Group 4 Language Blog

Due to our recent class discussions concerning language differences across societies, I researched articles concerning translation and how it affects understanding between cultures. I found a very interesting article by Kevin Heffernan regarding English movie titles being translated into Japanese. Heffernan explains that the Japanese use one of two methods for adapting foreign language. One is transliteration and the other is translation. Transliteration attempts to replicate the pronunciation of the original foreign word by using loan words, borrowed from English. With transliteration there is very little concern for semantics. Japanese examples include “bed”>beddo and “restaurant”>resutoran. Translation on the other hand is more focused on semantics with little concern for original pronunciation. Japanese examples include “telephone” > denwa (“electricity” + “speak”) and “evolution” > shinka (“progress” + “change”).
Heffernan also mentions that it is not difficult for Japanese speakers to avoid using loanwords; yet, in some cases they make excessive use of these words anyways. Heffernan attributes this to the desire of young Japanese people to give the impression of youthfulness, manage social distance, and make value judgments about the west. I found it very interesting that Japanese speaking people attempt to borrow English words in an attempt to sound more youthful. This idea was supported by the results of Heffernan’s study. He collected Japanese adaptations of American movie titles from the last 7 decades and rated the extent to which they used English loan words. As a result, he found that over the last 7 decades Japanese adapted movie titles have been gradually increasing in the amount of English loanwords that they use. This is obviously correlated with the desire of young people to use English loanwords. So, why is this? Why would Japanese youth be attracted to English? And, do we have any parallel examples of this in America?

Heffernan, K. (2008). An Investigation of Diachronic Change in Communication Accomidation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 86-93.

With my second major being studio art, I have an interest in images. I stumbled upon this article and found it interesting. Overall, this article discusses how artists use words in their pieces of artwork. In the past few decades, artists have increasingly used works in conjunction with visual images. A quote that I was interested in was, “The forms in which words and language fragments are presented in visual formats are as various as the types of art, but they are united by the fact that the words serve to increase the image’s potential for meaning.”

Overall, the article discussed that the visual and verbal signs were in the images to heighten potential for meaning. Or sometimes, artists use words to confuse the reader. Artists used a variety of techniques to bring a play between what is more real- the object, word, or painted surface. My favorite example is Jasper Johns’ False Start, he labeled actively painted color areas with names of hues other than those represented: “Red” on blue, “blue” on red, “white” on yellow, and so on. Much of John’s work is concerned with “the definition of art and non-art: “real” objects and “art” objects. Again, working with the connection between what is real by using language and words. I think this article relates to our class discussions because language can be about people’s perceptions and I believe that art too is based on other people’s perceptions. With art, art can be subjective and I think that language too can be. I find it interesting that while communicating, people use a variety of methods to stress what they are saying and that artists can also do this with words in their images.

Early in the semester we talked a lot about disfluencies. After the conclusion of our coverage of this topic, I came away thinking that even though disfluencies probably do have a specific role in language, that if used too much, they would have a negative impact on language comprehension. I recently found an article by Susan Brennan that disputes this idea.

In 2001, Brennan and Schober did a study testing how different types of disfluencies influence comprehension. Mid-word interruptions, mid-word interruptions with fillers, and between-word interroptions were compared. The study found that the use of disfluencies did not hurt comprehension in any way. In fact, in the case of mid-word interruptions with fillers, comprehension was achieved faster and with equal accuracy.

So this study provides just one more reason why disfluencies are needed in our language, and why they really shouldn't be looked upon as verbal "blunders"

I came across an interesting review article titled Dissociating Language and Word Meaning in the Bilingual Brain by Michael W.L. Chee. The study was conducted by Crinion and colleagues, and gives a neuroscience perspective of dissociating brain regions sensitive only to word meaning from those sensitive to the combination of meaning and language. I found this article interesting because I agree with the statement presented in the article of how “there seems to be an ease with which bilingual persons can communicate in different languages with relatively little confusion.” Also, we have recently discussed in class how a deaf signer can also read English and I became interested in how the brain processed this. Though instead, I found an equally interesting article describing this process for bilingual speakers.

There have been functional imaging studies on bilingualism that have evaluated how different languages are represented in the brain by looking at both the single-word and sentence levels. However, it appears that much less work has addressed the question of how a bilingual can keep languages apart during reading and language production. In the studied that was reviewed, it was demonstrated that there are language dependent neuronal responses while single words are processed for meaning.

This study examined German and English, and Japanese and English bilingual participants. The participants had to make a semantic decision regarding the second word of visually presented prime-target pairs of two written names (of objects or animals, or one of each). There was a 250ms time interval between the onset of seeing the prime and target word. Each target word was associated with one of three possible verification questions that focused primarily on the perceptual properties of the object or animal. For example, they had to make a decision relating to leg length (long or short legs), coloration, and open or closed handles (spoon vs. teacup). This design not only manipulated the language of the target word, but also whether the prime and target were semantically related or unrelated, and whether they were written in the same or different languages. This led to the following conditions for each target language: 1. Same language with an unrelated meaning 2. Same language with a semantically related meaning 3. Different language with an unrelated meaning 4. Different language with a semantically related meaning 5. Different language with the same meaning.

In the left caudate, it was found that there was greater activation for unrelated-semantically related primes in the same language. However, when there was a different language presented activation was greater than semantic priming within languages. This was consistent with Crinion’s proposal that caudate responses increase when there is a change in semantics or a change in language. From these findings, it had been suggested that the left caudate plays a universal role in monitoring and controlling the language that is in use at any given time. This study is important because previous functional imaging experiments could not answer this question, and Crinion et al replicated these results over three different experiments.

In chapter 4 of Talking Hands, Fox discusses the way children acquire language. I guess I am confused about how this process works for both deaf and hearing babies. On page 65, she talks about between the ages of about six and ten months, hearing infants produce babble which we call baby talk. Then over time, as infants gain more exposure the babbling develops into adult language. She then continues to discuss how the exact same things happens with deaf infants exposed to sign as a first language. In this case, the babbling is manual. On page 68, Fox states, "For most deaf children, then, the experience of acquiring language is not at all comparable to that of hearing children." I understand that most deaf children are born of hearing parents so with this situation, sign would not be the first language. How then is language acquired for most deaf children? How is language acquired for deaf children with deaf parents? Is it very similar to hearing children with hearing parents?

I found another article that deals with words and images in modern art. I found this article interesting because it discusses a few of the aspects of language that we have been talking about in the classroom. It also discusses the types of interactions between verbal and visual signs.

The author, Morley, demonstrates that there are two ways the viewer can become engaged in the work; through visually scanning the image or through reading the words. Morley further discusses that words and images are signs and can be reduced to three basic types: the iconic, the symbolic and the indexical. He continues to discuss how words can be understood as the signifier and the signified. The signifier is the written and aural form of the word itself, where as the signified is the meaning ascribed to that form.

Morley also discusses the types of interactions that occur between these verbal and visual signs; trans-medial, multi-medial, mixed-media, inter-media. In trans-medial interactions, the one is essentially a supplement to the other. In multi-medial interactions, word and image coexist more closely. They are sharing the same space, though remaining clearly distinguished in terms of spatial relations. In mixed-media interactions, word and image are only minimally separated from one another. Finally, in inter-media relations, there is an emphasis that writing is indeed a visual language. It appeals to the eye and the mind. The book of Kells is a great example

According to Morley, “Artists have sought different organizations of the spaces and contexts within which word and image appear.” Throughout the article, when discussing the four types of interactions of words and images, he gives examples of various art periods that have used the interaction. Overall, Morley discusses how artists use these relationships and interactions when creating their work.

Chapter 4 (page 67) states that some deaf children born to hearing families may be exposed to no signing at all until they reach school age. Therefore they are unable to learn language in a natural way through absorbing it from their environment like other children are able to do. The book continued to say that children who are born to deaf parents and began signing early on did significantly better on false-belief tasks than deaf children who belonged to hearing parents. My question is, in addition to this particular task would deaf children who don't begin signing until later not have other activities that they don't perform as well in. Wouldn't they have many different impairments due to how late they are beginning to learn and understand language, which the book said, if they were lucky would be in preschool (where they still won't be at least 4 or 5)? In particular in the area of language, would these kids who have no exposure to language before not be extremely language impaired in some aspects? I would think that not being able to communicate for your beginning years and then learning to sign later would be a very difficult and harmful on children.

Chapter 4 discusses interesting views of modern linguistics and I found myself asking quite a few questions. To begin, on page 55 Fox discusses Chomsky’s argument for how speaking children are capable of testing, rejecting and revising their use of their native language, otherwise known as hypothesis testing, to determine what is correct and was is incorrect. However, Fox points out that nearly 90 percent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, so then, how would deaf children use hypothesis testing with gestures as opposed to sounds, words and phrases; especially if they are born to hearing parents who are not fluent signers?

Another topic that was of great interest to me pertained to page 66, in which Fox discusses deaf native signers who suffer from strokes or other brain injuries. My question here pertains to differences among native deaf signers and hearing patients. Fox briefly describes that injuries to the brain have shown similarities between the dysfunctions seen in sign language and spoken-language, but provides little to no differences between the two, and that these similarities result from damage to the same part of the brain (left hemisphere). However, deaf patients sign using their hands so what would these findings imply about damage to motor areas of the brain? And how would that affect a deaf patient’s ability to communicate?

In chapter 5, it is explained that Bedouin Sign Language (and many other languages for that matter) only have two different color words. It is simply black or white. I understand grouping all the dark colors together under the name black to discern them from the light colors which are named white, but why wouldn't you want to distinguish between the differen colors. To me, blue is very different from green, even though they are both cool colors. Wouldn't having only two color words cause a lot of confusion in the language?

On another note, I've also heard that if one sense is missing, then the others become stronger. So for someone not able to hear, it is probable that they're sight is probably pretty strong. So they would probably be more likely to be able to distinguish between different hues of different colors than we are, so why wouldn't they want to name them?

On pages 54 and 55 Fox talks a little about Chomsky’s argument against language as a learned behavior. Chomsky makes a compelling case for the existence of an inborn linguistic blueprint. It seems almost impossible that language is strictly a learned behavior. Also, on page 63 Fox mentions, “no tribe of hearing people has been found in which a signed language has arisen as the primary means of communication.” To me this means that if one can hear and speak, then there is an innate tendency to develop language in the vocal-auditory channel. Yet, we cannot downplay the effect the environment will have on a developing child. So, my question is, if a child capable of speaking and hearing is born to deaf parents who communicate strictly through the manual-visual channel, will that child develop language through that same channel or will he/she use the vocal-auditory channel?

Researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University, have identified a feature in the brain that is unique to human language. I found this article interesting because we all know that language is exclusive to humans, and we discuss this fact in class, however, the findings in this study provide evidence of connectivity in brain regions for this uniqueness when compared to brain regions of chimpanzees, and sheds light on an evolution aspect of how human language has evolved. Therefore, I found this article appropriate for this class to grasp a better understanding for language being specific to humans.

The study that was conducted was the first to use diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which is a non-invasive imaging technique that was used to compare the human brain structures to those of chimpanzees. James Riling, a researcher at Yerkes, looked at the arcuate fasciculus, which is a pathway that connects brain regions involved in human language. The researchers then examine the size and pathway of the arcuate fasciculus in human, rhesus macaques, and chimpanzees. They found that the human arcuate fasciculus had a larger and more widespread projection to areas in the middle temporal lobe – which is involved in analyzing the meanings of words. Furthermore, they not only found that the human brain evolved larger language areas, but has also evolved a network of fibers to connect those regions that were not found in the rhesus macaques and chimpanzees. This ultimately supports human’s superior language capabilities.

This study is important because it was the first use of the DTI, which before, researchers lacked non-invasive methods to study brain connectivity directly. And, according to Yerkes researcher Todd Preuss “DTI now makes it possible to understand how evolution changed the wiring of the human brain to enable us to think, act, and speak like humans.”

Click here to read more

In the reading, Susan Goldin-Meadow discusses David, and other participants, in her study and how they use “homesigns.” She further discusses the types of gestures that these participants use. An example is how David signals the difference between nouns and verbs; using a twist gesture as a noun to mean jar. Susan points out that as the homesigners got older, their gesture strings grew longer and more complex which then involved multiple actors and actions.

Maybe I am confused, but I had the understanding that these children developed the way they sign on their own and not in a setting where they were taught. So in thinking about this process of learning, I personally think it would be hard for those children to then learn “standard sign.” I just feel that often times, people who have repeatedly done something that works, are then set in their ways. They might not want to change how they communicate if what they had been doing worked well. Home words for us are used around the home and family and typically do not play into our social lives. But for these children, when they go outside of the home and need to be able to communicate on a different level than “home signs,” wouldn’t that be difficult since they are only accustomed to communicating with their close friends or family? I just feel that some of the children would be dead set on keeping their word or phrase and not the one that was taught to them. What are the challenges that they would face? If they go to school and learn sign, how would that affect the homesign that they used? How would that affect the way that they spoke? Would they know two different “languages” for the same word or phrase? I just feel that this would be very difficult for them to learn over what they already know and are used to. I can say as a athlete, I have certain tendencies as I play, some as good habits and some are bad. Could this be the case where they would then need to break that bad habit?

In chapter 14, Fox mentions the question of how signed language is represented in the mind. This brings up a past question of mine that we have yet to discuss, and is of much interest to me. But first, it is mentioned on pages 219 and 220 the ways in which memory is encoded in the brain (long-term and short-term). Based on experiments, Klima and Bellugi state that for hearing people, short-term memory for words has a phonological basis, whereas “deaf signers of ASL used visual parameters of handshape, location, and movement” (p.224). With short-term memory being different for signers and hearing people, my first question is then; is long-term memory for words the same for both hearing people and deaf signers? Organized semantically? Not much was discussed about this pertaining to signers.

Next, this is where I want to bring up the big question I have had. This chapter discusses structure. Therefore, do deaf signers with brain damage have sign language deficits? And if so, do the deficits resemble either Wernike’s aphasia or Broca’s aphasia, or both? Is there a more common area of damage where deficits are seen? Another question I have pertains to the area of damage, right versus left hemisphere damage. Would right hemisphere damage disrupt signing motions and interfere with the structure of the language; maybe producing more “slips of the hand”, or spoonerisms, or generate no specific pattern at all?

This article talks about how American Sign Language has shifted from being more iconic to consisting of more arbitrary gestures. It disproves many myths about ASL, for example that it is universal. But if this were the case, than the French and British would able to understand it. They have their own sign language and can't understand ours. The second myth is that ASL is simply pantomimic. But if this were the case, then wouldn't anyone be able to understand it? Even someone who has never come across it before should be able to understand what is being communicated if the signs exactly mimic the verbal words. And wouldn't this also make sign language universal for everyone?

This article interested me because I remembered the class we had maybe a week or two ago when we were talking about Saussure. I don't think we every really came to a conclusion on whether we thought that sign language was more arbitrary or iconic. So I guess this article is just another viewpoint we can add into our debate about it.

Chapter 13 talks about homesigning. I am completely amazed and really confused how these deaf children were able to invent their own language. But even more, how is it possible that even though they had absolutely no exposure or knowledge about spoken language, that their homesigning still followed the same rules? Especially when they were exposed to gesturing. Why didn't their signing become similar to the gesturing of their parents? The gesturing was the only kind of communication they were exposed to, so why wasn't it incorporated into their homesign? And lastly, after they established their homesign, how did the gesturing of their parents effect them? Would it confuse them, or would they somehow be able to differentiate beetween the two? I guess I'm just confused because I don't know if they would understand the concept of our gesturing as an addition to our language, because for them, the gesturing is their language.

Fox mentions several examples of recall errors that were made by hearing people and deaf people. The errors seemed to indicate that those who could hear encode language based on phonology and that deaf people encode language in a more visual-manual manner. This makes sense. But, what about those children who are bilingual in English and ASL, who learn both languages simultaneously in the critical period? How do they ultimately encode either ASL or English? This question is especially interesting when considering someone who speaks English while signing. Are they accessing a phonological or visual lexicon, or both at the same time? Is it possible to have two lexicons? If so, can someone access them both at one time?

I remember reading in Talking Hands about how important facial expressions are when signing to someone. I’ve been told that I use a lot of facial expressions when I speak and was interested to see just how signers utilize them as well.

Facial expressions are very important in assisting signers and helping them to understand one another. An example of possible expressions, besides typical expressions that show emotion (smiling when we’re happy, etc), include eye gazes, eye shifts, clenched teeth, tilting one’s eye brows and head shifts. These signs may be especially important in certain situations because some signs used in sign language can be used to show two different things, depending on how one moves their head or the expression that they have on their face. If one actually mouths words while signing it also helps their partner learn to lip read and associate certain words with certain mouth gestures. In this way the mouth can also be an integral part of communicating.

In the same way that a person can be unenthusiastic with their speech, which may confuse their conversational partner, signers can be halfhearted when they sign. Just as this would confuse a verbal partner it also confuses a signer’s partner of what exactly they are signing. It can also send a message that they are not interested in speaking with them. Therefore the importance of using facial expressions properly is very important, especially because the audience of a signer looks at their face more than the signer’s hands when conversing with them.

http://www.essortment.com/lifestyle/signlanguageex_shrn.htm

Chapter 14 of Talking Hands talks about how signers make errors when signing due to single formational parameters. This is the same way that people who use verbal language can mistake one word for another because of simple sound based errors. When nondeaf people mishear words this can be attributed to them not paying attention, the speaker not annunciating clearly, or their being static in the conversation and simply not being able to hear the speaker. Do these same type of behaviors occur in deaf people when they misunderstand a sign? It might be because they were not paying attention or the signer was being lazy and not fully expressing the sign, but what might other reasons be as to why they might misunderstand such as in the way that we do when we mishear someone? Are the same reasons hearing people misunderstand the same way that deaf people do to?