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

Tue Oct 7 10:26:13 UTC 2003

Dear all,

Reading your messages about this fundamental debate, I'm thinking that 
maybe the problem could be used in another way...
I mean that the work made by analysing signed languages with a linguisitic 
point of view should be the opportunity to re-investigate the classical 
catergories, born about spoken languages analysis.  Signed languages are a 
unique opportunity for general linguistics to put his notions and 
categories to the test.  Maybe the problem should not be considered as a 
conflict between signed languages linguists and spoken languages ones, but 
as a theorical turning-point that sign languages offer to linguistics in 
general.
Step by step, our works could show how to improve classical notions to make 
them relevant to both signed and spoken languages.

Thank you for having shared your opinions and ideas about this debate... 
It's really instructing.
Best wishes

Laurence Meurant
Langues et Littératures romanes
Namur - Belgium
laurence.meurant at fundp.ac.be

At 13:59 6/10/2003 +0200, Sonja Erlenkamp wrote:
>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/20031007/8e561eca/attachment.htm>