LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.19 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L  - 19 July 2008 - Volume 01
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please set the encoding mode to Unicode (UTF-8).
If viewing this in a web browser, please click on
the html toggle at the bottom of the archived page
and switch your browser's character encoding to Unicode.
=========================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.18 (03) [E]

> From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.17 (02) [E]
>
> Thanks, Heather,
>
> But let me have another look at sign language. You wrote:
>
>  > This I think is why sign language, little as I know of it, appears
> to be able to 'cut to the chase' and express directly and often so
> succinctly
> > from the thought. It
> > seems to be able to create a whole concept in a single gesture or a
> series of gestures still fewer than the words or phrases linguistic
> language
> > would need to
> > express the same idea.
> Couldn't this, among other reasons, also be a consequence of the fact
> that people corresponding via SL, have much more eye contact to each
> other? And additional: they implant much more gestics and mimics as an
> average speaker of 'normal' language.

Jonny,

That's right, although I would say that the general idea behind it all
is that the medium of communication is different: it's graphic rather
than sonic. This moves it from the almost linear and highly encoded
style of spoken languages to a three dimensional medium in which
concrete concepts can be presented as shapes that look somewhat like the
thing being spoken about, and therefore can be inflected in ways that,
although stylised, seem quite natural. So quite a large number of
inflections can be applied without much in the way of learning
paradigms.

And since the medium is three dimensional, anything involving direction
or position can often be incorporated into the sign's inflection very
easily (although developing the habit of thinking in this way isn't so
easy if you're only used to spoken languages!).

As well as this, as I've said, there are three main channels of
communication (face and two hands) allowing for more simultaneity in
production.

This means that narrative style in BSL (I can't speak for other sign
languages, but as a rule there are more universals between sign
languages than oral languages), tends to have a lot in common with
cinematic narrative: there's a tendency to "set the stage" before
getting into the action.

So while in English we might say:

"We used to climb the wall behind the garage and steal the apples."

In BSL it would be more like:

"Garage with a wall behind it, we'd climb and steal."

As you see all the nouns tend to get mentioned first, then comes all the
verbs.

> Isn't it a matter of fact that it is easier to understand a 'lively'-
> not fast!-speaking person facing you than one who, in extreme, is
> standing with his back side to you? Since my youth I always have had a
> little defect to follow a speaker on the background of a party where
> several people are talking 'higgledy-piggledy'. The same is valid for
> music- I'm mostly unable (very often lucky me!) to understand texts,
> maybe German or English.

I always remember a conversation between two bespectacled individuals
where I used to work, who agreed that they couldn't follow a
conversation properly without their glasses on!

> From: Paul Finlow-Bates <wolf_thunder51 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.17 (06) [E]
>
> 2) If both speakers are "manglers", using poorly understood mutual
> second language as their only common one they will pretty rapidly
> build their own rules and complexity, incrasing as more players come
> on board.
>
Or as in "current slang" where although a form of speech may only be
five years old, everybody but the "in" generation keeps getting it
embarrassingly wrong!

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------

From: heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk <heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.18 (03) [E]

from heatherrendall at tiscali.co.uk

Subject: LL-L "Grammar" 2008.07.17 (02) [E]

Jonny wrote: Isn't it a matter of fact that it is easier to understand a
'lively'- not fast!-speaking person facing you than one who, in extreme, is
standing with his back side to you?

The image this brought to mind instantly was of the interior of the gothic
church in Göttingen used as a lecture hall back in the late 60s and the
famous Walter Killy on the podium. Hundreds of students were packed into the
church in order to be able to glean wisdom from the great man as he
delivered a weekly series of lectures on the development of German
literature. All heads were slightly turned towards him as ears strained -
despite the loudspeakers - to catch a single word or name as he bumbled and
mumbled his way through an hour's lecture.

A contingent of Americans from Burbeck CA had to write up his talk each week
and however close you sat up front, it was almost impossible to follow the
man who appeared not to move his lips as he spoke.

Within a short time German students were taking down the gist of each
lecture and selling it to the bemused Americans!

So I would nominate as my bugbear for understanding someone who does not use
their lips and clearly shape the letters/sounds they are making .........
though I would agree with you, Jonny, that listening to somone across the
chatter of a crowded room is just as difficult.

Heather
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080719/d673d42a/attachment.htm>