<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Dear all,<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/01/2019 10:19, Joo Ian wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SN6PR07MB4557F6D9ADF83B881CD82337FE8C0@SN6PR07MB4557.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Batang;
panose-1:2 3 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
panose-1:2 1 6 1 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Batang";
panose-1:2 3 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">I would like to ask everyone if you
agree on the idea that written language is not simply a
representation of spoken language, but a distinct modality
(similar to how sign and spoken language are different
modalities).
</div>
</blockquote>
I would say yes and no, but more no ...<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SN6PR07MB4557F6D9ADF83B881CD82337FE8C0@SN6PR07MB4557.namprd07.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
It seems that there is a general consensus that a written
language is simply the “shadow” of a spoken language. But I am
not sure if this is exactly the case.
</div>
</blockquote>
You are right that this is not exactly the case. Case in point:
Social media in Indonesia (and presumably other places as well) has
innovated all kinds of conventions that are purely orthographic:
they have a life of their own, beyond the language that they "come
from". Emoticons are just one small aspect of this. if you "just"
know Indonesian, but are not familiar with these conventions, you
won't be able to follow a Facebook conversation "in Indonesian".<br>
<br>
But here's the rub: knowing Indonesian isn't a sufficient condition
for understanding such a Facebook conversation, but it's most
definitely a necessary condition. Such orthographic systems are
still derivative from the spoken language, the way a ludling might
be, or, for that matter, the way signed versions of spoken
languages, such as Signed English is.<br>
<br>
But this is NOT the case for real sign languages. A sign language
such as ASL has nothing whatsoever to do with any spoken language;
you don't need to learn English to learn ASL, and for the most part
it won't help you that much to do so. So the analogy between
written language and sign language is of only limited validity and
is potentially misleading.<br>
<br>
David<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
David Gil
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
</pre>
</body>
</html>