LL-L "Orthography" 2005.05.13 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 13.MAY.2005 (02) * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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: "Orthography" [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Orthography
>
> Thanks, Sandy.
>
> Let me ask you and others a much more basic, probably "ig-nurnd" question.
> Is there in sign language an equivalent of what in phonology is the
> "phoneme" and in other types of orthographies the "grapheme," namely a
> most
> basic unit from which variants are derived by rule?  If there is, do you
> call it "grapheme" as well, or is it something like *"iconeme"?  In other
> words, do you follow the terminology used in reference to related systems?

Some linguists do follow the terminology by replacing "phon-" with "chir-",
thus phoneme, phonology become chireme, chirology.

Others, especially more recently, simply use "phon-" even when discussing
sign languages.

As I understand it, this sort of thing arose because Stokoe was a Chomskyist
and so believed in the idea of all languages being derived from the same
"deep structure" in the brain, so therefore aimed to discover extensive
analogies between signed and spoken languages.

I would say that this doesn't work to any great extent. I understand early
sign linguists thinking they were making great progress with this, because
it is possible to find many analogies between signed and spoken languages,
but the more you compare the more you find that the linguistic differences
between the two types of language are greater than the similarities.

Why the differences? Simply because the media used for the
production/reception for the two languages are very different.

Some examples of major differences:

   o   Spoken languages are linear, signed languages are three dimensional.

   o   Spoken languages use one channel of expression, signed languages use
about four (this tends to mean, for example, that fewer signs are needed to
sign something than words - as an example, in a restaurant with a friend
yesterday I said "There are a lot of people behind you on your right staring
at us" - one sign!).

   o   Spoken language idiom tends to be built from available vocabulary,
signed language idiom tends to have a special sign for each idiomatic
expression (eg one sign for each of "long time no see", "it's nothing
special", "I got egg on my face" etc).

   o   Spoken language vocabulary tends to be discrete, sign language
vocablary tends to be continuous (for example, we may say "annoyed",
"angry", "furious" in English, but in BSL there's just one sign for all of
these and the intensity and other cues show what sort of anger we mean).

For this reason I think it would be better for sign linguists to develop
their own terminology rather than try to force analogies - there's too much
danger of missing important ideas in sign languages through being blinkered
by spoken language terminology.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: Mike Morgan <Mike.Morgan at mb3.seikyou.ne.jp>
Subject: LL-L "Orthography" 2005.05.12 (10) [E]


Apologies ahead of time to anyone whose eyes gloss over (or roll) at yet
another discussion of Sign Language Orthography ... but I will try
(hopefully more successfully than my LAST attempt) to make it about MORE
than Sign Language Orthography. I for one think that the problems of Sign
Language Orthography, though special, are not REALLY peculiar.

But first, RF Hahn writes:
> Let me ask you and others a much more basic, probably "ig-nurnd" question.

Well, as I tell my students: "there is no such thing as a "ig-nurnd"
question" ... though I sometimes add (under my breathe) "only ignorant
questioners". :-) / (^u^)

RF Hahn continues (with his question):
> Is there in sign language an equivalent of what in phonology is the
> "phoneme" and in other types of orthographies the "grapheme," namely a
> most
> basic unit from which variants are derived by rule?  If there is, do you
> call it "grapheme" as well, or is it something like *"iconeme"?  In other
> words, do you follow the terminology used in reference to related systems?

The answer is : "Yes" (to which I add: "kind-of, most days"). In fact,
Stokoe, the "father" of sign linguistics, introduced the term "chereme" (<
Greek for "hand") and "cherology" (I think), but very soon people (linguists
of a roughly Generative ilk) started talking about SL phonology and
phonemes. In fact, over the intervening 45 years, SL phonology (the name
stuck) has perhaps been the subject of more research than any other area
within SL linguistics (just MY quantitative impression). This doesn't, of
course, mean that is the most developed (just as I wouldn't say that
"Generative" Phonology has really advanced the field of general phonology
all that much over the past roughly equal number of years (one step forward,
two steps back? -- again just MY opinion)).

But whatever we call it, and however we divide things up, there ARE basic
sub-meaningful units, and calling them phonemes is at least okay if not
preferable (as it DOES make SL analytically more comparable with spoken
languages ... and, although I agree with Sandy that there ARE fundamental
differences, my general feeling (and this time it is just MY feeling, and
I'm not sure that ANYONE would agree with me) is that BSL, or ASL or JSL or
whatever randomly chosen SL is no MORE different from, say, Japanese (which
everyone I meet seems to think -- wrongly - is the MOST different, MOST
unique language in the world) than Japanese is from some other TRULY
different spoken language ... say, Chechen (sorry, I make fun; after many
many years of "tasting" languages, I'll have to say NONE of them is TRULY
different. We MAY be talking vintage Bordeaux's vs this year's Gallo's; but
wine IS still wine.)

Stokoe's "cheremic" analysis STILL basically holds (even if his orthography
doesn't ... in the eyes of some). Signs are made up of:
1) hand shapes (SLs differ in number and specifics; Stokoe's original works
gave 19 for ASL, but most SL have more or less the same "basic" 6 or 8, plus
another maybe 6 or 8 less basic whose specifics are very language specific
(and many again that MAY just be allophonic ... if anyone would get down to
doing the leg work and figure out occurrence restrictions, complementary
distribution, etc ... which in fact van der Hulst et all in the Netherlands
DID try to do a few years back ... with mixed reviews)
2) location (Stokoe gives 12 for ASL)
3) movement (Stokoe gives 24 for ASL)
for a total of 55 phonemes / cheremes ... not an unreasonable number for any
language, spoken or other; Chechen, by some counts has 58.

The problem (or at least ONE of the problems) is that Stokoe, like many
ground-breakers, missed some stuff ... like hand orientation, etc. that is
CLEARLY phonemic (at least some times).

BUT, the REAL problem, in the eyes of THIS linguist who sees a VALID
distinction between phonology and phonetics, is that since then (1960) most
(need I say mainly Generative) analysts have "generated" multiples upon
multiples of that number of "phonemes" (Liddell and Scott said, back in the
late 80's, stated that ASL had "_at least_" (MWM: emphasis  added) 150 hand
configurations. Likewise with the other classes or phonemes. I would guess,
though, that EVEN Liddell and Scott would not claim -emic status for all
150+ hand configurations.

MY current guess: Stokoe was in the right ballpark ... and in the same
ballpark as the UPPER range for spoken languages

But, lest I loose everyone out there's interest, I'll move on ... an
eventually get to a question EVERYONE can related to.

But first, Sandy, with whom I seem to have specific differences when it
comes to orthographic druthers, but I suspect a lot in common ... at least
when it comes to cultural values, says:

> Oral languages are highly coded - there's little relationship between the
> sounds and the things they represent. ... Sign languages are not so highly
> coded.

Not exactly true. For example, I have NEVER run across a language that codes
long vowels or geminate consonants orthographically with fewer symbols than
short vowels and simple consonants. The addition of a second vowel letter,
or a macron above the vowel, IS iconic (which I think is what you mean here
by "highly coded" and to a certain degree also later by "graphic"). TRUE,
there are many that just don't code the (phonemically important) difference
... which is part of the reason for MY contention that, whereas SL
linguists -- or at least those dealing with more than one SL -- may want a
"phonetic" orthography (like IPA), SLs, and the people who would potentially
use them as native "speakers", do not deserve to be burdened with one (as
too with writers and readers of any spoken language). It doesn't need
something that is even "phonemic" -- as the cases of languages that leave
phonemic length, or tone (the case of much writing in Hausa, etc), or some
other consonant and vowel distinctions (as in Turkish, Kurdish, etc written
over the internet until fairly recently ... before Unicode), or even ALL
vowels (as in "normal Semitic writing), out the orthography "prove". What it
needs is something that is "good enough" ... and hopefully reasonably
efficient and useable. (As Sandy would rightly claim SignWriting probably is
... REASONABLY so, anyway, even if it is NOT to MY tastes exactly).

As for SLs being "not so highly coded", I'm not sure I understand exactly
what Sandy means ... but if I do, I probably disagree (I AM, after all, part
Irish!)

> There are also relatively few phonemes
> in a spoken language, and these are arranged in a linear fashion.
> ... Much of sign language is a graphic
> representation of the reality it represents.

I've already addressed the numbers issue (and accept the probability of
contrary opinions ... maybe even welcome them ... I AM, after, part Scottish
... like Sandy!) As for linearity and graphicness, I agree that spoken
languages are MORE linear and SLs are MORE "graphic" (so as to not be
TOTALLY disagreeable, I'll act like I understand that one -- I've
interpreted to mean what I mean by "iconic" ... and, in that case, I
interpret spoken language word order, often to be highly "graphically"
motivated in many languages), neither is totally one or the other, and they
both share MUCH in common (despite what I may have written in an article
soon to hit the presses here in Japan; I contradict myself? Very well, I
contradict myself!)

> So [for spoke languages] a
> highly coded, linear script is quite natural and there is no real problem
> with the written symbols also being highly coded.

Agreed. Though much of spoken language, like intonation, is non-linear (or
at least suprasegamental) ... but can usually safely be ignored in
orthography. (Like perhaps in SLs a swell.)

> Therefore we have to consider
> the possibility that a graphic script is the most natural for sign
> languages. It's an interesting question, though unanswered as yet.

Yes, and a point I'm not sure that Sandy has made (Yet!), but one which is
CERTAINLY on his side, is that if you count the numbers of Deaf people,
linguist or not, that have preferences for one system of orthography or
another, and I suspect (though I missed the poll results) that they DO tend
to favor a "graphemic" system. Until my hearing gets just a bit worse than
it is (though my wife already thinks it's bad enough ... though MAYBE it's
just that I don't listen, not that I don't hear!) I don't feel I have a
right to vote. But I DO have a right to help inform the decision ... JUST as
concerned citizens of the UK had the right to write letters to US voters
before the last election and try to inform them. And the only reason I do so
is because it IS an interesting question ... not JUST for SLs but for any
language with an as yet un-codified orthography ... or competing
orthographies.

And, for the Lowlands languages I know best, with the exception of
Nederlands, they ALL have either un-codified orthographies OR competing
orthographies ... or both. I have my personal favorite Frysk orthography
(which I give away by the way I write "Frysk") ... just as I prefer to write
"Hindustani" (to use an OLD nomination) written in devanagari, and
Croato-Bosno-Serbian in Cyrillic ... and English with largely American
spelling but British punctuation. And I KNOW when it is simply a matter of
my personal aesthetic taste, and when that taste is theoretically justified
(or at least motivated).

And, I am convinced (in my OWN heart of hearts) that Serbo-Croato-Bosnian IS
not three, but ONE language ... because my heart of hearts is that of
linguist, and I am convinced that, based on linguistic criteria alone, they
are one. BUT, in another of my hearts, I think if they want to TRY to be as
different as possible by having different orthographies, that's fine too.
Because this other heart knows that language is MORE than linguistics. (This
is also the heart I probably inherited from a previous life as a Welsh
Nationalist: "Heb iaith, heb ddim" ... oops, that's mixing proverbs). And on
the other hand I am convinced that "Frysk" (likewise "Kurdish") is MORE than
one language, but if they want to act like one "Volk", that's fine by me.
And they can act like one EVEN IF they use more than one orthography. After
all, they do in Biarnés (ditto Gascon, Prouvençal, and Lenagdocian).

... Sorry, that sounded too much like the lay preacher's son that I am.

The GENERAL question that I promised is, and it HAS been talked about before
in various guises on this list, WHAT needs to go in a good orthography ...
and what doesn't.

Again, apologies, and I won't bring up (or otherwise promote artificial
life-support for) the topic again ... unless I can find a reasonable
disguise. Cross my heart and hope ... to be able to contribute to issues
more closely and more directly Lowlandic.

Wel 'te, Yn iach!

Mike Morgan
KCUFS

==============================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.
======================================================================