LL-L "Typology" 2004.09.07 (07) [E]

Tue Sep 7 19:27:26 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 07.SEP.2004 (07) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
text from the same account to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or
sign off at http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: "Typology" [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Language varieties
>
> Sandy, I found your description about British Sign Language sign etymology
> typology ("opaque," "translucent" and "transparent") very interesting,
will
> go through it in detail again when I have more time.
>
> In the meantime, could you tell us, under "Etymology" or whatever might be
> appropriate, if you can see any analogous etymology typology in spoken
> languages?

Before getting into analogies between signed and spoken languages, it's
important to point out that not all similarities between the two types of
language are neurological. I think Chomsky's theories of deep structure
caused early sign linguists such as Stokoe to treat analogies as if they
arose from something real within the brain, whereas they really are only
analogies and if taken too far can lead you to the wrong conclusions. I
think many of these analogies actually arise from physical constraints on
communication in the two media, and you shouldn't assume that just because a
phenomenon exists in oral languages it must also exist in an analogous form
in sign languages, or vice versa.

An example of a similarity that might have a neurological explanation might
be the way language users are barely aware of the structure of their
language or what they're actually doing when they communicate.

An example of a similarity that might just be due to physical constraints is
the way words are composed of alternating consonants and vowels and signs
are composed of alternating positions and movements. It's tempting to draw
an analogy between positions and consonants and movements and vowels, but
you can only take the analogy so far before you start running into problems
trying to find something analogous to air flow in sign language or extent of
motion in oral languages.

Anyway. Translucence in sign languages does seem analogous to onomatopoeia
in oral languages - or to put it another way, both languages can be
imitative. The difference is that most of the things people talk about are
visual, so there's much more scope for imitation in sign languages than in
oral languages.

Just as I said for BSL, English onomatopoeiae can be opaque until the
definition is given, then it may become transparent, eg "whack", "bang",
"thump" &c. But these vary between spoken languages and there seems to be
some sort of system in each language that you have to absorb before comics
with unconventional onomatopoeiae ("splaff", "zoing!" &c) become clear. This
is analogous to what I said about beginning signers being able to understand
nothing, and advanced signers being able to understand signs they've never
seen before.

OK, try these two imitative signs and see if you can guess their meaning:

1. Hold both spread hands near your chest with the palms facing you and hook
your thumbs together. Bend your wrists so that the palms face downwards -
this is the start position (the "consonant" if you like the analogy). Now
_slowly_ move your hands up, forward and down again in a steep arc, while
gradually straightening your wrists so that by the end of the movement, your
palms are towards you, fingers pointing approximately upward.

2. Place your hand on your forehead with the fingers pointing upward. Move
your hand upward suddenly while making the fingers spring open. At the same
time, purse your lips and let out a strong puff of air from the mouth.

A clue: they both signify the same mammal!

As this shows, there's a limit to what your hands can do, and a lot of
imitation signifies only part of the referent.

There are theories that many words in spoken languages are imitative, eg
"river", "bell", "wood" or virtually anything else. Even so, I think the
analogy  breaks down when you look at the speaker's awareness of these
things. With oral languages, no awareness is necessary. In sign languages,
developing this awareness is one of the most important challenges facing the
learner, because it's not really possible to sign fluently without.

If you guessed what the two signs above mean, you'll maybe also have
realised that although they signify the same mammal, they're not
interchangeable at all. In each sign the mammal is doing two very different
things. This sort of thing can't really be taught through vocabulary lists:
you have to use your imagination and awareness of the imitative nature of
the language so that, having learned the more typical sign for fish, you
remember quite naturally to sign with your hand flat when talking about
plaice or flounder, for example. In sign languages, calling a spade a spade
is a beginners' mistake - it's called one thing when you're digging the
garden with it, and something completely different when you're hitting
someone over the head with it  :)

So taking the "river", "bell", "wood" theory you can say that the phenomenon
of  opaqueness, translucence and transparency occurs in both types of
languages, but the analogy does completely break down when you look at how
these are actually used in the different types of language.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

==============================END===================================
* Please submit postings to lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org or at
  http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html.
=======================================================================