Caswell's screed

[Scott Liddell]

One of the major scientific reasons for studying sign languages is to
be able to learn in what ways sign languages differ from vocally
produced languages, and hopefully, to gain insight into the nature of
language in general.  The differences that can be attributed to the
visual vs. the auditory signal are the so-called "modality effects."
If sign languages were not real human languages, the significance of
studying them would be greatly diminished.  Oddball claims
notwithstanding, there is no scientific doubt that sign languages are
true human languages.

Let me clarify one issue with respect to Adam Schembri's post below.
The issue of double articulation appears to be a universal across both
vocally produced languages and sign languages.  The conclusion that I
have been led to is that IN ADDITION TO double articulation, signers
are able to include both gradient and gestural aspects in the
production of some signs.  For example, I treat a verb such as TELL
directed toward the addressee as encoding the verb's lexical meaning
through double articulation and additionally identifying the recipient
of the telling (the addressee) by directing the sign toward the
addressee using gradient rather than categorial features.  As a result
the sign ends up pointing at the recipient of the telling.  The
presence of verbs and pronouns with this ability to be directed toward
things appears to be one such modality effect.

My work does not argue against the notion of double articulation in
sign languages.  What it does is raise questions about the nature of
the language signal in general (spoken or signed). Once the presence of
gradient and gestural aspects of the sign language signal (in addition
to double articulation) is acknowledged, this should lead to a
reexamination of assumptions concerning the language signal for vocally
produced languages.  Adam Kendon, David McNeill, and many others have
argued convincingly that the gestural and grammatical are inextricably
intertwined in speech both in terms of the meanings being expressed and
in terms of the timing of co-speech gestures.  Co-speech gestures are
now the object of study by a growing number of linguists and
psychologists.  Gradient aspects of the spoken language signal are
considered "paralinguistic."  Perhaps the day will come when the
reasons for considering gradience to be paralinguistic will undergo
intensive scrutiny.

The best source for my analysis of these signs (as well as other
spatial aspects of signing) is my just published book:  Grammar,
Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language, Cambridge University
Press (2003).

Scott Liddell
Linguistics Program Coordinator
Gallaudet University



On Sunday, May 11, 2003, at 10:27  PM, Adam Schembri wrote:

> The term 'double articulation' actually comes from the work of the
> French
> linguist Andre Martinet, and it can be found in some introductory
> books on
> linguistics (see, for example, Jean Aitchison's 'Teach Yourself
> Linguistics'), but a more common term for this concept is perhaps
> 'duality
> of patterning'. This is regularly included as a 'defining' feature of
> language in introductory linguistics books.
>
> Although 'lexicalised' signs from the 'core native lexicon' of
> languages
> like ASL and Auslan can be analysed as having duality of patterning,
> whether
> or not all aspects of signed language organization show this duality IS
> actually a matter of debate, so we ought not to dismiss this issue out
> of
> hand. See Liddell (2000) on the use of space in directional verb
> signs, or
> Cogill (2000) on aspects of 'classifier' verbs of motion.
>
> Liddell, S. K. (2000a). Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away
> from
> agreement. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language
> revisited:
> An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 303-320).
> Mahwah,
> NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
>
> Cogill-Koez, D. (2000). "Signed language classifier predicates:
> linguistic
> structures or schematic visual representation?" Sign Language and
> Linguistics 3(2): 153-207.
>
>
>
> Adam Schembri, PhD
> Postdoctoral Research Fellow
> Renwick College
> University of Newcastle/
> Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children
> Private Bag 29
> Parramatta NSW 2124
> AUSTRALIA
> Tel (voice/TTY): +(61 2) 9872 0281
> Fax: (+61 2) 9873 1614
> Email: adam.schembri at ridbc.org.au
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark A Mandel [mailto:mam at THEWORLD.COM]
>> Sent: Monday, 12 May 2003 11:36 AM
>> To: SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
>> Subject: Re: Caswell's screed
>>
>> On Sun, 11 May 2003, Grushkin, Donald A. wrote:
>>
>> #I also was wondering about that stuff about double articulation
>> #languages. Is any of that real?  is there really a concept of single
>> #and double articulation?  And does it apply to what she said about
>> #signed languages?
>>
>> I hadn't the stomach or the time to go through her... output... but I
>> recognize this terminology. I think it goes all the way back to
>> Saussure. "Double articulation" here refers to the separation between
>> symbol and meaning: two distinct "layers". I'm not surprised if C. is
>> saying that SLs are only singly articulated. It's nonsense, of course,
>> but it's consistent with what I did see of her material.
>>
>> I don't think any linguists have ever referred to "single articulation
>> languages", since that contradicts the concept of language as defined
>> by
>> (as I said: IIRC) Saussure.
>>
>> -- Mark A. Mandel