Re: Natural Order of Events

Not sure what to quote, so I'll just go from memory.��I guess there are two
questions that are being treated inseparably�that I'd like to see
separated:��(1) In gesturing or miming, "setting the stage" is natural,
given�certain temporal realities and the state of human memory
and�existence.��(2) SOV is the most natural word order for human
languages.��I don't think that (1) should entail (2). Once the human
mind�progressed to the stage of being able to use language, why�would we
need to set the stage for anything? After all, actions�are no longer
ambiguous (or no more ambiguous than a�natural language which is a *lot* less
ambiguous than a series�of ad hoc gestures). While an ad hoc gesture without
knowing�the participants might be hard to parse, a verb has
been�standardized to a large extent, and even if the header/reader/�signer
doesn't know what the context is, the verb itself gives�plenty of
context.��Now to quote something:��Christophe:�<<�Now to go back to
conlanging, what about a language with a temporal-�causal�word order? It
might be a candidate for a "primitive" conlang, i.e. a�conlang for a species
that has just reached sapience and is only�starting to�use abstractions,
and thus would likely describe events according to the�temporal-causal order
in which they happen. What do you think?� >>��This would be interesting
to look at--and is why some are so�excited about that Bedouin Sign Language.
Looking at other�recently-born languages, though--pidgins and creoles--the
most�common word order is SVO. Of course, the speakers of even�fledgling
pidgins are already language users, so maybe this is�an impossible
experiment, but consider the unelaborated fact�that most pidgins have SVO
word order, and the new Bedouin�Sign Language has SOV. If these two facts
existed--and no�others--one might make an argument that the medium of
signed�languages, which closely resemble non-linguistics gestures,�might
have influenced the creators/users of the signed language,�patterning the
argument structure after the "natural" gesture�order. This patterning,
though, had more to do with the similarity�in the mediums, since it clearly
didn't affect the emergence of�spoken pidgin and creole languages.��Even
that, though, is hard to swallow considering Nicaraguan�Sign Language is
pretty staunchly SVO, and its emergence is�just as natural and hands-off as
the Bedouin Sign Language.��In short, I think this study has turned up
something interesting�about humans; not about
language.��Christophe:�<<�That is a very interesting observation here.
In fact, what about spoken�languages? Do people have examples of languages
that use different verbs�depending on the nature of the object, while English
uses a single one?� >>��Oh, I should mention that my number and verb
weren't arbitrary.�Apparently Tagalog has something like twenty verbs for
"carry"�depending on the nature of the object (carry something in one�hand,
carrying a bundle of things, carrying a big bowl or
crate,�etc.).��-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 Jan 26, 2009, at 6∞18 AM,
Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:��> 2009/1/26 David J. Peterson
<dedalvs@...>�>�>>�>> (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 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.�>>�>�> Basically, the gesturer is setting the stage before going on
to�> describe the�> action.�>�>�>>�>> 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?�>>�>�> I'm not sure. When it comes to
gesturing, I think the idea that one�> first�> "sets the stage" before
describing the action would be relatively�> universal.�> Even mimes always
do that. I'd expect it is because many active�> gestures are�> actually
rather ambiguous when taken out of context (a source of�> hilarity in�>
many comedies ;) ). So one needs to "set the stage" first,�> including all
the�> actors, before one attempts to describe the action itself, so that
the�> existing context remove as much ambiguity as possible from the
action.�>�>�>>�>> 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!�>>�>�> Actually, I would expect that the gesturer didn't really
separate�> them as�> much as first putting their hand or arm in a specific
position and�> then do�> the gesture, which the viewer interpreted as
presenting the object�> before�> the action.�>�> It's true that in many
cases the action cannot be separated from�> the object�> as such. Drinking
from a bottle would require a different gesture from�> drinking from a
glass.�>�>�>>�>> 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!�>>�>�> That is a very interesting observation
here. In fact, what about�> spoken�> languages? Do people have examples of
languages that use different�> verbs�> depending on the nature of the
object, while English uses a single�> one?�>�>�>>�>> 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.�>>�>>�>>�> I'm not sure. I still think that the rule "set the
stage, then�> describe the�> action" would still be enforced in most cases,
whether the object�> can be�> gestured separately from the verb or not. I
would expect that a�> sentence�> like "The boy sends an e-mail" would
actually end up being gestured�> as a�> small act, with the gesturer
indicating the subject first,�> motioning to�> create a make-believe
computer screen and keyboard in front of�> them, type on�> the keyboard for
a moment, and then make a hand movement from the�> make-believe computer and
away from it to indicate the fact that�> the e-mail�> "leaves" the
computer.�>�> In fact, if you look at how actions actually happen in real
life�> (not in�> mimicry), real life is pretty much SOV: some "actors" are
around,�> and then�> an action happens (you can't tell something to someone
unless that�> someone�> is already available for being told something. You
can't drink from�> a glass�> unless that glass is already there). That is
to say, in temporal terms�> (which are the way we experience the world), the
actors are always�> present�> before the action is taking place. The only
exception is when the�> action�> actually creates something, in which case
reality can be considered�> SVO (in�> temporal terms). Given this, I'd
expect mimicry (as opposed to�> actual sign�> language) to try to stick to
the way we experience reality rather�> than to�> the word order of whatever
language we speak. The reason is that with�> mimicry one tries to represent
to the viewer a scene as the viewer�> would�> normally witness it in real
life, the best strategy to get yourself�> understood if you have no other way
to do it.�>�> In other words, I'd expect SVO gestures only if the action
actually�> creates�> the object. In fact, I'd say that gestures would
relatively�> universally�> follow a temporal-causal type of gesturing
order:�> Setting-Action-Consequence. The subject (or rather the agent, as
a�> patient�> subject might fit more in the Action or the Consequence
depending�> on the�> type of action) would most likely be part of the
Setting, while the�> object�> could be part of the Setting, the Action
itself or the Consequence,�> depending on its relationship to the Action
itself.�>�> Of course, this is pure speculation on my part. But it doesn
make�> sense,�> IMHO.�>�> Now to go back to conlanging, what about a
language with a temporal-�> causal�> word order? It might be a candidate
for a "primitive" conlang, i.e. a�> conlang for a species that has just
reached sapience and is only�> starting to�> use abstractions, and thus
would likely describe events according�> to the�> temporal-causal order in
which they happen. What do you think?�> --�> Christophe
Grandsire-Koevoets.�>�> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/�>
http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/�

Replies