<html>
<body>
Thank you for thoughtfully responding, Partricia.<br>
The whole field of linguistic typology is concerned with comparing and
contrasting languages, searching for both common tendencies and<br>
divergences from those tendencies. From such comparisons and
contrasts, typological linguists strive to identify sets, or types of
languages<br>
(such as dependent-marked vs. head-marked, verb-framed vs.
satellite-framed, inflectional vs. agglutinative vs. isolating).
There is no<br>
distinction here between signed and spoken languages. For example,
I have argued that ASL is verb-framed like the Romance and Semitic<br>
languages and head-marking like Inuktitut and Mayan. Linguists are
not concerned with "celibrating and embracing" particular
languages,<br>
but rather with figuring out how languages work--language in general and
particular languages. In all of this, modality of the language
is<br>
irrelevant. <br><br>
And, as Susan points out in the next reply to you, signed and spoken
languages perform the same sets of human communicative functions.<br>
So I'm not sure what you mean by proposing "very different
functions" for signed and spoken languages.<br><br>
Dan<br><br>
At 08:24 PM 3/27/2009, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Thank you for explaining,
Dan. First, please understand that I'm not<br>
discussing about the innateness hypothesis, far from it. I would
like<br>
to know why linguists don't analyze signed languages for what they<br>
are, without comparing them to spoken languages. Moreover, unless
I'm<br>
mistaken, I don't think I've read any articles where linguists
compare<br>
a spoken language to another spoken language, except they would
point<br>
out the differences among them, and that is it. In fact, they<br>
celebrate and embrace the uniqueness of their spoken languages while<br>
linguists are attempting to make a case how much the semantics of<br>
signed languages are similar to spoken languages. I believe
that<br>
comparing signed languages to spoken languages are like comparing<br>
apples to oranges. Since you quote Liddell, I am sure that even
you<br>
agree that the functions of signed languages and spoken languages
are<br>
very different--I wonder how is it possible for linguists to compare<br>
signed languages to spoken languages?<br><br>
<br>
2009/3/27 Dan I. Slobin <slobin@berkeley.edu>:<br>
> Many of us who have spent our careers investigating child
language<br>
> development--in both speech and sign--don't buy into the
innateness<br>
> hypothesis. Neither do most of the linguists I know around the
world. The<br>
> obvious fact that language requires brain mechanisms does not mean
that the<br>
> brain is pre-wired for language universals. Everything we do,
think, and<br>
> feel is based on brain mechanisms, so you can't get very far with
that<br>
> argument. And current cognitive neurology hasn't found a
"language center,"<br>
> but rather many different interacting systems that are involved in
language<br>
> one way or another.<br>
><br>
> Much work in the fields of grammaticalization, functional
linguistics,<br>
> cognitive linguistics, and typological linguistics has provided a
deeper<br>
> understanding of the many cognitive, communicative, and social
interactional<br>
> factors that, together, work to establish the forms and functions
of<br>
> language. To be sure, there are linguistic universals.
And maybe, at the<br>
> end of the day, some of them will turn out to be irreducible to
other<br>
> explanatory factors. But first we have to explore all factors
that seem to<br>
> be relevant for accounting for the forms and functions of
language--both<br>
> those that are universal and those that are not. The same
sorts of factors<br>
> work to determine the forms and functions of both signed and
spoken<br>
> languages, with special linguistic characteristics determined by
the<br>
> modality of communication.<br>
><br>
> Signed languages are "real" languages for the same reasons
that spoken<br>
> languages are: duality of patterning, ability to create endless new
lexical<br>
> items and meaningful utterances, semantic displacement, encoding
of<br>
> propositions and a range of devices to modulate propositional
meanings, etc.<br>
> etc. The linguistic investigation of signed languages is
important in<br>
> linguistics generally, and it is developing rapidly in many
countries.<br>
> Comparisons between languages is very useful, and reveals ways in
which<br>
> groups of languages function in similar ways. So, for example,
it is<br>
> insightful to compare ASL morphology with the simultaneous
morphology of<br>
> Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew.<br>
><br>
> Sincerely,<br>
> Dan Slobin, psycholinguist<br>
><br>
> At 10:55 AM 3/27/2009, Nassira Nicola wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Patricia Raswant <<br>
> patricia.raswant@gallaudet.edu> wrote:<br>
> I have a question. Why do linguists compare ASL and other
signed languages<br>
> to spoken languages?<br>
><br>
> ---<br>
><br>
> In addition to the other answers given, I'd offer the following
(sorry if<br>
> it's review - I've been explaining this to my students all quarter,
so I'm<br>
> just starting from the same amount of background that they
have):<br>
><br>
> A great deal (not all, but a significant amount) of modern work
in<br>
> linguistics in based on the assumption that language is at least
partly<br>
> innate. Obviously, it's not *all* programmed into a baby's
brain to start<br>
> with (the vocabulary of a specific language, for instance, is
definitely<br>
> learned) but the idea is that babies figure out so much on their
own,<br>
> without ever being exposed to it, that some fundamental parts of
language<br>
> have to be based in the brain, somewhere.<br>
><br>
> So, a lot of linguistics nowadays revolves around figuring out
what<br>
> characteristics all languages share underneath the surface, so we
can then<br>
> figure out what the brain's "language center"
contributes.<br>
><br>
> What this means for signed languages is this: if all humans have
basically<br>
> the same brain structure, and if the brain is what creates the
basic<br>
> characteristics of language, then all languages should have the same
basic<br>
> characteristics. If signed languages *don't* act like every
other human<br>
> language, as other people have pointed out, then people who believe
in the<br>
> innateness hypothesis start to get suspicious about whether they
actually<br>
> *are* real languages.<br>
><br>
> Plus, if you're committed to the idea that learning things about
one<br>
> language can help explain another (because they come from the same
source,<br>
> and resemble each other on some level), then it's important not to
ignore<br>
> languages that might teach you something interesting. Some of
the work I've<br>
> been doing on semantics in LSQ was inspired by work my adviser did
in Greek;<br>
> I've had some great conversations with a semanticist friend who
works on<br>
> French, helping her understand weird things she's noticed in her
work by<br>
> comparing them to CL:55-> in ASL; it's not unusual to draw
(limited)<br>
> comparisons between ASL noun/verb pairs and certain structures in
Hebrew and<br>
> Arabic; etc. There's a lot of useful work to be done in
linguistics in<br>
> general that signed languages have a role in.<br>
><br>
> Of course, if you're the type of linguist that works on how long a
[b] has<br>
> to be voiced before it stops being perceived as a [p], well,
signed<br>
> languages may not tell you much. But most linguistic questions
end up<br>
> having very little to do with modality - language is language,
mostly, no<br>
> matter what body parts you use to express it.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Is an answer to the question you were asking?<br>
><br>
> Nassira<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Nassira Nicola<br>
> University of Chicago<br>
> Department of Linguistics<br>
>
<a href="http://home.uchicago.edu/~nnicola" eudora="autourl">
http://home.uchicago.edu/~nnicola</a><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> SLLING-L mailing list<br>
> SLLING-L@majordomo.valenciacc.edu<br>
>
<a href="http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l" eudora="autourl">
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l</a><br>
><br>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>
> Dan I. Slobin, Professor of the Graduate School<br>
> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics<br>
><br>
> Department of Psychology
email: slobin@berkeley.edu<br>
> 3210 Tolman
#1650
phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292<br>
> University of
California
phone (home): 1-510-848-1769<br>
> Berkeley, CA
94720-1650 fax:
1-510-642-5293<br>
>
USA
<a href="http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> SLLING-L mailing list<br>
> SLLING-L@majordomo.valenciacc.edu<br>
>
<a href="http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l" eudora="autourl">
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l</a><br>
><br>
><br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
SLLING-L mailing list<br>
SLLING-L@majordomo.valenciacc.edu<br>
<a href="http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l" eudora="autourl">
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l</a></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=1>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>
Dan I. Slobin, Professor of the Graduate School<br>
Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics<br><br>
Department of Psychology email:
slobin@berkeley.edu<br>
3210 Tolman
#1650
phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292<br>
University of
California
phone (home): 1-510-848-1769<br>
Berkeley, CA 94720-1650
fax: 1-510-642-5293<br>
USA
<a href="http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm<br>
</a>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>
<br>
</font></body>
</html>