LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.17 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 17 January 2009 - Volume 03
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mike Morgan <mwmosaka at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language programming" 2009.01.17 (01) [E]

Sandy ... and others of course,



Hi!



Sandy asked:

>By the way Mike, what did you mean by "surrogate space" and so on, and
> what's the significance of these terms? I assume they just correspond to
> my topographic and syntactic space, but the terms were interesting.



Surrogate and Token space are terms borrowed from GilllesFauconnier (*Mental
Spaces* (1985. MIT Press) etc) and developed by Scoitt Liddell for his
treatment of American Sign Language Syntax over the past 15 years..
The fullest treatment is *Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign
Language.* (2003) Cambridge Univ Press, which is an excellent discussion of
sign language syntax ... even though i personally do not agree on many of
the theoretical points. (Not being a UG-type exactly, I allow for the fact
that maybe his conclusions apply quite properly to ASL ... but not to my
languages, JSL, ISL, etc. PLUS, of course, I allow for the fact that I just
don't GRASP the need for some of abstraction! but then, I never DID manage
to get through Sartre's *being and nothingness* either!) Part of it, of
course, comes from the fact that my definition of linguistics is much
narrower than his (to me  a (real world) rose  is NOT a (linguistic) rose is
NOT a (cognitive) rose!) Nevertheless, this culmination of 15 plus years of
analysis has come to some pretty interesting conclusions!



As for what the difference between real space and token space and surrogate
space .., and blended space, it is probably better if you track down
Liddell's book (should not be too hard), but if you will allow my gross
simplification:



Real space is, well, real space. So if I point at a book sitting on the
table in sign language discourse, i mean the book on that table.



Surrogate space is when I, in the course of sign language discourse, a
"locate" my coffee cup on the table in front of me, even though the table
has no coffee cup, and then talk about how i spooned sugar into it , etc,
all the whilke using that bit of empty (or, perhaps NOT empty) bit of real
space on the table to BE my coffee cup. Or, when we hold the non-dominant
hand in a certain configuration for the sign cut, showing that we are
cutting a watermelon and not a chilli pepper, that watermellon is also
located in surroagte space. It is like when we watch a play:
Lawrence Olivier is NOT REALLY Hamlet ... but he is a (good) surrogate.



To quote from GG&M in ASL:

In the creation of a real-space blend, mental space elements are mapped onto
real space. That cognitive act involves conceptualizing things as something
other than what they are. Whether created as part of discourse or not,
real-space belnds create otherwise impossible entities which have physical
properties inherited from real-sace and conceptual properties inherited from
another mental space. When the signer or speaker is projected ino the blend,
the result is a surrogate blend. (p. 175)



Token space is when I set up a location in real space for an entity in my
discourse, my house for example, or Scotland, neither of which is present,
and then a moment later point to that space I mean my house, or Scotland,
not that empty (or, perhaps NOT empty) bit of real space just to my left.
And, in fact, the "entity" I locate in token space can be abstract as well
... and so i can "point" at "love", for example, adn contrast it in (token)
space with "lust"



To quote From GG&M in ASL:

"Tokens contrast with surrogate blends in two significant ways. Unlike
surrogate blends, where the signer is at least partially projected into the
blend, the signer does not become part of a token blend. Also in contrast
with surrogates, which are usually unrestricted in where they can be
located, tokens are restricted to the space ahead of the signer. Token
blends are contratsed with depicting blends ... in that they are
non-topographical. A token merely exists as an isolated entity within a
token space, where concepts like near, far, above and below are not
relevant. (p. 190)



I am more inclined towards Sandy's system, and to distinguish and focus all
3 when teaching sign language, although I might NOT be inclined to say that
the 3-way distinction is exactly linguistic. I see the mapping between
linguistic and cognitive as being AS INDIRECT as that between signifier
(linguistic form) and signied ("real-world" object).

Mike || マイク || माईक || Мика || માઈક || მაიქ || ਮਾਈਕ
מייק || மாஇக் || Miqueu || U C > || ما یک || Mihangel
================
Dr Michael W Morgan
Ishara Foundation || ईशारा फॉउंडेशन  || イシャラ基金
Mumbai/Bombay *|* मुंबई *|* ムンバイ/ボンベイ (インド)
www.ishara.org
+++++++++++++++
Одной рукой не поднять двух арбузов
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20090117/646a685b/attachment.htm>