Re: Natural Order of Events

I know that this thread died quite awhile ago, and this message�itself was
posted more than two months ago, but, honestly, it's�been bothering me ever
since, and I've been trying to figure out�why. I think I may know now (I've
quoted the whole thing below�my signature. To bring everyone up to speed,
this was the study�that showed that English speakers gestured sentences in
SOV�order). Dirk wrote:��<<�The real question is: Why are they put in
the order�AGENT PATIENT ACTION, even when the native language (English) would
have�them as AGENT ACTION PATIENT? Since that order contradicts the
null�hypothesis, it requires explanation.� >>��It certainly does
require an explanation. My problem is, why is�the immediate explanation
something that has to do with�universality and naturalness? It may have
nothing to do with�language at all, per se. Let me post again the examples I
cited:��> (1) Agent = Boy; Patient = Glass; Action = Tilts to mouth�> (2)
Agent = Captain; Patient = Pail; Action = Swings�> (3) Agent = Woman; Patient
= Knob; Action = Twists�> (4) Agent = Girl; Patient = Hat; Action = Puts
on��Now, gesturing or mimicking a thing that the gesturer intends�to
approximate the event in question is quite a bit different from�representing
it with words. You cannot stretch iconicity to the�extent that spoken
language will have the power to accurately�represent an action as faithfully
as a gesture or mimicry without�resorting to symbolism. What series of sounds
will convey a�man pulling a handle (again, without using
language)?��Initially, I said something about animacy, but there's more to
it�than that. Let's take item 1. The physical act of lifting a glass�to
one's lips requires that the hand be shaped in such a way as�to give the
viewer the impression of a glass. In ASL, these things�have been codified to
such an extent that there are now specific�(and, in some cases, now quite
non-iconic) handshapes that stand�in for, say, a glass, a bowl, a bottle, a
jar, etc. Even though a non-�signing English speaker will not be as good at
mimicry as a signer,�they still have the basic idea in mind.��Now
consider the action, and consider the viewer. In order for�the action to make
sense to the viewer (e.g., why is he holding�his hand that way?), the viewer
should have some idea of what�the gesturer is holding. The gesturer is
probably going to try�to make that obvious first so that it will make literal
sense that�he's shaping his hand as if he's holding a glass, not not
something�else.��This leaves a couple things up to interpretation. For
example,�what about the subject? It seems to me that the position of
the�subject with respect to the OV complex is entirely non-crucial,�and
that one might just as well expect OVS order as SOV order.�This, however, one
would *not* expect from an English speaker�who is accustomed to putting the
subject first. What of a speaker�of Malagasy?��Now about that OV complex.
It should come as no surprise�that the object has a greater tie to the verb
than the subject does�(semantics has taken that as a given for pretty much
ever).�Certain verbs do so more obviously than others, though, and�each of
the four verbs above--if you consider the *gestures*�and not the English
forms--do so greatly. To drink something,�you have to be holding it in your
hand, which will affect the�shape of your hand. To swing a pail is different
from swinging�a bat (in fact, I bet you couldn't convey "swing" just on its
own�in gestures). And turning a knob? Putting on a hat (especially�if it
was a hat with a brim)? These four processes are so closely�associated with a
*specific* handshape that it's any wonder�that a speaker could successfully
separate the verb and the�object at all!��This is not the case with all
verbs, though. As such, I think all�this experiment says (in so far as the
examples I found I�representative of all the tokens in the experiment) is
that certain�verbs or actions, when gestured, require rather specific
actions.�This should have been obvious before they started. Just
because�English only has one word for "carry" that doesn't vary based�on
the object carried doesn't mean all languages do!��In order to really test
it, the study should, of course, be cross-�linguistic, but it should also
throw in some verbs that are not�so obviously and crucially affected by the
nature of the object.�Some ideas:��*send an e-mail (object would be
recipient here; might not work...)�*upload a photo�*to tell�*to shout
at�*to fire (as in, to fire an employee)�*to imagine��This will require
a bit more creativity on the part of the gesturer,�but I bet it'd turn up
some SVO
gestures.��-David�*******************************************************************�"sunly
eleSkarez ygralleryf ydZZixelje je ox2mejze."�"No eternal reward will forgive
us now for wasting the dawn."��-Jim
Morrison��http://dedalvs.conlang.org/��On Nov 6, 2008, at 2∞26 PM,
Dirk Elzinga wrote:��> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:25 PM, David J.
Peterson�> <dedalvs@...> wrote:�>�>> One immediate problem with this
study comes to mind.�>> Admittedly, we only have four examples, but these are
they:�>>�>> (1) Agent = Boy; Patient = Glass; Action = Tilts to mouth�>>
(2) Agent = Captain; Patient = Pail; Action = Swings�>> (3) Agent = Woman;
Patient = Knob; Action = Twists�>> (4) Agent = Girl; Patient = Hat; Action =
Puts on�>>�>> So... Anyone else notice anything about the animacy of
the�>> agents? And the patients? And the actions involving the�>> two? And
how no matter what order you put these in, the�>> result probably won't be
ambiguous?�>�>�> The null hypothesis is: The order of events in the
gestural�> "retelling" will�> mimic their grammatical order in the native
language. Of course you�> want�> unambiguous arguments and predicates; you
want to be able to�> interpret the�> gestural "utterances". The real
question is: Why are they put in�> the order�> AGENT PATIENT ACTION, even
when the native language (English) would�> have�> them as AGENT ACTION
PATIENT? Since that order contradicts the null�> hypothesis, it requires
explanation.�>�> Dirk�> --�> Miapimoquitch: Tcf Pt*p+++12,4(c)v(v/c) W*
Mf+++h+++t*a2c*g*n4 Sf+++�> +argh�> La----c++d++600�

Replies