Directional Verbs / signed vs. spoken languages

[Fischer Susan]

This might be valid if you are comparing signed languages to English,  
but there are lots of spoken languages whose grammars bear striking  
resemblances to things that we find in signed languages, and studying  
those languages in comparison with different signed languages (they're  
not all the same, you know) can provide interesting ways of looking at  
signed languages.  True, the expression of a particular grammatical  
form may be different due to the channel of communication, but that  
simply attests to the flexibility of the human mind.  That said, I and  
others have written that signed languages force us to face issues that  
too often have been swept under the rug  in dealing with spoken  
languages, such as variation and the importance of the discourse level  
of grammar.  One of the reasons I study signed languages is the  
insights and perspectives they provide about language as a human  
cognitive phenomenon.

Susan Walker's contribution is right on the money.
SDF
Susan D. Fischer
Susan.Fischer at rit.edu
+1-858-952-3447 (mobile)
drword563 (Skype)
drword354 (iChat/AIM)
+1-714-908-9824 (fax)
563 Orchid Lane
Del Mar, CA 92014

Center for Research on Language
UCSD



On Mar 28, 2009, at 6:59 AM, Patricia Raswant wrote:

> OK, Susan, I stand corrected.  Yes, I agree that the modality of all
> languages have the same function--to express and to communicate.  What
> I have in mind is the delivery of a signed language and a spoken
> language is divergent.  Rather, I usually look for the closest
> equivalents in translations since most of the languages, IMHO, are
> impossible to compare due to cultural differences and so forth.  For
> me, how is it possible to compare an aural language to a visual
> language?
>
> Now, considering the directional verb in ASL, depending on how it is
> expressed, it can be SVO or a combination of a action verb and a
> preposition phrase.  It has an inflection when a continuing verb is
> being used.  And I can argue that this is a unique structure and can't
> be compared to a spoken language.  We should accept it for what it is.
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 11:38 PM, S Walker <swalker29 at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 2009, at 11:24 PM, Patricia Raswant wrote:
>>
>>> ...I am sure that even you
>>> agree that the functions of signed languages and spoken languages  
>>> are
>>> very different...
>>
>>
>> A language is a language regardless of modality.  Therefore *ALL*  
>> languages
>> have the exact same functions.  [I googled the "function of  
>> language" and
>> got
>> 110,000,000 pages if anyone wants to know what the "functions" of  
>> languages
>> are.  Here are 6 that I found repeated in several locations:  "(1)
>> referential
>> ("The Earth is round"), (2) emotive ("Yuck!"), (3) conative ("Come  
>> here"),
>> (4) phatic ("Hello?"), (5) metalingual ("What do you mean by  
>> 'krill'?"), and
>> (6) poetic ("Smurf")."]
>>
>> - Susan [retired from teaching, not retired from linguistics]   :-)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20090328/0939a361/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
SLLING-L mailing list
SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l