. >>>> >>>> >>>> ok, think maybe I gave a bit more than 18 rupees-worth... apologies if >>>> apologies are needed! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> Johanna Rubba 2014/05/09 06:50 PM >>> >>>>> Fundamentally, if language (as opposed to gesture) isn't at all >> necessary >>>>> to communication, why did it evolve? It is a pretty elaborate system >> to >>>>> have evolved in the absence of a need for it. >>>>> >>>>> There is another view regarding evolution, and that is that language >>>>> emerged first as a mute system of inner modeling (Sebeok et al) and >> only >>>>> later "exapted" for communication. Obviously language would have made a >>>>> huge difference in the potentials for communication, which itself would >>>>> have reflected back into enhanced thought processes again. Explaining >> it >>>>> this way does have the merit of avoiding the mechanistic view, in which >>>>> humans initially had thoughts just as we do and so they developed >>>> language >>>>> "in order to express" those thoughts (!) >>>>> Tahir >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> mwm || *U*C> || mike || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? || ???? ||???? || >>>> ?????? >>>> (aka Dr Michael W Morgan) >>>> sign language linguist / linguistic typologist >>>> academic adviser, Nepal Sign Language Training and Research >>>> NDFN, Kathmandu, Nepal >>>> >>>> >>>> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 128, Issue 6 >>>> *************************************** >>>> >> >> From collfitz at gmail.com Wed May 28 22:39:32 2014 From: collfitz at gmail.com (Colleen Fitzgerald) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 17:39:32 -0500 Subject: CoLang 2014 Updates Message-ID: We are now less than three weeks away from the kickoff of CoLang 2014, the 2014 Institute on Collaborative Language Research, which takes place in June and July 2014, hosted by The University of Texas at Arlington, with Dr. Colleen Fitzgerald as Director. CoLang, which only occurs once every two years, offers an opportunity for undergraduate and graduate students, practicing linguists, language professionals and indigenous community members to develop and refine skills and approaches to language documentation and revitalization. The Institute is designed to provide an opportunity for a diverse range of participants to become trained in a wide range of skills in language documentation and revitalization. The institute consists of two parts: the Workshops - two weeks of intensive workshops on practices, principals and models of language documentation and revitalization, followed by a four-week field methods course, working with speakers of select indigenous languages applying hands-on techniques in language documentation. Participants may choose to enroll only in the two-week Workshops. Workshops: June 16-27 2014 Field Methods/Practicum: June 30 ? July 25, 2014. We have four field methods classes, each of which still has room for additional people to enroll. The four languages for this year are Alabama (a Muskogean language spoken in Texas), Enya (a Bantu language spoken in the Democratic Reuplic of Congo), Innu (or Cree, an Algonquian language spoken in Canada), and Apoala Mixtec (an Otomanguean language of Mexico). The Mixtec section will be a Spanish-medium course, so people must have sufficient proficiency in Spanish to do all elicitation and other class work with the speakers. In order to make CoLang 2014 prices affordable to as many people as we can, we have decided to keep early bird registration prices in effect up until the first day of CoLang 2014, June 16. Onsite registration will be possible with a cashier?s check or credit card, or a wire transfer made by June 10. (Contact us for details on a wire transfer.) Registration is $750 for the two weeks session, and $2250 for the six weeks session. We still have room in the field methods sections. We?re also in the process of opening additional second sections in various topics, including Orthography, Grantwriting, Transcription, and Life in Communities, among others. For housing and/or meal purchases to be guaranteed, they must be purchased and paid in full by Wednesday, June 4. With participants and instructors numbering around 200 people, representing over 20 different North American tribes and 15 different countries worldwide, we expect a lively and engaging environment for all who attend. In addition to the many workshops scheduled for registered participants, we will also have a number of public talks on language documentation and revitalization projects, including from First Nations projects in British Columbia, the Chickasaw Language Revitalization Program, Wuqu? Kawoq in Guatemala, Yunnan Province in China, and northeast India. CoLang 2014 will feature the Texas-premiere of two movies, Navajo Star Wars (the sci-fi classic dubbed into the Navajo language, with English subtitles), and ?Language Healers,? with award-winning director Brian McDermott on hand for a q&a. Full information on CoLang activities can be found online at http://tinyurl.com/colang2014 and our registration site is at http://tinyurl.com/Register4CoLang , with links to paper registration if needed. For more questions, email us at uta2014institute at gmail.com or phone us at 817-272-7608.