<html>
Dear all,<br><br>
Reading your messages about this fundamental debate, I'm thinking that
maybe the problem could be used in another way... <br>
I mean that the work made by analysing signed languages with a
linguisitic point of view should be the opportunity to re-investigate the
classical catergories, born about spoken languages analysis. Signed
languages are a unique opportunity for general linguistics to put his
notions and categories to the test. Maybe the problem should not be
considered as a conflict between signed languages linguists and spoken
languages ones, but as a theorical turning-point that sign languages
offer to linguistics in general. <br>
Step by step, our works could show how to improve classical notions to
make them relevant to both signed and spoken languages.<br><br>
Thank you for having shared your opinions and ideas about this debate...
It's really instructing.<br>
Best wishes<br><br>
Laurence Meurant<br>
Langues et Littératures romanes<br>
Namur - Belgium<br>
laurence.meurant@fundp.ac.be<br><br>
At 13:59 6/10/2003 +0200, Sonja Erlenkamp wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>At 06:48 06.10.2003 -0400, James
MacFarlane wrote:<br><br>
Dear all,<br><br>
I agree, that this is a very interesting discussion an IMHO it is one
that is about time. ;) For me this discussion is part of my daily
"struggle" with the language data. In general I agree with Dan
Slobin, but I want to add some of my thoughts:<br><br>
I think we should distinguish between <br><br>
a) the cognitive processes/principles that (I assume) every language is
based on, <br>
b) the functions that language structure takes in this to create a code
and <br>
c) what linguist identify and describe as "language
categories".<br><br>
Categories are always made by those who describe the languages and they
match the language structure more or less (depending on how close the
descriptions is to the correlations of criteria in the language structure
and how well chosen the criteria are). On this level there is not only a
difference between spoken languages and signed languages, there are also
differences among spoken languages - differences that probably not have
been investigated that much so far, because of the fact, that most of the
research done on spoken languages is based on written texts and on
certain theoretical assumptions, but still there are differences.
<br><br>
I've been working on parts of speech (in particular what is called the
"noun-verb-distinction) and focus at the moment on grammatical
relations (in particular the question if there is anything like
"subject" and "object" in NSL (Norwegian Sign
Language)) and I try to compare what I find there to spoken language
categories. It amazes me constantly how different also spoken languages
are with regard to the categories you find. That's why I think we should
be very critical when adopting categories that where created by a
linguist describing any other language than the one you look at. I think
that also applies to sign languages, because I think there might be
bigger differences than we so far have recognized (looking at the two
sign languages I know, I can see some major differences in some parts of
the language structure).<br><br>
On the other hand, the functions that many of the most central categories
described for spoken languages serve in the process of coding, seems to
me to be more basic than the categories that take these functions. In
other words: The function is the same, the form may be different (due to
the modality for example). <br>
An example for this are grammatical relations like subject or object.
These are categories that we find in some languages,that serve a certain
function. A language-code always has to mark in one way or the other
"who is doing what to whom" in an utterance with at least two
semantic participants (even if not all of them are realized in the
utterance). But that does not necessarily mean, that a language has to
have "case markings" or even a category like
"subject".<br><br>
And then of course there is another problem: the inconsistences of the
usage of terminology. Not everybody means the same category with the same
features when using a particular term like for example
"subject" - but that leads us into another
discussion.<br><br>
My point? I think not only the "world" of sign language
research should rethink some of the categories it "borrowed"
from spoken language research. I assume that those categories are not
perfect ones for the explanation of all spoken languages either. Or to
cite a famous neurologist: <br><br>
"Unfortunately, nature seems to ignore our intellectual need for
convenience and unity, and is very often pleased with complexity and
diversity" (Ramon y Cajal)<br><br>
But what to do about it? That's the problem and I have no answer to it.
Probably we just have to keep on trying to find good descriptions for
what we see in our language data and be careful when applying categories
from other language descriptions to the data we work with. Maybe someone
else has a better idea?<br><br>
<br>
Sincerely<br><br>
Sonja Erlenkamp<br>
Department of Linguistics<br>
University of Oslo<br>
Box 1002 Blindern<br>
0317 Oslo<br>
Norway<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>
<dl>
<dd>Dear SL-Lingers, <br><br>
<dd> This is indeed an interesting dilemma. I've seen
these category labels applied to phenomena such as agreement,
classifiers, inflectional morphology, and even at the most basic level of
the phoneme/morpheme, something seems awry. <br><br>
<dd> But, because languages are constrained by general
cognitive principles, (or as some believe, by a language faculty) we
would expect that certain basic categories should be found in signed
languages. <br><br>
<dd> Interestingly, the processes that create these
categories (grammaticization, metaphor, automatization) do occur in
signed languages. But, they might create a category that is
specific to the signed modality.
<dd> This question from Nicole got me thinking.........
Has anyone suggested a new category that is exclusive to signed
languages? It seems that there are few new category labels
for what we know as classifiers -Depicting Verbs (Liddell)
-Polycomponential Verbs (Slobin et al.). Any others?<br><br>
<br><br>
</dl>-------------------------------------------- <br>
James MacFarlane<br>
Department of Linguistics<br>
Gallaudet University<br>
800 Florida Ave, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002<br>
james.macfarlane@gallaudet.edu
<dl>
<dd>From: "Dan I. Slobin" <slobin@socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
<dd>Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:56:05 -0700
<dd>To: "For the discussion of linguistics and signed
languages."
<SLLING-L@ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA>
<dd>Subject: Re: Q: Classic terminology/methods? A: Why not?<br><br>
<dd>Dear Nicole Kuplenik
<dd> That's an important
question--and, as you suggest--one that is influenced by power. In
my opinion, classic linguistic terms cannot be uncritically applied to
sign languages. I have serious doubts about the uses of notions
such as subject, object, classifier, agreement, and others. But as
for linguistic methods--these are precisely the methods that we need in
order to determine the structure of sign languages. It's not the
methods that are a problem, but the direct transfer of categories of
analysis that have been established for (particular) written languages.
<dd> There's been a lot written about
these issues--both taking the position that I've just summarized and
taking the opposite position. Several recent books are especially
relevant:<br><br>
<dd> Emmorey, K. (Ed.) (2003).
Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
<dd> Liddell, S. K. (2003).
Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge
University Press.
<dd> Taub, S. F. (2001).
Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign
Language.
Cambridge
University Press.<br><br>
<dd>If you send me your email address, I can send you some papers from
our Sign Language Research Group at the University of California,
Berkeley.<br><br>
<dd>Sincerely,
<dd>Dan Slobin
<dd>Professor of Psychology
<dd>University of California, Berkeley<br><br>
<dd>At 12:05 PM 10/4/2003 +0200, you wrote:<font size=2>
<dd>Dear SL-Ling-ists!<br><br>
<dd>The other day a debate occured in a certain linguistic environment
(Sl and non-SL) on whether classic linguistic methods and terminology can
be used in the field of SLs. :)
<dd>Rather frustrating, actually, since the power of power (e.g. higher
v. lower academic rank) prevailed ...
<dd>Could you please share your opinion on this matter? I would also like
to know whether there are any materials on the subject of linguistic and
SL-linguistic teminology.<br><br>
<dd>Thanks!<br><br>
<dd>Nicole Kuplenik
<dd>Ljubljana School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
<dd>Slovenia</font>
</dl><br><br>
</blockquote></blockquote><br>
</html>