COLLECTION NAME:
Deaf Studies, Culture, and History Archives
mediaCollectionId
RIT~7~7
Deaf Studies, Culture, and History Archives
Collection
true
Filename:
ds_0049_stokoerepresentations_cap_01.mp4
filename
ds_0049_stokoerepresentations_cap_01.mp4
Filename
false
Identifier:
ds_0049_stokoerepresentations_cap_01.mp4
identifier
ds_0049_stokoerepresentations_cap_01.mp4
Identifier
false
Title:
Representations
title
Representations
Title
false
Creator:
Stokoe, William C
creator
Stokoe, William C
Creator
false
Subject:
American Sign Language
subject
American Sign Language
Subject
false
Subject:
Sign language
subject
Sign language
Subject
false
Subject:
Historical linguistics
subject
Historical linguistics
Subject
false
Summary:
Dr. William Stokoe, a researcher who proved that ASL is a language with his 1960 groundbreaking research, shares his theory of the evolution of human language. He asserts that sign languages evolved into spoken languages.
description
Dr. William Stokoe, a researcher who proved that ASL is a language with his 1960 groundbreaking research, shares his theory of the evolution of human language. He asserts that sign languages evolved into spoken languages.
Summary
false
Publisher:
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
publisher
National Technical Institute for the Deaf
Publisher
false
Digital Publisher:
Rochester Institute of Technology - RIT Libraries - RIT Archive Collections
digital_publisher
Rochester Institute of Technology - RIT Libraries - RIT Archive Collections
Digital Publisher
false
Date of Original:
1996
date
1996
Date of Original
false
Date of Digitization:
2018
date_of_digitization
2018
Date of Digitization
false
Broad Type:
moving image
broad_type
moving image
Broad Type
false
Digital File Format:
mp4
format
mp4
Digital File Format
false
Physical Format:
VHS
physical_format
VHS
Physical Format
false
Dimensions of Original:
61 minutes
dimensions_of_original
61 minutes
Dimensions of Original
false
Language:
American Sign Language
language
American Sign Language
Language
false
Language:
English
language
English
Language
false
Original Item Location:
RITDSA.0049
relation
RITDSA.0049
Original Item Location
false
Library Collection:
Sculptures in the Air: An Accessible Online Video Repository of the American Sign Language (ASL) Poetry and Literature Collections
original_item_location
Sculptures in the Air: An Accessible Online Video Repository of the American Sign Language (ASL) Poetry and Literature Collections
Library Collection
false
Library Collection:
ASL Lecture Series DVDs
original_item_location
ASL Lecture Series DVDs
Library Collection
false
Digital Project:
2018-2019 CLIR Grant-ASL Poetry and Literature
digital_projects__
2018-2019 CLIR Grant-ASL Poetry and Literature
Digital Project
false
Catalog Record:
catalog_record
https://albert.rit.edu/record=b3955838
Catalog Record
false
Catalog Record:
catalog_record
https://archivesspace.rit.edu/repositories/2/resources/837
Catalog Record
false
Place:
New York - Rochester
coverage
New York - Rochester
Place
false
RIT Spaces and Places:
Henrietta Campus
rit_spaces_and_places_ii
Henrietta Campus
RIT Spaces and Places
false
Rights:
RIT Libraries makes materials from its collections available for educational and research purposes pursuant to U.S. Copyright Law. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. It is your responsibility to obtain permission from the copyright holder to publish or reproduce images in print or electronic form.
rights
RIT Libraries makes materials from its collections available for educational and research purposes pursuant to U.S. Copyright Law. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. It is your responsibility to obtain permission from the copyright holder to publish or reproduce images in print or electronic form.
Rights
false
Rights:
CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 International
rights
CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Rights
false
Transcript:
I'M BARBARA RAY HOLCOMB,
AND I'M ONE OF THE COORDINATORS
OF THE ASL LECTURES SERIES.
REALLY OUR COMMITTEE
IS PLEASED AND HONORED
TO HAVE DR. STOKOE HERE.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT ADVERTISED
AS PART OF OUR REGULAR SERIES,
WE'VE PROVIDED TODAY'S PROGRAM
AS A SPECIAL HONOR.
DR. STOKOE HAS DONE A LOT
OF ASL RESEARCH,
AND WE'VE REALLY BEEN
INSPIRED BY HIS INITIAL WORK
IN ESTABLISHING THE RECOGNITION
OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE
AS A LANGUAGE.
DR. STOKOE IS HERE
WITH OUR CENTER FOR TEACHING,
RESEARCH, AND LEARNING
AS A VISITING SCHOLAR.
HE'LL BE WORKING HERE
FOR ONE MONTH,
AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE
THE HONOR OF HAVING HIM HERE.
HE'S ALSO A PROFESSOR EMERITUS
AT GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY
AND IS INVOLVED WITH
THE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT THERE
AS HE HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS.
HE'S WRITTEN A NUMBER
OF ARTICLES,
MADE NUMEROUS PRESENTATIONS,
AND PLEASE JOIN ME
IN WELCOMING DR. STOKOE.
[APPLAUSE]
STOKOE: THANK YOU, BARBARA.
HA HA HA!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BARBARA.
UH...
I WISH I COULD GIVE YOU
THE PRESENTATION
IN SIGNING THAT YOU
WOULD UNDERSTAND AND ENJOY,
BUT I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT
TO THE PROS.
HEH HEH.
FIRST OF ALL, I'M IMMENSELY
HAPPY TO BE HERE.
I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS,
BUT I HAD NO IDEA
THAT I WOULD MEET
SO MANY NEW
AND INTERESTING PEOPLE.
I KNEW I HAD OLD FRIENDS HERE,
BUT I'VE JUST BEEN HAVING
THE TIME OF MY LIFE
FOR THE LAST FEW DAYS,
MEETING ENTHUSIASTIC MEMBERS
OF YOUR COMMUNITY, STAFF,
FACULTY, STUDENTS,
AND GRADUATE STUDENTS AND ALL,
AND IT'S JUST A REAL THRILL
TO AN OLD HACK OF 13 YEARS--
13 YEARS RETIRED NOW
TO COME BACK
INTO THE MIDST
OF AN OPERATION
THAT'S GOING LIKE THIS ONE IS.
JUST CONGRATULATIONS
TO ALL OF YOU
FROM NTID AND RIT ON WHAT
A FINE INSTITUTION YOU'RE IN.
I'M GONNA TAKE THAT WORD
BACK TO WASHINGTON
WITH ME, TOO. HEH.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU
EXPECTED FROM ME THIS MORNING.
I'M NOT SURE I CAN GET USED
TO THE ECHO EITHER.
HEH HEH!
UH, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO
TALK ABOUT METHODS
OF COMMUNICATING.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S
A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION
OF THAT GOING ON UP HERE.
[LAUGHTER]
I WILL SAY THAT I THINK
WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO
IN THE EDUCATIONAL WORLD
IS USE WHATEVER WORKS BEST
FOR OUR STUDENTS,
AND I THINK WE STILL NEED
A LOT MORE INVESTIGATION
OF WHAT IT IS THAT WORKS BEST,
WHERE--AT HOME OR IN SCHOOL--
FOR WHOM--
FOR DEAF CHILDREN,
CHILDREN WITH HEARING LOSS
OR MORE,
CHILDREN WHO DIFFER BECAUSE
THEIR DEAFNESS OCCURRED
AT DIFFERENT AGES--
AND AT WHAT AGE.
WHAT'S APPROPRIATE
FOR TEENAGERS IN HIGH SCHOOL
OR YOUNG ADULTS IN COLLEGE
MAY NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE
IN THE NURSERY SCHOOL
OR IN KINDERGARTEN.
SO WE'LL LEAVE THAT ASIDE
AT LEAST UNTIL NEXT WEEK
WHEN I UNDERSTAND THERE'S
A RESUMPTION OF WORLD WAR III.
[LAUGHTER]
WHAT I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT
IS REPRESENTATION.
THAT IS THE WAY THINGS
INSIDE OUR HEADS
GET OUT WHERE PEOPLE
CAN SEE THEM OR HEAR THEM.
NORMALLY, WE TAKE IT FOR GRANTED
THAT WHAT WE'RE THINKING
CAN BE REPRESENTED
BY SPEAKING OR BY SIGNING
OR BY WRITING,
AND THAT WILL SHOW
WHAT WE WERE THINKING,
AND IF THAT DOESN'T WORK,
THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY
OF DRAWING OR PAINTING
OR DANCING OR MAKING MUSIC,
BUT IF WE WANT TO FIND OUT
HOW WE HAPPEN TO HAVE
THIS POWER
OF REPRESENTING THINGS,
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WAY
THINGS GET REPRESENTED
ANYWHERE, ANYTIME
BY ANY LIVING ORGANISM.
I MEAN, THIS IS--
REPRESENTATION IS NOT
SOMETHING VERY SPECIAL
AND UNIQUE.
LANGUAGE IS SUPPOSED TO BE
UNIQUE TO THE HUMAN SPECIES,
AND PROBABLY IT IS.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN
ANY OTHER ANIMALS YET
THAT CAN GO QUITE AS FAR
AS WE CAN,
BUT I THINK, TOO, THAT
THIS POWER OF REPRESENTATION,
POWER OF THOUGHT
MUST BE A NATURAL THING.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT
CAME IN ON A--ON--YEAH--
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT.
IT'S NOT ALIEN.
IT'S NOT AN INVASION
FROM A DIFFERENT WORLD
THAN OURS.
IT MUST BE NATURAL.
SO I'M TAKING THE POSITION
THAT THINKING COMES
FROM REPRESENTATION.
IT'S NOT THAT WE HAVE
THE THOUGHTS FIRST
AND THEN WE REPRESENT THEM,
BUT MAYBE IT WAS REPRESENTATION
THAT GAVE US THE THOUGHTS
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THAT, AGAIN, IS THE WAY
OUR LANGUAGE WORKS.
I CAN SAY IT THAT WAY,
BUT WHAT I REALLY MEAN IS
THAT THE REPRESENTATION
HELPS OUR THINKING.
[AUDIO DISTORTED]
THE ASL SIGN FOR BUILDING IS
JUST A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THAT.
ONE ON TOP OF THE OTHER,
AND THEN OTHER COMES
ON TOP AND SO ON UP.
WE ASSUME THAT THE THOUGHTS
THAT WE HAVE
HERE IN OUR HEADS
ARE THERE AND ALWAYS
WERE THERE,
AND WE ASSUME, ALSO, I THINK,
THAT LANGUAGE EXISTS SO THAT WE
CAN REPRESENT THESE THOUGHTS.
WE ALSO ASSUME THAT THERE'S
A STRICT ORDER IN THIS.
FIRST, WE HAVE A THOUGHT,
AND THEN WE GIVE IT
REPRESENTATION.
WELL, THAT MAY BE HOW IT IS NOW,
BUT I'M GOING TO ARGUE
THAT REPRESENTING THINGS
IN THE FIRST PLACE
IS WHAT GAVE US
THE ABILITY TO HAVE THOUGHTS,
TO THINK.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT
WILL CUT DOWN THE ECHO.
I BELIEVE THAT THINKING
AND REPRESENTATION
MUST HAVE HAPPENED TOGETHER,
DEVELOPED TOGETHER,
EACH ONE HELPING THE OTHER,
AND SINCE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT NATURAL DEVELOPMENTS,
ALL THIS BEGAN
A LONG, LONG TIME AGO,
BACK TO THE BEGINNING
OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET,
THE BEGINNING OF LIFE
ON EARTH.
THAT'S A LONG--
WE'RE ONLY GONNA HAVE TIME HERE
TO EXAMINE CLOSELY THE FIRST
20 MILLION OR 30 MILLION YEARS.
[LAUGHTER]
THE STORY BEGINS
WITH ORGANISMS
THAT CERTAINLY DO NOT THINK.
IF YOU ADD SUGAR TO WATER
CONTAINING BACTERIA,
THE BACTERIA WILL MOVE
TOWARD THE PLACE
IN THE SOLUTION
WHERE THE SUGAR IS STRONGEST.
IF YOU TOUCH A SNAIL,
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO THINK
ABOUT THE TOUCH.
IT JUST DRAWS BACK
INTO ITS SHELL.
A DOG SNIFFING A TREE
MAY NOT BE THINKING,
BUT SOMEHOW,
THE DOG'S NOSE KNOWS
THAT ANOTHER DOG
HAS BEEN THERE.
NOW ALL LIFE IS MADE OUT
OF THE SAME KIND OF MATERIAL.
ALL LIFE IS GOVERNED
BY THE GENERAL LAWS OF NATURE,
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
AND CHEMISTRY,
AND LIFE IS ALSO SHAPED
BY THE INTERIOR CODE OF DNA.
I WON'T SAY THE WHOLE THING OUT.
TAKES TOO LONG
TO FINGERSPELL THAT.
DNA IS BETTER. HEH.
THE DOG'S KNOWLEDGE
AND OUR THINKING
BOTH HAD TO EVOLVE
FROM SIMPLER THINGS
SUCH AS THE REACTION
OF THE BACTERIA AND THE SNAIL.
FOR THE SNAIL--I'M SORRY.
FOR THE BACTERIA,
ELECTROCHEMICAL CHARGES,
THE SUGAR IONS IN THE WATER,
REACH THE BACTERIUM'S
SINGLE CELL DIRECTLY.
IT DOESN'T NEED
A NERVOUS SYSTEM.
BUT IN THE SNAIL,
NERVES ON THE SURFACE SEND
ELECTROCHEMICAL SIGNALS
TO OTHER NERVES,
WHICH MAKE THE MUSCLE CONTRACT.
HUMAN BODIES HAVE
BILLIONS OF MORE NERVES--
BILLIONS MORE NERVES
THAN A SNAIL HAS,
BUT THEY HAVE SOMETHING ELSE
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT,
AND THAT IS NERVES
IN OUR BODIES
ARE VERY HIGHLY ORGANIZED,
AND THE HEADQUARTERS
OF THE ORGANIZATION
IS IN THE HUMAN BRAIN.
SO FOR US, MESSAGES
DO NOT TRAVEL
ALONG THE NERVES
FROM SKIN TO MUSCLE DIRECTLY.
THE MESSAGES
FROM OUR SENSORY SYSTEMS
ARE ROUTED TO OUR BRAINS,
WHERE THEY'RE MONITORED
AND THEY'RE ALTERED
AND OTHERWISE PROCESSED,
AND MESSAGES GO
FROM THE BRAIN TO THE MUSCLES,
WHICH CAUSE THE MOVEMENT.
NOW WE'RE GETTING
TOWARD REPRESENTATION NOW,
SIGNS AND TOKENS.
THINGS LIKE SUGAR AND DNA
AND THE SCENT OF DOGS
MAY APPEAR TO REPRESENT
SOMETHING TO SOME CREATURE,
BUT THE ANIMAL DOES NOT
NECESSARILY MAKE THEM
AS REPRESENTATIONS.
INSTEAD, THEY ARE PRESENTATIONS.
THEY'RE PRESENTATIONS
OF THE ENVIRONMENT
TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
WE MAY SEE IN NATURE SOMETHING
THAT LOOKS LIKE REPRESENTATION.
I EXPECT YOU'VE ALL SEEN
STICK INSECTS.
THESE ARE INSECTS
THAT LOOK LIKE A TWIG.
WELL, OF COURSE BECAUSE
THEY LOOK LIKE A TWIG,
THEY DON'T GET EATEN BY A BIRD,
AND WE MIGHT SAY THAT
THE SHAPE OF THE INSECT
IS REPRESENTING SOMETHING
THAT'S NOT ITSELF,
BUT THAT'S NOT REPRESENTATION
THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
THAT JUST HAPPENS.
THAT'S IN DNA.
THAT'S THE WAY
THE INSECT IS MADE.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE COME
TO THE DOG,
THE DOG HAS A CHOICE.
THE DOG SNIFFING THE TREE
MAY OR MAY NOT DECIDE
TO LEAVE A SCENT TOKEN
OF ITS OWN.
IF IT DOES, THE URINE
SPRAYED ON THE TREE
TRULY REPRESENTS THE DOG
TO OTHER DOGS,
AND IT ALSO REPRESENTS
THE DOG TO HIMSELF
IF HE HAPPENS TO COME
BY THAT TREE THE NEXT MORNING.
NEVERTHELESS, INTELLIGENT
AS DOGS ARE,
THEY HAVE NEVER MADE A LANGUAGE
OUT OF THESE CHEMICAL SIGNS.
UH...
NOW TAKE CROWS.
THE BIRD SPECIES
I ADMIRE MOST, I THINK.
CROWS DO SEEM TO HAVE A KIND
OF RUDIMENTARY LANGUAGE
OF CALLS.
THEY CERTAINLY CAN COUNT.
A CONTEMPORARY OF MINE
IN GRADUATE SCHOOL
ACTUALLY DID
A DISSERTATION
ABOUT THE COUNTING ABILITY
OF CROWS,
AND THAT'S CORNELL, 1946,
IF YOU NEED TO LOOK IT UP.
WELL, THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF STUDY OF BIRD SONGS
AND ANIMAL CALLS
AND OTHER SOUNDS ANIMALS MAKE
AS LOOKING
FOR THE BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS
OF LANGUAGE,
BUT LET'S FACE IT.
HOW MANY THINGS CAN SOUNDS
REPRESENT NATURALLY?
UH...
NEVERTHELESS, THERE IS
A LOT OF FASCINATION
WITH WHAT ANIMALS CAN DO
WITH LANGUAGE.
I HAVE MET AND SEEN
THE FILMS OR VIDEOS
OF IRENE PEPPERBERG,
WHO HAS DONE WORK
WITH GRAY PARROTS
THAT'S PRETTY WELL PUBLISHED
IN "SCIENCE"
AND IN MORE POPULAR MAGAZINES.
THE BEST OF THEIR PARROTS
IN THAT LAB
CAN NOT ONLY IMITATE
DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE LAB,
BUT WHEN YOU LISTEN
TO THE RECORDING,
YOU CAN TELL WHICH PERSON IT IS
THE BIRD IS IMITATING.
THEY DON'T GET JUST THE WORDS.
THEY GET THE WHOLE SOUND
OF THE PERSON'S VOICE
AND MANNER OF SPEAKING,
AND YET TO GET
TO WHERE WE WANT TO GO,
I THINK SOUNDS ARE
A DEAD-END STREET.
I BELIEVE THAT
THE FIRST CREATURES
TO REPRESENT
SOMETHING THEY KNEW
AND THAT THEY COULD
READ BACK AGAIN
WERE THE ANCESTORS WE SHARE
WITH CHIMPANZEES.
WE KNOW HUMANS
HAVE THIS ABILITY,
AND BOTH
IN EXPERIMENTAL SETTINGS
AND IN THE WILD,
CHIMPANZEES DEMONSTRATE
JUST A LITTLE BIT
OF THIS ABILITY.
THEY HAVE TWO GESTURES
THAT ARE WIDELY KNOWN AND SEEN.
THEY HAVE ONE GESTURE
THAT MEANS "GIVE ME FOOD"
AND ANOTHER ONE THAT MEANS
"GROOM ME HERE,"
AND THEY TOUCH THE PART
OF THE BODY THEY WANT
THE OTHER ONE TO GROOM.
ALSO, GERALD EDELMAN
IN HIS BOOK
"THE REMEMBERED PRESENT"--
AND THE SUBTITLE OF THAT BOOK IS
"A BIOLOGICAL THEORY
OF CONSCIOUSNESS."
EDELMAN, A NOBEL-PRIZE WINNER,
IN THAT BOOK
AND TWO OTHERS WRITTEN
NEARLY THE SAME TIME
PRESENTS EVIDENCE
THAT CHIMPANZEES CAN
FORM CONCEPTS.
THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR
AS THEY GO,
BUT THEY DO SORT THE WORLD
INTO DIFFERENT KINDS
OF CATEGORIES.
A CHIMPANZEE KNOWS
THE DIFFERENCE--
KNOWS THAT IT'S LOOKING
AT A DOG,
WHETHER IT'S A GREAT DANE
OR A LITTLE BITTY ONE.
IT EVEN KNOWS THAT IT'S A DOG
IT'S LOOKING AT
WHEN YOU SHOW IT
A PHOTOGRAPH,
BUT THAT'S A LONG WAY
FROM LANGUAGE.
EDELMAN KNOWS THAT OF COURSE,
AND HE ARGUES THAT WHAT
THE CHIMPANZEES
ARE SHOWING
IS PRIMARY CONSCIOUSNESS,
THIS ABILITY TO OPERATE
IN THE WORLD
AND TO CLASSIFY THINGS
INTO GROUPS,
TO FORM CONCEPTS,
TO GET A KIND OF A SINGLE IDEA
IN THE HEAD OR MIND--
IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT--
WHICH REPRESENTS ANY
AND ALL OF THOSE CREATURES.
NOW THEN ON THE COGNITIVE SIDE,
MERLIN DONALD IN HIS BOOK
"THE EMERGENCE
OF THE MODERN MIND"
CONNECTS THIS PRIMARY
CONSCIOUSNESS STAGE OF...
EVOLUTION TO REPRESENTATIONS.
HIS THESIS IS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS
COULD HAVE NOT HAVE BEGUN
AND COULD NOT HAVE DEVELOPED
WITHOUT WHAT WAS IN THE BRAIN
BEING SOMEHOW REPRESENTED
OUTSIDE IT.
SO I AGREE
WITH BOTH THESE EXPERTS
IN THIS FIELD.
I THINK THAT COGNITION
AND REPRESENTATION
WORK TOGETHER TO BRING ABOUT
HIGHER ORDER CONSCIOUSNESS
AND LANGUAGE.
CONCEPTS ARE FLEETING,
NEBULOUS THINGS
LIKE THE RANDOM
ELECTRICAL CHARGES
THAT MAKE THE AURORA BOREALIS.
THEY JUST FADE TO NOTHING
UNLESS THEY'RE REPRESENTED
BY SOMETHING,
SOME SIGN OUTSIDE THE ORGANISM.
I WOULD GUESS--
I DON'T KNOW A THING ABOUT IT
BECAUSE I'M NOT INSIDE IT,
BUT I WOULD GUESS THAT
IN THE CHIMPANZEE'S HEAD
THE CONCEPT DOG IS FORMED
WHEN THE CHIMPANZEE
IS LOOKING AT A DOG
OR PERHAPS HEARING
A DOG BARKING
OR LOOKING AT A PICTURE,
BUT TAKE AWAY THE SOUND,
THE PICTURE, AND THE DOG,
AND THE CHIMPANZEE'S NOT
THINKING ABOUT DOGS ANYMORE.
AT LEAST, IT SEEMS LIKELY.
SO CONCEPTS COME AND GO.
THEY NEED SOMETHING
OUTSIDE THE CONCEPTUALIZING
NERVOUS SYSTEM THAT
REPRESENTS THEM.
BUT ONCE CONCEPTS
GET REPRESENTED,
THEY DON'T STAY STATIC,
THEY CAN COMBINE AND RECOMBINE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF I POINT
WITH ONE HAND
TO A PERSON OVER THERE,
THAT POINTING CAN
REPRESENT THE PERSON,
OR IT CAN REPRESENT THE PLACE
WHERE THAT PERSON IS,
AND THEN IF I POINT
WITH THE OTHER HAND
TO A PERSON OR A PLACE
OVER THERE, THAT'S BOTH,
BUT IF I DO THIS,
PERHAPS I'M REPRESENTING
THE EXPERIENCE OF SEEING
THOSE TWO PERSONS MOVE TOGETHER.
I'M REPRESENTING A MEMORY
THAT PERSON "A"
AND PERSON "B" CAME TOGETHER.
COULD BE THAT,
OR IF I DID THAT
AND THAT AND THAT,
MAYBE I'M EXPRESSING INSTEAD
A WISH THAT
THE TWO PERSONS
WOULD COME TOGETHER.
ONCE IT GETS OUTSIDE THE HEAD,
YOU CAN DO THINGS
WITH THE REPRESENTATION.
WELL, REPRESENTATIONS
NEED SOMETHING
TO REPRESENT OF COURSE,
BUT JUST AS IMPORTANT,
THEY NEED SOMETHING ELSE,
SOME WAY OF CONNECTING THEM
TO WHAT THEY DO REPRESENT.
I THINK THAT'S
THE CRUCIAL THING.
WE ARE SO FAMILIAR
WITH LANGUAGE
THAT WE HAVEN'T GIVEN
A THOUGHT TO WHAT IT IS
THAT CONNECTS WORDS
OR SIGNS TO MEANINGS.
EVER SINCE EARLY CHILDHOOD
IF WE ASKED WHY A SIGN
OR A WORD MEANS WHAT IT MEANS,
WE GET AN ANSWER SOMETHING LIKE,
"THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.
THAT'S THE WAY IT IS."
A WORD MEANS WHAT IT MEANS
BECAUSE ALMOST EVERYONE
WHO USES THE LANGUAGE
LEARNED THE WORD
AND WHAT IT MEANS
AT THE SAME TIME ALTOGETHER
AS IF ONE WAS PART
OF THE OTHER,
BUT THERE'S NOTHING NATURAL
IN THIS.
I MEAN, IT'S NATURAL
BECAUSE IT HAPPENS, YES.
THERE'S NO NATURAL--
BUT THERE'S NO
NATURAL CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE WORD
AND THE MEANING.
THAT COMES
BY ARBITRARY CONVENTION.
A REPRESENTATION
AND WHAT IT REPRESENTS
CAN BE CONNECTED NATURALLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE TWO THINGS
MAY BE SIMILAR IN SHAPE
OR IN SOME OTHER WAY.
SUCH SIMILARITY IS
CHARACTERISTIC
OF THE KIND OF REPRESENTATION
MADE BY A SIGN CALLED AN ICON
AND ASL SIGNS LIKE "BALL"
AND "BIRD" AND "BOOK"
AND "TREE" ARE EXAMPLES
OF THAT,
WHERE THERE'S SOMETHING SIMILAR,
SOMETHING WE RECOGNIZE
AS RESEMBLING--
ONE RESEMBLING THE OTHER.
SOMETHING ABOUT THE WAY
THESE THINGS LOOK,
BIRDS AND BALLS,
BOOKS, TREES LOOK,
IS SIMILAR TO SOMETHING
ABOUT THE SIGN OF ASL.
ANOTHER KIND
OF NATURAL CONNECTION OCCURS
WHEN THE THING
BEING REPRESENTED
DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE WAY
IT IS REPRESENTED.
THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES
AMONG ASL VERBS.
SIGN LANGUAGE VERBS
GENERALLY WILL BE...
ANOTHER KIND OF SIGN THAT
SEMIOTICIANS CALL THE INDEX.
THE INDEX IS A SIGN
THAT HAS THE FORM IT HAS
BECAUSE IT'S SOMEHOW
CONNECTED DIRECTLY
NATURALLY TO WHAT IT REPRESENTS.
TAKE SIGNS--
ASL SIGNS LIKE "FALL"
AND "CLIMB" AND "WALK"
AND "CARRY."
IN FACT, ANY NON-ABSTRACT VERB,
I THINK, IN THE LANGUAGE
IS GOING TO BE PRETTY CLOSE
TO WHAT WE CONCEIVE OF
AS BEING THE WAY
THAT ACTION LOOKS.
THESE ICONS AND INDEXES,
THE NOUN-LIKE THINGS,
THE THINGS THAT RESEMBLE
SOMEHOW THE SIGN--
OR THE SIGN RESEMBLES THE THING,
AND THE ACTION--THE WORD--
THE ACTION WORDS, THE VERBS
IN WHICH THE MOVEMENT
OF THE SIGN REPRODUCES
IN SOME WAY THE MOVEMENT
OF THE ACTION IT REPRESENTS.
THESE ARE NATURAL,
SIGNS WITH A NATURAL CONNECTION
TO WHAT THEY MEAN,
BUT THEY'RE ALSO SYMBOLS.
THEY'RE ALSO LANGUAGE SIGNS.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE
USED THAT WAY.
I'M SURE MANY OF YOU
HAVE TRAVELED
TO WHERE OTHER
SIGN LANGUAGES ARE USED.
YOU KNOW WHAT
IN EUROPEAN SIGN LANGUAGE
IS THE SIGN FOR TREE?
SOME...
YOU CAN SEE
THE SIMILARITY THERE.
THIS IS LIKE A MAPLE TREE,
BUT OTHERS DO TREE,
THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT A TREE TRUNK, I GUESS,
SOME KIND OF VERTICAL THING,
BUT ALL 3 OF THOSE SIGNS,
THE ASL SIGN,
THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN,
THE SOUTHERN EUROPEAN SIGN
FOR TREE, THEY ALL
DO RESEMBLE,
BUT THE PEOPLE WHO USE
ANY ONE OF THOSE LANGUAGES
HAVE A PARTICULAR SIGN
THAT THEY SAY MEANS TREE,
AND SO IT DOES TO THEM.
SO A SIGN CAN BE
NATURALLY CONNECTED
AS AN ICON OR AN INDEX
TO WHAT IT REPRESENTS,
BUT IT ALSO CAN BE SYMBOLIC
IN THE SENSE THAT
THE PEOPLE WHO USE IT
HAVE DECIDED
THIS IS THE ONE
AND NO OTHER
IS GOING TO BE THE THING
A LANGUAGE SIGNS.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT
IS IN THE SIGN LANGUAGE
OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS.
FAMOUS AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
GARRICK MALLERY,
LIEUTENANT COLONEL
GARRICK MALLERY,
PUBLISHED A BOOK
"THE SIGN LANGUAGE
OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS,"
AND THE FRONT PART OF THE BOOK,
HE IS EXTOLLING THE UNIVERSALITY
OF SIGN LANGUAGE
AND GESTURE AND SO FORTH.
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT.
I THINK YOU CAN UNDERSTAND--
IN THE CONTEXT
OF WHAT I'M SAYING
THIS MORNING,
WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.
WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS
THAT SO MANY
OF THESE MANUAL SIGNS
HAVE SOMETHING ABOUT THEM
THAT SORT OF NATURALLY SUGGESTS
TO THE PEOPLE WHO SEE THEM
WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO MEAN,
BUT EVEN THE INDIAN
SIGN LANGUAGE WAS
FAR FROM BEING UNIVERSAL.
IN THE BACK PART
OF MALLERY'S BOOK,
HE'S GOT THIS LONG DICTIONARY
LISTED BY TRIBES,
AND I DON'T REMEMBER
WHICH TRIBES ARE WHICH
EXCEPT THAT IN THE SOUTHWEST
OF THE UNITED STATES
OR THE SOUTHWEST PART
OF THE CONTINENT
THE TRIBES LIVING THERE
HAVE A SIGN FOR HORSE
VERY DIFFERENT
FROM THE ASL SIGN.
LET ME DO SOME OF IT.
THAT'S THEIR SIGN FOR HORSE.
YOU GET IT?
THESE PEOPLE ARE USED TO
SEEING WILD HORSES
OUT THERE IN THE PLAINS
OF ARIZONA OR NEW MEXICO,
AND THE HORSES
ARE GOING BY LIKE THAT.
THEY'RE KIND OF
RECTANGULAR SHAPES
OR SILHOUETTES
AGAINST THE SKY.
UP IN THE MIDDLE WEST MORE
OR WESTERN PLAINS,
THERE WAS ANOTHER SIGN
FOR HORSE.
ANOTHER TRIBE DIDN'T REFER
TO HORSE THAT WAY.
HAD A DIFFERENT SIGN.
ANYONE? THAT'S BECAUSE
THE HORSES WERE USED
TO PULL SOMETHING
WAS CALLED A FRENCH WORD,
A TRAVOIS,
T-R-A-V-O-I-S.
SOME TRIBES USED
DOGS FOR THAT.
WHAT THEY DID WAS PUT
A ROPE OR A STRAP
AROUND THE MIDDLE
OF THE BEAST,
HOOK TWO POLES TO THAT.
THE POLES DRAGGED
ON THE GROUND BEHIND,
AND THEN THEY COULD TIE
THEIR BUNDLES,
THE TEEPEES ROLLED UP
OR WHATEVER,
AND THE HORSE
WOULD PULL IT ALONG.
SO THAT WAS HORSE
TO THAT TRIBE,
AND THEN THERE WERE
THE INDIANS
WHO LIVED FURTHER EAST.
IN THEIR SIGN LANGUAGE, THEY HAD
A DIFFERENT SIGN FOR HORSE.
YOU CAN PROBABLY GUESS
WHAT IT IS.
OH. OH, THAT'S GOOD. YEAH!
OH, THAT'S DRIVING
CARRIAGE HORSES,
BUT THE INDIANS
IN THE NEAR MIDWEST
WERE FAMILIAR SEEING
AMERICAN CAVALRY,
SO WHEN THEY SAW A HORSE,
THEY SAW A RIDER ASTRIDE IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHO IT WAS
OR WHY IT WAS
THAT THE ASL SIGN FOR HORSE
IS MADE UP ON THE HEAD
WITH A THUMB AND FINGERS.
I JUST WONDER IF--
JUST IDLE CURIOSITY--
DO YOU SUPPOSE IT'S BECAUSE
THAT LOOKS LIKE
THE FINGERSPELLING "H,"
AND SO YOU DO THE HORSE'S EAR
AND THE "H" UP ON THE HEAD
UP ALSO WHERE YOU MAKE A SIGN
FOR DEER AND COW,
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
WELL, TO SUM UP
WHAT I HAVEN'T QUITE SAID YET...
[LAUGHTER]
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU
THAT MANUAL REPRESENTATIONS
ARE THE ONLY FIRST WAY
OF PUTTING CONCEPTS OUT
WHERE THEIR MAKERS CAN SEE THEM.
CHIMPANZEES AND HOMINIDS
SURELY DID THAT MUCH,
BUT HOMINIDS WENT MUCH FARTHER.
WHEN THEY SAW
WHAT WAS IN THEIR HEADS
REPRESENTED OUT THERE
IN THEIR OWN
AND OTHERS' MOVEMENTS,
THEY COULD BEGIN
TO CONNECT THINGS UP.
REMEMBER MY EXAMPLE
OF THE TWO POINTING FINGERS
COMING TOGETHER.
SUCH CONNECTED CONCEPTS
NOW REALLY DESERVE
TO BE CALLED IDEAS.
WHEN TWO PEOPLE GET TOGETHER,
THAT'S MORE THAN JUST
ONE PERSON AND ANOTHER PERSON
AND MOVING.
IT'S TWO PEOPLE GOT TOGETHER.
IT'S A COMPLETE IDEA.
SO DOING GESTURES
OF THAT KIND,
MEANING THAT WAY
WITH THE MEANING FAIRLY CLEAR
FROM WHAT YOU WERE POINTING AT
AND WHAT YOU DID
WITH THE MOVEMENT,
IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE,
SOME CREATURES THERE,
TO SEE THAT THE MOVING HAND
REPRESENTED A PERSON
OR A CREATURE,
THAT THE MOVEMENT ITSELF
REPRESENTED
WHAT THAT CREATURE DID
AND EVEN COULD REPRESENT
WHAT WAS THE RESULT
OF THAT ACTION.
SUPPOSE SOMEONE IS SAYING,
"I WANTED TO SEE SO AND SO,
"BUT HE WAS JUST GETTING
INTO HIS CAR.
"I RAN ACROSS THE PARKING LOT,
AND I CAUGHT HIM."
YOU CAN SEE HOW
THE HAND MOVING IS LIKE
THE PERSON TELLING THE STORY.
THE RUNNING ACROSS
AND GRABBING
IS THE ACTION PERFORMED,
AND THE FINGER THAT'S
GRABBED REPRESENTS
THE OBJECT OF THAT.
WELL, THAT'S AN INTERESTING
AND A VERY SIMPLE GESTURE,
BUT IT ALSO HAPPENS TO BE
WHAT GRAMMARIANS CALL
A TRANSITIVE SENTENCE,
AND WHEN YOU'VE REPRESENTED
SOMETHING OUT IN FRONT THAT WAY
THAT HAS THAT STRUCTURE--
I MEAN, I JUST TOOK
IT APART FOR YOU.
THE MOVING HAND
IS THE SUBJECT,
THE MOVEMENT IS THE VERB,
AND THE STATIONARY HAND
IS THE OBJECT.
WHEN THAT HAPPENS,
YOU HAVE A SENTENCE,
AND ALONG WITH A SENTENCE,
YOU HAVE SYNTAX,
WHICH IS ONE
OF THE NECESSARY PARTS
OF LANGUAGE.
THERE ARE CONSIDERABLE ARGUMENTS
GOING ON--OR THERE WERE
AS TO WHETHER CHIMPANZEES
TAUGHT TO USE COMPUTER KEYS
OR PLASTIC TOKENS
OR GESTURAL SIGNS,
WHETHER THEY WERE CAPABLE
OF SYNTAX.
I'LL LEAVE YOU
TO THE LITERATURE ON THAT
BECAUSE IT'S BEING
ARGUED BOTH WAYS,
BUT SIGNS LIKE THAT
COULD HAVE BEEN
THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE
IN THE VERY FIRST
SIGNED SYSTEM
THAT YOU COULD CALL
A LANGUAGE.
IT'S COMPLETELY VISIBLE,
IT'S COMPLETELY PERFORMABLE,
AND BECAUSE OF THE RESEMBLANCE
AND THE CONNECTION,
IT SHOWS NATURALLY
JUST WHAT IT MEANS,
AND THE THING IS SOUNDS
CANNOT POSSIBLY DO THAT.
WHAT YOU CAN TELL
FROM A SOUND
IS PROBABLY ITS LOCATION
IF IT LASTS LONG ENOUGH.
YOU CAN TURN YOUR HEAD
UNTIL THE SOUND'S COMING
IN BOTH EARS IF YOU CAN HEAR,
BUT EVEN IF YOU DO THAT,
ALL YOU KNOW IS
THE SOUND IS A SOUND IS A SOUND.
IF YOU HAD THE EXPERIENCE
OF SEEING THE ANIMAL
MAKING THE SOUND,
YOU SAY, "OH, THAT SOUND
IS A LION ROARING,"
OR, "THAT'S A DOG BARKING,"
BUT THE SOUND ITSELF
DOESN'T REPRESENT ANYTHING
EXCEPT WHAT IT IS.
HOWEVER, IF THE PEOPLE
WHO WERE MAKING
THOSE GESTURAL SENTENCES
GOT TO BE IN THE HABIT
OF MAKING NOISES WHILE THEY
WERE REPRESENTING GESTURALLY,
IT COULD BE THAT
AFTER A WHILE
MAKING THE NOISES THAT
WENT ALONG WITH IT
COULD REPLACE THE VISIBLE SIGN
AND THE MEANING.
I MEAN, ORIGINALLY, THEY WOULD
HAVE OCCURRED ALONG
WITH BOTH THE VISIBLE SIGN
AND WHAT IT STOOD FOR,
AND THEN LATER,
THE SOUND ALONE
WOULD STILL BE ASSOCIATED
WITH THE MEANING,
AND THE VISIBLE SIGN
COULD DROP OUT.
WELL, IT NEVER DROPPED OUT
ENTIRELY, DID IT?
ON THE ONE HAND, WE HAVE ALL
THESE MARVELOUS SIGN LANGUAGES,
SIGN LANGUAGES
OF DEAF PEOPLE
ALL OVER THE WORLD
AND EVEN SECONDARY
SIGN LANGUAGES
SUCH AS THE AMERICAN INDIANS
AND AUSTRALIAN
ABORIGINAL PEOPLE USED,
BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE GESTURING
THAT HEARING,
SPEAKING PEOPLE USE
WHEN THEY'RE CONVERSING,
SO THE SYSTEM
OF REPRESENTATION IS IN THERE.
I THINK
UNDERNEATH LANGUAGE
IT'S STILL VERY MUCH
A PART OF IT.
SO WITH THAT SORT OF THING,
THE SPOKEN LANGUAGES
COULD HAVE ARISEN
AFTER SIGN LANGUAGES
HAD BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED
BECAUSE UNTIL YOU COULD
REPRESENT COMPLETE THOUGHTS
VISIBLY IN SIGNS,
WHICH SHOWED WHAT THEY MEANT,
THERE WAS NO WAY THAT
A SPOKEN SOUND, A WORD,
COULD HAVE ANY MEANING.
PEOPLE HAD TO PUT
SOME MEANING INTO IT.
WHERE DID THAT MEANING
COME FROM?
WELL, IT CAME
FROM THE VERY SENSIBLE THOUGHTS
AND SENTENCES
OF SIGN-LANGUAGE-USING PEOPLE.
IF THESE IDEAS OF MINE
EVER--HEH--GET TO BE
WIDELY ACCEPTED,
I THINK ONE EFFECT OF THEM
MIGHT BE THAT DEAF PEOPLE
AND THEIR LANGUAGES
WOULD GET MORE RESPECT
THAN THEY HAVE NOW.
THEY WOULD GET THE RESPECT DUE.
PEOPLE WOULD REALIZE--
AND THE WHOLE OUTLOOK
ON LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT
WOULD GET BACK
TO SOME VERY BASIC THINGS.
THE FACT THAT WE CAN THINK
AND SPEAK AND WRITE
AND READ AND FIGURE
AND INVENT AND ALL THAT
HAS AS MUCH TO DO
WITH OUR VISION
AND OUR UPPER BODY MOVEMENT
AS IT HAS TO DO
WITH OUR SPOKEN LANGUAGE.
SO I THINK. HEH.
NOW SINCE I HAVEN'T TAKEN
THE WHOLE HOUR,
IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS
FROM THE FLOOR,
I'D BE GLAD TO DO MY BEST.
I HAVE
A QUESTION FOR YOU.
YOU TALK ABOUT HEARING PEOPLE
USING GESTURES
AND EUROPEAN PEOPLES
AND TALKING ABOUT EUROPE.
I THINK THAT HEARING PEOPLE
MAY USE GESTURAL LANGUAGES,
AND DEAF PEOPLE CERTAINLY
HAVE THEIR SIGNED LANGUAGE,
AND HERE IN AMERICA, WE
TALK ABOUT PEOPLE WITH SIMCOM,
SIGNING AND TALKING
AT THE SAME TIME
AND THE IMPACT
ON LITERACY.
HERE IN AMERICA NOW
WITH SIMCOM,
SIGNING AND SPEAKING
AT THE SAME TIME,
OR METHODS OF EDUCATION,
YOU KNOW, TEACHING
WRITING OR SPEECHREADING
OR LITERACY,
DO YOU SEE A RELATIONSHIP?
STOKOE: I'M NOT SURE.
MAN: LET ME MAKE SURE
I INTERPRETED THAT CORRECTLY.
I'M NOT SURE I INTERPRETED
YOU RIGHT, ISAIAS.
OK. LET ME BACK UP
AND REPEAT THIS AGAIN.
WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN AMERICA AND EUROPE
WITH HEARING PEOPLE,
SPOKEN LANGUAGE, AND GESTURE,
AND THEN AS THAT SPREAD
THROUGH DIFFERENT COUNTRIES,
HOW WOULD PEOPLE COMMUNICATE
THROUGH GESTURES
WITH ONE ANOTHER?
OH. PEOPLE IN AMERICA
ARE NOT AS COMFORTABLE
WITH GESTURES,
NATURAL GESTURES,
AS PEOPLE IN EUROPE ARE.
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
PEOPLE ARE VERY COMFORTABLE
WITH NATURAL GESTURING,
BUT THEY'RE MORE RESERVED
HERE IN AMERICA.
HOW DO YOU THINK
THAT DEVELOPED?
WELL, I THINK--
[COUGHS]
EVERY GROUP OF PEOPLE
WHO HAVE A WAY OF LIFE
THAT THEY SHARE PRETTY MUCH,
A SET OF VALUES
AND BEHAVIORS
AND DECISIONS
ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG--
IN OTHER WORDS, A CULTURE--
PEOPLE WITHIN
A PARTICULAR CULTURE
HAVE THEIR WAY
OF DOING THINGS,
AND THOSE IN ANOTHER
HAVE A DIFFERENT ONE,
BUT IF...
IF PEOPLE FROM ONE CULTURE
GO TO ANOTHER ONE.
AND TRY TO COMMUNICATE,
AS I THINK YOU WERE SAYING,
THEY'LL HAVE DIFFICULTY.
THIS DID HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, BACK
IN THE 18th AND 19th CENTURY
WHEN EUROPEAN PEOPLE
WENT INTO THE PACIFIC,
AND I THINK PARTICULARLY
CAPTAIN COOK'S VOYAGE,
BUT THAT'S JUST
ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY.
CAPTAIN COOK GOING
UP THE WEST COAST
OF WHAT'S NOW CANADA,
RUNNING INTO THE PEOPLE
LIVING THERE,
NATIVE AMERICANS, INDIANS,
HE NEEDED WATER AND FOOD
FOR HIS CREW,
AND THE ONLY WAY
HE COULD COMMUNICATE
WITH THOSE PEOPLE
WAS BY GESTURE,
AND HE DID WRITE--
HE AND SOME OTHER EXPLORERS
WROTE UP WHAT THEY DID.
I REMEMBER ONE EXAMPLE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT
FIRST EXAMPLE IN THAT WAS
COMMUNICATION WOULD
TAKE PLACE BY GESTURE
BUT ONLY IF THE EXPLORERS,
THE TRAVELERS,
LAID DOWN THEIR ARMS, YOU KNOW.
THE FIRST THING IS
"DON'T BRING THOSE GUNS IN HERE.
"PUT THEM DOWN.
NOW WHAT IS IT YOU WANT?"
WELL, BY GESTURE,
COOK AND HIS PARTY
WERE ABLE TO PERSUADE
THE PEOPLE THAT THEY NEEDED
SOME WATER
AND THEY NEEDED SOME FOOD,
A CERTAIN KIND OF FOOD,
I THINK, IT WAS,
AND THE INDIANS TRIED
TO TELL THEM
WHAT...
WHAT THEY WANTED TO KNOW.
WELL, WHAT HE FINALLY DID,
HE LAID DOWN LIKE THIS
ON THE FLOOR,
ON THE GROUND 3 TIMES,
AND SURE ENOUGH,
3 DAYS LATER,
SOMEBODY THEY SENT OUT
CAME BACK WITH THE FOOD
THAT THEY WANTED.
THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE
THEY COULD USE BETWEEN THEM,
SO THEY HAD TO RESORT
TO THAT KIND OF PANTOMIME
AND GESTURE INVENTED
ON THE SPOT AND SO FORTH,
AND THIS WORKS--
THIS DOES WORK--
IT'S ALWAYS WORKED,
AND IT WORKS BETTER
FOR DEAF PEOPLE
THAN FOR HEARING PEOPLE.
THERE'S SOME REAL
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON THAT,
THAT WHEN DEAF PEOPLE
FROM DIFFERENT NATIONS
WHO HAVE DIFFERENT
SIGN LANGUAGES GET TOGETHER
THEY DON'T KNOW
EACH OTHER'S SIGN LANGUAGE,
BUT THEY'RE MUCH--
MUCH QUICKER
AT UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER
WITH THAT INVENTED
GESTURE AND PANTOMIME
BECAUSE THEY'RE USED TO USING
THEIR EYES TO GET
LANGUAGE INFORMATION.
I THINK YOUR QUESTION, TOO,
HAD SOMETHING--
SAID SOMETHING ABOUT LITERACY,
AND THAT'S A WHOLE
NOTHER SUBJECT.
I MEAN, UH, THE--
WE CAN'T REALLY TALK
ABOUT LITERACY EXCEPT
THE WRITTEN FORM
OF SPOKEN LANGUAGES.
SOME PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO--
HEH--I DID IT MYSELF
IN MY YOUNGER DAYS--
TRYING TO INVENT
A NOTATIONAL SYSTEM
FOR AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE.
OTHER PEOPLE HAVE PICKED IT UP
AND CHANGED IT
OR MADE DIFFERENT ONES,
AND THERE'S PEOPLE IN DANCE,
BALLET AND STUFF,
HAVE A SIGN SYSTEM FOR IT.
THEY CAN TELL YOU WHAT
EVERY PART OF THE BODY IS DOING
AT A GIVEN MOMENT,
BUT IT TAKES A WHOLE PAGE
TO TRANSCRIBE
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF SIGNING,
SO I'M NOT SURE
WHERE THE--
UH, THE TIE
BETWEEN THE GESTURE
AND THE LITERACY COMES IN,
BUT I DO REMEMBER
WATCHING MY COLLEAGUES
TEACHING ENGLISH AT GALLAUDET,
AND SOMETIMES, A STUDENT
WOULDN'T KNOW AN ENGLISH WORD,
BUT OF COURSE AS SOON
AS IT WAS PUT
INTO THE ASL TRANSLATION,
THE STUDENT GOT IT,
AND THEN THERE WE WERE.
THERE WAS A QUESTION
BACK THERE.
MY QUESTION RELATES
TO DEVELOPING LANGUAGE.
YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME
RESEARCH THAT TALKS ABOUT--
WHO, ME? OH, HI.
SORRY. HELLO.
THERE'S SOME RESEARCH
THAT TALKS ABOUT--OOPS,
I SPACED FOR A SECOND--
VOCAL DEVELOPMENT
AND INTERNAL--
I THINK IT WAS LIEBERMAN,
LIEBERMAN, MAYBE
VOCAL DEVELOPMENT
AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
AND LANGUAGE.
IS THAT TRUE THAT LANGUAGE
AND VOICE DEVELOPS
IN THE BRAIN AT THE SAME TIME
SIMULTANEOUSLY
AND COGNITION AND...
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.
I DOUBT THAT IT WOULD
BE TRUE FOR THIS REASON,
THAT PRETTY GOOD EVIDENCE
FROM ARCHEOLOGY SHOWS
THAT PEOPLE ON EARTH
WERE ACTING
IN A PRETTY HUMAN WAY
FOR A LONG, LONG TIME
BEFORE THEY COULD SPEAK.
THAT IS, THE KIND
OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE THROAT
THAT'S REQUIRED
FOR SPOKEN LANGUAGE.
PHILIP LIEBERMAN
AT BROWN UNIVERSITY,
CRELIN, KLATT,
OTHERS HAVE DONE RESEARCH
ON THE SHAPE
OF THE VOCAL TRACT
IN HUMAN BEINGS--
ADULT HUMAN BEINGS,
NEWBORN HUMAN INFANTS--
AND THEN VARIOUS PRIMATES--
APES, ORANGUTANS,
CHIMPS, AND SO ON--
AND THEY SAY THAT
IT WAS PRETTY LATE
IN THE EVOLUTION
OF THE PRESENT
HUMAN PHYSICAL STRUCTURE
THAT WE CAME TO HAVE
THE KIND OF THROAT
THAT MADE SPEECH POSSIBLE,
YOU KNOW, LIKE,
50,000 YEARS AGO,
BUT I BELIEVE THAT LANGUAGE
WAS ON EARTH,
A VISUAL LANGUAGE,
A SIGN LANGUAGE,
FOR, YOU KNOW, HALF A MILLION
YEARS BEFORE THAT.
IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE THAT
THE HUMAN HAND,
THE STRUCTURE
OF THE HUMAN HAND--
WHICH IS DIFFERENT
FROM A CHIMPANZEE HAND
BY QUITE A BIT.
THE THUMB IS
DIFFERENTLY PLACED
AND THE LENGTH
OF THE FINGERS AND SO ON.
THE HUMAN HAND HAS BEEN
AROUND FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS
OR A COUPLE MILLION YEARS,
BUT HUMAN VOICES,
HUMAN THROATS ABLE
TO HANDLE
A MODERN SPOKEN LANGUAGE
DIDN'T DEVELOP
UNTIL 50,000, 60,000 YEARS AGO.
IS IT BETTER
IF I COME UP FRONT TO SIGN
OR SIGN FROM HERE?
CAN EVERYONE SEE ME OK?
I'D LIKE YOU TO EXPLAIN
THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN MONKEYS
OR CHIMPANZEES
AND, YOU KNOW, GESTURING,
TRYING TO TEACH
CHIMPANZEES SIGN LANGUAGE,
BUT, YOU KNOW, ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT'S
BOTHERING ME IS
MY OWN EXPERIENCE,
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
GROWING UP
AT A DIFFERENT
RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF,
WHERE THERE WAS A WALL
LITERALLY AROUND THE SCHOOL,
AND, LIKE, YOU'D HAVE A--
THERE WAS A RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF,
AND RIGHT NEXT TO IT
ACROSS THE WALL WAS A ZOO.
SO WHEN I'D BE WALKING
OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL,
YOU KNOW, WE'D BE TEASED.
PEOPLE WOULD ACCUSE US
OF ACTING LIKE MONKEYS,
OR I THINK PEOPLE
MADE COMPARISONS
WITH A FORMAL SIGNED LANGUAGE
AND HOW MONKEYS GESTURE,
AND THAT'S ALWAYS BOTHERED ME.
DO YOU SEE PARALLELS?
I MEAN, YOU KNOW,
THE LEVEL
OF LANGUAGE ATTAINMENT
IN MONKEYS CERTAINLY
ISN'T LIKE THE LEVEL
OF LANGUAGE ATTAINMENT
WITH DEAF PEOPLE,
SO HOW DO YOU EDUCATE
LAY PEOPLE, WHO ARE NAIVE,
THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A FULLY
DEVELOPED LANGUAGE
AND THE TYPE OF GESTURES
OR RUDIMENTARY LANGUAGE
THAT CHIMPS ARE CAPABLE OF?
THAT'S REALLY BOTHERING ME,
AND WHEN I MOVED HERE
TO AMERICA, I WAS REALLY
SURPRISED THAT THAT WASN'T
A CONCEPT HERE IN AMERICA,
COMPARING DEAF PEOPLE
WITH PRIMATES,
WHERE IT WAS
IN MY HOME COUNTRY.
SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD
JUST RESPOND TO THAT.
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION
AND A DEEP QUESTION,
AND I CAN JUST GIVE IT A TRY.
THE PEOPLE WHO THINK
OF DEAF PEOPLE AND ANIMALS
IN THAT WAY ARE PRETTY MUCH
THE SAME PEOPLE
WHO THINK OF SOMEBODY
OF A DIFFERENT COLOR SKIN
AS INFERIOR,
WHO THINK OF PEOPLE
WITH A DIFFERENT RELIGION
AS SOMEBODY TO BE SHOT AT
IN THE STREETS OF BELFAST
INSTEAD OF TO BE WELCOMED
INTO THEIR HOMES.
I MEAN, THIS IS
HUMAN PREJUDICE.
IT COMES FROM IGNORANCE,
VERY MUCH FROM IGNORANCE,
AND IT'S LEARNED BEHAVIOR.
SOMEBODY--WHOEVER SAID THAT
ABOUT COMPARING
THE DEAF CHILDREN IN THE SCHOOL
WITH THE MONKEYS IN THE ZOO
DIDN'T COME UP WITH THE IDEA
ON THEIR OWN.
IT'S NOT A NATURAL IDEA.
THEY LEARNED IT
FROM SOMEBODY ELSE,
SOMEBODY, AS MY COUSIN--ONE
OF MY COUSINS LIKED TO SAY--
SOMEBODY WHO WAS BORN
WITH A BAD FEELING.
[LAUGHTER]
BUT I THINK THE ONLY WAY
YOU CAN APPROACH THAT
IS THROUGH KNOWLEDGE.
PEOPLE IGNORANT
OF SIGN LANGUAGE--GEE!
WHEN I WENT TO GALLAUDET
42 YEARS AGO,
PEOPLE TOLD ME THAT
THE DEAF STUDENTS THERE
COULDN'T THINK IN THE ABSTRACT,
THEY COULDN'T REALLY
MASTER LANGUAGE,
THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE DEAF
THEY HAD
A MENTAL DEFICIENCY.
THAT'S ALL BALDERDASH,
TO PUT A NICE WORD ON IT.
IT'S--IT'S COMPLETELY WRONG.
IT'S FALSE INFORMATION,
IT'S IGNORANCE,
SO THE ONLY THING I CAN DO,
I THINK, IS TRY TO GET
SOME BETTER INFORMATION
OUT THERE.
IT CERTAINLY SEEMS
IN THE LAST 42 YEARS
THAT MORE INFORMATION
ABOUT AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE
AND OTHER SIGN LANGUAGES HAS
CHANGED PEOPLE'S MINDS ENOUGH.
I MEAN, I'VE SEEN THE--
WELL, I'VE SEEN THE DAY
WHEN GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY
GOT A DEAF PERSON AS PRESIDENT.
I'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE PEOPLE
I KNOW, PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES
MY AGE WHO USED TO HAVE TO
WORK--BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T
GET AN UPPER LEVEL
TEACHING POSITION
AT GALLAUDET, THEY HAD
TO WORK NIGHTS
IN A NEWSPAPER OFFICE
WORKING A LINOTYPE MACHINE.
I'VE SEEN THAT CHANGE.
I'VE SEEN FORMER STUDENTS
OF MINE BECOME
SUPERINTENDENTS OF STATE
SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF,
GET Ph.Ds., WRITE OUTSTANDING
RESEARCH DISCOVERIES,
AND THIS, I THINK,
HAS HAPPENED BECAUSE
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SIGN LANGUAGE
GOING AROUND
THAN THERE USED TO BE.
I HOPE I HAVEN'T OFFENDED
YOU BY ALL THE TALK
I GAVE ABOUT PRIMATES
AND SO FORTH.
I MEAN, I HAVE DONE
A GOOD DEAL OF STUDY
OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY,
AND I DO KNOW THAT IT'S
PRETTY WELL AUTHENTICATED
THAT THE ANCESTOR
OF CHIMPANZEES AND HUMAN BEINGS
WAS ONE SPECIES.
THAT SEPARATED
A LONG, LONG TIME AGO,
BUT THAT ANCESTOR MUST HAVE HAD
A LITTLE BIT MORE
MENTAL POWER THAN ANY
OF THE OTHER
IN THE PRIMATE LINE,
MONKEYS AND APES,
AND MODERN MOLECULAR BIOLOGISTS
WILL TELL YOU
THAT ABOUT 99%--
I THINK IT'S 99% OR 97%--
OF OUR CELLS--
THE CELLS IN OUR BODIES
ARE ALMOST 97% IDENTICAL
WITH THE CELLS
IN CHIMPANZEES' BODIES.
A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE,
A VERY WISE MAN
WHO'S DONE A HUGE BOOK,
A MONUMENTAL BOOK
ON THE SIGN LANGUAGES
OF ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA,
SAYS IN AN ARTICLE IN "MAN,"
THE BRITISH ANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL,
SAID, "IT SEEMS AS IF
CHIMPANZEES WERE
"ON THE VERGE
OF DEVELOPING LANGUAGE,
BUT THEY NEVER DID."
AND HIS TAKE ON THAT
IS THEY NEVER DID
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T NEED TO.
THEY LIVED IN AN ENVIRONMENT,
A CLIMATE THAT
WAS PERFECTLY OK.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO
ANYTHING ELSE.
APPARENTLY, THEIR COUSINS
THAT DEVELOPED
INTO TO THE HOMINID LINE
THAT DEVELOPED
INTO THE HUMAN LINE
DID HAVE TO KEEP
CHANGING THEIR WAYS.
THEY DID HAVE TO FIND
NEW WAYS OF COPING,
AND ONE OF THE WAYS
THEY FOUND WAS TO GO
FROM THE KIND OF COMMUNICATION
CHIMPS AND OTHER ANIMALS HAVE
TO SOMETHING
MORE AND MORE LIKE LANGUAGE.
BOB.
FIRST, I READ YOUR BOOK,
AND WHAT YOU TALK
ABOUT TODAY
SEEMS TO BOIL DOWN TO
ONE INTERESTING STATEMENT
YOU MADE IN YOUR BOOK,
SAYING LANGUAGE BEGINS
IN THE HEAD,
WHETHER IT COMES OUT
AS ENGLISH OR SIGN.
YOU SAID THAT IN THE BOOK.
IS THAT RELATED
TO WHAT HANS FURTH WROTE
IN HIS BOOK
"THINKING WITHOUT LANGUAGE"?
HEH. NO. I DON'T THINK
I AGREE AT ALL
WITH WHAT FURTH SAID,
AND I'M A LITTLE ASHAMED
THAT YOU REMINDED ME
OF THAT BOOK LONG AGO
BECAUSE WHAT I'M SAYING
THIS MORNING IS
THINKING DOES NOT BEGIN
IN THE HEAD.
THINKING BEGINS
WHEN THE HEAD AND THE HAND
AND THE EYES GET TOGETHER,
THAT WHAT'S IN THE HEAD
GETS EXPRESSED WITH MOTION
THAT CAN BE SEEN,
AND THEN THE MOTION
THAT CAN BE SEEN
GETS PICKED UP
AND BACK IN THE HEAD,
AND LANGUAGE IS A CIRCUIT
OF GOING AROUND.
IF I SAID--I ACCEPT
WHAT YOU SAY,
THAT I SAID IN THE BOOK--
THAT'S THE 1960 BOOK?
[LAUGHTER]
THAT WHAT--
IN THE CONTEXT, AS I REMEMBER,
A LOT OF PEOPLE, EVEN FROM
SAMUEL HEINICKE IN GERMANY,
THAT GREAT ANTAGONIST
OF THE ABBÉ DE L'ÉPÉE--
HEINICKE SAYING THAT
LANGUAGE IS SPEECH, IT'S VOICE,
IT'S GOT TO BE PUT
INTO SOUND,
OR IT'S NOT LANGUAGE,
AND THAT LONG HISTORY
IS STILL GOING ON
OF THE FIGHT BETWEEN ORALISM
AND MANUALISM,
MOUTH LANGUAGE
AND HAND LANGUAGE,
AND WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY
WHEN I SAID THAT,
WHICH YOU QUOTED,
WAS THAT LANGUAGE
IS NOT FROM THE HANDS,
IT'S NOT FROM THE MOUTH.
IT'S FROM THE BRAIN.
WHAT I REALLY MEANT TO SAY
IS OF COURSE IT INVOLVES
THE BRAIN AND THE HANDS
AND THE MOUTH AND ALTOGETHER.
YEAH. THANK YOU. HEH.
THAT'S GREAT.
SINCE YOU'RE CALLED
THE FATHER OF ASL...
IN FRANCE...
WE HEAR THAT ASL
IS AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE,
AND THEY COME OVER HERE,
AND THE FOLKS FROM FRANCE MET
DEAF PEOPLE,
AND WHAT WAS USED HERE
WAS LABELED AS ASL.
I'D ASK YOU WHAT'S
THE DEFINITION
OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE? HA!
[LAUGHTER]
[LAUGHTER]
IF I REALLY WANTED TO
WIN THIS AUDIENCE,
I WOULD SAY, "WHAT'S YOUR
DEFINITION
OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?"
[LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE]
MAN: TOUCHÉ. HA!
AND YOU SAID I'M CALLED
THE FATHER OF ASL,
AND I'VE HEARD THAT,
AND I ALWAYS DISCLAIM IT.
I MIGHT BE ONE
OF THE UNCLES
WHO FOUND THE POOR--
WHO FOUND
THE POOR BABY
OUT IN THE WOODS,
WHERE THE ORALISTS
HAD KICKED IT...
[LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE]
BUT--BUT--I MEAN,
THINKING BACK,
WAS LAURENT CLERC
THE FATHER OF ASL?
HE, YOU KNOW--
LAURENT CLERC BROUGHT BACK
FROM--BROUGHT TO AMERICA
BY T.H. GALLAUDET,
CLERC HELPED GALLAUDET FOUND
THE AMERICAN SCHOOL
IN HARTFORD,
THE FIRST PERMANENT SCHOOL
IN THE U.S.
CLERC ALSO HELPED FOUND
MANY, MANY OTHER STATE SCHOOLS.
PEOPLE CAME TO HIM,
OR HE WENT TO THE PLACE
AND SHOWED THEM
THE SIGNING SYSTEM THEY USED
AND SO ON,
AND SO THERE WAS A BIG INFLUX
OF FRENCH SIGNING INTO
THE SIGN LANGUAGE USED HERE,
BUT IF YOU CAN BELIEVE
WHAT'S WRITTEN,
ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD
LONG BEFORE CLERC CAME OVER
FROM FRANCE,
PEOPLE WERE SIGNING,
HAD A SIGN LANGUAGE.
YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER
OF SIGN LANGUAGE WOULD BE?
IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT,
IT'S THE GUY THAT LIVED
IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN
WITH A WOMAN CALLED EVE.
[LAUGHTER]
GIVE YOU A FOLLOW-UP--
I'LL GIVE YOU
A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. YEAH.
HEH HEH HEH.
OK. SO I'LL SIGN SLOW
FOR THE INTERPRETER, OK?
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST,
I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU...
ASL IS A VISUAL,
GESTURAL LANGUAGE,
AND RECEPTIVE SKILLS
ARE IMPORTANT AND SIGNING.
ARE YOU REALLY SKILLED
AT ASL YOURSELF
RECEPTIVELY AND EXPRESSIVELY?
STOKOE: NO.
MAN: NO? OK. THEN...
THEN HOW DID YOU FIND THAT
ASL IS A FULL-BLOWN LANGUAGE?
IT SEEMS SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY
THAT YOU'RE NOT HIGHLY SKILLED
AT ASL,
YOU'RE NOT A SKILLED SIGNER,
AND YET AS YOU STARTED
TO STUDY ASL,
YOU FELT,
"BOY, THIS IS GREAT!
"THIS IS A LANGUAGE!
IT'S A FULL-BLOW,
FULLY DEVELOPED LANGUAGE,"
AND YOU'RE RECOGNIZED
AS THE PERSON WHO DID THAT,
BUT YOU'RE NOT YET FLUENT
IN THE LANGUAGE,
NOT SKILLED IN THE LANGUAGE.
SO IT SEEMS CONTRADICTORY TO ME.
COULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
[LAUGHTER]
YES. THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT
IS THIS,
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SKILLED
IN THE LANGUAGE
DON'T HAVE TO ASK
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
IT'S LIKE DUCK SOUP TO THEM.
I MEAN, IT'S THEIR
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT,
AND YOU DON'T ASK A LOT
OF PERTINENT QUESTIONS
ABOUT THINGS THAT
ARE GOING WELL.
DO YOU KNOW THE STORY
ABOUT THE KID
THAT NEVER SPOKE UNTIL HE WAS
ABOUT 5 YEARS OLD?
HE WASN'T DEAF OR ANYTHING,
BUT HE JUST SAT THERE
IN THE KITCHEN
AND ATE HIS MEALS
AND WENT TO BED
AND AROUND THE HOUSE.
ONE NIGHT...
ONE NIGHT RIGHT
IN THE MIDDLE OF SUPPER,
HE SAID, "HMM.
THIS FOOD WONDER--
THIS FOOD IS TERRIBLE."
AND HIS PARENTS SAID, "WHAT?
YOU CAN TALK! YOU CAN TALK!"
HE SAID, "SURE I CAN TALK."
"WELL, WHY DIDN'T YOU
TALK BEFORE?"
SAID, "THE FOOD WAS
ALWAYS FINE BEFORE."
[LAUGHTER]
I MEAN, ANOTHER WAY
OF ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION--
I AM VERY CONSCIOUS MYSELF
THAT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH CONTACT
WITH IT ANYMORE
SOME OF MY SKILLS
THAT I DID HAVE IN SIGNING
AND IN RECEIVING SIGNS
ARE DECLINING BECAUSE I'M NOT
WITH DEAF PEOPLE
AS MUCH AS I SHOULD BE,
BUT IT'S ALSO TRUE
THAT LOOKING INTO A SYSTEM,
IT'S SOMETIMES BETTER
TO BE OUTSIDE IT.
I MEAN, AFTER ALL...
THE, UH--AS THE--
AS THE PERSON SAID
WHO WAS CRITICIZING--
WAS CRITICIZED
FOR CRITICIZING POETRY
OR SOMETHING--
THEY SAID, "WELL,
YOU'RE NOT A POET.
HOW CAN YOU CRITICIZE THAT?"
HE SAYS, "I'M NOT A HEN EITHER,
"BUT I CAN TELL WHETHER
AN EGG IS A GOOD ONE
OR A BAD ONE."
[LAUGHTER]
UH...
I GUESS ANOTHER ANSWER
TO YOUR QUESTION IS
THAT LANGUAGE IS LANGUAGE,
AND WHEN I SAY LANGUAGE
IS LANGUAGE,
I MEAN
SIGN LANGUAGE IS LANGUAGE
JUST AS SPOKEN LANGUAGES
ARE LANGUAGE,
AND YOU FIND THAT OUT
BY FINDING OUT
WHAT MAKES LANGUAGES TICK,
WHAT--HOW THEY'RE
PUT TOGETHER.
I'VE BEEN WORKING AT THAT
FOR THE LAST 50, 60 YEARS,
AND YOU HEARD THIS MORNING
ABOUT AS FAR AS I'VE GOT.
IF IT'S NOT FAR ENOUGH,
TAKE OVER
AND CARRY THIS IDEA FURTHER,
ALL OF YOU.
[APPLAUSE]
THANK YOU.
OUR TIME IS UP.
I WANT TO THANK YOU
AND THANK YOU
IN THE AUDIENCE.
OUR NEXT PRESENTATION
WILL BE NEXT FRIDAY.
DR. CHRISTINE MONIKOWSKI
WILL PRESENT
ON ASSESSING ASL
WITH A CLOSURE TEST.
I HOPE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO COME
NEXT FRIDAY AT NOON HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[APPLAUSE]
STOKOE: THANK YOU.
AND I'M ONE OF THE COORDINATORS
OF THE ASL LECTURES SERIES.
REALLY OUR COMMITTEE
IS PLEASED AND HONORED
TO HAVE DR. STOKOE HERE.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT ADVERTISED
AS PART OF OUR REGULAR SERIES,
WE'VE PROVIDED TODAY'S PROGRAM
AS A SPECIAL HONOR.
DR. STOKOE HAS DONE A LOT
OF ASL RESEARCH,
AND WE'VE REALLY BEEN
INSPIRED BY HIS INITIAL WORK
IN ESTABLISHING THE RECOGNITION
OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE
AS A LANGUAGE.
DR. STOKOE IS HERE
WITH OUR CENTER FOR TEACHING,
RESEARCH, AND LEARNING
AS A VISITING SCHOLAR.
HE'LL BE WORKING HERE
FOR ONE MONTH,
AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE
THE HONOR OF HAVING HIM HERE.
HE'S ALSO A PROFESSOR EMERITUS
AT GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY
AND IS INVOLVED WITH
THE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT THERE
AS HE HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS.
HE'S WRITTEN A NUMBER
OF ARTICLES,
MADE NUMEROUS PRESENTATIONS,
AND PLEASE JOIN ME
IN WELCOMING DR. STOKOE.
[APPLAUSE]
STOKOE: THANK YOU, BARBARA.
HA HA HA!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BARBARA.
UH...
I WISH I COULD GIVE YOU
THE PRESENTATION
IN SIGNING THAT YOU
WOULD UNDERSTAND AND ENJOY,
BUT I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT
TO THE PROS.
HEH HEH.
FIRST OF ALL, I'M IMMENSELY
HAPPY TO BE HERE.
I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS,
BUT I HAD NO IDEA
THAT I WOULD MEET
SO MANY NEW
AND INTERESTING PEOPLE.
I KNEW I HAD OLD FRIENDS HERE,
BUT I'VE JUST BEEN HAVING
THE TIME OF MY LIFE
FOR THE LAST FEW DAYS,
MEETING ENTHUSIASTIC MEMBERS
OF YOUR COMMUNITY, STAFF,
FACULTY, STUDENTS,
AND GRADUATE STUDENTS AND ALL,
AND IT'S JUST A REAL THRILL
TO AN OLD HACK OF 13 YEARS--
13 YEARS RETIRED NOW
TO COME BACK
INTO THE MIDST
OF AN OPERATION
THAT'S GOING LIKE THIS ONE IS.
JUST CONGRATULATIONS
TO ALL OF YOU
FROM NTID AND RIT ON WHAT
A FINE INSTITUTION YOU'RE IN.
I'M GONNA TAKE THAT WORD
BACK TO WASHINGTON
WITH ME, TOO. HEH.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU
EXPECTED FROM ME THIS MORNING.
I'M NOT SURE I CAN GET USED
TO THE ECHO EITHER.
HEH HEH!
UH, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO
TALK ABOUT METHODS
OF COMMUNICATING.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S
A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION
OF THAT GOING ON UP HERE.
[LAUGHTER]
I WILL SAY THAT I THINK
WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO
IN THE EDUCATIONAL WORLD
IS USE WHATEVER WORKS BEST
FOR OUR STUDENTS,
AND I THINK WE STILL NEED
A LOT MORE INVESTIGATION
OF WHAT IT IS THAT WORKS BEST,
WHERE--AT HOME OR IN SCHOOL--
FOR WHOM--
FOR DEAF CHILDREN,
CHILDREN WITH HEARING LOSS
OR MORE,
CHILDREN WHO DIFFER BECAUSE
THEIR DEAFNESS OCCURRED
AT DIFFERENT AGES--
AND AT WHAT AGE.
WHAT'S APPROPRIATE
FOR TEENAGERS IN HIGH SCHOOL
OR YOUNG ADULTS IN COLLEGE
MAY NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE
IN THE NURSERY SCHOOL
OR IN KINDERGARTEN.
SO WE'LL LEAVE THAT ASIDE
AT LEAST UNTIL NEXT WEEK
WHEN I UNDERSTAND THERE'S
A RESUMPTION OF WORLD WAR III.
[LAUGHTER]
WHAT I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT
IS REPRESENTATION.
THAT IS THE WAY THINGS
INSIDE OUR HEADS
GET OUT WHERE PEOPLE
CAN SEE THEM OR HEAR THEM.
NORMALLY, WE TAKE IT FOR GRANTED
THAT WHAT WE'RE THINKING
CAN BE REPRESENTED
BY SPEAKING OR BY SIGNING
OR BY WRITING,
AND THAT WILL SHOW
WHAT WE WERE THINKING,
AND IF THAT DOESN'T WORK,
THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY
OF DRAWING OR PAINTING
OR DANCING OR MAKING MUSIC,
BUT IF WE WANT TO FIND OUT
HOW WE HAPPEN TO HAVE
THIS POWER
OF REPRESENTING THINGS,
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WAY
THINGS GET REPRESENTED
ANYWHERE, ANYTIME
BY ANY LIVING ORGANISM.
I MEAN, THIS IS--
REPRESENTATION IS NOT
SOMETHING VERY SPECIAL
AND UNIQUE.
LANGUAGE IS SUPPOSED TO BE
UNIQUE TO THE HUMAN SPECIES,
AND PROBABLY IT IS.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN
ANY OTHER ANIMALS YET
THAT CAN GO QUITE AS FAR
AS WE CAN,
BUT I THINK, TOO, THAT
THIS POWER OF REPRESENTATION,
POWER OF THOUGHT
MUST BE A NATURAL THING.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT
CAME IN ON A--ON--YEAH--
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT.
IT'S NOT ALIEN.
IT'S NOT AN INVASION
FROM A DIFFERENT WORLD
THAN OURS.
IT MUST BE NATURAL.
SO I'M TAKING THE POSITION
THAT THINKING COMES
FROM REPRESENTATION.
IT'S NOT THAT WE HAVE
THE THOUGHTS FIRST
AND THEN WE REPRESENT THEM,
BUT MAYBE IT WAS REPRESENTATION
THAT GAVE US THE THOUGHTS
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THAT, AGAIN, IS THE WAY
OUR LANGUAGE WORKS.
I CAN SAY IT THAT WAY,
BUT WHAT I REALLY MEAN IS
THAT THE REPRESENTATION
HELPS OUR THINKING.
[AUDIO DISTORTED]
THE ASL SIGN FOR BUILDING IS
JUST A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THAT.
ONE ON TOP OF THE OTHER,
AND THEN OTHER COMES
ON TOP AND SO ON UP.
WE ASSUME THAT THE THOUGHTS
THAT WE HAVE
HERE IN OUR HEADS
ARE THERE AND ALWAYS
WERE THERE,
AND WE ASSUME, ALSO, I THINK,
THAT LANGUAGE EXISTS SO THAT WE
CAN REPRESENT THESE THOUGHTS.
WE ALSO ASSUME THAT THERE'S
A STRICT ORDER IN THIS.
FIRST, WE HAVE A THOUGHT,
AND THEN WE GIVE IT
REPRESENTATION.
WELL, THAT MAY BE HOW IT IS NOW,
BUT I'M GOING TO ARGUE
THAT REPRESENTING THINGS
IN THE FIRST PLACE
IS WHAT GAVE US
THE ABILITY TO HAVE THOUGHTS,
TO THINK.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT
WILL CUT DOWN THE ECHO.
I BELIEVE THAT THINKING
AND REPRESENTATION
MUST HAVE HAPPENED TOGETHER,
DEVELOPED TOGETHER,
EACH ONE HELPING THE OTHER,
AND SINCE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT NATURAL DEVELOPMENTS,
ALL THIS BEGAN
A LONG, LONG TIME AGO,
BACK TO THE BEGINNING
OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET,
THE BEGINNING OF LIFE
ON EARTH.
THAT'S A LONG--
WE'RE ONLY GONNA HAVE TIME HERE
TO EXAMINE CLOSELY THE FIRST
20 MILLION OR 30 MILLION YEARS.
[LAUGHTER]
THE STORY BEGINS
WITH ORGANISMS
THAT CERTAINLY DO NOT THINK.
IF YOU ADD SUGAR TO WATER
CONTAINING BACTERIA,
THE BACTERIA WILL MOVE
TOWARD THE PLACE
IN THE SOLUTION
WHERE THE SUGAR IS STRONGEST.
IF YOU TOUCH A SNAIL,
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO THINK
ABOUT THE TOUCH.
IT JUST DRAWS BACK
INTO ITS SHELL.
A DOG SNIFFING A TREE
MAY NOT BE THINKING,
BUT SOMEHOW,
THE DOG'S NOSE KNOWS
THAT ANOTHER DOG
HAS BEEN THERE.
NOW ALL LIFE IS MADE OUT
OF THE SAME KIND OF MATERIAL.
ALL LIFE IS GOVERNED
BY THE GENERAL LAWS OF NATURE,
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
AND CHEMISTRY,
AND LIFE IS ALSO SHAPED
BY THE INTERIOR CODE OF DNA.
I WON'T SAY THE WHOLE THING OUT.
TAKES TOO LONG
TO FINGERSPELL THAT.
DNA IS BETTER. HEH.
THE DOG'S KNOWLEDGE
AND OUR THINKING
BOTH HAD TO EVOLVE
FROM SIMPLER THINGS
SUCH AS THE REACTION
OF THE BACTERIA AND THE SNAIL.
FOR THE SNAIL--I'M SORRY.
FOR THE BACTERIA,
ELECTROCHEMICAL CHARGES,
THE SUGAR IONS IN THE WATER,
REACH THE BACTERIUM'S
SINGLE CELL DIRECTLY.
IT DOESN'T NEED
A NERVOUS SYSTEM.
BUT IN THE SNAIL,
NERVES ON THE SURFACE SEND
ELECTROCHEMICAL SIGNALS
TO OTHER NERVES,
WHICH MAKE THE MUSCLE CONTRACT.
HUMAN BODIES HAVE
BILLIONS OF MORE NERVES--
BILLIONS MORE NERVES
THAN A SNAIL HAS,
BUT THEY HAVE SOMETHING ELSE
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT,
AND THAT IS NERVES
IN OUR BODIES
ARE VERY HIGHLY ORGANIZED,
AND THE HEADQUARTERS
OF THE ORGANIZATION
IS IN THE HUMAN BRAIN.
SO FOR US, MESSAGES
DO NOT TRAVEL
ALONG THE NERVES
FROM SKIN TO MUSCLE DIRECTLY.
THE MESSAGES
FROM OUR SENSORY SYSTEMS
ARE ROUTED TO OUR BRAINS,
WHERE THEY'RE MONITORED
AND THEY'RE ALTERED
AND OTHERWISE PROCESSED,
AND MESSAGES GO
FROM THE BRAIN TO THE MUSCLES,
WHICH CAUSE THE MOVEMENT.
NOW WE'RE GETTING
TOWARD REPRESENTATION NOW,
SIGNS AND TOKENS.
THINGS LIKE SUGAR AND DNA
AND THE SCENT OF DOGS
MAY APPEAR TO REPRESENT
SOMETHING TO SOME CREATURE,
BUT THE ANIMAL DOES NOT
NECESSARILY MAKE THEM
AS REPRESENTATIONS.
INSTEAD, THEY ARE PRESENTATIONS.
THEY'RE PRESENTATIONS
OF THE ENVIRONMENT
TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
WE MAY SEE IN NATURE SOMETHING
THAT LOOKS LIKE REPRESENTATION.
I EXPECT YOU'VE ALL SEEN
STICK INSECTS.
THESE ARE INSECTS
THAT LOOK LIKE A TWIG.
WELL, OF COURSE BECAUSE
THEY LOOK LIKE A TWIG,
THEY DON'T GET EATEN BY A BIRD,
AND WE MIGHT SAY THAT
THE SHAPE OF THE INSECT
IS REPRESENTING SOMETHING
THAT'S NOT ITSELF,
BUT THAT'S NOT REPRESENTATION
THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
THAT JUST HAPPENS.
THAT'S IN DNA.
THAT'S THE WAY
THE INSECT IS MADE.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE COME
TO THE DOG,
THE DOG HAS A CHOICE.
THE DOG SNIFFING THE TREE
MAY OR MAY NOT DECIDE
TO LEAVE A SCENT TOKEN
OF ITS OWN.
IF IT DOES, THE URINE
SPRAYED ON THE TREE
TRULY REPRESENTS THE DOG
TO OTHER DOGS,
AND IT ALSO REPRESENTS
THE DOG TO HIMSELF
IF HE HAPPENS TO COME
BY THAT TREE THE NEXT MORNING.
NEVERTHELESS, INTELLIGENT
AS DOGS ARE,
THEY HAVE NEVER MADE A LANGUAGE
OUT OF THESE CHEMICAL SIGNS.
UH...
NOW TAKE CROWS.
THE BIRD SPECIES
I ADMIRE MOST, I THINK.
CROWS DO SEEM TO HAVE A KIND
OF RUDIMENTARY LANGUAGE
OF CALLS.
THEY CERTAINLY CAN COUNT.
A CONTEMPORARY OF MINE
IN GRADUATE SCHOOL
ACTUALLY DID
A DISSERTATION
ABOUT THE COUNTING ABILITY
OF CROWS,
AND THAT'S CORNELL, 1946,
IF YOU NEED TO LOOK IT UP.
WELL, THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF STUDY OF BIRD SONGS
AND ANIMAL CALLS
AND OTHER SOUNDS ANIMALS MAKE
AS LOOKING
FOR THE BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS
OF LANGUAGE,
BUT LET'S FACE IT.
HOW MANY THINGS CAN SOUNDS
REPRESENT NATURALLY?
UH...
NEVERTHELESS, THERE IS
A LOT OF FASCINATION
WITH WHAT ANIMALS CAN DO
WITH LANGUAGE.
I HAVE MET AND SEEN
THE FILMS OR VIDEOS
OF IRENE PEPPERBERG,
WHO HAS DONE WORK
WITH GRAY PARROTS
THAT'S PRETTY WELL PUBLISHED
IN "SCIENCE"
AND IN MORE POPULAR MAGAZINES.
THE BEST OF THEIR PARROTS
IN THAT LAB
CAN NOT ONLY IMITATE
DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE LAB,
BUT WHEN YOU LISTEN
TO THE RECORDING,
YOU CAN TELL WHICH PERSON IT IS
THE BIRD IS IMITATING.
THEY DON'T GET JUST THE WORDS.
THEY GET THE WHOLE SOUND
OF THE PERSON'S VOICE
AND MANNER OF SPEAKING,
AND YET TO GET
TO WHERE WE WANT TO GO,
I THINK SOUNDS ARE
A DEAD-END STREET.
I BELIEVE THAT
THE FIRST CREATURES
TO REPRESENT
SOMETHING THEY KNEW
AND THAT THEY COULD
READ BACK AGAIN
WERE THE ANCESTORS WE SHARE
WITH CHIMPANZEES.
WE KNOW HUMANS
HAVE THIS ABILITY,
AND BOTH
IN EXPERIMENTAL SETTINGS
AND IN THE WILD,
CHIMPANZEES DEMONSTRATE
JUST A LITTLE BIT
OF THIS ABILITY.
THEY HAVE TWO GESTURES
THAT ARE WIDELY KNOWN AND SEEN.
THEY HAVE ONE GESTURE
THAT MEANS "GIVE ME FOOD"
AND ANOTHER ONE THAT MEANS
"GROOM ME HERE,"
AND THEY TOUCH THE PART
OF THE BODY THEY WANT
THE OTHER ONE TO GROOM.
ALSO, GERALD EDELMAN
IN HIS BOOK
"THE REMEMBERED PRESENT"--
AND THE SUBTITLE OF THAT BOOK IS
"A BIOLOGICAL THEORY
OF CONSCIOUSNESS."
EDELMAN, A NOBEL-PRIZE WINNER,
IN THAT BOOK
AND TWO OTHERS WRITTEN
NEARLY THE SAME TIME
PRESENTS EVIDENCE
THAT CHIMPANZEES CAN
FORM CONCEPTS.
THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR
AS THEY GO,
BUT THEY DO SORT THE WORLD
INTO DIFFERENT KINDS
OF CATEGORIES.
A CHIMPANZEE KNOWS
THE DIFFERENCE--
KNOWS THAT IT'S LOOKING
AT A DOG,
WHETHER IT'S A GREAT DANE
OR A LITTLE BITTY ONE.
IT EVEN KNOWS THAT IT'S A DOG
IT'S LOOKING AT
WHEN YOU SHOW IT
A PHOTOGRAPH,
BUT THAT'S A LONG WAY
FROM LANGUAGE.
EDELMAN KNOWS THAT OF COURSE,
AND HE ARGUES THAT WHAT
THE CHIMPANZEES
ARE SHOWING
IS PRIMARY CONSCIOUSNESS,
THIS ABILITY TO OPERATE
IN THE WORLD
AND TO CLASSIFY THINGS
INTO GROUPS,
TO FORM CONCEPTS,
TO GET A KIND OF A SINGLE IDEA
IN THE HEAD OR MIND--
IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT--
WHICH REPRESENTS ANY
AND ALL OF THOSE CREATURES.
NOW THEN ON THE COGNITIVE SIDE,
MERLIN DONALD IN HIS BOOK
"THE EMERGENCE
OF THE MODERN MIND"
CONNECTS THIS PRIMARY
CONSCIOUSNESS STAGE OF...
EVOLUTION TO REPRESENTATIONS.
HIS THESIS IS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS
COULD HAVE NOT HAVE BEGUN
AND COULD NOT HAVE DEVELOPED
WITHOUT WHAT WAS IN THE BRAIN
BEING SOMEHOW REPRESENTED
OUTSIDE IT.
SO I AGREE
WITH BOTH THESE EXPERTS
IN THIS FIELD.
I THINK THAT COGNITION
AND REPRESENTATION
WORK TOGETHER TO BRING ABOUT
HIGHER ORDER CONSCIOUSNESS
AND LANGUAGE.
CONCEPTS ARE FLEETING,
NEBULOUS THINGS
LIKE THE RANDOM
ELECTRICAL CHARGES
THAT MAKE THE AURORA BOREALIS.
THEY JUST FADE TO NOTHING
UNLESS THEY'RE REPRESENTED
BY SOMETHING,
SOME SIGN OUTSIDE THE ORGANISM.
I WOULD GUESS--
I DON'T KNOW A THING ABOUT IT
BECAUSE I'M NOT INSIDE IT,
BUT I WOULD GUESS THAT
IN THE CHIMPANZEE'S HEAD
THE CONCEPT DOG IS FORMED
WHEN THE CHIMPANZEE
IS LOOKING AT A DOG
OR PERHAPS HEARING
A DOG BARKING
OR LOOKING AT A PICTURE,
BUT TAKE AWAY THE SOUND,
THE PICTURE, AND THE DOG,
AND THE CHIMPANZEE'S NOT
THINKING ABOUT DOGS ANYMORE.
AT LEAST, IT SEEMS LIKELY.
SO CONCEPTS COME AND GO.
THEY NEED SOMETHING
OUTSIDE THE CONCEPTUALIZING
NERVOUS SYSTEM THAT
REPRESENTS THEM.
BUT ONCE CONCEPTS
GET REPRESENTED,
THEY DON'T STAY STATIC,
THEY CAN COMBINE AND RECOMBINE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF I POINT
WITH ONE HAND
TO A PERSON OVER THERE,
THAT POINTING CAN
REPRESENT THE PERSON,
OR IT CAN REPRESENT THE PLACE
WHERE THAT PERSON IS,
AND THEN IF I POINT
WITH THE OTHER HAND
TO A PERSON OR A PLACE
OVER THERE, THAT'S BOTH,
BUT IF I DO THIS,
PERHAPS I'M REPRESENTING
THE EXPERIENCE OF SEEING
THOSE TWO PERSONS MOVE TOGETHER.
I'M REPRESENTING A MEMORY
THAT PERSON "A"
AND PERSON "B" CAME TOGETHER.
COULD BE THAT,
OR IF I DID THAT
AND THAT AND THAT,
MAYBE I'M EXPRESSING INSTEAD
A WISH THAT
THE TWO PERSONS
WOULD COME TOGETHER.
ONCE IT GETS OUTSIDE THE HEAD,
YOU CAN DO THINGS
WITH THE REPRESENTATION.
WELL, REPRESENTATIONS
NEED SOMETHING
TO REPRESENT OF COURSE,
BUT JUST AS IMPORTANT,
THEY NEED SOMETHING ELSE,
SOME WAY OF CONNECTING THEM
TO WHAT THEY DO REPRESENT.
I THINK THAT'S
THE CRUCIAL THING.
WE ARE SO FAMILIAR
WITH LANGUAGE
THAT WE HAVEN'T GIVEN
A THOUGHT TO WHAT IT IS
THAT CONNECTS WORDS
OR SIGNS TO MEANINGS.
EVER SINCE EARLY CHILDHOOD
IF WE ASKED WHY A SIGN
OR A WORD MEANS WHAT IT MEANS,
WE GET AN ANSWER SOMETHING LIKE,
"THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.
THAT'S THE WAY IT IS."
A WORD MEANS WHAT IT MEANS
BECAUSE ALMOST EVERYONE
WHO USES THE LANGUAGE
LEARNED THE WORD
AND WHAT IT MEANS
AT THE SAME TIME ALTOGETHER
AS IF ONE WAS PART
OF THE OTHER,
BUT THERE'S NOTHING NATURAL
IN THIS.
I MEAN, IT'S NATURAL
BECAUSE IT HAPPENS, YES.
THERE'S NO NATURAL--
BUT THERE'S NO
NATURAL CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE WORD
AND THE MEANING.
THAT COMES
BY ARBITRARY CONVENTION.
A REPRESENTATION
AND WHAT IT REPRESENTS
CAN BE CONNECTED NATURALLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE TWO THINGS
MAY BE SIMILAR IN SHAPE
OR IN SOME OTHER WAY.
SUCH SIMILARITY IS
CHARACTERISTIC
OF THE KIND OF REPRESENTATION
MADE BY A SIGN CALLED AN ICON
AND ASL SIGNS LIKE "BALL"
AND "BIRD" AND "BOOK"
AND "TREE" ARE EXAMPLES
OF THAT,
WHERE THERE'S SOMETHING SIMILAR,
SOMETHING WE RECOGNIZE
AS RESEMBLING--
ONE RESEMBLING THE OTHER.
SOMETHING ABOUT THE WAY
THESE THINGS LOOK,
BIRDS AND BALLS,
BOOKS, TREES LOOK,
IS SIMILAR TO SOMETHING
ABOUT THE SIGN OF ASL.
ANOTHER KIND
OF NATURAL CONNECTION OCCURS
WHEN THE THING
BEING REPRESENTED
DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE WAY
IT IS REPRESENTED.
THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES
AMONG ASL VERBS.
SIGN LANGUAGE VERBS
GENERALLY WILL BE...
ANOTHER KIND OF SIGN THAT
SEMIOTICIANS CALL THE INDEX.
THE INDEX IS A SIGN
THAT HAS THE FORM IT HAS
BECAUSE IT'S SOMEHOW
CONNECTED DIRECTLY
NATURALLY TO WHAT IT REPRESENTS.
TAKE SIGNS--
ASL SIGNS LIKE "FALL"
AND "CLIMB" AND "WALK"
AND "CARRY."
IN FACT, ANY NON-ABSTRACT VERB,
I THINK, IN THE LANGUAGE
IS GOING TO BE PRETTY CLOSE
TO WHAT WE CONCEIVE OF
AS BEING THE WAY
THAT ACTION LOOKS.
THESE ICONS AND INDEXES,
THE NOUN-LIKE THINGS,
THE THINGS THAT RESEMBLE
SOMEHOW THE SIGN--
OR THE SIGN RESEMBLES THE THING,
AND THE ACTION--THE WORD--
THE ACTION WORDS, THE VERBS
IN WHICH THE MOVEMENT
OF THE SIGN REPRODUCES
IN SOME WAY THE MOVEMENT
OF THE ACTION IT REPRESENTS.
THESE ARE NATURAL,
SIGNS WITH A NATURAL CONNECTION
TO WHAT THEY MEAN,
BUT THEY'RE ALSO SYMBOLS.
THEY'RE ALSO LANGUAGE SIGNS.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE
USED THAT WAY.
I'M SURE MANY OF YOU
HAVE TRAVELED
TO WHERE OTHER
SIGN LANGUAGES ARE USED.
YOU KNOW WHAT
IN EUROPEAN SIGN LANGUAGE
IS THE SIGN FOR TREE?
SOME...
YOU CAN SEE
THE SIMILARITY THERE.
THIS IS LIKE A MAPLE TREE,
BUT OTHERS DO TREE,
THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT A TREE TRUNK, I GUESS,
SOME KIND OF VERTICAL THING,
BUT ALL 3 OF THOSE SIGNS,
THE ASL SIGN,
THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN,
THE SOUTHERN EUROPEAN SIGN
FOR TREE, THEY ALL
DO RESEMBLE,
BUT THE PEOPLE WHO USE
ANY ONE OF THOSE LANGUAGES
HAVE A PARTICULAR SIGN
THAT THEY SAY MEANS TREE,
AND SO IT DOES TO THEM.
SO A SIGN CAN BE
NATURALLY CONNECTED
AS AN ICON OR AN INDEX
TO WHAT IT REPRESENTS,
BUT IT ALSO CAN BE SYMBOLIC
IN THE SENSE THAT
THE PEOPLE WHO USE IT
HAVE DECIDED
THIS IS THE ONE
AND NO OTHER
IS GOING TO BE THE THING
A LANGUAGE SIGNS.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT
IS IN THE SIGN LANGUAGE
OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS.
FAMOUS AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
GARRICK MALLERY,
LIEUTENANT COLONEL
GARRICK MALLERY,
PUBLISHED A BOOK
"THE SIGN LANGUAGE
OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS,"
AND THE FRONT PART OF THE BOOK,
HE IS EXTOLLING THE UNIVERSALITY
OF SIGN LANGUAGE
AND GESTURE AND SO FORTH.
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT.
I THINK YOU CAN UNDERSTAND--
IN THE CONTEXT
OF WHAT I'M SAYING
THIS MORNING,
WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.
WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS
THAT SO MANY
OF THESE MANUAL SIGNS
HAVE SOMETHING ABOUT THEM
THAT SORT OF NATURALLY SUGGESTS
TO THE PEOPLE WHO SEE THEM
WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO MEAN,
BUT EVEN THE INDIAN
SIGN LANGUAGE WAS
FAR FROM BEING UNIVERSAL.
IN THE BACK PART
OF MALLERY'S BOOK,
HE'S GOT THIS LONG DICTIONARY
LISTED BY TRIBES,
AND I DON'T REMEMBER
WHICH TRIBES ARE WHICH
EXCEPT THAT IN THE SOUTHWEST
OF THE UNITED STATES
OR THE SOUTHWEST PART
OF THE CONTINENT
THE TRIBES LIVING THERE
HAVE A SIGN FOR HORSE
VERY DIFFERENT
FROM THE ASL SIGN.
LET ME DO SOME OF IT.
THAT'S THEIR SIGN FOR HORSE.
YOU GET IT?
THESE PEOPLE ARE USED TO
SEEING WILD HORSES
OUT THERE IN THE PLAINS
OF ARIZONA OR NEW MEXICO,
AND THE HORSES
ARE GOING BY LIKE THAT.
THEY'RE KIND OF
RECTANGULAR SHAPES
OR SILHOUETTES
AGAINST THE SKY.
UP IN THE MIDDLE WEST MORE
OR WESTERN PLAINS,
THERE WAS ANOTHER SIGN
FOR HORSE.
ANOTHER TRIBE DIDN'T REFER
TO HORSE THAT WAY.
HAD A DIFFERENT SIGN.
ANYONE? THAT'S BECAUSE
THE HORSES WERE USED
TO PULL SOMETHING
WAS CALLED A FRENCH WORD,
A TRAVOIS,
T-R-A-V-O-I-S.
SOME TRIBES USED
DOGS FOR THAT.
WHAT THEY DID WAS PUT
A ROPE OR A STRAP
AROUND THE MIDDLE
OF THE BEAST,
HOOK TWO POLES TO THAT.
THE POLES DRAGGED
ON THE GROUND BEHIND,
AND THEN THEY COULD TIE
THEIR BUNDLES,
THE TEEPEES ROLLED UP
OR WHATEVER,
AND THE HORSE
WOULD PULL IT ALONG.
SO THAT WAS HORSE
TO THAT TRIBE,
AND THEN THERE WERE
THE INDIANS
WHO LIVED FURTHER EAST.
IN THEIR SIGN LANGUAGE, THEY HAD
A DIFFERENT SIGN FOR HORSE.
YOU CAN PROBABLY GUESS
WHAT IT IS.
OH. OH, THAT'S GOOD. YEAH!
OH, THAT'S DRIVING
CARRIAGE HORSES,
BUT THE INDIANS
IN THE NEAR MIDWEST
WERE FAMILIAR SEEING
AMERICAN CAVALRY,
SO WHEN THEY SAW A HORSE,
THEY SAW A RIDER ASTRIDE IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHO IT WAS
OR WHY IT WAS
THAT THE ASL SIGN FOR HORSE
IS MADE UP ON THE HEAD
WITH A THUMB AND FINGERS.
I JUST WONDER IF--
JUST IDLE CURIOSITY--
DO YOU SUPPOSE IT'S BECAUSE
THAT LOOKS LIKE
THE FINGERSPELLING "H,"
AND SO YOU DO THE HORSE'S EAR
AND THE "H" UP ON THE HEAD
UP ALSO WHERE YOU MAKE A SIGN
FOR DEER AND COW,
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
WELL, TO SUM UP
WHAT I HAVEN'T QUITE SAID YET...
[LAUGHTER]
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU
THAT MANUAL REPRESENTATIONS
ARE THE ONLY FIRST WAY
OF PUTTING CONCEPTS OUT
WHERE THEIR MAKERS CAN SEE THEM.
CHIMPANZEES AND HOMINIDS
SURELY DID THAT MUCH,
BUT HOMINIDS WENT MUCH FARTHER.
WHEN THEY SAW
WHAT WAS IN THEIR HEADS
REPRESENTED OUT THERE
IN THEIR OWN
AND OTHERS' MOVEMENTS,
THEY COULD BEGIN
TO CONNECT THINGS UP.
REMEMBER MY EXAMPLE
OF THE TWO POINTING FINGERS
COMING TOGETHER.
SUCH CONNECTED CONCEPTS
NOW REALLY DESERVE
TO BE CALLED IDEAS.
WHEN TWO PEOPLE GET TOGETHER,
THAT'S MORE THAN JUST
ONE PERSON AND ANOTHER PERSON
AND MOVING.
IT'S TWO PEOPLE GOT TOGETHER.
IT'S A COMPLETE IDEA.
SO DOING GESTURES
OF THAT KIND,
MEANING THAT WAY
WITH THE MEANING FAIRLY CLEAR
FROM WHAT YOU WERE POINTING AT
AND WHAT YOU DID
WITH THE MOVEMENT,
IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE,
SOME CREATURES THERE,
TO SEE THAT THE MOVING HAND
REPRESENTED A PERSON
OR A CREATURE,
THAT THE MOVEMENT ITSELF
REPRESENTED
WHAT THAT CREATURE DID
AND EVEN COULD REPRESENT
WHAT WAS THE RESULT
OF THAT ACTION.
SUPPOSE SOMEONE IS SAYING,
"I WANTED TO SEE SO AND SO,
"BUT HE WAS JUST GETTING
INTO HIS CAR.
"I RAN ACROSS THE PARKING LOT,
AND I CAUGHT HIM."
YOU CAN SEE HOW
THE HAND MOVING IS LIKE
THE PERSON TELLING THE STORY.
THE RUNNING ACROSS
AND GRABBING
IS THE ACTION PERFORMED,
AND THE FINGER THAT'S
GRABBED REPRESENTS
THE OBJECT OF THAT.
WELL, THAT'S AN INTERESTING
AND A VERY SIMPLE GESTURE,
BUT IT ALSO HAPPENS TO BE
WHAT GRAMMARIANS CALL
A TRANSITIVE SENTENCE,
AND WHEN YOU'VE REPRESENTED
SOMETHING OUT IN FRONT THAT WAY
THAT HAS THAT STRUCTURE--
I MEAN, I JUST TOOK
IT APART FOR YOU.
THE MOVING HAND
IS THE SUBJECT,
THE MOVEMENT IS THE VERB,
AND THE STATIONARY HAND
IS THE OBJECT.
WHEN THAT HAPPENS,
YOU HAVE A SENTENCE,
AND ALONG WITH A SENTENCE,
YOU HAVE SYNTAX,
WHICH IS ONE
OF THE NECESSARY PARTS
OF LANGUAGE.
THERE ARE CONSIDERABLE ARGUMENTS
GOING ON--OR THERE WERE
AS TO WHETHER CHIMPANZEES
TAUGHT TO USE COMPUTER KEYS
OR PLASTIC TOKENS
OR GESTURAL SIGNS,
WHETHER THEY WERE CAPABLE
OF SYNTAX.
I'LL LEAVE YOU
TO THE LITERATURE ON THAT
BECAUSE IT'S BEING
ARGUED BOTH WAYS,
BUT SIGNS LIKE THAT
COULD HAVE BEEN
THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE
IN THE VERY FIRST
SIGNED SYSTEM
THAT YOU COULD CALL
A LANGUAGE.
IT'S COMPLETELY VISIBLE,
IT'S COMPLETELY PERFORMABLE,
AND BECAUSE OF THE RESEMBLANCE
AND THE CONNECTION,
IT SHOWS NATURALLY
JUST WHAT IT MEANS,
AND THE THING IS SOUNDS
CANNOT POSSIBLY DO THAT.
WHAT YOU CAN TELL
FROM A SOUND
IS PROBABLY ITS LOCATION
IF IT LASTS LONG ENOUGH.
YOU CAN TURN YOUR HEAD
UNTIL THE SOUND'S COMING
IN BOTH EARS IF YOU CAN HEAR,
BUT EVEN IF YOU DO THAT,
ALL YOU KNOW IS
THE SOUND IS A SOUND IS A SOUND.
IF YOU HAD THE EXPERIENCE
OF SEEING THE ANIMAL
MAKING THE SOUND,
YOU SAY, "OH, THAT SOUND
IS A LION ROARING,"
OR, "THAT'S A DOG BARKING,"
BUT THE SOUND ITSELF
DOESN'T REPRESENT ANYTHING
EXCEPT WHAT IT IS.
HOWEVER, IF THE PEOPLE
WHO WERE MAKING
THOSE GESTURAL SENTENCES
GOT TO BE IN THE HABIT
OF MAKING NOISES WHILE THEY
WERE REPRESENTING GESTURALLY,
IT COULD BE THAT
AFTER A WHILE
MAKING THE NOISES THAT
WENT ALONG WITH IT
COULD REPLACE THE VISIBLE SIGN
AND THE MEANING.
I MEAN, ORIGINALLY, THEY WOULD
HAVE OCCURRED ALONG
WITH BOTH THE VISIBLE SIGN
AND WHAT IT STOOD FOR,
AND THEN LATER,
THE SOUND ALONE
WOULD STILL BE ASSOCIATED
WITH THE MEANING,
AND THE VISIBLE SIGN
COULD DROP OUT.
WELL, IT NEVER DROPPED OUT
ENTIRELY, DID IT?
ON THE ONE HAND, WE HAVE ALL
THESE MARVELOUS SIGN LANGUAGES,
SIGN LANGUAGES
OF DEAF PEOPLE
ALL OVER THE WORLD
AND EVEN SECONDARY
SIGN LANGUAGES
SUCH AS THE AMERICAN INDIANS
AND AUSTRALIAN
ABORIGINAL PEOPLE USED,
BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE GESTURING
THAT HEARING,
SPEAKING PEOPLE USE
WHEN THEY'RE CONVERSING,
SO THE SYSTEM
OF REPRESENTATION IS IN THERE.
I THINK
UNDERNEATH LANGUAGE
IT'S STILL VERY MUCH
A PART OF IT.
SO WITH THAT SORT OF THING,
THE SPOKEN LANGUAGES
COULD HAVE ARISEN
AFTER SIGN LANGUAGES
HAD BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED
BECAUSE UNTIL YOU COULD
REPRESENT COMPLETE THOUGHTS
VISIBLY IN SIGNS,
WHICH SHOWED WHAT THEY MEANT,
THERE WAS NO WAY THAT
A SPOKEN SOUND, A WORD,
COULD HAVE ANY MEANING.
PEOPLE HAD TO PUT
SOME MEANING INTO IT.
WHERE DID THAT MEANING
COME FROM?
WELL, IT CAME
FROM THE VERY SENSIBLE THOUGHTS
AND SENTENCES
OF SIGN-LANGUAGE-USING PEOPLE.
IF THESE IDEAS OF MINE
EVER--HEH--GET TO BE
WIDELY ACCEPTED,
I THINK ONE EFFECT OF THEM
MIGHT BE THAT DEAF PEOPLE
AND THEIR LANGUAGES
WOULD GET MORE RESPECT
THAN THEY HAVE NOW.
THEY WOULD GET THE RESPECT DUE.
PEOPLE WOULD REALIZE--
AND THE WHOLE OUTLOOK
ON LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT
WOULD GET BACK
TO SOME VERY BASIC THINGS.
THE FACT THAT WE CAN THINK
AND SPEAK AND WRITE
AND READ AND FIGURE
AND INVENT AND ALL THAT
HAS AS MUCH TO DO
WITH OUR VISION
AND OUR UPPER BODY MOVEMENT
AS IT HAS TO DO
WITH OUR SPOKEN LANGUAGE.
SO I THINK. HEH.
NOW SINCE I HAVEN'T TAKEN
THE WHOLE HOUR,
IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS
FROM THE FLOOR,
I'D BE GLAD TO DO MY BEST.
I HAVE
A QUESTION FOR YOU.
YOU TALK ABOUT HEARING PEOPLE
USING GESTURES
AND EUROPEAN PEOPLES
AND TALKING ABOUT EUROPE.
I THINK THAT HEARING PEOPLE
MAY USE GESTURAL LANGUAGES,
AND DEAF PEOPLE CERTAINLY
HAVE THEIR SIGNED LANGUAGE,
AND HERE IN AMERICA, WE
TALK ABOUT PEOPLE WITH SIMCOM,
SIGNING AND TALKING
AT THE SAME TIME
AND THE IMPACT
ON LITERACY.
HERE IN AMERICA NOW
WITH SIMCOM,
SIGNING AND SPEAKING
AT THE SAME TIME,
OR METHODS OF EDUCATION,
YOU KNOW, TEACHING
WRITING OR SPEECHREADING
OR LITERACY,
DO YOU SEE A RELATIONSHIP?
STOKOE: I'M NOT SURE.
MAN: LET ME MAKE SURE
I INTERPRETED THAT CORRECTLY.
I'M NOT SURE I INTERPRETED
YOU RIGHT, ISAIAS.
OK. LET ME BACK UP
AND REPEAT THIS AGAIN.
WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN AMERICA AND EUROPE
WITH HEARING PEOPLE,
SPOKEN LANGUAGE, AND GESTURE,
AND THEN AS THAT SPREAD
THROUGH DIFFERENT COUNTRIES,
HOW WOULD PEOPLE COMMUNICATE
THROUGH GESTURES
WITH ONE ANOTHER?
OH. PEOPLE IN AMERICA
ARE NOT AS COMFORTABLE
WITH GESTURES,
NATURAL GESTURES,
AS PEOPLE IN EUROPE ARE.
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
PEOPLE ARE VERY COMFORTABLE
WITH NATURAL GESTURING,
BUT THEY'RE MORE RESERVED
HERE IN AMERICA.
HOW DO YOU THINK
THAT DEVELOPED?
WELL, I THINK--
[COUGHS]
EVERY GROUP OF PEOPLE
WHO HAVE A WAY OF LIFE
THAT THEY SHARE PRETTY MUCH,
A SET OF VALUES
AND BEHAVIORS
AND DECISIONS
ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG--
IN OTHER WORDS, A CULTURE--
PEOPLE WITHIN
A PARTICULAR CULTURE
HAVE THEIR WAY
OF DOING THINGS,
AND THOSE IN ANOTHER
HAVE A DIFFERENT ONE,
BUT IF...
IF PEOPLE FROM ONE CULTURE
GO TO ANOTHER ONE.
AND TRY TO COMMUNICATE,
AS I THINK YOU WERE SAYING,
THEY'LL HAVE DIFFICULTY.
THIS DID HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, BACK
IN THE 18th AND 19th CENTURY
WHEN EUROPEAN PEOPLE
WENT INTO THE PACIFIC,
AND I THINK PARTICULARLY
CAPTAIN COOK'S VOYAGE,
BUT THAT'S JUST
ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY.
CAPTAIN COOK GOING
UP THE WEST COAST
OF WHAT'S NOW CANADA,
RUNNING INTO THE PEOPLE
LIVING THERE,
NATIVE AMERICANS, INDIANS,
HE NEEDED WATER AND FOOD
FOR HIS CREW,
AND THE ONLY WAY
HE COULD COMMUNICATE
WITH THOSE PEOPLE
WAS BY GESTURE,
AND HE DID WRITE--
HE AND SOME OTHER EXPLORERS
WROTE UP WHAT THEY DID.
I REMEMBER ONE EXAMPLE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT
FIRST EXAMPLE IN THAT WAS
COMMUNICATION WOULD
TAKE PLACE BY GESTURE
BUT ONLY IF THE EXPLORERS,
THE TRAVELERS,
LAID DOWN THEIR ARMS, YOU KNOW.
THE FIRST THING IS
"DON'T BRING THOSE GUNS IN HERE.
"PUT THEM DOWN.
NOW WHAT IS IT YOU WANT?"
WELL, BY GESTURE,
COOK AND HIS PARTY
WERE ABLE TO PERSUADE
THE PEOPLE THAT THEY NEEDED
SOME WATER
AND THEY NEEDED SOME FOOD,
A CERTAIN KIND OF FOOD,
I THINK, IT WAS,
AND THE INDIANS TRIED
TO TELL THEM
WHAT...
WHAT THEY WANTED TO KNOW.
WELL, WHAT HE FINALLY DID,
HE LAID DOWN LIKE THIS
ON THE FLOOR,
ON THE GROUND 3 TIMES,
AND SURE ENOUGH,
3 DAYS LATER,
SOMEBODY THEY SENT OUT
CAME BACK WITH THE FOOD
THAT THEY WANTED.
THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE
THEY COULD USE BETWEEN THEM,
SO THEY HAD TO RESORT
TO THAT KIND OF PANTOMIME
AND GESTURE INVENTED
ON THE SPOT AND SO FORTH,
AND THIS WORKS--
THIS DOES WORK--
IT'S ALWAYS WORKED,
AND IT WORKS BETTER
FOR DEAF PEOPLE
THAN FOR HEARING PEOPLE.
THERE'S SOME REAL
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON THAT,
THAT WHEN DEAF PEOPLE
FROM DIFFERENT NATIONS
WHO HAVE DIFFERENT
SIGN LANGUAGES GET TOGETHER
THEY DON'T KNOW
EACH OTHER'S SIGN LANGUAGE,
BUT THEY'RE MUCH--
MUCH QUICKER
AT UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER
WITH THAT INVENTED
GESTURE AND PANTOMIME
BECAUSE THEY'RE USED TO USING
THEIR EYES TO GET
LANGUAGE INFORMATION.
I THINK YOUR QUESTION, TOO,
HAD SOMETHING--
SAID SOMETHING ABOUT LITERACY,
AND THAT'S A WHOLE
NOTHER SUBJECT.
I MEAN, UH, THE--
WE CAN'T REALLY TALK
ABOUT LITERACY EXCEPT
THE WRITTEN FORM
OF SPOKEN LANGUAGES.
SOME PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO--
HEH--I DID IT MYSELF
IN MY YOUNGER DAYS--
TRYING TO INVENT
A NOTATIONAL SYSTEM
FOR AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE.
OTHER PEOPLE HAVE PICKED IT UP
AND CHANGED IT
OR MADE DIFFERENT ONES,
AND THERE'S PEOPLE IN DANCE,
BALLET AND STUFF,
HAVE A SIGN SYSTEM FOR IT.
THEY CAN TELL YOU WHAT
EVERY PART OF THE BODY IS DOING
AT A GIVEN MOMENT,
BUT IT TAKES A WHOLE PAGE
TO TRANSCRIBE
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF SIGNING,
SO I'M NOT SURE
WHERE THE--
UH, THE TIE
BETWEEN THE GESTURE
AND THE LITERACY COMES IN,
BUT I DO REMEMBER
WATCHING MY COLLEAGUES
TEACHING ENGLISH AT GALLAUDET,
AND SOMETIMES, A STUDENT
WOULDN'T KNOW AN ENGLISH WORD,
BUT OF COURSE AS SOON
AS IT WAS PUT
INTO THE ASL TRANSLATION,
THE STUDENT GOT IT,
AND THEN THERE WE WERE.
THERE WAS A QUESTION
BACK THERE.
MY QUESTION RELATES
TO DEVELOPING LANGUAGE.
YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME
RESEARCH THAT TALKS ABOUT--
WHO, ME? OH, HI.
SORRY. HELLO.
THERE'S SOME RESEARCH
THAT TALKS ABOUT--OOPS,
I SPACED FOR A SECOND--
VOCAL DEVELOPMENT
AND INTERNAL--
I THINK IT WAS LIEBERMAN,
LIEBERMAN, MAYBE
VOCAL DEVELOPMENT
AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
AND LANGUAGE.
IS THAT TRUE THAT LANGUAGE
AND VOICE DEVELOPS
IN THE BRAIN AT THE SAME TIME
SIMULTANEOUSLY
AND COGNITION AND...
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.
I DOUBT THAT IT WOULD
BE TRUE FOR THIS REASON,
THAT PRETTY GOOD EVIDENCE
FROM ARCHEOLOGY SHOWS
THAT PEOPLE ON EARTH
WERE ACTING
IN A PRETTY HUMAN WAY
FOR A LONG, LONG TIME
BEFORE THEY COULD SPEAK.
THAT IS, THE KIND
OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE THROAT
THAT'S REQUIRED
FOR SPOKEN LANGUAGE.
PHILIP LIEBERMAN
AT BROWN UNIVERSITY,
CRELIN, KLATT,
OTHERS HAVE DONE RESEARCH
ON THE SHAPE
OF THE VOCAL TRACT
IN HUMAN BEINGS--
ADULT HUMAN BEINGS,
NEWBORN HUMAN INFANTS--
AND THEN VARIOUS PRIMATES--
APES, ORANGUTANS,
CHIMPS, AND SO ON--
AND THEY SAY THAT
IT WAS PRETTY LATE
IN THE EVOLUTION
OF THE PRESENT
HUMAN PHYSICAL STRUCTURE
THAT WE CAME TO HAVE
THE KIND OF THROAT
THAT MADE SPEECH POSSIBLE,
YOU KNOW, LIKE,
50,000 YEARS AGO,
BUT I BELIEVE THAT LANGUAGE
WAS ON EARTH,
A VISUAL LANGUAGE,
A SIGN LANGUAGE,
FOR, YOU KNOW, HALF A MILLION
YEARS BEFORE THAT.
IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE THAT
THE HUMAN HAND,
THE STRUCTURE
OF THE HUMAN HAND--
WHICH IS DIFFERENT
FROM A CHIMPANZEE HAND
BY QUITE A BIT.
THE THUMB IS
DIFFERENTLY PLACED
AND THE LENGTH
OF THE FINGERS AND SO ON.
THE HUMAN HAND HAS BEEN
AROUND FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS
OR A COUPLE MILLION YEARS,
BUT HUMAN VOICES,
HUMAN THROATS ABLE
TO HANDLE
A MODERN SPOKEN LANGUAGE
DIDN'T DEVELOP
UNTIL 50,000, 60,000 YEARS AGO.
IS IT BETTER
IF I COME UP FRONT TO SIGN
OR SIGN FROM HERE?
CAN EVERYONE SEE ME OK?
I'D LIKE YOU TO EXPLAIN
THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN MONKEYS
OR CHIMPANZEES
AND, YOU KNOW, GESTURING,
TRYING TO TEACH
CHIMPANZEES SIGN LANGUAGE,
BUT, YOU KNOW, ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT'S
BOTHERING ME IS
MY OWN EXPERIENCE,
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
GROWING UP
AT A DIFFERENT
RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF,
WHERE THERE WAS A WALL
LITERALLY AROUND THE SCHOOL,
AND, LIKE, YOU'D HAVE A--
THERE WAS A RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF,
AND RIGHT NEXT TO IT
ACROSS THE WALL WAS A ZOO.
SO WHEN I'D BE WALKING
OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL,
YOU KNOW, WE'D BE TEASED.
PEOPLE WOULD ACCUSE US
OF ACTING LIKE MONKEYS,
OR I THINK PEOPLE
MADE COMPARISONS
WITH A FORMAL SIGNED LANGUAGE
AND HOW MONKEYS GESTURE,
AND THAT'S ALWAYS BOTHERED ME.
DO YOU SEE PARALLELS?
I MEAN, YOU KNOW,
THE LEVEL
OF LANGUAGE ATTAINMENT
IN MONKEYS CERTAINLY
ISN'T LIKE THE LEVEL
OF LANGUAGE ATTAINMENT
WITH DEAF PEOPLE,
SO HOW DO YOU EDUCATE
LAY PEOPLE, WHO ARE NAIVE,
THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A FULLY
DEVELOPED LANGUAGE
AND THE TYPE OF GESTURES
OR RUDIMENTARY LANGUAGE
THAT CHIMPS ARE CAPABLE OF?
THAT'S REALLY BOTHERING ME,
AND WHEN I MOVED HERE
TO AMERICA, I WAS REALLY
SURPRISED THAT THAT WASN'T
A CONCEPT HERE IN AMERICA,
COMPARING DEAF PEOPLE
WITH PRIMATES,
WHERE IT WAS
IN MY HOME COUNTRY.
SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD
JUST RESPOND TO THAT.
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION
AND A DEEP QUESTION,
AND I CAN JUST GIVE IT A TRY.
THE PEOPLE WHO THINK
OF DEAF PEOPLE AND ANIMALS
IN THAT WAY ARE PRETTY MUCH
THE SAME PEOPLE
WHO THINK OF SOMEBODY
OF A DIFFERENT COLOR SKIN
AS INFERIOR,
WHO THINK OF PEOPLE
WITH A DIFFERENT RELIGION
AS SOMEBODY TO BE SHOT AT
IN THE STREETS OF BELFAST
INSTEAD OF TO BE WELCOMED
INTO THEIR HOMES.
I MEAN, THIS IS
HUMAN PREJUDICE.
IT COMES FROM IGNORANCE,
VERY MUCH FROM IGNORANCE,
AND IT'S LEARNED BEHAVIOR.
SOMEBODY--WHOEVER SAID THAT
ABOUT COMPARING
THE DEAF CHILDREN IN THE SCHOOL
WITH THE MONKEYS IN THE ZOO
DIDN'T COME UP WITH THE IDEA
ON THEIR OWN.
IT'S NOT A NATURAL IDEA.
THEY LEARNED IT
FROM SOMEBODY ELSE,
SOMEBODY, AS MY COUSIN--ONE
OF MY COUSINS LIKED TO SAY--
SOMEBODY WHO WAS BORN
WITH A BAD FEELING.
[LAUGHTER]
BUT I THINK THE ONLY WAY
YOU CAN APPROACH THAT
IS THROUGH KNOWLEDGE.
PEOPLE IGNORANT
OF SIGN LANGUAGE--GEE!
WHEN I WENT TO GALLAUDET
42 YEARS AGO,
PEOPLE TOLD ME THAT
THE DEAF STUDENTS THERE
COULDN'T THINK IN THE ABSTRACT,
THEY COULDN'T REALLY
MASTER LANGUAGE,
THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE DEAF
THEY HAD
A MENTAL DEFICIENCY.
THAT'S ALL BALDERDASH,
TO PUT A NICE WORD ON IT.
IT'S--IT'S COMPLETELY WRONG.
IT'S FALSE INFORMATION,
IT'S IGNORANCE,
SO THE ONLY THING I CAN DO,
I THINK, IS TRY TO GET
SOME BETTER INFORMATION
OUT THERE.
IT CERTAINLY SEEMS
IN THE LAST 42 YEARS
THAT MORE INFORMATION
ABOUT AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE
AND OTHER SIGN LANGUAGES HAS
CHANGED PEOPLE'S MINDS ENOUGH.
I MEAN, I'VE SEEN THE--
WELL, I'VE SEEN THE DAY
WHEN GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY
GOT A DEAF PERSON AS PRESIDENT.
I'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE PEOPLE
I KNOW, PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES
MY AGE WHO USED TO HAVE TO
WORK--BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T
GET AN UPPER LEVEL
TEACHING POSITION
AT GALLAUDET, THEY HAD
TO WORK NIGHTS
IN A NEWSPAPER OFFICE
WORKING A LINOTYPE MACHINE.
I'VE SEEN THAT CHANGE.
I'VE SEEN FORMER STUDENTS
OF MINE BECOME
SUPERINTENDENTS OF STATE
SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF,
GET Ph.Ds., WRITE OUTSTANDING
RESEARCH DISCOVERIES,
AND THIS, I THINK,
HAS HAPPENED BECAUSE
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SIGN LANGUAGE
GOING AROUND
THAN THERE USED TO BE.
I HOPE I HAVEN'T OFFENDED
YOU BY ALL THE TALK
I GAVE ABOUT PRIMATES
AND SO FORTH.
I MEAN, I HAVE DONE
A GOOD DEAL OF STUDY
OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY,
AND I DO KNOW THAT IT'S
PRETTY WELL AUTHENTICATED
THAT THE ANCESTOR
OF CHIMPANZEES AND HUMAN BEINGS
WAS ONE SPECIES.
THAT SEPARATED
A LONG, LONG TIME AGO,
BUT THAT ANCESTOR MUST HAVE HAD
A LITTLE BIT MORE
MENTAL POWER THAN ANY
OF THE OTHER
IN THE PRIMATE LINE,
MONKEYS AND APES,
AND MODERN MOLECULAR BIOLOGISTS
WILL TELL YOU
THAT ABOUT 99%--
I THINK IT'S 99% OR 97%--
OF OUR CELLS--
THE CELLS IN OUR BODIES
ARE ALMOST 97% IDENTICAL
WITH THE CELLS
IN CHIMPANZEES' BODIES.
A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE,
A VERY WISE MAN
WHO'S DONE A HUGE BOOK,
A MONUMENTAL BOOK
ON THE SIGN LANGUAGES
OF ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA,
SAYS IN AN ARTICLE IN "MAN,"
THE BRITISH ANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL,
SAID, "IT SEEMS AS IF
CHIMPANZEES WERE
"ON THE VERGE
OF DEVELOPING LANGUAGE,
BUT THEY NEVER DID."
AND HIS TAKE ON THAT
IS THEY NEVER DID
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T NEED TO.
THEY LIVED IN AN ENVIRONMENT,
A CLIMATE THAT
WAS PERFECTLY OK.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO
ANYTHING ELSE.
APPARENTLY, THEIR COUSINS
THAT DEVELOPED
INTO TO THE HOMINID LINE
THAT DEVELOPED
INTO THE HUMAN LINE
DID HAVE TO KEEP
CHANGING THEIR WAYS.
THEY DID HAVE TO FIND
NEW WAYS OF COPING,
AND ONE OF THE WAYS
THEY FOUND WAS TO GO
FROM THE KIND OF COMMUNICATION
CHIMPS AND OTHER ANIMALS HAVE
TO SOMETHING
MORE AND MORE LIKE LANGUAGE.
BOB.
FIRST, I READ YOUR BOOK,
AND WHAT YOU TALK
ABOUT TODAY
SEEMS TO BOIL DOWN TO
ONE INTERESTING STATEMENT
YOU MADE IN YOUR BOOK,
SAYING LANGUAGE BEGINS
IN THE HEAD,
WHETHER IT COMES OUT
AS ENGLISH OR SIGN.
YOU SAID THAT IN THE BOOK.
IS THAT RELATED
TO WHAT HANS FURTH WROTE
IN HIS BOOK
"THINKING WITHOUT LANGUAGE"?
HEH. NO. I DON'T THINK
I AGREE AT ALL
WITH WHAT FURTH SAID,
AND I'M A LITTLE ASHAMED
THAT YOU REMINDED ME
OF THAT BOOK LONG AGO
BECAUSE WHAT I'M SAYING
THIS MORNING IS
THINKING DOES NOT BEGIN
IN THE HEAD.
THINKING BEGINS
WHEN THE HEAD AND THE HAND
AND THE EYES GET TOGETHER,
THAT WHAT'S IN THE HEAD
GETS EXPRESSED WITH MOTION
THAT CAN BE SEEN,
AND THEN THE MOTION
THAT CAN BE SEEN
GETS PICKED UP
AND BACK IN THE HEAD,
AND LANGUAGE IS A CIRCUIT
OF GOING AROUND.
IF I SAID--I ACCEPT
WHAT YOU SAY,
THAT I SAID IN THE BOOK--
THAT'S THE 1960 BOOK?
[LAUGHTER]
THAT WHAT--
IN THE CONTEXT, AS I REMEMBER,
A LOT OF PEOPLE, EVEN FROM
SAMUEL HEINICKE IN GERMANY,
THAT GREAT ANTAGONIST
OF THE ABBÉ DE L'ÉPÉE--
HEINICKE SAYING THAT
LANGUAGE IS SPEECH, IT'S VOICE,
IT'S GOT TO BE PUT
INTO SOUND,
OR IT'S NOT LANGUAGE,
AND THAT LONG HISTORY
IS STILL GOING ON
OF THE FIGHT BETWEEN ORALISM
AND MANUALISM,
MOUTH LANGUAGE
AND HAND LANGUAGE,
AND WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY
WHEN I SAID THAT,
WHICH YOU QUOTED,
WAS THAT LANGUAGE
IS NOT FROM THE HANDS,
IT'S NOT FROM THE MOUTH.
IT'S FROM THE BRAIN.
WHAT I REALLY MEANT TO SAY
IS OF COURSE IT INVOLVES
THE BRAIN AND THE HANDS
AND THE MOUTH AND ALTOGETHER.
YEAH. THANK YOU. HEH.
THAT'S GREAT.
SINCE YOU'RE CALLED
THE FATHER OF ASL...
IN FRANCE...
WE HEAR THAT ASL
IS AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE,
AND THEY COME OVER HERE,
AND THE FOLKS FROM FRANCE MET
DEAF PEOPLE,
AND WHAT WAS USED HERE
WAS LABELED AS ASL.
I'D ASK YOU WHAT'S
THE DEFINITION
OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE? HA!
[LAUGHTER]
[LAUGHTER]
IF I REALLY WANTED TO
WIN THIS AUDIENCE,
I WOULD SAY, "WHAT'S YOUR
DEFINITION
OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?"
[LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE]
MAN: TOUCHÉ. HA!
AND YOU SAID I'M CALLED
THE FATHER OF ASL,
AND I'VE HEARD THAT,
AND I ALWAYS DISCLAIM IT.
I MIGHT BE ONE
OF THE UNCLES
WHO FOUND THE POOR--
WHO FOUND
THE POOR BABY
OUT IN THE WOODS,
WHERE THE ORALISTS
HAD KICKED IT...
[LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE]
BUT--BUT--I MEAN,
THINKING BACK,
WAS LAURENT CLERC
THE FATHER OF ASL?
HE, YOU KNOW--
LAURENT CLERC BROUGHT BACK
FROM--BROUGHT TO AMERICA
BY T.H. GALLAUDET,
CLERC HELPED GALLAUDET FOUND
THE AMERICAN SCHOOL
IN HARTFORD,
THE FIRST PERMANENT SCHOOL
IN THE U.S.
CLERC ALSO HELPED FOUND
MANY, MANY OTHER STATE SCHOOLS.
PEOPLE CAME TO HIM,
OR HE WENT TO THE PLACE
AND SHOWED THEM
THE SIGNING SYSTEM THEY USED
AND SO ON,
AND SO THERE WAS A BIG INFLUX
OF FRENCH SIGNING INTO
THE SIGN LANGUAGE USED HERE,
BUT IF YOU CAN BELIEVE
WHAT'S WRITTEN,
ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD
LONG BEFORE CLERC CAME OVER
FROM FRANCE,
PEOPLE WERE SIGNING,
HAD A SIGN LANGUAGE.
YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER
OF SIGN LANGUAGE WOULD BE?
IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT,
IT'S THE GUY THAT LIVED
IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN
WITH A WOMAN CALLED EVE.
[LAUGHTER]
GIVE YOU A FOLLOW-UP--
I'LL GIVE YOU
A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. YEAH.
HEH HEH HEH.
OK. SO I'LL SIGN SLOW
FOR THE INTERPRETER, OK?
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST,
I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU...
ASL IS A VISUAL,
GESTURAL LANGUAGE,
AND RECEPTIVE SKILLS
ARE IMPORTANT AND SIGNING.
ARE YOU REALLY SKILLED
AT ASL YOURSELF
RECEPTIVELY AND EXPRESSIVELY?
STOKOE: NO.
MAN: NO? OK. THEN...
THEN HOW DID YOU FIND THAT
ASL IS A FULL-BLOWN LANGUAGE?
IT SEEMS SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY
THAT YOU'RE NOT HIGHLY SKILLED
AT ASL,
YOU'RE NOT A SKILLED SIGNER,
AND YET AS YOU STARTED
TO STUDY ASL,
YOU FELT,
"BOY, THIS IS GREAT!
"THIS IS A LANGUAGE!
IT'S A FULL-BLOW,
FULLY DEVELOPED LANGUAGE,"
AND YOU'RE RECOGNIZED
AS THE PERSON WHO DID THAT,
BUT YOU'RE NOT YET FLUENT
IN THE LANGUAGE,
NOT SKILLED IN THE LANGUAGE.
SO IT SEEMS CONTRADICTORY TO ME.
COULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
[LAUGHTER]
YES. THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT
IS THIS,
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SKILLED
IN THE LANGUAGE
DON'T HAVE TO ASK
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
IT'S LIKE DUCK SOUP TO THEM.
I MEAN, IT'S THEIR
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT,
AND YOU DON'T ASK A LOT
OF PERTINENT QUESTIONS
ABOUT THINGS THAT
ARE GOING WELL.
DO YOU KNOW THE STORY
ABOUT THE KID
THAT NEVER SPOKE UNTIL HE WAS
ABOUT 5 YEARS OLD?
HE WASN'T DEAF OR ANYTHING,
BUT HE JUST SAT THERE
IN THE KITCHEN
AND ATE HIS MEALS
AND WENT TO BED
AND AROUND THE HOUSE.
ONE NIGHT...
ONE NIGHT RIGHT
IN THE MIDDLE OF SUPPER,
HE SAID, "HMM.
THIS FOOD WONDER--
THIS FOOD IS TERRIBLE."
AND HIS PARENTS SAID, "WHAT?
YOU CAN TALK! YOU CAN TALK!"
HE SAID, "SURE I CAN TALK."
"WELL, WHY DIDN'T YOU
TALK BEFORE?"
SAID, "THE FOOD WAS
ALWAYS FINE BEFORE."
[LAUGHTER]
I MEAN, ANOTHER WAY
OF ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION--
I AM VERY CONSCIOUS MYSELF
THAT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH CONTACT
WITH IT ANYMORE
SOME OF MY SKILLS
THAT I DID HAVE IN SIGNING
AND IN RECEIVING SIGNS
ARE DECLINING BECAUSE I'M NOT
WITH DEAF PEOPLE
AS MUCH AS I SHOULD BE,
BUT IT'S ALSO TRUE
THAT LOOKING INTO A SYSTEM,
IT'S SOMETIMES BETTER
TO BE OUTSIDE IT.
I MEAN, AFTER ALL...
THE, UH--AS THE--
AS THE PERSON SAID
WHO WAS CRITICIZING--
WAS CRITICIZED
FOR CRITICIZING POETRY
OR SOMETHING--
THEY SAID, "WELL,
YOU'RE NOT A POET.
HOW CAN YOU CRITICIZE THAT?"
HE SAYS, "I'M NOT A HEN EITHER,
"BUT I CAN TELL WHETHER
AN EGG IS A GOOD ONE
OR A BAD ONE."
[LAUGHTER]
UH...
I GUESS ANOTHER ANSWER
TO YOUR QUESTION IS
THAT LANGUAGE IS LANGUAGE,
AND WHEN I SAY LANGUAGE
IS LANGUAGE,
I MEAN
SIGN LANGUAGE IS LANGUAGE
JUST AS SPOKEN LANGUAGES
ARE LANGUAGE,
AND YOU FIND THAT OUT
BY FINDING OUT
WHAT MAKES LANGUAGES TICK,
WHAT--HOW THEY'RE
PUT TOGETHER.
I'VE BEEN WORKING AT THAT
FOR THE LAST 50, 60 YEARS,
AND YOU HEARD THIS MORNING
ABOUT AS FAR AS I'VE GOT.
IF IT'S NOT FAR ENOUGH,
TAKE OVER
AND CARRY THIS IDEA FURTHER,
ALL OF YOU.
[APPLAUSE]
THANK YOU.
OUR TIME IS UP.
I WANT TO THANK YOU
AND THANK YOU
IN THE AUDIENCE.
OUR NEXT PRESENTATION
WILL BE NEXT FRIDAY.
DR. CHRISTINE MONIKOWSKI
WILL PRESENT
ON ASSESSING ASL
WITH A CLOSURE TEST.
I HOPE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO COME
NEXT FRIDAY AT NOON HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[APPLAUSE]
STOKOE: THANK YOU.
transcript
I'M BARBARA RAY HOLCOMB,
AND I'M ONE OF THE COORDINATORS
OF THE ASL LECTURES SERIES.
REALLY OUR COMMITTEE
IS PLEASED AND HONORED
TO HAVE DR. STOKOE HERE.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT ADVERTISED
AS PART OF OUR REGULAR SERIES,
WE'VE PROVIDED TODAY'S PROGRAM
AS A SPECIAL HONOR.
DR. STOKOE HAS DONE A LOT
OF ASL RESEARCH,
AND WE'VE REALLY BEEN
INSPIRED BY HIS INITIAL WORK
IN ESTABLISHING THE RECOGNITION
OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE
AS A LANGUAGE.
DR. STOKOE IS HERE
WITH OUR CENTER FOR TEACHING,
RESEARCH, AND LEARNING
AS A VISITING SCHOLAR.
HE'LL BE WORKING HERE
FOR ONE MONTH,
AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE
THE HONOR OF HAVING HIM HERE.
HE'S ALSO A PROFESSOR EMERITUS
AT GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY
AND IS INVOLVED WITH
THE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT THERE
AS HE HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS.
HE'S WRITTEN A NUMBER
OF ARTICLES,
MADE NUMEROUS PRESENTATIONS,
AND PLEASE JOIN ME
IN WELCOMING DR. STOKOE.
[APPLAUSE]
STOKOE: THANK YOU, BARBARA.
HA HA HA!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BARBARA.
UH...
I WISH I COULD GIVE YOU
THE PRESENTATION
IN SIGNING THAT YOU
WOULD UNDERSTAND AND ENJOY,
BUT I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT
TO THE PROS.
HEH HEH.
FIRST OF ALL, I'M IMMENSELY
HAPPY TO BE HERE.
I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS,
BUT I HAD NO IDEA
THAT I WOULD MEET
SO MANY NEW
AND INTERESTING PEOPLE.
I KNEW I HAD OLD FRIENDS HERE,
BUT I'VE JUST BEEN HAVING
THE TIME OF MY LIFE
FOR THE LAST FEW DAYS,
MEETING ENTHUSIASTIC MEMBERS
OF YOUR COMMUNITY, STAFF,
FACULTY, STUDENTS,
AND GRADUATE STUDENTS AND ALL,
AND IT'S JUST A REAL THRILL
TO AN OLD HACK OF 13 YEARS--
13 YEARS RETIRED NOW
TO COME BACK
INTO THE MIDST
OF AN OPERATION
THAT'S GOING LIKE THIS ONE IS.
JUST CONGRATULATIONS
TO ALL OF YOU
FROM NTID AND RIT ON WHAT
A FINE INSTITUTION YOU'RE IN.
I'M GONNA TAKE THAT WORD
BACK TO WASHINGTON
WITH ME, TOO. HEH.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU
EXPECTED FROM ME THIS MORNING.
I'M NOT SURE I CAN GET USED
TO THE ECHO EITHER.
HEH HEH!
UH, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO
TALK ABOUT METHODS
OF COMMUNICATING.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S
A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION
OF THAT GOING ON UP HERE.
[LAUGHTER]
I WILL SAY THAT I THINK
WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO
IN THE EDUCATIONAL WORLD
IS USE WHATEVER WORKS BEST
FOR OUR STUDENTS,
AND I THINK WE STILL NEED
A LOT MORE INVESTIGATION
OF WHAT IT IS THAT WORKS BEST,
WHERE--AT HOME OR IN SCHOOL--
FOR WHOM--
FOR DEAF CHILDREN,
CHILDREN WITH HEARING LOSS
OR MORE,
CHILDREN WHO DIFFER BECAUSE
THEIR DEAFNESS OCCURRED
AT DIFFERENT AGES--
AND AT WHAT AGE.
WHAT'S APPROPRIATE
FOR TEENAGERS IN HIGH SCHOOL
OR YOUNG ADULTS IN COLLEGE
MAY NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE
IN THE NURSERY SCHOOL
OR IN KINDERGARTEN.
SO WE'LL LEAVE THAT ASIDE
AT LEAST UNTIL NEXT WEEK
WHEN I UNDERSTAND THERE'S
A RESUMPTION OF WORLD WAR III.
[LAUGHTER]
WHAT I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT
IS REPRESENTATION.
THAT IS THE WAY THINGS
INSIDE OUR HEADS
GET OUT WHERE PEOPLE
CAN SEE THEM OR HEAR THEM.
NORMALLY, WE TAKE IT FOR GRANTED
THAT WHAT WE'RE THINKING
CAN BE REPRESENTED
BY SPEAKING OR BY SIGNING
OR BY WRITING,
AND THAT WILL SHOW
WHAT WE WERE THINKING,
AND IF THAT DOESN'T WORK,
THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY
OF DRAWING OR PAINTING
OR DANCING OR MAKING MUSIC,
BUT IF WE WANT TO FIND OUT
HOW WE HAPPEN TO HAVE
THIS POWER
OF REPRESENTING THINGS,
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WAY
THINGS GET REPRESENTED
ANYWHERE, ANYTIME
BY ANY LIVING ORGANISM.
I MEAN, THIS IS--
REPRESENTATION IS NOT
SOMETHING VERY SPECIAL
AND UNIQUE.
LANGUAGE IS SUPPOSED TO BE
UNIQUE TO THE HUMAN SPECIES,
AND PROBABLY IT IS.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN
ANY OTHER ANIMALS YET
THAT CAN GO QUITE AS FAR
AS WE CAN,
BUT I THINK, TOO, THAT
THIS POWER OF REPRESENTATION,
POWER OF THOUGHT
MUST BE A NATURAL THING.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT
CAME IN ON A--ON--YEAH--
UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT.
IT'S NOT ALIEN.
IT'S NOT AN INVASION
FROM A DIFFERENT WORLD
THAN OURS.
IT MUST BE NATURAL.
SO I'M TAKING THE POSITION
THAT THINKING COMES
FROM REPRESENTATION.
IT'S NOT THAT WE HAVE
THE THOUGHTS FIRST
AND THEN WE REPRESENT THEM,
BUT MAYBE IT WAS REPRESENTATION
THAT GAVE US THE THOUGHTS
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THAT, AGAIN, IS THE WAY
OUR LANGUAGE WORKS.
I CAN SAY IT THAT WAY,
BUT WHAT I REALLY MEAN IS
THAT THE REPRESENTATION
HELPS OUR THINKING.
[AUDIO DISTORTED]
THE ASL SIGN FOR BUILDING IS
JUST A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THAT.
ONE ON TOP OF THE OTHER,
AND THEN OTHER COMES
ON TOP AND SO ON UP.
WE ASSUME THAT THE THOUGHTS
THAT WE HAVE
HERE IN OUR HEADS
ARE THERE AND ALWAYS
WERE THERE,
AND WE ASSUME, ALSO, I THINK,
THAT LANGUAGE EXISTS SO THAT WE
CAN REPRESENT THESE THOUGHTS.
WE ALSO ASSUME THAT THERE'S
A STRICT ORDER IN THIS.
FIRST, WE HAVE A THOUGHT,
AND THEN WE GIVE IT
REPRESENTATION.
WELL, THAT MAY BE HOW IT IS NOW,
BUT I'M GOING TO ARGUE
THAT REPRESENTING THINGS
IN THE FIRST PLACE
IS WHAT GAVE US
THE ABILITY TO HAVE THOUGHTS,
TO THINK.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT
WILL CUT DOWN THE ECHO.
I BELIEVE THAT THINKING
AND REPRESENTATION
MUST HAVE HAPPENED TOGETHER,
DEVELOPED TOGETHER,
EACH ONE HELPING THE OTHER,
AND SINCE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT NATURAL DEVELOPMENTS,
ALL THIS BEGAN
A LONG, LONG TIME AGO,
BACK TO THE BEGINNING
OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET,
THE BEGINNING OF LIFE
ON EARTH.
THAT'S A LONG--
WE'RE ONLY GONNA HAVE TIME HERE
TO EXAMINE CLOSELY THE FIRST
20 MILLION OR 30 MILLION YEARS.
[LAUGHTER]
THE STORY BEGINS
WITH ORGANISMS
THAT CERTAINLY DO NOT THINK.
IF YOU ADD SUGAR TO WATER
CONTAINING BACTERIA,
THE BACTERIA WILL MOVE
TOWARD THE PLACE
IN THE SOLUTION
WHERE THE SUGAR IS STRONGEST.
IF YOU TOUCH A SNAIL,
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO THINK
ABOUT THE TOUCH.
IT JUST DRAWS BACK
INTO ITS SHELL.
A DOG SNIFFING A TREE
MAY NOT BE THINKING,
BUT SOMEHOW,
THE DOG'S NOSE KNOWS
THAT ANOTHER DOG
HAS BEEN THERE.
NOW ALL LIFE IS MADE OUT
OF THE SAME KIND OF MATERIAL.
ALL LIFE IS GOVERNED
BY THE GENERAL LAWS OF NATURE,
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
AND CHEMISTRY,
AND LIFE IS ALSO SHAPED
BY THE INTERIOR CODE OF DNA.
I WON'T SAY THE WHOLE THING OUT.
TAKES TOO LONG
TO FINGERSPELL THAT.
DNA IS BETTER. HEH.
THE DOG'S KNOWLEDGE
AND OUR THINKING
BOTH HAD TO EVOLVE
FROM SIMPLER THINGS
SUCH AS THE REACTION
OF THE BACTERIA AND THE SNAIL.
FOR THE SNAIL--I'M SORRY.
FOR THE BACTERIA,
ELECTROCHEMICAL CHARGES,
THE SUGAR IONS IN THE WATER,
REACH THE BACTERIUM'S
SINGLE CELL DIRECTLY.
IT DOESN'T NEED
A NERVOUS SYSTEM.
BUT IN THE SNAIL,
NERVES ON THE SURFACE SEND
ELECTROCHEMICAL SIGNALS
TO OTHER NERVES,
WHICH MAKE THE MUSCLE CONTRACT.
HUMAN BODIES HAVE
BILLIONS OF MORE NERVES--
BILLIONS MORE NERVES
THAN A SNAIL HAS,
BUT THEY HAVE SOMETHING ELSE
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT,
AND THAT IS NERVES
IN OUR BODIES
ARE VERY HIGHLY ORGANIZED,
AND THE HEADQUARTERS
OF THE ORGANIZATION
IS IN THE HUMAN BRAIN.
SO FOR US, MESSAGES
DO NOT TRAVEL
ALONG THE NERVES
FROM SKIN TO MUSCLE DIRECTLY.
THE MESSAGES
FROM OUR SENSORY SYSTEMS
ARE ROUTED TO OUR BRAINS,
WHERE THEY'RE MONITORED
AND THEY'RE ALTERED
AND OTHERWISE PROCESSED,
AND MESSAGES GO
FROM THE BRAIN TO THE MUSCLES,
WHICH CAUSE THE MOVEMENT.
NOW WE'RE GETTING
TOWARD REPRESENTATION NOW,
SIGNS AND TOKENS.
THINGS LIKE SUGAR AND DNA
AND THE SCENT OF DOGS
MAY APPEAR TO REPRESENT
SOMETHING TO SOME CREATURE,
BUT THE ANIMAL DOES NOT
NECESSARILY MAKE THEM
AS REPRESENTATIONS.
INSTEAD, THEY ARE PRESENTATIONS.
THEY'RE PRESENTATIONS
OF THE ENVIRONMENT
TO THE INDIVIDUAL.
WE MAY SEE IN NATURE SOMETHING
THAT LOOKS LIKE REPRESENTATION.
I EXPECT YOU'VE ALL SEEN
STICK INSECTS.
THESE ARE INSECTS
THAT LOOK LIKE A TWIG.
WELL, OF COURSE BECAUSE
THEY LOOK LIKE A TWIG,
THEY DON'T GET EATEN BY A BIRD,
AND WE MIGHT SAY THAT
THE SHAPE OF THE INSECT
IS REPRESENTING SOMETHING
THAT'S NOT ITSELF,
BUT THAT'S NOT REPRESENTATION
THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
THAT JUST HAPPENS.
THAT'S IN DNA.
THAT'S THE WAY
THE INSECT IS MADE.
HOWEVER, WHEN WE COME
TO THE DOG,
THE DOG HAS A CHOICE.
THE DOG SNIFFING THE TREE
MAY OR MAY NOT DECIDE
TO LEAVE A SCENT TOKEN
OF ITS OWN.
IF IT DOES, THE URINE
SPRAYED ON THE TREE
TRULY REPRESENTS THE DOG
TO OTHER DOGS,
AND IT ALSO REPRESENTS
THE DOG TO HIMSELF
IF HE HAPPENS TO COME
BY THAT TREE THE NEXT MORNING.
NEVERTHELESS, INTELLIGENT
AS DOGS ARE,
THEY HAVE NEVER MADE A LANGUAGE
OUT OF THESE CHEMICAL SIGNS.
UH...
NOW TAKE CROWS.
THE BIRD SPECIES
I ADMIRE MOST, I THINK.
CROWS DO SEEM TO HAVE A KIND
OF RUDIMENTARY LANGUAGE
OF CALLS.
THEY CERTAINLY CAN COUNT.
A CONTEMPORARY OF MINE
IN GRADUATE SCHOOL
ACTUALLY DID
A DISSERTATION
ABOUT THE COUNTING ABILITY
OF CROWS,
AND THAT'S CORNELL, 1946,
IF YOU NEED TO LOOK IT UP.
WELL, THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF STUDY OF BIRD SONGS
AND ANIMAL CALLS
AND OTHER SOUNDS ANIMALS MAKE
AS LOOKING
FOR THE BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS
OF LANGUAGE,
BUT LET'S FACE IT.
HOW MANY THINGS CAN SOUNDS
REPRESENT NATURALLY?
UH...
NEVERTHELESS, THERE IS
A LOT OF FASCINATION
WITH WHAT ANIMALS CAN DO
WITH LANGUAGE.
I HAVE MET AND SEEN
THE FILMS OR VIDEOS
OF IRENE PEPPERBERG,
WHO HAS DONE WORK
WITH GRAY PARROTS
THAT'S PRETTY WELL PUBLISHED
IN "SCIENCE"
AND IN MORE POPULAR MAGAZINES.
THE BEST OF THEIR PARROTS
IN THAT LAB
CAN NOT ONLY IMITATE
DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE LAB,
BUT WHEN YOU LISTEN
TO THE RECORDING,
YOU CAN TELL WHICH PERSON IT IS
THE BIRD IS IMITATING.
THEY DON'T GET JUST THE WORDS.
THEY GET THE WHOLE SOUND
OF THE PERSON'S VOICE
AND MANNER OF SPEAKING,
AND YET TO GET
TO WHERE WE WANT TO GO,
I THINK SOUNDS ARE
A DEAD-END STREET.
I BELIEVE THAT
THE FIRST CREATURES
TO REPRESENT
SOMETHING THEY KNEW
AND THAT THEY COULD
READ BACK AGAIN
WERE THE ANCESTORS WE SHARE
WITH CHIMPANZEES.
WE KNOW HUMANS
HAVE THIS ABILITY,
AND BOTH
IN EXPERIMENTAL SETTINGS
AND IN THE WILD,
CHIMPANZEES DEMONSTRATE
JUST A LITTLE BIT
OF THIS ABILITY.
THEY HAVE TWO GESTURES
THAT ARE WIDELY KNOWN AND SEEN.
THEY HAVE ONE GESTURE
THAT MEANS "GIVE ME FOOD"
AND ANOTHER ONE THAT MEANS
"GROOM ME HERE,"
AND THEY TOUCH THE PART
OF THE BODY THEY WANT
THE OTHER ONE TO GROOM.
ALSO, GERALD EDELMAN
IN HIS BOOK
"THE REMEMBERED PRESENT"--
AND THE SUBTITLE OF THAT BOOK IS
"A BIOLOGICAL THEORY
OF CONSCIOUSNESS."
EDELMAN, A NOBEL-PRIZE WINNER,
IN THAT BOOK
AND TWO OTHERS WRITTEN
NEARLY THE SAME TIME
PRESENTS EVIDENCE
THAT CHIMPANZEES CAN
FORM CONCEPTS.
THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR
AS THEY GO,
BUT THEY DO SORT THE WORLD
INTO DIFFERENT KINDS
OF CATEGORIES.
A CHIMPANZEE KNOWS
THE DIFFERENCE--
KNOWS THAT IT'S LOOKING
AT A DOG,
WHETHER IT'S A GREAT DANE
OR A LITTLE BITTY ONE.
IT EVEN KNOWS THAT IT'S A DOG
IT'S LOOKING AT
WHEN YOU SHOW IT
A PHOTOGRAPH,
BUT THAT'S A LONG WAY
FROM LANGUAGE.
EDELMAN KNOWS THAT OF COURSE,
AND HE ARGUES THAT WHAT
THE CHIMPANZEES
ARE SHOWING
IS PRIMARY CONSCIOUSNESS,
THIS ABILITY TO OPERATE
IN THE WORLD
AND TO CLASSIFY THINGS
INTO GROUPS,
TO FORM CONCEPTS,
TO GET A KIND OF A SINGLE IDEA
IN THE HEAD OR MIND--
IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT--
WHICH REPRESENTS ANY
AND ALL OF THOSE CREATURES.
NOW THEN ON THE COGNITIVE SIDE,
MERLIN DONALD IN HIS BOOK
"THE EMERGENCE
OF THE MODERN MIND"
CONNECTS THIS PRIMARY
CONSCIOUSNESS STAGE OF...
EVOLUTION TO REPRESENTATIONS.
HIS THESIS IS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS
COULD HAVE NOT HAVE BEGUN
AND COULD NOT HAVE DEVELOPED
WITHOUT WHAT WAS IN THE BRAIN
BEING SOMEHOW REPRESENTED
OUTSIDE IT.
SO I AGREE
WITH BOTH THESE EXPERTS
IN THIS FIELD.
I THINK THAT COGNITION
AND REPRESENTATION
WORK TOGETHER TO BRING ABOUT
HIGHER ORDER CONSCIOUSNESS
AND LANGUAGE.
CONCEPTS ARE FLEETING,
NEBULOUS THINGS
LIKE THE RANDOM
ELECTRICAL CHARGES
THAT MAKE THE AURORA BOREALIS.
THEY JUST FADE TO NOTHING
UNLESS THEY'RE REPRESENTED
BY SOMETHING,
SOME SIGN OUTSIDE THE ORGANISM.
I WOULD GUESS--
I DON'T KNOW A THING ABOUT IT
BECAUSE I'M NOT INSIDE IT,
BUT I WOULD GUESS THAT
IN THE CHIMPANZEE'S HEAD
THE CONCEPT DOG IS FORMED
WHEN THE CHIMPANZEE
IS LOOKING AT A DOG
OR PERHAPS HEARING
A DOG BARKING
OR LOOKING AT A PICTURE,
BUT TAKE AWAY THE SOUND,
THE PICTURE, AND THE DOG,
AND THE CHIMPANZEE'S NOT
THINKING ABOUT DOGS ANYMORE.
AT LEAST, IT SEEMS LIKELY.
SO CONCEPTS COME AND GO.
THEY NEED SOMETHING
OUTSIDE THE CONCEPTUALIZING
NERVOUS SYSTEM THAT
REPRESENTS THEM.
BUT ONCE CONCEPTS
GET REPRESENTED,
THEY DON'T STAY STATIC,
THEY CAN COMBINE AND RECOMBINE.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF I POINT
WITH ONE HAND
TO A PERSON OVER THERE,
THAT POINTING CAN
REPRESENT THE PERSON,
OR IT CAN REPRESENT THE PLACE
WHERE THAT PERSON IS,
AND THEN IF I POINT
WITH THE OTHER HAND
TO A PERSON OR A PLACE
OVER THERE, THAT'S BOTH,
BUT IF I DO THIS,
PERHAPS I'M REPRESENTING
THE EXPERIENCE OF SEEING
THOSE TWO PERSONS MOVE TOGETHER.
I'M REPRESENTING A MEMORY
THAT PERSON "A"
AND PERSON "B" CAME TOGETHER.
COULD BE THAT,
OR IF I DID THAT
AND THAT AND THAT,
MAYBE I'M EXPRESSING INSTEAD
A WISH THAT
THE TWO PERSONS
WOULD COME TOGETHER.
ONCE IT GETS OUTSIDE THE HEAD,
YOU CAN DO THINGS
WITH THE REPRESENTATION.
WELL, REPRESENTATIONS
NEED SOMETHING
TO REPRESENT OF COURSE,
BUT JUST AS IMPORTANT,
THEY NEED SOMETHING ELSE,
SOME WAY OF CONNECTING THEM
TO WHAT THEY DO REPRESENT.
I THINK THAT'S
THE CRUCIAL THING.
WE ARE SO FAMILIAR
WITH LANGUAGE
THAT WE HAVEN'T GIVEN
A THOUGHT TO WHAT IT IS
THAT CONNECTS WORDS
OR SIGNS TO MEANINGS.
EVER SINCE EARLY CHILDHOOD
IF WE ASKED WHY A SIGN
OR A WORD MEANS WHAT IT MEANS,
WE GET AN ANSWER SOMETHING LIKE,
"THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.
THAT'S THE WAY IT IS."
A WORD MEANS WHAT IT MEANS
BECAUSE ALMOST EVERYONE
WHO USES THE LANGUAGE
LEARNED THE WORD
AND WHAT IT MEANS
AT THE SAME TIME ALTOGETHER
AS IF ONE WAS PART
OF THE OTHER,
BUT THERE'S NOTHING NATURAL
IN THIS.
I MEAN, IT'S NATURAL
BECAUSE IT HAPPENS, YES.
THERE'S NO NATURAL--
BUT THERE'S NO
NATURAL CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE WORD
AND THE MEANING.
THAT COMES
BY ARBITRARY CONVENTION.
A REPRESENTATION
AND WHAT IT REPRESENTS
CAN BE CONNECTED NATURALLY.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE TWO THINGS
MAY BE SIMILAR IN SHAPE
OR IN SOME OTHER WAY.
SUCH SIMILARITY IS
CHARACTERISTIC
OF THE KIND OF REPRESENTATION
MADE BY A SIGN CALLED AN ICON
AND ASL SIGNS LIKE "BALL"
AND "BIRD" AND "BOOK"
AND "TREE" ARE EXAMPLES
OF THAT,
WHERE THERE'S SOMETHING SIMILAR,
SOMETHING WE RECOGNIZE
AS RESEMBLING--
ONE RESEMBLING THE OTHER.
SOMETHING ABOUT THE WAY
THESE THINGS LOOK,
BIRDS AND BALLS,
BOOKS, TREES LOOK,
IS SIMILAR TO SOMETHING
ABOUT THE SIGN OF ASL.
ANOTHER KIND
OF NATURAL CONNECTION OCCURS
WHEN THE THING
BEING REPRESENTED
DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE WAY
IT IS REPRESENTED.
THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES
AMONG ASL VERBS.
SIGN LANGUAGE VERBS
GENERALLY WILL BE...
ANOTHER KIND OF SIGN THAT
SEMIOTICIANS CALL THE INDEX.
THE INDEX IS A SIGN
THAT HAS THE FORM IT HAS
BECAUSE IT'S SOMEHOW
CONNECTED DIRECTLY
NATURALLY TO WHAT IT REPRESENTS.
TAKE SIGNS--
ASL SIGNS LIKE "FALL"
AND "CLIMB" AND "WALK"
AND "CARRY."
IN FACT, ANY NON-ABSTRACT VERB,
I THINK, IN THE LANGUAGE
IS GOING TO BE PRETTY CLOSE
TO WHAT WE CONCEIVE OF
AS BEING THE WAY
THAT ACTION LOOKS.
THESE ICONS AND INDEXES,
THE NOUN-LIKE THINGS,
THE THINGS THAT RESEMBLE
SOMEHOW THE SIGN--
OR THE SIGN RESEMBLES THE THING,
AND THE ACTION--THE WORD--
THE ACTION WORDS, THE VERBS
IN WHICH THE MOVEMENT
OF THE SIGN REPRODUCES
IN SOME WAY THE MOVEMENT
OF THE ACTION IT REPRESENTS.
THESE ARE NATURAL,
SIGNS WITH A NATURAL CONNECTION
TO WHAT THEY MEAN,
BUT THEY'RE ALSO SYMBOLS.
THEY'RE ALSO LANGUAGE SIGNS.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE
USED THAT WAY.
I'M SURE MANY OF YOU
HAVE TRAVELED
TO WHERE OTHER
SIGN LANGUAGES ARE USED.
YOU KNOW WHAT
IN EUROPEAN SIGN LANGUAGE
IS THE SIGN FOR TREE?
SOME...
YOU CAN SEE
THE SIMILARITY THERE.
THIS IS LIKE A MAPLE TREE,
BUT OTHERS DO TREE,
THEY'RE TALKING
ABOUT A TREE TRUNK, I GUESS,
SOME KIND OF VERTICAL THING,
BUT ALL 3 OF THOSE SIGNS,
THE ASL SIGN,
THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN,
THE SOUTHERN EUROPEAN SIGN
FOR TREE, THEY ALL
DO RESEMBLE,
BUT THE PEOPLE WHO USE
ANY ONE OF THOSE LANGUAGES
HAVE A PARTICULAR SIGN
THAT THEY SAY MEANS TREE,
AND SO IT DOES TO THEM.
SO A SIGN CAN BE
NATURALLY CONNECTED
AS AN ICON OR AN INDEX
TO WHAT IT REPRESENTS,
BUT IT ALSO CAN BE SYMBOLIC
IN THE SENSE THAT
THE PEOPLE WHO USE IT
HAVE DECIDED
THIS IS THE ONE
AND NO OTHER
IS GOING TO BE THE THING
A LANGUAGE SIGNS.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT
IS IN THE SIGN LANGUAGE
OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS.
FAMOUS AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
GARRICK MALLERY,
LIEUTENANT COLONEL
GARRICK MALLERY,
PUBLISHED A BOOK
"THE SIGN LANGUAGE
OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS,"
AND THE FRONT PART OF THE BOOK,
HE IS EXTOLLING THE UNIVERSALITY
OF SIGN LANGUAGE
AND GESTURE AND SO FORTH.
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT.
I THINK YOU CAN UNDERSTAND--
IN THE CONTEXT
OF WHAT I'M SAYING
THIS MORNING,
WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.
WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS
THAT SO MANY
OF THESE MANUAL SIGNS
HAVE SOMETHING ABOUT THEM
THAT SORT OF NATURALLY SUGGESTS
TO THE PEOPLE WHO SEE THEM
WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO MEAN,
BUT EVEN THE INDIAN
SIGN LANGUAGE WAS
FAR FROM BEING UNIVERSAL.
IN THE BACK PART
OF MALLERY'S BOOK,
HE'S GOT THIS LONG DICTIONARY
LISTED BY TRIBES,
AND I DON'T REMEMBER
WHICH TRIBES ARE WHICH
EXCEPT THAT IN THE SOUTHWEST
OF THE UNITED STATES
OR THE SOUTHWEST PART
OF THE CONTINENT
THE TRIBES LIVING THERE
HAVE A SIGN FOR HORSE
VERY DIFFERENT
FROM THE ASL SIGN.
LET ME DO SOME OF IT.
THAT'S THEIR SIGN FOR HORSE.
YOU GET IT?
THESE PEOPLE ARE USED TO
SEEING WILD HORSES
OUT THERE IN THE PLAINS
OF ARIZONA OR NEW MEXICO,
AND THE HORSES
ARE GOING BY LIKE THAT.
THEY'RE KIND OF
RECTANGULAR SHAPES
OR SILHOUETTES
AGAINST THE SKY.
UP IN THE MIDDLE WEST MORE
OR WESTERN PLAINS,
THERE WAS ANOTHER SIGN
FOR HORSE.
ANOTHER TRIBE DIDN'T REFER
TO HORSE THAT WAY.
HAD A DIFFERENT SIGN.
ANYONE? THAT'S BECAUSE
THE HORSES WERE USED
TO PULL SOMETHING
WAS CALLED A FRENCH WORD,
A TRAVOIS,
T-R-A-V-O-I-S.
SOME TRIBES USED
DOGS FOR THAT.
WHAT THEY DID WAS PUT
A ROPE OR A STRAP
AROUND THE MIDDLE
OF THE BEAST,
HOOK TWO POLES TO THAT.
THE POLES DRAGGED
ON THE GROUND BEHIND,
AND THEN THEY COULD TIE
THEIR BUNDLES,
THE TEEPEES ROLLED UP
OR WHATEVER,
AND THE HORSE
WOULD PULL IT ALONG.
SO THAT WAS HORSE
TO THAT TRIBE,
AND THEN THERE WERE
THE INDIANS
WHO LIVED FURTHER EAST.
IN THEIR SIGN LANGUAGE, THEY HAD
A DIFFERENT SIGN FOR HORSE.
YOU CAN PROBABLY GUESS
WHAT IT IS.
OH. OH, THAT'S GOOD. YEAH!
OH, THAT'S DRIVING
CARRIAGE HORSES,
BUT THE INDIANS
IN THE NEAR MIDWEST
WERE FAMILIAR SEEING
AMERICAN CAVALRY,
SO WHEN THEY SAW A HORSE,
THEY SAW A RIDER ASTRIDE IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHO IT WAS
OR WHY IT WAS
THAT THE ASL SIGN FOR HORSE
IS MADE UP ON THE HEAD
WITH A THUMB AND FINGERS.
I JUST WONDER IF--
JUST IDLE CURIOSITY--
DO YOU SUPPOSE IT'S BECAUSE
THAT LOOKS LIKE
THE FINGERSPELLING "H,"
AND SO YOU DO THE HORSE'S EAR
AND THE "H" UP ON THE HEAD
UP ALSO WHERE YOU MAKE A SIGN
FOR DEER AND COW,
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
WELL, TO SUM UP
WHAT I HAVEN'T QUITE SAID YET...
[LAUGHTER]
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU
THAT MANUAL REPRESENTATIONS
ARE THE ONLY FIRST WAY
OF PUTTING CONCEPTS OUT
WHERE THEIR MAKERS CAN SEE THEM.
CHIMPANZEES AND HOMINIDS
SURELY DID THAT MUCH,
BUT HOMINIDS WENT MUCH FARTHER.
WHEN THEY SAW
WHAT WAS IN THEIR HEADS
REPRESENTED OUT THERE
IN THEIR OWN
AND OTHERS' MOVEMENTS,
THEY COULD BEGIN
TO CONNECT THINGS UP.
REMEMBER MY EXAMPLE
OF THE TWO POINTING FINGERS
COMING TOGETHER.
SUCH CONNECTED CONCEPTS
NOW REALLY DESERVE
TO BE CALLED IDEAS.
WHEN TWO PEOPLE GET TOGETHER,
THAT'S MORE THAN JUST
ONE PERSON AND ANOTHER PERSON
AND MOVING.
IT'S TWO PEOPLE GOT TOGETHER.
IT'S A COMPLETE IDEA.
SO DOING GESTURES
OF THAT KIND,
MEANING THAT WAY
WITH THE MEANING FAIRLY CLEAR
FROM WHAT YOU WERE POINTING AT
AND WHAT YOU DID
WITH THE MOVEMENT,
IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE,
SOME CREATURES THERE,
TO SEE THAT THE MOVING HAND
REPRESENTED A PERSON
OR A CREATURE,
THAT THE MOVEMENT ITSELF
REPRESENTED
WHAT THAT CREATURE DID
AND EVEN COULD REPRESENT
WHAT WAS THE RESULT
OF THAT ACTION.
SUPPOSE SOMEONE IS SAYING,
"I WANTED TO SEE SO AND SO,
"BUT HE WAS JUST GETTING
INTO HIS CAR.
"I RAN ACROSS THE PARKING LOT,
AND I CAUGHT HIM."
YOU CAN SEE HOW
THE HAND MOVING IS LIKE
THE PERSON TELLING THE STORY.
THE RUNNING ACROSS
AND GRABBING
IS THE ACTION PERFORMED,
AND THE FINGER THAT'S
GRABBED REPRESENTS
THE OBJECT OF THAT.
WELL, THAT'S AN INTERESTING
AND A VERY SIMPLE GESTURE,
BUT IT ALSO HAPPENS TO BE
WHAT GRAMMARIANS CALL
A TRANSITIVE SENTENCE,
AND WHEN YOU'VE REPRESENTED
SOMETHING OUT IN FRONT THAT WAY
THAT HAS THAT STRUCTURE--
I MEAN, I JUST TOOK
IT APART FOR YOU.
THE MOVING HAND
IS THE SUBJECT,
THE MOVEMENT IS THE VERB,
AND THE STATIONARY HAND
IS THE OBJECT.
WHEN THAT HAPPENS,
YOU HAVE A SENTENCE,
AND ALONG WITH A SENTENCE,
YOU HAVE SYNTAX,
WHICH IS ONE
OF THE NECESSARY PARTS
OF LANGUAGE.
THERE ARE CONSIDERABLE ARGUMENTS
GOING ON--OR THERE WERE
AS TO WHETHER CHIMPANZEES
TAUGHT TO USE COMPUTER KEYS
OR PLASTIC TOKENS
OR GESTURAL SIGNS,
WHETHER THEY WERE CAPABLE
OF SYNTAX.
I'LL LEAVE YOU
TO THE LITERATURE ON THAT
BECAUSE IT'S BEING
ARGUED BOTH WAYS,
BUT SIGNS LIKE THAT
COULD HAVE BEEN
THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE
IN THE VERY FIRST
SIGNED SYSTEM
THAT YOU COULD CALL
A LANGUAGE.
IT'S COMPLETELY VISIBLE,
IT'S COMPLETELY PERFORMABLE,
AND BECAUSE OF THE RESEMBLANCE
AND THE CONNECTION,
IT SHOWS NATURALLY
JUST WHAT IT MEANS,
AND THE THING IS SOUNDS
CANNOT POSSIBLY DO THAT.
WHAT YOU CAN TELL
FROM A SOUND
IS PROBABLY ITS LOCATION
IF IT LASTS LONG ENOUGH.
YOU CAN TURN YOUR HEAD
UNTIL THE SOUND'S COMING
IN BOTH EARS IF YOU CAN HEAR,
BUT EVEN IF YOU DO THAT,
ALL YOU KNOW IS
THE SOUND IS A SOUND IS A SOUND.
IF YOU HAD THE EXPERIENCE
OF SEEING THE ANIMAL
MAKING THE SOUND,
YOU SAY, "OH, THAT SOUND
IS A LION ROARING,"
OR, "THAT'S A DOG BARKING,"
BUT THE SOUND ITSELF
DOESN'T REPRESENT ANYTHING
EXCEPT WHAT IT IS.
HOWEVER, IF THE PEOPLE
WHO WERE MAKING
THOSE GESTURAL SENTENCES
GOT TO BE IN THE HABIT
OF MAKING NOISES WHILE THEY
WERE REPRESENTING GESTURALLY,
IT COULD BE THAT
AFTER A WHILE
MAKING THE NOISES THAT
WENT ALONG WITH IT
COULD REPLACE THE VISIBLE SIGN
AND THE MEANING.
I MEAN, ORIGINALLY, THEY WOULD
HAVE OCCURRED ALONG
WITH BOTH THE VISIBLE SIGN
AND WHAT IT STOOD FOR,
AND THEN LATER,
THE SOUND ALONE
WOULD STILL BE ASSOCIATED
WITH THE MEANING,
AND THE VISIBLE SIGN
COULD DROP OUT.
WELL, IT NEVER DROPPED OUT
ENTIRELY, DID IT?
ON THE ONE HAND, WE HAVE ALL
THESE MARVELOUS SIGN LANGUAGES,
SIGN LANGUAGES
OF DEAF PEOPLE
ALL OVER THE WORLD
AND EVEN SECONDARY
SIGN LANGUAGES
SUCH AS THE AMERICAN INDIANS
AND AUSTRALIAN
ABORIGINAL PEOPLE USED,
BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE GESTURING
THAT HEARING,
SPEAKING PEOPLE USE
WHEN THEY'RE CONVERSING,
SO THE SYSTEM
OF REPRESENTATION IS IN THERE.
I THINK
UNDERNEATH LANGUAGE
IT'S STILL VERY MUCH
A PART OF IT.
SO WITH THAT SORT OF THING,
THE SPOKEN LANGUAGES
COULD HAVE ARISEN
AFTER SIGN LANGUAGES
HAD BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED
BECAUSE UNTIL YOU COULD
REPRESENT COMPLETE THOUGHTS
VISIBLY IN SIGNS,
WHICH SHOWED WHAT THEY MEANT,
THERE WAS NO WAY THAT
A SPOKEN SOUND, A WORD,
COULD HAVE ANY MEANING.
PEOPLE HAD TO PUT
SOME MEANING INTO IT.
WHERE DID THAT MEANING
COME FROM?
WELL, IT CAME
FROM THE VERY SENSIBLE THOUGHTS
AND SENTENCES
OF SIGN-LANGUAGE-USING PEOPLE.
IF THESE IDEAS OF MINE
EVER--HEH--GET TO BE
WIDELY ACCEPTED,
I THINK ONE EFFECT OF THEM
MIGHT BE THAT DEAF PEOPLE
AND THEIR LANGUAGES
WOULD GET MORE RESPECT
THAN THEY HAVE NOW.
THEY WOULD GET THE RESPECT DUE.
PEOPLE WOULD REALIZE--
AND THE WHOLE OUTLOOK
ON LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT
WOULD GET BACK
TO SOME VERY BASIC THINGS.
THE FACT THAT WE CAN THINK
AND SPEAK AND WRITE
AND READ AND FIGURE
AND INVENT AND ALL THAT
HAS AS MUCH TO DO
WITH OUR VISION
AND OUR UPPER BODY MOVEMENT
AS IT HAS TO DO
WITH OUR SPOKEN LANGUAGE.
SO I THINK. HEH.
NOW SINCE I HAVEN'T TAKEN
THE WHOLE HOUR,
IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS
FROM THE FLOOR,
I'D BE GLAD TO DO MY BEST.
I HAVE
A QUESTION FOR YOU.
YOU TALK ABOUT HEARING PEOPLE
USING GESTURES
AND EUROPEAN PEOPLES
AND TALKING ABOUT EUROPE.
I THINK THAT HEARING PEOPLE
MAY USE GESTURAL LANGUAGES,
AND DEAF PEOPLE CERTAINLY
HAVE THEIR SIGNED LANGUAGE,
AND HERE IN AMERICA, WE
TALK ABOUT PEOPLE WITH SIMCOM,
SIGNING AND TALKING
AT THE SAME TIME
AND THE IMPACT
ON LITERACY.
HERE IN AMERICA NOW
WITH SIMCOM,
SIGNING AND SPEAKING
AT THE SAME TIME,
OR METHODS OF EDUCATION,
YOU KNOW, TEACHING
WRITING OR SPEECHREADING
OR LITERACY,
DO YOU SEE A RELATIONSHIP?
STOKOE: I'M NOT SURE.
MAN: LET ME MAKE SURE
I INTERPRETED THAT CORRECTLY.
I'M NOT SURE I INTERPRETED
YOU RIGHT, ISAIAS.
OK. LET ME BACK UP
AND REPEAT THIS AGAIN.
WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN AMERICA AND EUROPE
WITH HEARING PEOPLE,
SPOKEN LANGUAGE, AND GESTURE,
AND THEN AS THAT SPREAD
THROUGH DIFFERENT COUNTRIES,
HOW WOULD PEOPLE COMMUNICATE
THROUGH GESTURES
WITH ONE ANOTHER?
OH. PEOPLE IN AMERICA
ARE NOT AS COMFORTABLE
WITH GESTURES,
NATURAL GESTURES,
AS PEOPLE IN EUROPE ARE.
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
PEOPLE ARE VERY COMFORTABLE
WITH NATURAL GESTURING,
BUT THEY'RE MORE RESERVED
HERE IN AMERICA.
HOW DO YOU THINK
THAT DEVELOPED?
WELL, I THINK--
[COUGHS]
EVERY GROUP OF PEOPLE
WHO HAVE A WAY OF LIFE
THAT THEY SHARE PRETTY MUCH,
A SET OF VALUES
AND BEHAVIORS
AND DECISIONS
ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG--
IN OTHER WORDS, A CULTURE--
PEOPLE WITHIN
A PARTICULAR CULTURE
HAVE THEIR WAY
OF DOING THINGS,
AND THOSE IN ANOTHER
HAVE A DIFFERENT ONE,
BUT IF...
IF PEOPLE FROM ONE CULTURE
GO TO ANOTHER ONE.
AND TRY TO COMMUNICATE,
AS I THINK YOU WERE SAYING,
THEY'LL HAVE DIFFICULTY.
THIS DID HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, BACK
IN THE 18th AND 19th CENTURY
WHEN EUROPEAN PEOPLE
WENT INTO THE PACIFIC,
AND I THINK PARTICULARLY
CAPTAIN COOK'S VOYAGE,
BUT THAT'S JUST
ONE EXAMPLE OF MANY.
CAPTAIN COOK GOING
UP THE WEST COAST
OF WHAT'S NOW CANADA,
RUNNING INTO THE PEOPLE
LIVING THERE,
NATIVE AMERICANS, INDIANS,
HE NEEDED WATER AND FOOD
FOR HIS CREW,
AND THE ONLY WAY
HE COULD COMMUNICATE
WITH THOSE PEOPLE
WAS BY GESTURE,
AND HE DID WRITE--
HE AND SOME OTHER EXPLORERS
WROTE UP WHAT THEY DID.
I REMEMBER ONE EXAMPLE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT
FIRST EXAMPLE IN THAT WAS
COMMUNICATION WOULD
TAKE PLACE BY GESTURE
BUT ONLY IF THE EXPLORERS,
THE TRAVELERS,
LAID DOWN THEIR ARMS, YOU KNOW.
THE FIRST THING IS
"DON'T BRING THOSE GUNS IN HERE.
"PUT THEM DOWN.
NOW WHAT IS IT YOU WANT?"
WELL, BY GESTURE,
COOK AND HIS PARTY
WERE ABLE TO PERSUADE
THE PEOPLE THAT THEY NEEDED
SOME WATER
AND THEY NEEDED SOME FOOD,
A CERTAIN KIND OF FOOD,
I THINK, IT WAS,
AND THE INDIANS TRIED
TO TELL THEM
WHAT...
WHAT THEY WANTED TO KNOW.
WELL, WHAT HE FINALLY DID,
HE LAID DOWN LIKE THIS
ON THE FLOOR,
ON THE GROUND 3 TIMES,
AND SURE ENOUGH,
3 DAYS LATER,
SOMEBODY THEY SENT OUT
CAME BACK WITH THE FOOD
THAT THEY WANTED.
THERE WAS NO LANGUAGE
THEY COULD USE BETWEEN THEM,
SO THEY HAD TO RESORT
TO THAT KIND OF PANTOMIME
AND GESTURE INVENTED
ON THE SPOT AND SO FORTH,
AND THIS WORKS--
THIS DOES WORK--
IT'S ALWAYS WORKED,
AND IT WORKS BETTER
FOR DEAF PEOPLE
THAN FOR HEARING PEOPLE.
THERE'S SOME REAL
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON THAT,
THAT WHEN DEAF PEOPLE
FROM DIFFERENT NATIONS
WHO HAVE DIFFERENT
SIGN LANGUAGES GET TOGETHER
THEY DON'T KNOW
EACH OTHER'S SIGN LANGUAGE,
BUT THEY'RE MUCH--
MUCH QUICKER
AT UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHER
WITH THAT INVENTED
GESTURE AND PANTOMIME
BECAUSE THEY'RE USED TO USING
THEIR EYES TO GET
LANGUAGE INFORMATION.
I THINK YOUR QUESTION, TOO,
HAD SOMETHING--
SAID SOMETHING ABOUT LITERACY,
AND THAT'S A WHOLE
NOTHER SUBJECT.
I MEAN, UH, THE--
WE CAN'T REALLY TALK
ABOUT LITERACY EXCEPT
THE WRITTEN FORM
OF SPOKEN LANGUAGES.
SOME PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO--
HEH--I DID IT MYSELF
IN MY YOUNGER DAYS--
TRYING TO INVENT
A NOTATIONAL SYSTEM
FOR AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE.
OTHER PEOPLE HAVE PICKED IT UP
AND CHANGED IT
OR MADE DIFFERENT ONES,
AND THERE'S PEOPLE IN DANCE,
BALLET AND STUFF,
HAVE A SIGN SYSTEM FOR IT.
THEY CAN TELL YOU WHAT
EVERY PART OF THE BODY IS DOING
AT A GIVEN MOMENT,
BUT IT TAKES A WHOLE PAGE
TO TRANSCRIBE
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF SIGNING,
SO I'M NOT SURE
WHERE THE--
UH, THE TIE
BETWEEN THE GESTURE
AND THE LITERACY COMES IN,
BUT I DO REMEMBER
WATCHING MY COLLEAGUES
TEACHING ENGLISH AT GALLAUDET,
AND SOMETIMES, A STUDENT
WOULDN'T KNOW AN ENGLISH WORD,
BUT OF COURSE AS SOON
AS IT WAS PUT
INTO THE ASL TRANSLATION,
THE STUDENT GOT IT,
AND THEN THERE WE WERE.
THERE WAS A QUESTION
BACK THERE.
MY QUESTION RELATES
TO DEVELOPING LANGUAGE.
YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME
RESEARCH THAT TALKS ABOUT--
WHO, ME? OH, HI.
SORRY. HELLO.
THERE'S SOME RESEARCH
THAT TALKS ABOUT--OOPS,
I SPACED FOR A SECOND--
VOCAL DEVELOPMENT
AND INTERNAL--
I THINK IT WAS LIEBERMAN,
LIEBERMAN, MAYBE
VOCAL DEVELOPMENT
AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
AND LANGUAGE.
IS THAT TRUE THAT LANGUAGE
AND VOICE DEVELOPS
IN THE BRAIN AT THE SAME TIME
SIMULTANEOUSLY
AND COGNITION AND...
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.
I DOUBT THAT IT WOULD
BE TRUE FOR THIS REASON,
THAT PRETTY GOOD EVIDENCE
FROM ARCHEOLOGY SHOWS
THAT PEOPLE ON EARTH
WERE ACTING
IN A PRETTY HUMAN WAY
FOR A LONG, LONG TIME
BEFORE THEY COULD SPEAK.
THAT IS, THE KIND
OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE THROAT
THAT'S REQUIRED
FOR SPOKEN LANGUAGE.
PHILIP LIEBERMAN
AT BROWN UNIVERSITY,
CRELIN, KLATT,
OTHERS HAVE DONE RESEARCH
ON THE SHAPE
OF THE VOCAL TRACT
IN HUMAN BEINGS--
ADULT HUMAN BEINGS,
NEWBORN HUMAN INFANTS--
AND THEN VARIOUS PRIMATES--
APES, ORANGUTANS,
CHIMPS, AND SO ON--
AND THEY SAY THAT
IT WAS PRETTY LATE
IN THE EVOLUTION
OF THE PRESENT
HUMAN PHYSICAL STRUCTURE
THAT WE CAME TO HAVE
THE KIND OF THROAT
THAT MADE SPEECH POSSIBLE,
YOU KNOW, LIKE,
50,000 YEARS AGO,
BUT I BELIEVE THAT LANGUAGE
WAS ON EARTH,
A VISUAL LANGUAGE,
A SIGN LANGUAGE,
FOR, YOU KNOW, HALF A MILLION
YEARS BEFORE THAT.
IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE THAT
THE HUMAN HAND,
THE STRUCTURE
OF THE HUMAN HAND--
WHICH IS DIFFERENT
FROM A CHIMPANZEE HAND
BY QUITE A BIT.
THE THUMB IS
DIFFERENTLY PLACED
AND THE LENGTH
OF THE FINGERS AND SO ON.
THE HUMAN HAND HAS BEEN
AROUND FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS
OR A COUPLE MILLION YEARS,
BUT HUMAN VOICES,
HUMAN THROATS ABLE
TO HANDLE
A MODERN SPOKEN LANGUAGE
DIDN'T DEVELOP
UNTIL 50,000, 60,000 YEARS AGO.
IS IT BETTER
IF I COME UP FRONT TO SIGN
OR SIGN FROM HERE?
CAN EVERYONE SEE ME OK?
I'D LIKE YOU TO EXPLAIN
THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN MONKEYS
OR CHIMPANZEES
AND, YOU KNOW, GESTURING,
TRYING TO TEACH
CHIMPANZEES SIGN LANGUAGE,
BUT, YOU KNOW, ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT'S
BOTHERING ME IS
MY OWN EXPERIENCE,
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
GROWING UP
AT A DIFFERENT
RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF,
WHERE THERE WAS A WALL
LITERALLY AROUND THE SCHOOL,
AND, LIKE, YOU'D HAVE A--
THERE WAS A RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF,
AND RIGHT NEXT TO IT
ACROSS THE WALL WAS A ZOO.
SO WHEN I'D BE WALKING
OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL,
YOU KNOW, WE'D BE TEASED.
PEOPLE WOULD ACCUSE US
OF ACTING LIKE MONKEYS,
OR I THINK PEOPLE
MADE COMPARISONS
WITH A FORMAL SIGNED LANGUAGE
AND HOW MONKEYS GESTURE,
AND THAT'S ALWAYS BOTHERED ME.
DO YOU SEE PARALLELS?
I MEAN, YOU KNOW,
THE LEVEL
OF LANGUAGE ATTAINMENT
IN MONKEYS CERTAINLY
ISN'T LIKE THE LEVEL
OF LANGUAGE ATTAINMENT
WITH DEAF PEOPLE,
SO HOW DO YOU EDUCATE
LAY PEOPLE, WHO ARE NAIVE,
THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A FULLY
DEVELOPED LANGUAGE
AND THE TYPE OF GESTURES
OR RUDIMENTARY LANGUAGE
THAT CHIMPS ARE CAPABLE OF?
THAT'S REALLY BOTHERING ME,
AND WHEN I MOVED HERE
TO AMERICA, I WAS REALLY
SURPRISED THAT THAT WASN'T
A CONCEPT HERE IN AMERICA,
COMPARING DEAF PEOPLE
WITH PRIMATES,
WHERE IT WAS
IN MY HOME COUNTRY.
SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD
JUST RESPOND TO THAT.
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION
AND A DEEP QUESTION,
AND I CAN JUST GIVE IT A TRY.
THE PEOPLE WHO THINK
OF DEAF PEOPLE AND ANIMALS
IN THAT WAY ARE PRETTY MUCH
THE SAME PEOPLE
WHO THINK OF SOMEBODY
OF A DIFFERENT COLOR SKIN
AS INFERIOR,
WHO THINK OF PEOPLE
WITH A DIFFERENT RELIGION
AS SOMEBODY TO BE SHOT AT
IN THE STREETS OF BELFAST
INSTEAD OF TO BE WELCOMED
INTO THEIR HOMES.
I MEAN, THIS IS
HUMAN PREJUDICE.
IT COMES FROM IGNORANCE,
VERY MUCH FROM IGNORANCE,
AND IT'S LEARNED BEHAVIOR.
SOMEBODY--WHOEVER SAID THAT
ABOUT COMPARING
THE DEAF CHILDREN IN THE SCHOOL
WITH THE MONKEYS IN THE ZOO
DIDN'T COME UP WITH THE IDEA
ON THEIR OWN.
IT'S NOT A NATURAL IDEA.
THEY LEARNED IT
FROM SOMEBODY ELSE,
SOMEBODY, AS MY COUSIN--ONE
OF MY COUSINS LIKED TO SAY--
SOMEBODY WHO WAS BORN
WITH A BAD FEELING.
[LAUGHTER]
BUT I THINK THE ONLY WAY
YOU CAN APPROACH THAT
IS THROUGH KNOWLEDGE.
PEOPLE IGNORANT
OF SIGN LANGUAGE--GEE!
WHEN I WENT TO GALLAUDET
42 YEARS AGO,
PEOPLE TOLD ME THAT
THE DEAF STUDENTS THERE
COULDN'T THINK IN THE ABSTRACT,
THEY COULDN'T REALLY
MASTER LANGUAGE,
THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE DEAF
THEY HAD
A MENTAL DEFICIENCY.
THAT'S ALL BALDERDASH,
TO PUT A NICE WORD ON IT.
IT'S--IT'S COMPLETELY WRONG.
IT'S FALSE INFORMATION,
IT'S IGNORANCE,
SO THE ONLY THING I CAN DO,
I THINK, IS TRY TO GET
SOME BETTER INFORMATION
OUT THERE.
IT CERTAINLY SEEMS
IN THE LAST 42 YEARS
THAT MORE INFORMATION
ABOUT AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE
AND OTHER SIGN LANGUAGES HAS
CHANGED PEOPLE'S MINDS ENOUGH.
I MEAN, I'VE SEEN THE--
WELL, I'VE SEEN THE DAY
WHEN GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY
GOT A DEAF PERSON AS PRESIDENT.
I'VE SEEN A LOT OF THE PEOPLE
I KNOW, PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES
MY AGE WHO USED TO HAVE TO
WORK--BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T
GET AN UPPER LEVEL
TEACHING POSITION
AT GALLAUDET, THEY HAD
TO WORK NIGHTS
IN A NEWSPAPER OFFICE
WORKING A LINOTYPE MACHINE.
I'VE SEEN THAT CHANGE.
I'VE SEEN FORMER STUDENTS
OF MINE BECOME
SUPERINTENDENTS OF STATE
SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF,
GET Ph.Ds., WRITE OUTSTANDING
RESEARCH DISCOVERIES,
AND THIS, I THINK,
HAS HAPPENED BECAUSE
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SIGN LANGUAGE
GOING AROUND
THAN THERE USED TO BE.
I HOPE I HAVEN'T OFFENDED
YOU BY ALL THE TALK
I GAVE ABOUT PRIMATES
AND SO FORTH.
I MEAN, I HAVE DONE
A GOOD DEAL OF STUDY
OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY,
AND I DO KNOW THAT IT'S
PRETTY WELL AUTHENTICATED
THAT THE ANCESTOR
OF CHIMPANZEES AND HUMAN BEINGS
WAS ONE SPECIES.
THAT SEPARATED
A LONG, LONG TIME AGO,
BUT THAT ANCESTOR MUST HAVE HAD
A LITTLE BIT MORE
MENTAL POWER THAN ANY
OF THE OTHER
IN THE PRIMATE LINE,
MONKEYS AND APES,
AND MODERN MOLECULAR BIOLOGISTS
WILL TELL YOU
THAT ABOUT 99%--
I THINK IT'S 99% OR 97%--
OF OUR CELLS--
THE CELLS IN OUR BODIES
ARE ALMOST 97% IDENTICAL
WITH THE CELLS
IN CHIMPANZEES' BODIES.
A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE,
A VERY WISE MAN
WHO'S DONE A HUGE BOOK,
A MONUMENTAL BOOK
ON THE SIGN LANGUAGES
OF ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIA,
SAYS IN AN ARTICLE IN "MAN,"
THE BRITISH ANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL,
SAID, "IT SEEMS AS IF
CHIMPANZEES WERE
"ON THE VERGE
OF DEVELOPING LANGUAGE,
BUT THEY NEVER DID."
AND HIS TAKE ON THAT
IS THEY NEVER DID
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T NEED TO.
THEY LIVED IN AN ENVIRONMENT,
A CLIMATE THAT
WAS PERFECTLY OK.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO
ANYTHING ELSE.
APPARENTLY, THEIR COUSINS
THAT DEVELOPED
INTO TO THE HOMINID LINE
THAT DEVELOPED
INTO THE HUMAN LINE
DID HAVE TO KEEP
CHANGING THEIR WAYS.
THEY DID HAVE TO FIND
NEW WAYS OF COPING,
AND ONE OF THE WAYS
THEY FOUND WAS TO GO
FROM THE KIND OF COMMUNICATION
CHIMPS AND OTHER ANIMALS HAVE
TO SOMETHING
MORE AND MORE LIKE LANGUAGE.
BOB.
FIRST, I READ YOUR BOOK,
AND WHAT YOU TALK
ABOUT TODAY
SEEMS TO BOIL DOWN TO
ONE INTERESTING STATEMENT
YOU MADE IN YOUR BOOK,
SAYING LANGUAGE BEGINS
IN THE HEAD,
WHETHER IT COMES OUT
AS ENGLISH OR SIGN.
YOU SAID THAT IN THE BOOK.
IS THAT RELATED
TO WHAT HANS FURTH WROTE
IN HIS BOOK
"THINKING WITHOUT LANGUAGE"?
HEH. NO. I DON'T THINK
I AGREE AT ALL
WITH WHAT FURTH SAID,
AND I'M A LITTLE ASHAMED
THAT YOU REMINDED ME
OF THAT BOOK LONG AGO
BECAUSE WHAT I'M SAYING
THIS MORNING IS
THINKING DOES NOT BEGIN
IN THE HEAD.
THINKING BEGINS
WHEN THE HEAD AND THE HAND
AND THE EYES GET TOGETHER,
THAT WHAT'S IN THE HEAD
GETS EXPRESSED WITH MOTION
THAT CAN BE SEEN,
AND THEN THE MOTION
THAT CAN BE SEEN
GETS PICKED UP
AND BACK IN THE HEAD,
AND LANGUAGE IS A CIRCUIT
OF GOING AROUND.
IF I SAID--I ACCEPT
WHAT YOU SAY,
THAT I SAID IN THE BOOK--
THAT'S THE 1960 BOOK?
[LAUGHTER]
THAT WHAT--
IN THE CONTEXT, AS I REMEMBER,
A LOT OF PEOPLE, EVEN FROM
SAMUEL HEINICKE IN GERMANY,
THAT GREAT ANTAGONIST
OF THE ABBÉ DE L'ÉPÉE--
HEINICKE SAYING THAT
LANGUAGE IS SPEECH, IT'S VOICE,
IT'S GOT TO BE PUT
INTO SOUND,
OR IT'S NOT LANGUAGE,
AND THAT LONG HISTORY
IS STILL GOING ON
OF THE FIGHT BETWEEN ORALISM
AND MANUALISM,
MOUTH LANGUAGE
AND HAND LANGUAGE,
AND WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY
WHEN I SAID THAT,
WHICH YOU QUOTED,
WAS THAT LANGUAGE
IS NOT FROM THE HANDS,
IT'S NOT FROM THE MOUTH.
IT'S FROM THE BRAIN.
WHAT I REALLY MEANT TO SAY
IS OF COURSE IT INVOLVES
THE BRAIN AND THE HANDS
AND THE MOUTH AND ALTOGETHER.
YEAH. THANK YOU. HEH.
THAT'S GREAT.
SINCE YOU'RE CALLED
THE FATHER OF ASL...
IN FRANCE...
WE HEAR THAT ASL
IS AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE,
AND THEY COME OVER HERE,
AND THE FOLKS FROM FRANCE MET
DEAF PEOPLE,
AND WHAT WAS USED HERE
WAS LABELED AS ASL.
I'D ASK YOU WHAT'S
THE DEFINITION
OF AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE? HA!
[LAUGHTER]
[LAUGHTER]
IF I REALLY WANTED TO
WIN THIS AUDIENCE,
I WOULD SAY, "WHAT'S YOUR
DEFINITION
OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?"
[LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE]
MAN: TOUCHÉ. HA!
AND YOU SAID I'M CALLED
THE FATHER OF ASL,
AND I'VE HEARD THAT,
AND I ALWAYS DISCLAIM IT.
I MIGHT BE ONE
OF THE UNCLES
WHO FOUND THE POOR--
WHO FOUND
THE POOR BABY
OUT IN THE WOODS,
WHERE THE ORALISTS
HAD KICKED IT...
[LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE]
BUT--BUT--I MEAN,
THINKING BACK,
WAS LAURENT CLERC
THE FATHER OF ASL?
HE, YOU KNOW--
LAURENT CLERC BROUGHT BACK
FROM--BROUGHT TO AMERICA
BY T.H. GALLAUDET,
CLERC HELPED GALLAUDET FOUND
THE AMERICAN SCHOOL
IN HARTFORD,
THE FIRST PERMANENT SCHOOL
IN THE U.S.
CLERC ALSO HELPED FOUND
MANY, MANY OTHER STATE SCHOOLS.
PEOPLE CAME TO HIM,
OR HE WENT TO THE PLACE
AND SHOWED THEM
THE SIGNING SYSTEM THEY USED
AND SO ON,
AND SO THERE WAS A BIG INFLUX
OF FRENCH SIGNING INTO
THE SIGN LANGUAGE USED HERE,
BUT IF YOU CAN BELIEVE
WHAT'S WRITTEN,
ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD
LONG BEFORE CLERC CAME OVER
FROM FRANCE,
PEOPLE WERE SIGNING,
HAD A SIGN LANGUAGE.
YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER
OF SIGN LANGUAGE WOULD BE?
IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT,
IT'S THE GUY THAT LIVED
IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN
WITH A WOMAN CALLED EVE.
[LAUGHTER]
GIVE YOU A FOLLOW-UP--
I'LL GIVE YOU
A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. YEAH.
HEH HEH HEH.
OK. SO I'LL SIGN SLOW
FOR THE INTERPRETER, OK?
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
THE FIRST,
I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU...
ASL IS A VISUAL,
GESTURAL LANGUAGE,
AND RECEPTIVE SKILLS
ARE IMPORTANT AND SIGNING.
ARE YOU REALLY SKILLED
AT ASL YOURSELF
RECEPTIVELY AND EXPRESSIVELY?
STOKOE: NO.
MAN: NO? OK. THEN...
THEN HOW DID YOU FIND THAT
ASL IS A FULL-BLOWN LANGUAGE?
IT SEEMS SOMEWHAT CONTRADICTORY
THAT YOU'RE NOT HIGHLY SKILLED
AT ASL,
YOU'RE NOT A SKILLED SIGNER,
AND YET AS YOU STARTED
TO STUDY ASL,
YOU FELT,
"BOY, THIS IS GREAT!
"THIS IS A LANGUAGE!
IT'S A FULL-BLOW,
FULLY DEVELOPED LANGUAGE,"
AND YOU'RE RECOGNIZED
AS THE PERSON WHO DID THAT,
BUT YOU'RE NOT YET FLUENT
IN THE LANGUAGE,
NOT SKILLED IN THE LANGUAGE.
SO IT SEEMS CONTRADICTORY TO ME.
COULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
[LAUGHTER]
YES. THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT
IS THIS,
THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SKILLED
IN THE LANGUAGE
DON'T HAVE TO ASK
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
IT'S LIKE DUCK SOUP TO THEM.
I MEAN, IT'S THEIR
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT,
AND YOU DON'T ASK A LOT
OF PERTINENT QUESTIONS
ABOUT THINGS THAT
ARE GOING WELL.
DO YOU KNOW THE STORY
ABOUT THE KID
THAT NEVER SPOKE UNTIL HE WAS
ABOUT 5 YEARS OLD?
HE WASN'T DEAF OR ANYTHING,
BUT HE JUST SAT THERE
IN THE KITCHEN
AND ATE HIS MEALS
AND WENT TO BED
AND AROUND THE HOUSE.
ONE NIGHT...
ONE NIGHT RIGHT
IN THE MIDDLE OF SUPPER,
HE SAID, "HMM.
THIS FOOD WONDER--
THIS FOOD IS TERRIBLE."
AND HIS PARENTS SAID, "WHAT?
YOU CAN TALK! YOU CAN TALK!"
HE SAID, "SURE I CAN TALK."
"WELL, WHY DIDN'T YOU
TALK BEFORE?"
SAID, "THE FOOD WAS
ALWAYS FINE BEFORE."
[LAUGHTER]
I MEAN, ANOTHER WAY
OF ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION--
I AM VERY CONSCIOUS MYSELF
THAT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH CONTACT
WITH IT ANYMORE
SOME OF MY SKILLS
THAT I DID HAVE IN SIGNING
AND IN RECEIVING SIGNS
ARE DECLINING BECAUSE I'M NOT
WITH DEAF PEOPLE
AS MUCH AS I SHOULD BE,
BUT IT'S ALSO TRUE
THAT LOOKING INTO A SYSTEM,
IT'S SOMETIMES BETTER
TO BE OUTSIDE IT.
I MEAN, AFTER ALL...
THE, UH--AS THE--
AS THE PERSON SAID
WHO WAS CRITICIZING--
WAS CRITICIZED
FOR CRITICIZING POETRY
OR SOMETHING--
THEY SAID, "WELL,
YOU'RE NOT A POET.
HOW CAN YOU CRITICIZE THAT?"
HE SAYS, "I'M NOT A HEN EITHER,
"BUT I CAN TELL WHETHER
AN EGG IS A GOOD ONE
OR A BAD ONE."
[LAUGHTER]
UH...
I GUESS ANOTHER ANSWER
TO YOUR QUESTION IS
THAT LANGUAGE IS LANGUAGE,
AND WHEN I SAY LANGUAGE
IS LANGUAGE,
I MEAN
SIGN LANGUAGE IS LANGUAGE
JUST AS SPOKEN LANGUAGES
ARE LANGUAGE,
AND YOU FIND THAT OUT
BY FINDING OUT
WHAT MAKES LANGUAGES TICK,
WHAT--HOW THEY'RE
PUT TOGETHER.
I'VE BEEN WORKING AT THAT
FOR THE LAST 50, 60 YEARS,
AND YOU HEARD THIS MORNING
ABOUT AS FAR AS I'VE GOT.
IF IT'S NOT FAR ENOUGH,
TAKE OVER
AND CARRY THIS IDEA FURTHER,
ALL OF YOU.
[APPLAUSE]
THANK YOU.
OUR TIME IS UP.
I WANT TO THANK YOU
AND THANK YOU
IN THE AUDIENCE.
OUR NEXT PRESENTATION
WILL BE NEXT FRIDAY.
DR. CHRISTINE MONIKOWSKI
WILL PRESENT
ON ASSESSING ASL
WITH A CLOSURE TEST.
I HOPE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO COME
NEXT FRIDAY AT NOON HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[APPLAUSE]
STOKOE: THANK YOU.
Transcript
false
Notes:
"This project is supported by a Digitizing Hidden Collections grant from the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR). The grant program is made possible by funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation."
notes
"This project is supported by a Digitizing Hidden Collections grant from the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR). The grant program is made possible by funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation."
Notes
false
Other Title:
Bird of a different feather
other_title
Bird of a different feather
Other Title
false