Q: Classic terminology/methods? A: Why not?

Mon Oct 6 11:59:22 UTC 2003

At 06:48 06.10.2003 -0400, James MacFarlane wrote:

Dear all,

I agree, that this is a very interesting discussion an IMHO it is one that
is about time. ;) For me this discussion is part of my daily "struggle"
with the language data. In general I agree with Dan Slobin, but I want to
add some of my thoughts:

I think we should distinguish between

a) the cognitive processes/principles that (I assume) every language is
based on,
b) the functions that language structure takes in this to create a code and
c) what linguist identify and describe as "language categories".

Categories are always made by those who describe the languages and they
match the language structure more or less (depending on how close the
descriptions is to the correlations of criteria in the language structure
and how well chosen the criteria are). On this level there is not only a
difference between spoken languages and signed languages, there are also
differences among spoken languages - differences that probably not have
been investigated that much so far, because of the fact, that most of the
research done on spoken languages is based on written texts and on certain
theoretical assumptions, but still there are differences.

I've been working on parts of speech (in particular what is called the
"noun-verb-distinction) and focus at the moment on grammatical relations
(in particular the question if there is anything like "subject" and
"object" in NSL (Norwegian Sign Language)) and I try to compare what I find
there to spoken language categories. It amazes me constantly how different
also spoken languages are with regard to the categories you find. That's
why I think we should be very critical when adopting categories that where
created by a linguist describing any other language than the one you look
at. I think that also applies to sign languages, because I think there
might be bigger differences than we so far have recognized (looking at the
two sign languages I know, I can see some major differences in some parts
of the language structure).

On the other hand, the functions that many of the most central categories
described for spoken languages serve in the process of coding, seems to me
to be more basic than the categories that take these functions. In other
words: The function is the same, the form may be different (due to the
modality for example).
An example for this are grammatical relations like subject or object. These
are categories that we find in some languages,that serve a certain
function. A language-code always has to mark in one way or the other "who
is doing what to whom" in an utterance with at least two semantic
participants (even if not all of them are realized in the utterance). But
that does not necessarily mean, that a language has to have "case markings"
or even a category like "subject".

And then of course there is another problem: the inconsistences of the
usage of terminology. Not everybody means the same category with the same
features when using a particular term like for example "subject" - but that
leads us into another discussion.

My point? I think not only the "world" of sign language research should
rethink some of the categories it "borrowed" from spoken language research.
I assume that those categories are not perfect ones for the explanation of
all spoken languages either. Or to cite a famous neurologist:

"Unfortunately, nature seems to ignore our intellectual need for
convenience and unity, and is very often pleased with complexity and
diversity" (Ramon y Cajal)

But what to do about it? That's the problem and I have no answer to it.
Probably we just have to keep on trying to find good descriptions for what
we see in our language data and be careful when applying categories from
other language descriptions to the data we work with. Maybe someone else
has a better idea?

Sincerely

Sonja Erlenkamp
Department of Linguistics
University of Oslo
Box 1002 Blindern
0317 Oslo
Norway

>Dear SL-Lingers,
>
>    This is indeed an interesting dilemma.  I've seen these category
> labels applied to phenomena such as agreement, classifiers, inflectional
> morphology, and even at the most basic level of the phoneme/morpheme,
> something seems awry.
>
>    But, because  languages are constrained by general cognitive
> principles, (or as some believe, by a language faculty) we would expect
> that certain basic categories should be found in signed languages.
>
>    Interestingly, the processes  that create these categories
> (grammaticization, metaphor, automatization) do occur in signed
> languages.  But, they might create a category that is specific to the
> signed modality.
>    This question from Nicole got me thinking.........  Has anyone
> suggested a new category that is exclusive to signed languages?   It
> seems that there are few new category labels for what we know as
> classifiers -Depicting Verbs (Liddell) -Polycomponential Verbs (Slobin et
> al.).  Any others?
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------
>James MacFarlane
>Department of Linguistics
>Gallaudet University
>800 Florida Ave, NE
>Washington, DC 20002
>james.macfarlane at gallaudet.edu
>From: "Dan I. Slobin" <slobin at socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
>Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:56:05 -0700
>To: "For the discussion of linguistics and signed
>languages."                 <SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA>
>Subject: Re: Q: Classic terminology/methods? A: Why not?
>
>Dear Nicole Kuplenik
>        That's an important question--and, as you suggest--one that is
> influenced by power.  In my opinion, classic linguistic terms cannot be
> uncritically applied to sign languages.  I have serious doubts about the
> uses of notions such as subject, object, classifier, agreement, and
> others.  But as for linguistic methods--these are precisely the methods
> that we need in order to determine the structure of sign languages.  It's
> not the methods that are a problem, but the direct transfer of categories
> of analysis that have been established for (particular) written languages.
>        There's been a lot written about these issues--both taking the
> position that I've just summarized and taking the opposite
> position.  Several recent books are especially relevant:
>
>        Emmorey, K. (Ed.) (2003).  Perspectives on classifier
> constructions in sign languages.  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
>        Liddell, S. K. (2003).  Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American
> Sign Language.  Cambridge University Press.
>        Taub, S. F. (2001).  Language from the body: Iconicity and
> metaphor in American Sign Language.  Cambridge               University Press.
>
>If you send me your email address, I can send you some papers from our
>Sign Language Research Group at the University of California, Berkeley.
>
>Sincerely,
>Dan Slobin
>Professor of Psychology
>University of California, Berkeley
>
>At 12:05 PM 10/4/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear SL-Ling-ists!
>
>The other day a debate occured in a certain linguistic environment (Sl and
>non-SL) on whether classic linguistic methods and terminology can be used
>in the field of SLs. :)
>Rather frustrating, actually, since the power of power (e.g. higher v.
>lower academic rank) prevailed ...
>Could you please share your opinion on this matter? I would also like to
>know whether there are any materials on the subject of linguistic and
>SL-linguistic teminology.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Nicole Kuplenik
>Ljubljana School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
>Slovenia
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20031006/ed7dcf80/attachment.htm>