LL-L "Language learning" 2008.03.25 (02) [E]

Tue Mar 25 14:10:40 UTC 2008

=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 25 March 2008 - Volume 02
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
=========================================================================

From: Maria Elsie Zinsser <ezinsser at icon.co.za>
Subject: LL-L "Current events" 2008.03.24 (11) [E]

Hi all,

Sandy, what about 'imagined etymology' rather than 'fantasy etymology'?

I think that, to be able to learn a sign language, one needs a measure of
imagining a concept and showing a sign to describe what one imagines, as you
have explained with the moving mattress meaning sex (rather than many bed
mites).

One of the reasons for the recent translation of the Afrikaans Bible into
Sign Language was that deaf people often had difficulty to
understand concepts which they have not been exposed to or experienced and
thus likely not able to imagine. I can imagine if someone has not seen a
kangaroo in jumping mode it is going to be difficult to understand 'jumping
kangaroo' as a signifier for 'Australia'.

Regards,
Elsie

Sandy wrote:
In learning sign languages, however, many signs work as mnemonics just
as they stand, _and_ the mnemonic device is also the correct
etymological explanation. In French Sign Language, for example, the sign
for "bed" is quite obviously a graphic representation of a four-poster
bed. The sign for "sex" is the very same bed with the mattress going up
and down!

This makes things easy for students when they learn these sort of signs,
which in turn gives them an appetite for discovering the graphical
meaning behind all signs. Unfortunately, not all signs yield to this
sort of treatment. So when we move over to British Sign Language, for
example, the sign for "bed" isn't so blindingly obvious, but it becomes
so when you're told that it means "bed". But the sign for sex (one of
the more usual ones, anyway), is much more difficult to figure out. In
fact I don't know what it's supposed to represent.

This results in students (and also sometimes native speakers, when asked
for an explanation) applying their imaginations to such signs and trying
to see the graphical reality behind it.

For example, I had a discussion with some Irish signers about the Irish
Sign Language Sign for Ireland. They had various theories, eg:

"It's a person dancing a jig."
"It's a fork being stuck into a potato."

Similarly Australian Deaf interpretations of the Auslan sign for
"Australia":

"It's a kangaroo."
"It's a prisoner being deported."
"It's a modification of the BSL sign for 'Britain'".

The upshot is that not only do people just make up an explanation that
seems to make sense to them, but once they've done so they often decide
that this _must_ be right and will thereafter hold forth that this is
why the sign is what it is. Moreover it's difficult to argue about it
because there's a scarcity of written records.

It gets worse. The made-up etymology undergoes a process of reification
according to the signers' beliefs about it. People who believe the sign
for Australia is derived from "kangaroo" tend to sign a jumpy version of
the sign, while the prisoner faction makes the sign sideways and the
modificationists sign it with the same small movement as the sign for
"Britain".

This has lead to me watching native signers carefully to see how they
really make the sign. I've noticed, for example, that the sign for
"Ireland" as made by many native signers doesn't really fit either of
the above theories. I would now like a way of communicating to people
the idea that the formation of a particular sign "is not what you
imagine", so that I can then introduce them to the sign as I've actually
observed it.

So what I was looking for was a term that would distinguish this sort of
thing from both folk etymology and a mere mnemonic device. The reason
I'm looking for such a term is that I'd like to have something that I
can say to signify to people that what they're doing is fine as a
mnemonic, but remind them that it's probably completely made up and
nothing to do with the sign's etymology.

Perhaps Roger's suggestion of "fantasy etymology" comes closest to this.

----------

From: Mike Morgan <mwmosaka at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language learning" 2008.03.24 (11) [E]

In French Sign Language, for example, the sign
> for "bed" is quite obviously a graphic representation of a four-poster
> bed. The sign for "sex" is the very same bed with the mattress going up
> and down!

I haven't checked yet, but here in the land of the Kamasutra, perhaps there
are quiet a variety for signs for "sex" ;-)

So when we move over to British Sign Language, for
> example, the sign for "bed" isn't so blindingly obvious, but it becomes
> so when you're told that it means "bed". But the sign for sex (one of
> the more usual ones, anyway), is much more difficult to figure out. In
> fact I don't know what it's supposed to represent.

Similarly for the Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto (Western) Japanese Sign Language sign for
'sex', which is the palm side of the closed fist tapping against the cheek.
(The Tokyo (Eastern) JSL sign is MUCH more obvious ... but not NEARLY so
obvious as the sign _I_ use when the topic turns that direction ... but THAT
is a whole nother topic ;-)

This results in students (and also sometimes native speakers, when asked
> for an explanation) applying their imaginations to such signs and trying
> to see the graphical reality behind it.

Perhaps the difference comes from the "fact" that, whether it is true or
NOT, people EXPECT signs to be iconic and to clearly represent SOMETHING,
and so the question about etymology is simply trying to figure out WHAT is
being represented.

The upshot is that not only do people just make up an explanation that
> seems to make sense to them, but once they've done so they often decide
> that this _must_ be right and will thereafter hold forth that this is
> why the sign is what it is. Moreover it's difficult to argue about it
> because there's a scarcity of written records.

Yes, yes and yes! What Sandy says about various European SLs applies equally
to the various Asian SLs and the 3 South American SLs and South African SL
-- all the SLs that I have had more than passing acquaintance with. No
matter where you go it seems that learners and teachers AND native signers
themselves are ALWAYS looking for that link ... from the form to the meaning
to WHAT it represents. (the de Saussurean-Peircean trinity)

It gets worse. The made-up etymology undergoes a process of reification
> according to the signers' beliefs about it. People who believe the sign
> for Australia is derived from "kangaroo" tend to sign a jumpy version of
> the sign, while the prisoner faction makes the sign sideways and the
> modificationists sign it with the same small movement as the sign for
> "Britain".

Ditto here as well.

This has lead to me watching native signers carefully to see how they
> really make the sign. I've noticed, for example, that the sign for
> "Ireland" as made by many native signers doesn't really fit either of
> the above theories.

And, watching the day to day Sign language teaching that goes on in both
Japan and now in India, these same native signers actually will teach
something VERY different from what they themselves actually sign in "normal"
conversation ... and are usually unaware of this fact. The form taught is
SOMETIMES the standard(ized) form (as in "I say 'might could 'ave' but I
teach 'might have'", but often is simply a form which is more in line with
whatever etymology the signer him/herself believes in for the given sign.

Perhaps Roger's suggestion of "fantasy etymology" comes closest to this.
>

Or perhaps we need a RANGE of terms ... on occasion I have seen what i might
term "PC (politically correct) etymology"!

mike

MWM || マイク || Мика || माईक

================

Dr Michael W Morgan
Managing Director
Ishara Foundation
Mumbai (Bombay), India

++++++++++++++++

माईकल मोर्गन (पी.एच.डी.)
मेनेजिंग डॉयरेक्टर
ईशारा फॉउंडेशन (मुंबई )

++++++++++++++++

茂流岸マイク(言語学博士)
イシャラ基金の専務理事・事務局長
ムンバイ(ボンベイ)、インド
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20080325/241ac06c/attachment.htm>