|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13
stranger
|
OP
stranger
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13 |
I'm not sure who you're trying to convince...But you lack the supporting evidence to convince me. elitism, indeed. To imply that sign language is not a true language indicates only your own ignorance. And yes, I know from whence I speak on that particular topic. The addressee is whoever wishes to consider my words.  I am not trying to convince you of anything. Well, yes, I am. But my purpose in saying what I did about language was to present my present understanding on the issue; also to see if others could give me some evidence and suggestions on how to support it, as well evidence against it and to point out errors of fact. If you aren’t convinced, then you aren’t convinced. But then, on the other hand, saying you aren’t convinced notes no error nor does it provide any substantial evidence contrary to my assertions.  As with everything, "It depends on what your definition of" (true language) "is." Every tribe and people use spoken language. Human language is spoken. It is represented by writing, but writing is not language per se. Likewise, when the blind use Braille and the deaf use sign language, when the navy uses flags and the boy scouts use Morse code, they are not using what is essentially language.  They are using “paralanguage” (the use of manner of speaking to communicate particular meanings) which is based on the spoken language or on writing. They are using a system of communication based on a pre-existent system of communication, i.e. language. However, I must note two things. First of all, my ignorance, admittedly both exhaustive and orphic, is in its particulars clandestine and astucious.  To say, as you did, that my ignorance is obvious, is either evidence of your failure as a mind-reader or mere facetiousness. Second, I apologize for saying sign language is not a true language. Oh, wait, I didn't say that, did I? I did distinguish between "hand signs" (which specifically includes those mimicked gestures which simians are trained to make with their fore locomotor appendages) and "sign language," which enjoys a rich vocabulary of words and morphemes, manifests regional and idiolectic variations, and is open-ended (in terms of vocabulary, morphology, grammar). I referred to sign language as “paralanguage.” I am guilty either of ambiguity or misuse of the word “paralanguage.”  What I intended was ‘a system used in place of language; something that is not an essential feature of language.’ As is clear now, by ‘language’ I mean the spoken language, and if I must go further, spoken human language. My reasoning is above. I have little evidence beyond the references to “The Trouble with Ape-Language Studies”, How Nim Chimpsky Changed My Mind, http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=33598.80, and my own personal experiences, which are only anecdotal. I am still working through this. My mind is open for evidence on both sides. Presently the “only humans have language” argument appears the stronger. If your mind is solidly made up, then of course it is no surprise that the evidence you found in that article, the book and the web-site was not convincing.  of troy states: “ASL has every feature of language.” ASL lacks the phonological feature of language (human speech). ASL is not a " necessary" feature of language. In that sense, it is something beyond or after language. Writing, too has features of language (save phonemes), but writing is a representation of language, not language itself. ASL is a representation of language, a substitute for what is essentially speech. It is crass (indelicate, lacking in discrimination) to condemn a person for having an opinion honestly arrived at for no better cause than owning an opposing opinion. The vulgar use of “elitism” contributes nothing to the discussion but warns those who might favor one side that to do so threatens their ostracism by the anti-elitist proletariat (I guess). Perhaps you seek to incite class warfare. You are attempting to squelch an argument by character assassination rather than by reasoning and evidence. However, it’s a silly exercise since elites do exist. Society depends on the existence of elites. If possession of spoken language is elite, then humans, not cockroaches nor dolphins nor monkeys, are the elites of the world, and linguists and philologists are the elites of humanity. Thanks for the link, AnnaStrophic.  The site looks like fun, which is what language ought to be (“to me”).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 956
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 956 |
"All languages are equal but some languages are more equal than others."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
American Sign Language is not a simple mapping of signs to English or any other spoken/written language. OTOH, Signed Exact English is that, which is why for pedagogical reasons, e.g., teaching deaf kids written English, it is championed in US schools, and also why the deaf community shuns it. ASL has its own unique grammar. I have discussed this with linguists, deaf people who sign, and some who are an intersection of both groups.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Certainly one could insist that speech is an essential element of language but then one could insist that 'clicks' are an essential element of language. Saying it doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
Nanu Nanu
It is no wonder that you find that "Presently the “only humans have language” argument appears the stronger." since you define language as "the spoken language, and if I must go further, spoken human language."
You are quite right. ASL, while it has grammer, nuance, puns, and words/signs/symbols for complex and non-tangible concepts, does for some reason lack audible speech. hmmm.
You called it a "representation of language" but isn't language a representation in symbols, whether audible, writtten or signed, of objects and concepts? It is a bit like denying that English is a language since it is only a patched together representation of Latin and Greek.
edited for a typo
Last edited by Zed; 06/27/07 12:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13 |
Nanu Nanu
It is no wonder that you find that "Presently the “only humans have language” argument appears the stronger." since you define language as "the spoken language, and if I must go further, spoken human language." That is in a sense true. Language is the verbal communication performed by humans. People naturally learn language. A child will learn language if around people who speak. A monkey will not learn gestures if around humans who gesture, unless those humans intentionally train the poor thing to mimic them. I started with human communication, the definition, and gave it a word, language. It’s okay with me if people want to say ‘langue’ or ‘parole’ or something else. Written language is “writing.” Sign language is “sign.” Animal cries are “animal communication.” I believe these different terms do the different forms of communication justice, and allows one to distinguish between them without painful paraphrasis. However, I do include more in the idea of what language is than just “human language.” True language has a teleology that animal communication does not share. Human language (true language as opposed to animal communication) treats, because it is capable of treating, reports of past events, plans for the future, descriptions and prescriptions, communication itself and improvement of communication, moral instruction, technical instruction, genealogy, translation, natural science, metaphysics, religion, politics, abstract concepts, hypotheses, distinguishing between ‘necessity’ and ‘accident’ (conditions), analyses and conclusions and emotional states beyond the animal ones of fear, anger, desire, and contentment. The differences between human thought and animal “thought” are a side of the discussion that interests me less because, well because my focus is language (spoken, written) rather than thought. You are quite right. ASL, while it has grammer, nuance, puns, and words/signs/symbols for complex and non-tangible concepts, does for some reason lack audible speech. hmmm.
You called it a "representation of language" but isn't language a representation in symbols, whether audible, writtten or signed, of objects and concepts? It is a bit like denying that English is a language since it is only a patched together representation of Latin and Greek.
edited for a typo Well, call me Clinton, but throughout this thread, I think that, for everyone, more hinges on “that depends on what your definition of language is” than on what language actually is. Some people believe “language” (as they define it) exists separate from and independent of (human) speech. English is not a patched together representation of Latin and Greek. But I see your point. It is invalid. Isn’t there some significance to the fact that among all the cultures of earth, there is none that lacks spoken language? On the other hand, there are millions who can not read or sign. Those who don’t just haven’t learned it; it’s not that they are not capable of it, but that on some level they have not needed it. Most who sign, however, haven’t done it for personal pleasure, but because they are incapable of (or have reduced ability in) speech or hearing; they do need it. Language is, primarily, speech. Speech came before the substitutes. The substitutes were created to bridge the gap, either between the language-capable and the language-incapable, or between places distant in space and time. I know people will continue using the word “language” in that broad, general, ambiguous, sloppy way, to mean noises, pictures, and gestures. I will, I hope, use it more narrowly, specifically, singularly, and precisely. I will continue to study languages and linguistics, even Egyptian hieroglyphics and Mayan, but never dogish, dolphinski, or monkese.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
People naturally learn language. A child will learn language if around people who speak. A monkey will not learn gestures if around humans who gesture, unless those humans intentionally train the poor thing to mimic them. Do you know this to be true? Have you any experience of anyone who has raised a human child without speaking directly to the child, prompting the child to respond?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13 |
People naturally learn language. A child will learn language if around people who speak. A monkey will not learn gestures if around humans who gesture, unless those humans intentionally train the poor thing to mimic them. Do you know this to be true? Have you any experience of anyone who has raised a human child without speaking directly to the child, prompting the child to respond? Do I know what to be true? I have no experience, nor even second-hand knowledge, of anyone who has raised a human child, which child used a human language, without speaking to the child. It may have happened; I just don't know. I will concede that a child must be spoken to in order to learn language. But, again, I don't really know if that is true. I am conceding it here because it doesn't matter. The child begins to learn and continues to learn language independently of formal training in it. In addition, I have read reports of children raised by deaf parents who learned Sign. I suppose that besides the Signing they did "directly to" the child, the child learned some Signing on its own independently of being directly taught. (Teaching is different from training, you realize?) I do not believe people learn language (spoken or Sign) unless they are around others who use language. (I will concede what seems to be an important point to you, that the language must be directed at the child.) There have been cases where isolated children had been found, who apparently had created/developed no real language on their own. They grunted and screeched, and that was about it. Monkeys, however, have been around people who speak "directly to" them, but they don't talk back. Never. They don't even Sign back to people who are deaf who use Sign to communicate with each other. Never. Some new development may overthrow this, but I will not be persuaded by anyone's unsubstantiated religious passion that it "should" be so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,154 |
I have a friend who has never spoken to his child - he is deaf and uses ASL. His son, who is hearing, uses sign language as spontaneously to Dan as he does spoken English to his mother. In fact he used it earlier since the hand coordination required to sign usually developes earlier than the mouth/throat coordination needed to speak.
You might as well say that flight only includes using feathers so jets and bats are merely imitating flight.
You state that "Monkeys, however, have been around people who speak "directly to" them, but they don't talk back. Never. They don't even Sign back to people who are deaf who use Sign to communicate with each other. Never."
You are quite right, monkeys don't, Several Chimpanzees and a couple of apes do however sign back to humans. In fact Koko has been known to lie, claiming when asked that one of the keepers broke a sink that she had broken.
You might want to check the latest research before accusing others of unsubstantiated statements.
edited to point out that some chimps sign not sing!
Last edited by Zed; 07/04/07 12:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 13 |
I have a friend who has never spoken to his child - he is deaf and uses ASL. His son, who is hearing, uses sign language as spontaneously to Dan as he does spoken English to his mother. In fact he used it earlier since the hand coordination required to sign usually developes earlier than the mouth/throat coordination needed to speak.
You might as well say that flight only includes using feathers so jets and bats are merely imitating flight.
You state that "Monkeys, however, have been around people who speak "directly to" them, but they don't talk back. Never. They don't even Sign back to people who are deaf who use Sign to communicate with each other. Never."
You are quite right, monkeys don't, Several Chimpanzees and a couple of apes do however sign back to humans. In fact Koko has been known to lie, claiming when asked that one of the keepers broke a sink that she had broken.
You might want to check the latest research before accusing others of unsubstantiated statements.
edited to point out that some chimps sign not sing! I am happy for your friend and his son. Your analogy of language and flight doesn't fly. By "monkeys" (which I used intentionally), I meant all simians, all non-humans that might be considered to be signing. Checking the latest research was exactly what I was attempting to do. Your anecdotal references to a friend with a deaf child is not the kind of research I was looking for, nor were the various fanatical claims that "animals can so speak!" Koko lied? How was it determined it was not a simple slip of the tongue/hand or dislexia or something else. Saying, "Koko has been known to lie" is anecdotal. I would like to study the actual report. I am beginning to suspect that you may have not read Terrace. What I had written earlier: "Would someone kindly advise me where I can find a thorough, conclusive discussion on the subject of the word "Language" -- in particular "human language" vs. "animal language." I know what people are saying -- opinions rather than formal explanations." Unfortunately this thread has a high content of unsubstantiated fanatical opinions. "I was looking for a treatment of the differences between that (language proper) and animal communication. Or, the best, most complete, most exact definition offered by and accepted by linguists, philologists, and language lovers." Linguists, philogists, and language lovers. Not humanitarians, pet owners speaking from "personal experience" (or personal feelings, more likely), not argumentum ad hominem, not argumentum ad populum, not pathopoeia ("pathetic argument"). "The best I've found so far is by someone who actually 'worked with' animals to determine their linguistic ability (inseparable from mental ability): The Trouble with Ape-Language Studies, by H. S. Terrace, in Psychology Today, November 1979. (He also wrote How Nim Chimpsky Changed My Mind, which I have not read.) I also found an informal discussion of the subject at http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=33598.80, which held a few noteworthy observations" H. S. Terrace. That's still the best I've found. Has anyone else participating in this thread read Terrace? Has anyone else participating in this thread read responses to his writing? That's what I was asking for. In response there are anecdotes about deaf friends and accusations of "elitism" for suggesting that animals probably aren't really quite as intellectually advanced as humans, despite the formers' vast literature and profound story-telling abilities. And as comments became more rude, accusatorial, and counter-productive: "But my purpose in saying what I did about language was to present my present understanding on the issue; also to see if others could give me some evidence and suggestions on how to support it, as well evidence against it and to point out errors of fact. If you aren’t convinced, then you aren’t convinced. But then, on the other hand, saying you aren’t convinced notes no error nor does it provide any substantial evidence contrary to my assertions." As I review the contributions, there aren't many that do more than offer opinions.  (And condemnation for my reluctance to join the animal language bandwagon.) You wrote: "You might want to check the latest research before accusing others of unsubstantiated statements." Checking the latest research is exactly what I was attempting! Where were you!? If there is more recent research that overturns Terrace' findings, I am eager to study it. I have asked for it. Why do you refuse to cite the recent research? I cannot find it. I am not a simiolgist. I am not a professional, grant-supported linguist. I am not a professional researcher. What do you mean, "accusing others of unsubstantiated statements"? Did I do that. If so, I apologize. I probably just didn't recognize the scientific substantiation they were providing. I hope anyone who feels I ignored the substantiation for their statements please give me another chance. Please restate your statements with the scientific substantiation in bold. And if you cannot stand disagreement, please let me know that, too, so I don't waste my time describing the studies I have read that may disagree with your . . . research. I am someone who is very interested in the subject of languages and "animal language," enough to read what is available if I know where to find it. I am completely willing to read the recent research, pro and con and anything else. Where is that research that overturns Terrace' findings!?
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,621
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
170
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
