ASL for infants

[Richard Arnold]

In a message dated 3/18/01 9:14:37 AM Central Standard Time,
rathmann at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU writes:


> the sign advantage can be explained by
> the earlier development of the motor control system for the manual
> articulators
> compared with the development of the motor control system for the vocal
> articulators. This does not mean that the development of language is
> different in the two modalities, only that the _expression_ of the
> language may start slightly earlier in the signed modality.
>
>

I agree. It seems to be a more physiological reason for this phenomena. It is
simply the ease of use rather than linguistic ability. In fact I have a
nephew who hasn't spoken at all at the age of 2 and half years and just
recently has been undergoing speech therapy. It seems that the therapist is
using some signs in conjunction with speech training. The child at this stage
is using only one sign "more" (two fist banging together). At this stage he
is only using one word, and hasn't reached the two-word stage.

However, I would like to strongly say that I disagree with the evolutionist
theory that signs were used before speech in humans. I agree more with Noam
Chomsky's opinion that language is inherent in humans. Only that it's
expression depends on the environment that one is raised in. Our
understanding of signed languages reinforces this point, really, as Deaf kids
since they first gathered into schools developed their expression of this
innateness of language into SL. So we need to distinguish between
"expression" and "innateness" in language. Heck, this is the issue that has
been badgering us linguistist for centuries! Where do we cut the line between
these two sides? It like what one scholar said everything in the universe has
two sides. Nothing can exist without two sides (even a line has two ends or a
circle has its radius and its circumference in order to "exist"). Thus the
issue of language has two sides "innateness" and "expression". Its fine to
have "innateness" but without "expression" language could be said to be
"absent" (we can use the case of the "wild boy" as a case of this - he as a
human had the innate ablility towards language but he lacked its expression).
Animals opn the other hand, do not have the same level of complex innateness
of language as humans do even if they were trained to have some form of
expression (we see this with the case of the gorilla "Amy" who was taught
some ASL signs).

Whoa, this is going to start a whole area of discussion!  Well, the old
debate goes on. Basically, we have to hold two seemingly opposing views
together in order to understand the nature language (or the mystery of the
Universe ) in order to gain any real insight. Just like saying does a coin
have a head or a tail? - in fact it must have both a head and a tail to be a
called coin (of course we are usuing a very narrow cultural definition of a
coin here).

Richard Arnold

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20010319/f4599288/attachment.htm>