<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [SLLING-L] Re: modifiability of indicating verbs</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Ulrike wrote:<BR>
<BR>
IF WE DO NOT INVOKE GRAMMAR THOUGH, HOW DO WE ACCOUNT FOR THE LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC PATTERNS AND PARTICULARITIES WE FIND? <BR>
<BR>
All sorts of systems have conventions, not just language. <BR>
<BR>
Eg1: Visual representation systems have conventions; the way a tree is represented in Western “stick figure” drawing is not how people from other cultures would draw it. (Or a flat m as a bird etc). But no one would argue that these conventions, though different, were not based on cognitive skills of visual representation.<BR>
<BR>
Eg2: Spatial systems: some cultures view space as absolute, some as relative. I know there is the argument of which came first, the language or the thought (and Levinson does seem to write quite convincingly on this) but this could be another example of different conventions outside of grammar.<BR>
<BR>
It is very easy to assume that something based on cognition has to be universal. But in fact there can be many ways to solve problems using cognition and not all cultures will come up with the same way.<BR>
<BR>
Louise<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
-- <BR>
Dr Louise de Beuzeville BA(hons) GradDipEd MspecEd(Deafness) PhD <BR>
Signed Languages & Linguistics<BR>
___________________________________________________________<BR>
Department of Linguistics, C3B 401<BR>
Macquarie University, Sydney<BR>
NSW Australia 2109<BR>
<BR>
phone: +61 (0)2 9850 8635<BR>
fax: +61 (0)2 9850 9199<BR>
mobile: +61 (0)433 704 794<BR>
email: louise.debeuzeville@ling.mq.edu.au<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>