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

----- Original Message ----

> From: Sai Emrys <saizai@...>
> Also, I note that this thread has had several cases of confusing
> "gesture" with "sign". The two are distinct behaviors.
>
> Signs are linguistic - e.g. they carry aspect and tense and mode and
> all the other usual features of linguistic words / utterances.
"Sign" is an ambiguous term. In structural linguistics, "sign" basically refers to
any linguistically meaningful unit (i.e., any concrete manifestation paired
predictably with a meaning), regardless of medium.

This, then, is a terminological disagreement. "Gesture" seems to me to be a
reasonable term to use for any deliberate body movement, whether it be part of
a sign language for the deaf or an element of body language, just as
"articulation" seems a reasonable term for any deliberate oral noise, whether
it be part of a spoken language or a grunt, gulp, or sigh.

I disagree with you, for that matter, that such a strong distinction ought to be
made between gestures that are part of a meaningful, robust system and gestures
which are signs (in the structural sense) but which do not belong to a robust
system, such as rubbing the thumb against the fingers to indicate money or
holding the middle finger up in isolation. Those gestures certainly have
predictable meaning, and the connection between the gesture and the meaning is
arbitrary. In my view, that makes them (structuralist) signs, even if they're
not part of a "sign language."

-- Paul

Reply