Directional Verbs
Dan I. Slobin
slobin at berkeley.edu
Sat Mar 28 04:20:28 UTC 2009
Thank you for thoughtfully responding, Partricia.
The whole field of linguistic typology is concerned with comparing
and contrasting languages, searching for both common tendencies and
divergences from those tendencies. From such comparisons and
contrasts, typological linguists strive to identify sets, or types of languages
(such as dependent-marked vs. head-marked, verb-framed vs.
satellite-framed, inflectional vs. agglutinative vs. isolating). There is no
distinction here between signed and spoken languages. For example, I
have argued that ASL is verb-framed like the Romance and Semitic
languages and head-marking like Inuktitut and Mayan. Linguists are
not concerned with "celibrating and embracing" particular languages,
but rather with figuring out how languages work--language in general
and particular languages. In all of this, modality of the language is
irrelevant.
And, as Susan points out in the next reply to you, signed and spoken
languages perform the same sets of human communicative functions.
So I'm not sure what you mean by proposing "very different functions"
for signed and spoken languages.
Dan
At 08:24 PM 3/27/2009, you wrote:
>Thank you for explaining, Dan. First, please understand that I'm not
>discussing about the innateness hypothesis, far from it. I would like
>to know why linguists don't analyze signed languages for what they
>are, without comparing them to spoken languages. Moreover, unless I'm
>mistaken, I don't think I've read any articles where linguists compare
>a spoken language to another spoken language, except they would point
>out the differences among them, and that is it. In fact, they
>celebrate and embrace the uniqueness of their spoken languages while
>linguists are attempting to make a case how much the semantics of
>signed languages are similar to spoken languages. I believe that
>comparing signed languages to spoken languages are like comparing
>apples to oranges. Since you quote Liddell, I am sure that even you
>agree that the functions of signed languages and spoken languages are
>very different--I wonder how is it possible for linguists to compare
>signed languages to spoken languages?
>
>
>2009/3/27 Dan I. Slobin <slobin at berkeley.edu>:
> > Many of us who have spent our careers investigating child language
> > development--in both speech and sign--don't buy into the innateness
> > hypothesis. Neither do most of the linguists I know around the world. The
> > obvious fact that language requires brain mechanisms does not mean that the
> > brain is pre-wired for language universals. Everything we do, think, and
> > feel is based on brain mechanisms, so you can't get very far with that
> > argument. And current cognitive neurology hasn't found a
> "language center,"
> > but rather many different interacting systems that are involved in language
> > one way or another.
> >
> > Much work in the fields of grammaticalization, functional linguistics,
> > cognitive linguistics, and typological linguistics has provided a deeper
> > understanding of the many cognitive, communicative, and social
> interactional
> > factors that, together, work to establish the forms and functions of
> > language. To be sure, there are linguistic universals. And maybe, at the
> > end of the day, some of them will turn out to be irreducible to other
> > explanatory factors. But first we have to explore all factors that seem to
> > be relevant for accounting for the forms and functions of language--both
> > those that are universal and those that are not. The same sorts of factors
> > work to determine the forms and functions of both signed and spoken
> > languages, with special linguistic characteristics determined by the
> > modality of communication.
> >
> > Signed languages are "real" languages for the same reasons that spoken
> > languages are: duality of patterning, ability to create endless new lexical
> > items and meaningful utterances, semantic displacement, encoding of
> > propositions and a range of devices to modulate propositional
> meanings, etc.
> > etc. The linguistic investigation of signed languages is important in
> > linguistics generally, and it is developing rapidly in many countries.
> > Comparisons between languages is very useful, and reveals ways in which
> > groups of languages function in similar ways. So, for example, it is
> > insightful to compare ASL morphology with the simultaneous morphology of
> > Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dan Slobin, psycholinguist
> >
> > At 10:55 AM 3/27/2009, Nassira Nicola wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Patricia Raswant <
> > patricia.raswant at gallaudet.edu> wrote:
> > I have a question. Why do linguists compare ASL and other signed languages
> > to spoken languages?
> >
> > ---
> >
> > In addition to the other answers given, I'd offer the following (sorry if
> > it's review - I've been explaining this to my students all quarter, so I'm
> > just starting from the same amount of background that they have):
> >
> > A great deal (not all, but a significant amount) of modern work in
> > linguistics in based on the assumption that language is at least partly
> > innate. Obviously, it's not *all* programmed into a baby's brain to start
> > with (the vocabulary of a specific language, for instance, is definitely
> > learned) but the idea is that babies figure out so much on their own,
> > without ever being exposed to it, that some fundamental parts of language
> > have to be based in the brain, somewhere.
> >
> > So, a lot of linguistics nowadays revolves around figuring out what
> > characteristics all languages share underneath the surface, so we can then
> > figure out what the brain's "language center" contributes.
> >
> > What this means for signed languages is this: if all humans have basically
> > the same brain structure, and if the brain is what creates the basic
> > characteristics of language, then all languages should have the same basic
> > characteristics. If signed languages *don't* act like every other human
> > language, as other people have pointed out, then people who believe in the
> > innateness hypothesis start to get suspicious about whether they actually
> > *are* real languages.
> >
> > Plus, if you're committed to the idea that learning things about one
> > language can help explain another (because they come from the same source,
> > and resemble each other on some level), then it's important not to ignore
> > languages that might teach you something interesting. Some of
> the work I've
> > been doing on semantics in LSQ was inspired by work my adviser
> did in Greek;
> > I've had some great conversations with a semanticist friend who works on
> > French, helping her understand weird things she's noticed in her work by
> > comparing them to CL:55-> in ASL; it's not unusual to draw (limited)
> > comparisons between ASL noun/verb pairs and certain structures in
> Hebrew and
> > Arabic; etc. There's a lot of useful work to be done in linguistics in
> > general that signed languages have a role in.
> >
> > Of course, if you're the type of linguist that works on how long a [b] has
> > to be voiced before it stops being perceived as a [p], well, signed
> > languages may not tell you much. But most linguistic questions end up
> > having very little to do with modality - language is language, mostly, no
> > matter what body parts you use to express it.
> >
> >
> > Is an answer to the question you were asking?
> >
> > Nassira
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nassira Nicola
> > University of Chicago
> > Department of Linguistics
> > http://home.uchicago.edu/~nnicola
> > _______________________________________________
> > SLLING-L mailing list
> > SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> > http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > Dan I. Slobin, Professor of the Graduate School
> > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics
> >
> > Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu
> > 3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292
> > University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769
> > Berkeley, CA 94720-1650 fax: 1-510-642-5293
> > USA http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SLLING-L mailing list
> > SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> > http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>SLLING-L mailing list
>SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dan I. Slobin, Professor of the Graduate School
Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics
Department of Psychology email: slobin at berkeley.edu
3210 Tolman #1650 phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292
University of California phone (home): 1-510-848-1769
Berkeley, CA 94720-1650 fax: 1-510-642-5293
USA http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20090327/1fe3098a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
SLLING-L mailing list
SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
More information about the Slling-l
mailing list