Language hypothesis

[naisho]

I had some recurring thoughts over this issue. The continual oral vs sign approach flame never seems to die. I have always thought they were just two soldiers from opposite sides clashing at each other. Deep in I felt the problem always rooted at something else.

I have an intuition that the underlying cause is English, the language itself. If you take an essay, or a speech, and reciprocate it into sign, interpreters would often skip out on "descriptive" or words they felt were unnecessary to interpret, in other words, the filler words. Adjectives, adverbs, descriptive/prescriptive grammar are often snipped out to get to the crux of the point in the topic.

This is why we often are reminded of the "oral failures", or why "speech" fails the deaf/hard of hearing. It is complicated in that they can't breach past the barrier that defines basic expression to creatively or structurally organizing their grammar. Which isn't right or wrong, there is nowhere a written rule that states being able to express yourself clearly, descriptively is mandatory for life.

So in comparison I looked at other languages. According to the FSI (Foreign Service Institute), asian languages are one of the most difficult languages to learn in the world. I immediately had a thought: Why don't we look at the hard of hearing or deaf in China? Being a hard language, then there are going to be likely less "proficient deafs" compared to the USA since english is naturally easier to learn.


My intuition doesn't seem to be wrong. According to sources out on the web, the first Deaf Chinese graduate was in 2001, her name was Zhou Tingting and she got accepted to Gallaudet. Gallaudet opened in the 1800's so naturally there's bound to be a deaf graduate in the USA way earlier than China's progression. China's deaf population probably has it worse than the USA.

Thus this is my chain of thought: If there was a language that closely mimics most forms of sign language in that it is basic, non-representative of English grammar but more in terms of expressions and getting the idea across - everyone in that society would potentially do equally well when the strive, or need to be 'highly proficient' in a language is unnecessary.

 

[BecLak]

I had some recurring thoughts over this issue. The continual oral vs sign approach flame never seems to die. I have always thought they were just two soldiers from opposite sides clashing at each other. Deep in I felt the problem always rooted at something else.

I have an intuition that the underlying cause is English, the language itself. If you take an essay, or a speech, and reciprocate it into sign, interpreters would often skip out on "descriptive" or words they felt were unnecessary to interpret, in other words, the filler words. Adjectives, adverbs, descriptive/prescriptive grammar are often snipped out to get to the crux of the point in the topic.

This is why we often are reminded of the "oral failures", or why "speech" fails the deaf/hard of hearing. It is complicated in that they can't breach past the barrier that defines basic expression to creatively or structurally organizing their grammar. Which isn't right or wrong, there is nowhere a written rule that states being able to express yourself clearly, descriptively is mandatory for life.

So in comparison I looked at other languages. According to the FSI (Foreign Service Institute), asian languages are one of the most difficult languages to learn in the world. I immediately had a thought: Why don't we look at the hard of hearing or deaf in China? Being a hard language, then there are going to be likely less "proficient deafs" compared to the USA since english is naturally easier to learn.


My intuition doesn't seem to be wrong. According to sources out on the web, the first Deaf Chinese graduate was in 2001, her name was Zhou Tingting and she got accepted to Gallaudet. Gallaudet opened in the 1800's so naturally there's bound to be a deaf graduate in the USA way earlier than China's progression. China's deaf population probably has it worse than the USA.

Thus this is my chain of thought: If there was a language that closely mimics most forms of sign language in that it is basic, non-representative of English grammar but more in terms of expressions and getting the idea across - everyone in that society would potentially do equally well when the strive, or need to be 'highly proficient' in a language is unnecessary.

Good point Naisho. I feel there should be more movement towards finding new ways of expression in language that educates the general public into a better understanding of Deaf people.

 

[naisho]

Here is an example and case in point I want to bring out.
Look at natives (indians, jungle & congo natives, etc) where they probably use a hybrid of sign and tongue language. Mathematics is another example I want to bring out later. It's arithmetic, but the point is that it is universally understood by everyone in the world whether written or using your fingers or objects to get the point across.

In a society like this, vocally or hearing impaired members of the community would not be cast out as much as the modernized society we have in our first world countries (USA, UK, Europe and so on).

I am thinking it is likely this way because the need to be "creative" with language is not necessary, it's basic language at the most. "We find red berry" "Danger close" instead of something like "There's a rapist around the corner, he was recently released from prison" or "I'm hungry, want to go grab some Banana Crepes at Panera bread?".

Point gets across with minimal communication. The reason why there are failures in the USA/ english in general with dhh even if they have issues outside of hearing/deaf status is because I THINK the excessive communication parts get to them and they get confused on how to process everything. I see this happening all the time with one member around here, but he is very good at articulating his thoughts in short sentences.

So, how do we display this example within a eutopian community? This ideal community may or may not use vocal speech, if they did the vocabulary base would likely have one or two words that were always used. The vocal parts are simple enough in that even if deaf did not catch it, the word base from lipreading another or translating it into vocal speech are simple enough that there are no complexities in enunciation.

Example: in English we have- Because, However, So, Nevertheless <-- Can you think of more words that are oftenly used to start a sentence?
In a hypothetical society, there would just be one word. Something like "So". All the excess words we have in english are then deleted and not used.

The first thought I get to give examples are the tribes of native ancestry, we had them as native american indians, they are probably still present in jungles of the Amazons, Congo, deserts of the arabian areas, places like that.

I did some quick searching on google and youtube and found two immediate examples to support my thoughts:

Native americans signing to each other. It appears there is a festival and rituals going on, even though there is music and they are making vocal noises, the basic 1 on 1 communication looks like it's simple signing (which is what I mean, simple language, NOT the aspect of signing itself. Notice that it is a hybrid community as that there is both speech and sign involved.)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LEWsNZqYuo"]YouTube - 8200_american_indian[/ame]

Don't understand what's he saying of course, but there is narration from a hearing speaker.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C0eZoa6cOY"]YouTube - 03 - Plains Indian Sign Language Conference 1930, Browning[/ame]

Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL) is a sign language used by about 150 Deaf and many hearing members of the al-Sayyid Bedouin tribe in the Negev desert of southern Israel. As both Deaf and hearing people share a language, Deaf people are not stigmatised in this community, and marriage between Deaf and hearing people is common.

The Al-Sayyid community (as of 2004) numbers around 3,000 in total, most of whom trace their ancestry back to the time the village was founded, in the mid-19th century, by a local woman and an Egyptian man. Two of this founding couple's five sons carried a gene for nonsyndromic, genetically recessive, profound pre-lingual neurosensory deafness. The descendants of the founding couple often married their cousins due to the tribe's rejection by its neighbours for being "foreign fellahin".[1] This meant that the gene became homozygous in several members of the family.

The cons with a society like this is that certain aspects of our current state of life would not be available. Novels, in terms of both fiction and nonfiction would not be so verbose.

Back to math: Analyze it for a second. What makes it so unique that all languages can use it without issues to another other than speech? And even if there was speech, why it is easy to learn numbers in another new language you just start?

My thought:
There's ONLY ONE word for each number or concept. One, Two, Three, Four, Five. Multiply - Add - Subtract - Divide - Integrate. There are no such things as "Onely" "onesome" "threesome" () "quadruple" that are carried across. If it is just stuck to the basic concept, it is easy to get the idea across. Excessive choices makes the concept complicated.

 

[deafgal001]

reminds me of this: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17451

 

[naisho]

reminds me of this: Sign Language Among North American Indians Compared With That Among Other - Project Gutenberg

Yeah, just simple down to earth rudimentary/expressive language. I wonder if there is an 'advanced' country or society (like the US) out there that has minimal use of words in sentence structure & grammar.
It would be interesting to observe deaf or HH in that country.

Actually, the easiest thing to do is to find out which country is currently the best towards deaf/hard of hearing and that is a realistic response. Sadly, I think at the moment USA is the only country that comes close to modernization with its deaf/hh/mute individuals, in terms of both technology and SES (socioeconomic status).

Just imagine if everyone "SPOKE (verbally)" in ASL and basic gestures were used. Could a society like this, which is friendly to impaired members, operate normally the way it is today?

 

[deafgal001]

Try this: Esperanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[paperclip]

What about SEE? I have NO experience with SEE, but I assume that it may integrate more descriptive/verbose words that English requires to be "grammatically" correct.

I appreciate the lack of conjugation and gender (nouns) in ASL.

 

[naisho]

Personally, I have no knowledge of the background that underlies Esperanto and SEE, but I did check them out. I saw the excerpt of a translated english sentence, it looks difficult to reproduce but this may be easier for natives of non-english background. To be honest, it is really complex at a first glance. Do you understand Esperanto, deafgal001?

English:
In many places in China, there were temples of the dragon-king. During times of drought, people would pray in the temples that the dragon-king would give rain to the human world. At that time the dragon was a symbol of the supernatural. Later on, it became the ancestor of the highest rulers and symbolised the absolute authority of the feudal emperor. The emperor claimed to be the son of the dragon. All of his personal possessions carried the name "dragon" and were decorated with various dragon figures. Now dragon decorations can be seen everywhere in China and legends about dragons circulate.

Esperanto:
«En multaj lokoj de Ĉinio estis temploj de drako-reĝo. Dum trosekeco oni preĝis en la temploj, ke la drako-reĝo donu pluvon al la homa mondo. Tiam drako estis simbolo de la supernatura estaĵo. Kaj pli poste, ĝi fariĝis prapatro de la plej altaj regantoj kaj simbolis la absolutan aŭtoritaton de feŭda imperiestro. La imperiestro pretendis, ke li estas filo de la drako. Ĉiuj liaj vivbezonaĵoj portis la nomon drako kaj estis ornamitaj per diversaj drakofiguroj. Nun ĉie en Ĉinio videblas drako-ornamentaĵoj, kaj cirkulas legendoj pri drakoj.»

As for Signed Exact English, I can't say... I figure our members here who learned it could describe it better. Even then, I get a feeling that it supports my theory as that every bit of english grammar seems to be signed, it gets complex and confusing which might be distasteful for signers.

I am seeing more and more correlation to gestural communication used to being the prime language, but in the fact that as communities developed and the world grew - in history example, think invasion of the British colonies onto the native indians - the shift became to vocal communication for either the easiness of transmitting communication across, or for the goal of further developing a language.

There is a fact hovering around on the net that modern (today's) English is five times the amount words and lexical base compared to Shakesphere's time. This appears obvious when we think about the pragmatic concern to be "advanced" but, to accomplish what? What does giving and expanding all this language accomplish past a certain point? It's almost like a paradigm shift at some point in time people will call out on the complexities of having to learn so much redundancy. That shift seems to be happening right now too, as I'm posting this thread about it. 50 years ago, in 1960, there may have not been as much thoughts as there is today on language advancement. We see that example of distaste for redundant words OFTEN here, but the oralists continually support it - to "achieve" in life being a primary reason.


Origin of language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The gestural theory states that human language developed from gestures that were used for simple communication.

Two types of evidence support this theory.

1. Gestural language and vocal language depend on similar neural systems. The regions on the cortex that are responsible for mouth and hand movements border each other.
2. Nonhuman primates can use gestures or symbols for at least primitive communication, and some of their gestures resemble those of humans, such as the "begging posture", with the hands stretched out, which humans share with chimpanzees.[36]

Research found strong support for the idea that verbal language and sign language depend on similar neural structures. Patients who used sign language, and who suffered from a left-hemisphere lesion, showed the same disorders with their sign language as vocal patients did with their spoken language.[37] Other researchers found that the same left-hemisphere brain regions were active during sign language as during the use of vocal or written language.[38]

The important question for gestural theories is why there was a shift to vocalization. There are three likely explanations:

1. Our ancestors started to use more and more tools, meaning that their hands were occupied and could not be used for gesturing.
2. Gesturing requires that the communicating individuals can see each other. There are many situations in which individuals need to communicate even without visual contact, for instance when a predator is closing in on somebody who is up in a tree picking fruit.
3. The need to co-operate effectively with others in order to survive. A command issued by a tribal leader to 'find' 'stones' to 'repel' attacking 'wolves' would create teamwork and a much more powerful, co-ordinated response.

Humans still use hand and facial gestures when they speak, especially when people meet who have no language in common.[39] There are also, of course, a great number of sign languages still in existence, commonly associated with Deaf communities, but it is important to note that these signed languages are as equally complex as any spoken language - the cognitive functions are similar and the parts of the brain used are similar - the main difference is that the "phonemes" are produced on the outside of the body, articulated with hands, body, and facial expression, rather than inside the body articulated with tongue, teeth, lips, and breathing. To compare sign language to primitive gestures is a mistake.

 

[deafgal001]

No I don't know it, but it is interesting to reading about it

but here where it mention the type of sign language they use: International auxiliary language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know people who used SEE still have trouble with writing. They been using it in their school system for awhile. I rely on reading to get my visual version of spoken language, and my writing is not my best subject at all. So, I having a difficult time comprehending why reading off of people hands is any different than reading off of paper. I know for a fact that I would sign SEE just as how i write if I learn it right now.

 

[jillio]

Good point Naisho. I feel there should be more movement towards finding new ways of expression in language that educates the general public into a better understanding of Deaf people.

No doubt. I have found, however, that in discussing language with hearing people who are not well versed in linguistics, cognitive psychology, and learning theories, they have great diffuculty in comprehending the fact that a language without words is just as viable, and can communicate just as well, as a language with words. They do not seem to grasp that a word is nothing more than a symbol that represents a thing, and any symbol can make that representation equally as well as a word. I hear people say, "There isn't a sign for that word." Yes there is. The sign for word is index finger on dominant hand held straight with the thumb and index finger of the non-dominant hand is "g" shape touching dominant finger. And, there will also be a sign for the concept that the word they are using is representing. They seem to think that a word stands all on it's own. However, it is meaningless without being attached to the concept it represents. Whether that word is spoken, or written, or thought silently...it is still nothing more than a symbol, and any symbol representing the same concept can be used with equal clarity and precision.

 

[jillio]

What about SEE? I have NO experience with SEE, but I assume that it may integrate more descriptive/verbose words that English requires to be "grammatically" correct.

I appreciate the lack of conjugation and gender (nouns) in ASL.

SEE is actually less efficient and clear than is ASL. It is not well suited to be processed as a visual stimulus because it adheres to the linear syntax of spoken or written English. Likewise, it adds many markers and initializations that create linguisitic confusion in the brain.

 

[drphil]

For most of us-we are given "language" by our parents-I hope. Words are symbols which we agree to specific meaning in order to communicate with others. Being human beings we can use speech/hearing/signs in written/spoken/signed manner to effect this. We were created that way.
There appears to be various theories as the source of all of this. How much actual effect on day by day living -interesting to some but probably boring to the general public.

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

 

[jillio]

Language isn't "given". There is an innate capacity in all humans to acquire language.

 

[LinuxGold]

Baby with absolutely no knowledge of language spreads hands and arms open, showing beg gesture in face, "coo?" then smiles.

That's acquired language SIMILAR to ASL. ASL is just that, gestural language, purest to the finest.

 

[drphil]

One of course must understand what the specific sign "means" which I don't think babies do. Pertinent to this thread's discussion a book by Oliver Sacks "Seeing Voices" a journey into the world of the deaf. University of California Press, 1989 Chapter 2-Language pages 37 to 123.

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

 

[jillio]

One of course must understand what the specific sign "means" which I don't think babies do. Pertinent to this thread's discussion a book by Oliver Sacks "Seeing Voices" a journey into the world of the deaf. University of California Press, 1989 Chapter 2-Language pages 37 to 123.

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07

Wrong again. Babies grasp the concept very early on.

Read it, have used it as reference. It has a prominent place on my bookshelf. It supports everything I am saying here. Perhaps you need to re-read it.

 

[BecLak]

No doubt. I have found, however, that in discussing language with hearing people who are not well versed in linguistics, cognitive psychology, and learning theories, they have great diffuculty in comprehending the fact that a language without words is just as viable, and can communicate just as well, as a language with words. They do not seem to grasp that a word is nothing more than a symbol that represents a thing, and any symbol can make that representation equally as well as a word. I hear people say, "There isn't a sign for that word." Yes there is. The sign for word is index finger on dominant hand held straight with the thumb and index finger of the non-dominant hand is "g" shape touching dominant finger. And, there will also be a sign for the concept that the word they are using is representing. They seem to think that a word stands all on it's own. However, it is meaningless without being attached to the concept it represents. Whether that word is spoken, or written, or thought silently...it is still nothing more than a symbol, and any symbol representing the same concept can be used with equal clarity and precision.

Coming back to this thread after recently visiting CSign's thread, I couldn't agree more with Naisho and Jillio, also with Naisho's "How does the thoughts in your mind work" - it explains a lot.

Hearing people (being raised oral I was conditioned this way as Naisho and others like me would know) think in words. Deaf are visual and think in pictures or sequences. That explains why most hearing people cannot comprehend the argument over sign vs oral. As you say Jillio, hearing people generally have a tendency to push for English. In a multi-cultural, many languages world - why is it that they cannot accept Bi-lingual comfortably. When learning several languages, you will always have your 'mother tongue'. Why it is called that is because it is the language of the person you spend the most time with when you are a young child is the language you will always know well despite other languages you may know. Traditionally it was the mother the child spent the most time with. Nowadays, in many cases it is not the case so it is now referred to as your 'first' language but that confuses things.

What I am saying is, I am not refuting that sign language is the natural language of the Deaf, it is a must as the brain is wired visually. However, many hearing parents of deaf children are so anxious for their child to learn English. They spend thousands of dollars and time running around on therapies, language acquition, special education etc. Children are natural learners. If you instill in them a love for learning and reading books. A deaf child will be able to have an excellent grasp of both sign language and the English language and whatever language they choose to study. But it is important that in doing so, they have a visual imput foundation for learning.

I think if hearing parents could just spend more time with their deaf children enjoying life with them than running around with all these stressful activities going from one 'professional' to another. Their world would be such a better place.

BTW, I taught my own children how to read. It didn't take a 'professional' to do that.

 

[sr171soars]

Some thoughts...

The difficulty in learning any given language (spoken) is not in it's "wordiness" as such but in it's structure. It is true that English has the largest vocabulary of any language with Chinese a distant second. English is a conglomeration of different languages into one. At it's heart is old Anglo-Saxon (Germanic roots), French, Celtic, and Latin thrown in for good measure. That plus pronunciation and irregular verbs makes English one of the more difficult to learn in the world.

Others that come to mind are Basque, Hungarian, German, and Russian due to unique aspects of these languages. Chinese one may be surprised to learn is fairly straight forward once one gets the basic characters (汉字) down (as it really doesn't have a grammatical system "per se").

It is not English "per se" that is the cause of grief to those who are deaf after learning ASL or any visual language. It is any spoken language because they are built on the concept that a "word" as a symbol or idea is based on sound. It is one thing to learn a written language and it is another thing to learn a spoken language. Speech is typically not as "wordy" as written language for the obvious reason that the people using speech are communicating dynamically as opposed to written language. In other words, not only is there sound but there is visual feedback going on as well. One can say "I hear you" one way and say "I hear you" (as in I HEAR you - emphasis in the word hear [indicating that the person not only heard you but understood the assumed unspoken meaning as well]) in another way and it means two different things. It is the voice inflection for certain and sometimes includes the facial expression.

Anybody deaf should have the ability to learn any written language assuming the rules have been taught correctly. Speech is a whole different matter. It one can't hear the sounds then it become very problematical to say the least. Some do it better than others but it is difficult.

Getting back to the thread itself, English is targeted as the boogie man because most of the attempts in dealing with the deaf have occurred in the US which has English as the main language. It would be no different for the deaf if the main language was Spanish or any other language for that matter. Given that English is the main language of the the US and since the majority of the people in the US are hearing, it behooves the deaf to learn English (at least written English) to keep abreast in the world in general. From this perspective, being bi-lingual is a necessity.

 

[jillio]

Wonderful insight.

 

[drphil]

Jillio: I own the book and have reread Chapter 2 from the above comments. Hard to believe you are asserting that babies- at birth/2 weeks old can grasps what they are doing-"instinct, perhaps? Minor detail- when do babies/children develop their reasoning ability?

Implanted Advanced Bionics-Harmony activated Aug/07