Re: Some thoughts on mutli-modal (signing / speech) languages and communication.

----- Original Message ----
> From: David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...>
> The real question is why does
> the hearing community find spoken language without signs either
> easier and/or more appropriate to their environment?
The inverse question is also fair to explore: What need would the hearing
community have for maintaining an articulatory subsystem in addition to a
robust oral system already complemented by minimal body language? The more
channels required for a language, the more body systems have to be reserved
for language that could be used for other things. Certainly full fluency in
BOTH a spoken language AND an articulatory language carries the advantage that
either of two systems could be used (hence, whichever isn't currently in use,
or whichever is easier), but having a single language that uses both speech and
gesture seems unnecessarily burdensome.

For instance, we humans like to talk while we eat. If two of us happen to be
fluent in, say, English and ASL, then we can gab away in ASL while we chew and
in English while we scoop up more. :) But if there were a language that
required both oral and gestured signs, we'd be much more restricted at
mealtime.

Additionally, in cases where there are obstacles to one channel, it makes sense to use
another channel. For instance, in the dark, oral communication is useful; on
opposite sides of glass or a crowded area, gestural communication is useful.
But what would be the motivation for having a mixed communication system with
both oral and gestural requirements, which could then not be used in the dark
nor on opposite sides of a large field?

I would think that it would be more logical for a natural language to have a
parallel gestural system, just as we have written language for times when
speech is not a useful channel, as opposed to a mixed gesture/speech system.

-- Paul

Replies