LL-L 'Language proficiency' 2006.07.29 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 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 (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

L O W L A N D S - L * 29 July 2006 * Volume 07
======================================================================

From: Henry Pijffers <henry at saxnot.com>
Subject: LL-L 'Language proficiency' 2006.07.29 (03) [E]

Sandy Fleming wrote:
>
> It's an interesting conclusion for linguistics as a whole - it would
> mean that language and the medium are distinct, that sound isn't an
> integral part of language, and other media (certainly a visual medium)
> could be developed into a full human language.
>
Braille?

Henry

----------

From: 'Jacqueline Bungenberg de Jong' <Dutchmatters at comcast.net>
Subject: LL-L 'Language proficiency' 2006.07.29 (03) [E]

Sandy says:
< It's an interesting conclusion for linguistics as a whole - it would

Hi Sandy, Yes indeed these findings are fraught with all kinds of
possibilities. They make it possible for me to understand how my cat and her
(cat) friend communicate when they are sitting silently on kitty corners of
my deck. And also that telepathy must be possible. Jacqueline

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Etymology 

Sandy, you wrote:

> I read an article recently on scientific research where the researchers
> concluded that manual languages and spoken languages "used different
> parts of the brain". A careful read of what they actually did seemed to
> reveal less sensational conclusion, however: they had subtracted the
> language-processing areas from the scans of brain activity and the
> results showed that sign language perception involved the parts of the
> brain which processed visual information, while oral language perception
> involved the parts which processed aural information. But it still means
> that the language processing is done by the same part of the brain. 

I wonder how passive processing of written language fits in with this then, and,
even more interesting to me, how written language is processed that isn't really
meant to be pronounced, thus is in a way also non-oral.

When I read Modern Chinese, I tend to pronounce it in my head in Mandarin.  At
least I think I do.  When I read Classical Chinese, I usually do not pronounce it
at all, in my head or otherwise, though I might occasially check if the old
rhyming scheme in poems still works in Mandarin.  (I think that this is how
Japanese speakers handle Classical Chinese poetry.)  In fact, I avoid pronouncing
Classical Chinese altogether, because pronouncing it in any modern Chinese
variety doesn't do it justice and isn't really understood.  (People need to see
the written version to understand it.)  Pronouncing it in reconstructed Middle
Chinese is useless unless you have a roomful of listeners that are familiar with
the same reconstruction, which probably never happens.  So, in effect, it's a
purely written language bridging the divide between written oral language and
pictographic writing.  One of my Classical Chinese poetry professors made us
orally render (in effect translate) poems in modern language (either Mandarin or
English, depending on the course level), which I found more useful.  I imagine
that this is rather similar to interpreting sign language into oral language,
since there are great structural differences and translating a single symbol very
often requires several spoken words.

Do you think this is valid, Sandy?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

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