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

Very interesting post! I won't respond to everything, but I have�read everything.
Usually if I don't respond, it's because I generally�agree with what you
said, and/or have nothing to add.��On Feb 8, 2009, at 11∞51 AM, Parker
Glynn-Adey wrote:�> All the languages I know of are (simultaneously) signed
to some degree�> or another, and a little reflection shows that there is a
syntax of�> sign underlying the attested gesticulations we see in
conversation.�> For example, if while asking a stranger on the street "What
time is�> it?" I make a breast stroke as though swimming, this will be�>
incongruous, but if I say this while pointing at my wrist with my�> dominant
index finger, it will seem natural. Also - there are cultural�> and language
dependent signs that are generally associated with voiced�> utterances, for
example telling someone to go away while gesticulating�> a V-shape isn't
(commonly) used in Ontario, but it was an attested way�> to tell someone to
bugger off, or show defiance in England. I tend to�> find people who do not
gesticulate at all while speaking somewhat�> unnerving. So - There's
something going on here.��This is a bit of an exaggeration. Gesturing is
natural, and certainly�differs from culture to culture, but even within a
given culture,�it's far�from standard. This, actually, is one of the
biggest problems for�speakers who learned signed languages. Whether they know
it or�not, many speakers approach a signed language thinking that if
they�shape their hand "kind of" like this, and then move it around "kind
of"�like that, the signer will get the gist of it. The idea that
things�like�handshape, place and motion are something that can be
standardized�is something that learners need to become aware of and
remember�(and, of course, it's easier for some than others). I imagine it's
the�same phenomenon one experiences trying to teach a language
with�contrastive aspirated and unaspirated voiceless stops (along
with�voiced ones) to a speaker who comes from a language with only
a�voicing difference--or perhaps no difference at all.��> So, why aren't
more natural languages uni-modally signed, or at least,�> why is so little of
the "formal grammar" of spoken natural languages�> encoded in sign
(transmitted mutli-modally)? A related question is,�> why did humans opt for
speaking over signing?��My guess is because languages are created by
accident, and evolve�based on whatever seems either easy or appropriate to
the community.�This puts the question off a bit, though. The real question is
why does�the hearing community find spoken language without signs
either�easier and/or more appropriate to their environment?��> Now, "it's
better to have a tool and not need it, than�> to need a tool and not have
it." This is probably the way things are,�> I rarely need to shout, but when
I do, I really need to. But - Why�> couldn't there be a course grained signed
mode akin to semaphore, that�> communicates a minimum amount of
information?��There is: Deaf signers shout. The phenomena works just as
one�might expect, too. Just as the volume of a speaker's voice
increases�when shouting, and fine-grained distinctions can be lost, when
a�signer shouts, the signing space expands. So, where as a sign like�KING
goes from, say, the left shoulder to the right hip of a right-hand�dominant
signer, if this sign is shouted, the sign goes from, say, a�space well above
the left shoulder, to a space well away from the�right hip, and the motion is
highly exaggerated (perhaps slowed�down). At such a distance, though, things
like handshape often�get lost, and it may be hard to distinguish between,
say, APPLE�and ONION--especially if one is signing on an imaginary
and�exaggerated head, instead of one's actual head.��> The sight line
problem is pretty severe though, a lot of domestic�> communication happens
when you can't see the other person, e.g. when�> they are in another room it
is generally useful to be able to talk to�> people who are near to you, but
whom you can't see ie. when they are�> following you, shingling a roof with
you, etc. Special cases like�> lighting aren't a problem, since electric
lights are so ubiquitous,�> but a lot still remains. At first glance, I think
it is something that�> would work itself out culturally, that is, even more
emphasis could be�> placed on face to face communication than is already, and
maintaining�> lines of sight could bear great cultural weight. More on this
later.��And, of course, this is what happens naturally in Deaf
communities.�It's rude not to face someone, and very rude to leave the line
of�sight of someone with whom one is signing (something like hanging�up on
someone with whom was talking).��> The Sofa Problem�> "Human languages
aren't signed because humans do a lot of stuff with�> their hands while
communicating (ie. moving sofas, washing dishes),�> and hence their hands are
generally occupied." I'm not sure how much�> of a problem this is. I think
that a negligible fraction of�> communication occurs while hands are
absolutely occupied, and in�> situations where they're not absolutely
occupied a signed human�> language should be robust enough to function.
Compare talking with�> your mouthful, it's lossy, and you can't articulate
everything, but�> you can get your point across. I'm going to take this point
up in a�> bit, under another guise though.��And, of course, ask any Deaf
signer, and they sign just fine with a�passenger while driving a car. ASL,
for example, can be signed rather�effectively with one hand, if it's
absolutely necessary (two very�proficient signers are required. I've seen
video; it's pretty amazing).��> The Racket Problem�> This is an instance
of "needing a tool and not having it" though it is�> a kind of exceptional
need. It is generally very hard to verbally�> communicate in a noisy
environment, and in my experience I am in a lot�> of noisy environments e.g.
busses, student spaces, and concerts. There�> have been a couple times I
really wish my fellow concert goers spoke�> ASL, so I could tell them how
much I like the act, or that I won't�> take a bottle of water if it costs
more than $5. Similarly with�> busses, often I can barely hear someone
speaking two feet away from me�> on the other side of the bus.��Oh, man,
don't I know this feeling! Especially when it's an exceedingly�simple message
that can't be gestured (e.g. "Will you go get me some�funnel cake?")--or at
least not easily--it'd be nice if everyone, at�the very,�very least, could
fingerspell, or had some basic vocab.��One neat thing about the show Blue's
Clues (kids show; don't know if�it's on anymore) is that the host of the show
simultaneously signed a�number of the common phrases he used ("thank you",
"smart", etc.).�There was no comment made about this--most viewers probably
didn't�even realize it was going on. I guess there were a couple episodes
that�talked directly about ASL, but other than that, a few common
signs�were used in every episode while the word was being signed.��> The
Racket problem does have an interesting consequence though, there�> is a sort
of security through noise, which is why eavesdropping can be�> such a
challenge! As I said above, sight lines are often clearer than�> one's
hearing, and hence eavesdropping might be more practicable in a�> signed
context. A sketchy cultural thesis, is that over time the�> Distance problem
and the Racket problem have switched roles. Where our�> agrarian ancestors
would have wanted to communicate more over long�> distances, and almost never
had to communicate under heavy noise�> burdens, we almost never need to
communicate over great distances and�> often need to under heavy noise. So in
this sense, signing might make�> more sense now.��This is why I think
what people should do is develop very small signing�languages to use amongst
each other--simple languages, akin to pidgins.�This was one of the things I
wanted to do with KNSL:��http://dedalvs.conlang.org/knsl/main.html��I
really should get back to that...��> The Apparatus Problem�> One major
blow against signed language in general is that, at the�> bottom of it, it is
much more mechanically difficult to produce. As we�> get older, the joints in
our hands and fingers wear out much faster�> than our mouths. Our hands,
though incredibly tough, are also very�> easily damaged compared to our
mouths. At a guess, I think that�> people's vision also tends to wear out
faster than their hearing but�> I'm not sure.��I'm almost certain this
isn't the case, but I'd be *very* interested to�see the stats...��> The
Technology Problem�> A lot of our existent communication technology relies on
how it is�> relatively easy to transmit sound. That is why we had
gramophones�> before film, the phone before the video phone, radio before TV.
This�> relative facility provides a technological bottleneck on
transmitting�> mutli-modally communicated languages, and I'm not sure how to
solve�> it. At a guess, technology would be developed differently in a
society�> that uses these kinds of languages, or certain "spoken only"
forms�> which presumably maps signed components to sounds would develop
for�> radio transmission and such. As things are right now, with the
advent�> of broadband internet, it is incredibly easy to get rich video
and�> audio easily, so the problem isn't as serious as it could be but
any�> culture that uses a mutli-modal language will have to solve it.��A
thought occurs. The photograph came about before the phonograph.�And as long
as you have a photograph, you can, with a series of them,�produce a
"video"--even if it's just a flipbook. Wouldn't, then, motion�capture have
preceded sound recording?��> I've tried to be somewhat thorough in this
reflection on�> the possibilities of signing, and in particular of creating
a�> multi-modally communicated signed/spoken language.��Just to be clear,
are you talking about a language that can�*optionally* be spoken or signed,
or one where, say, a verb�stem is spoken, and its tense is signed? If it's
the latter, I simply�can't imagine the language working. It requires people
who�are always hearing, first of all, and whose senses never
deteriorate.�Deaf people would be left out if there was any part of
the�language that is mandatorily spoken.��If it's a language that can be
optionally spoken or signed, I�don't think there are any practical problems:
it's desire. You'd�need a community of people that were eager to learn
both�forms of the language, and to continue using both, even when�they
don't need to.��Either that, or you'd need an even mix of deaf and
hearing�folks, to kind of ensure that the hearing users don't stick
to�themselves and forget the manual part. I'd be interested to�hear about
whatever you do with
this!��-David�*******************************************************************�"sunly
eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."�"No eternal reward will forgive
us now for wasting the dawn."��-Jim
Morrison��http://dedalvs.conlang.org/�

Replies