Sign languages, like many other languages, have been studied in terms of their components. After they have been broken down to their basic units, they can be described and compared. When these descriptions are based on the components of the languages in question, they are sufficient to describe. However, unless the descriptions used are sufficient to describe both of the languages being compared, they will not serve as adequate for comparison. This paper will attempt to provide an initial deconstruction of a communication paradigm which will be shown to be faulty in its construction due to its failure to adequately comply with the empirical evidence on which it depends for description, and to provide both a scientific and cultural rationale for this deconstruction.
Introduction
Spoken langauge is frequently studied in terms of morphemes, the basic unit of meaning. Likewise, sign languages are studied in their components, called "cheremes" (Stokoe, 1972). These basic units are "tab", "sig" and "dez", corresponding to location of the sign, configuration of the hands, and movement of the hands. Yet these are not enough to cover all the nuances of some signs. As the author of the above convention states, "a sentence, S, in American Sign Language may be seen to have two sensible components which are both vehicles for its intelligible import ... the facial, F, and the manual, M." (Stokoe, 1972). Facial representation has been added to notation created to relate the above concepts, yet it too fails in some cases.
It is perhaps a case of unintentional chauvinism on the part of speaking linguists, who attempt to describe something based on the concepts created from their own experience. Unfortunately, there are components of sign language which elude any description in terms of spoken language, because they are inherently impossible to accomplish, or at best, matters of evolution of the language and better studied as etymology.
Spoken Language As Serial Communication
All spoken langauge shares a characteristic which is familiar to the study of cognitive science; it is serial. That is to say, it occurs with its individual components happening sequentially. Specifically, it occurs in receiving in the order of (1) auditory signal comprehension, (2) phoneme identification, (3) auditory word identification, and (4) cognition, which includes the application of semantic rules (Gordon, 1990), and in the reverse in the production of speech, ending with signal production instead of comprehension. Since it is physically impossible to say more than one thing at the same time, this seems an almost ridiculous observation to make. Yet, if we are to compare sign and spoken langauge, this concept must be addressed.
Parallel Channels
Sign language, being a visual language and involving up to the entire body of the signer, can often contain components which occur simultaneously. In the computer metaphor used so often by cognitive science, this is said to be parallel. Even if the components of the particular message being transferred arrive in a serial fashion, as long as the syntactic construction of the message follows the general syntactic construction rules of a non-serial based language, a linear view used to explain the message will be inaccurate (Goodall, 1987). Unless this specific difference is taken into account, the traditional method of description as adapted to sign language will fail.
This simultaneity manifests itself in various ways. The first and most obvious is a restatement of Stokoe's earlier observation. There are more than one physical component to signs, and these must be recorded and analyzed in the context of their common occurrence. Second, following Stokoe's second comment, the sign consists of more than the manual components, including the face and various other elements of kinesics. Third, and as far as I have been able to determine almost unaddressed, is the simultaneous occurrence of more than one otherwise independent sign to form a compound sign. The sole instance of publication which I have been able to find on this version of simultaneity in communication has been a series of observations of Japanese Sign Language, although the nature of the usages these observations cover are identical to many instances of terms I am personally familiar with in ASL. The author of this work goes as far as to label the use of the word "simultaneity" in this instance to be a "cognitive" concept, rather than one of physical coincidence. (Peng, 1978).
As an example, the ASL sign for "standing" -- two fingers extended downward onto the palm of the other hand, and the sign for "not paying attention", head tilted to one side, pupils turned to the corner of the eye tilted more upwards, and the tongue sticking out the corner of the mouth tilted more downwards, represents the clause "standing around not paying attention." This sign should be differentiated from the series of two concepts presented by the English "standing around and not paying attention" which indicates two related but separate concepts. If the intended meaning had been that the person was standing around, and while doing so was not paying attention, the signs would be presented in sequence. Instead, the condition of standing around obliviously, as a single statement of behavior, is presented.
The tendency towards simultaneous signing is responsible for the creation of new signs from two or more old ones. This pattern of "blending" (Peng, 1978) is the source of such combined signs as the familiar (as opposed to the intimate) "I love you", created out of combined manual alphabet signs for "I", "L" and "Y". It is also the root of single signs with origins in two or more signs such as "teacher", being both hands palm down with thumbs tucked below, and brought down in an arc in front of the face, as opposed to the now more formal individual signs for teach (the hands brought directly out from the face) followed with the "agent" sign (hands directly in front of the elbows, palms towards each other, and sliced downwards in parallel). This blending of signs is so common, and considered so much a part of the language of sign, that the compound signs "apple+drink" for apple juice was one of the instances used to support the hypothesis of animal-acquired language, as quoted by Patterson in her paper on the language development in the gorilla Koko. (Patterson, 1978).
Parallelism in Signs
It would hardly be prudent to consider a change, addition or deletion of a theoretical framework without showing how it might be of some use. The consideration of the parallel information being produced, transmitted, received and processed, as multiple channels of simultaneous and mutually supporting information, can be used to explain such phenomena as the syntactic structure of American Sign Language. In ASL, it is just as proper to sign "my + book" as it is to sign "book + my". Similar arrangements of noun and verb pairs, subject and object ordering, and clauses within sentences are so frequent that a common explanation for this is that ASL has little or no set syntactic ordering of its components, (Wilbur, 1987), and some have even gone as far as to say that ASL has developed "avoidance strategies to compensate for constrained syntactic rules", (Freidman, 1976) almost as though the structure of ASL were somehow cheating in the production of language as compared to the rigidity of English. While variable syntax is a suitable explanation when only considering the language from a serial-oriented viewpoint, it does not address how such arrangements can be considered equivalent in semantic content.
Wilbur (1987) addresses this by using the concept of "iconic representation", which is described as "a reflection in language of the actual state of affairs in the real world". If one accepts that the information transmitted in sign language resides in more than one channel, then it is not a large step to accept that operating in a real world with multiple channels of communication leads one's mind to think in representations of that information as they occur, that is, as parallel pieces to a single puzzle. Rather than being a work-around for a highly structured (and questionably considered 'standard') spoken langauge, the variable syntax of sign language instead represents the nature of the method of processing the information, which in terms of cognitive science is parallel processing of information received in parallel channels, even though the language is sometimes constrained to serialized or segmented, sequential production due to the limited amount of information which can be conveyed with each individual sign.
This has led at least one researcher to apply the concepts of "relational grammar" to the study of ASL (Padden, 1988), as being composed of "primitives", or grammatical relationships which are not expressed as word or clause order, but instead create the rules where by word and clause order are governed. This research indicates that there is indeed ordering in sign language, but it is as often the result of the easiest transition between different signs as any semantic consideration, yet it carries the same information content. I personally feel it to be quite a stretch of the intent of the term grammar to try to include the convenience of physical motion as a governing dimension in communication within that term.
Lateralization and Specialization
In order to promote a parallel view of sign communication, it is necessary to differentiate and justify this from the serial view presented by previous empirical investigation. In support of his theory of syntax, Chomsky (1965) stated that "It may well be that the general features of langauge structure reflect, not so much one's experience, but rather the general character of one's capacity to acquire knowledge." The sequential production fo spoken language outlined above corresponds well with the sequence of neuroanatomical structures involved in production of spoken language, specifically the hippocampal and cortical memory areas, Wernicke's area, Broca's area, and the motor cortex (Kalat, 1992). If it can be taken that the brain structures involved, in less formal terms, the hard wiring is indeed responsible for the structure of the language, then one would expect that a visually oriented language would make use of equivalent structures within the visual area.
In fact there are fundamental differences in the portions of the brain used for visual comprehension as opposed to verbal (the corresponding motor activity being controlled in all cases by the motor cortex). Friedrich (1990) observes that the left hemisphere, which controls the primary verbal areas, operate in an analytic and sequential manner, whereas the right hemisphere, which controls the spatial and visual recognition functions, operates primarily in a holistic and simultaneous manner. In the case of deaf communication, it has been shown (McKeever, Hoemann, Florian & VanDeventer, 1976) that the cerebral functions governing communication in deaf persons is not the same as those in hearing persons. More specifically, Ross, Pergament and Anisfeld (1979) showed that the right hemisphere of deaf persons was specialized for sign recognition, and was used in exactly the same fashion with very similar results as the left hemisphere of hearing persons was specialized for word recognition.
If those areas of the right hemisphere used in the production and comprehension of sign language were fundamentally different from the corresponding left hemisphere speech areas, we would expect to find that the functioning within those areas to differ also. This is in fact the case. As Shand and Kilma (1981) show the differences in processing of sign language are due in part to differences in sensory storage, and also differences in processing of "static vs. changing-state" input, but even these are not sufficient to cover all the differences.
These differences cannot be attributed to sensory-motor memory, according to Liben, Nowell and Posnansky (1978), as the memory of signs in deaf people is not organized according to the physical determinants of the sign components. Bellugi, Kilma and Siple (1975) further show that the memory storage of signs in deaf persons is organized according to "simultaneous formational parameters" which when taken as individual components are found to be arbitrary and therefore void of inherent meaning. It is this existence of meaning in simultaneous components which individually are meaningless which point solidly at a holistic basis for considering the meaning in the signs, and a multiple parallel channel paradigm for describing their transfer.
Cognitive Computational Model
Although the mechanistic view posited by cognitive science, examining the mind as a system of functional components integrated for the purpose of computation, is somewhat reductionist, and therefore less than ideal for investigation of holistic concepts such as the operation of the right hemisphere, it does lend itself well to creation of some fairly inclusive models of mental performance. In fact, the design of neural networks as programs for parallel processing computers, those computer systems intended to mimic some operations of the human brain, are a primary result of successful application of the theory to technology (Willis, Montague, Morris & Tham, 1993).
Previous computer designs were all basically serial in nature; they acted on data and instructions in a linear fashion. Although these systems were capable of processing the information required to produce a realistic looking image, the time frame required was too long to allow sequential pictures to be shown to give any sense of motion.
Lately, computers with several processors working in parallel have been used to more efficiently portray three dimensional images. Only these parallel devices are able to handle the enormous mass of data fast enough to display movement in the image in anything approaching real time equivalency. Justifying the concept of parallel processing in the brain by drawing an equivalent from computer science would seem quite a stretch. However, the flow of concepts runs in the opposite direction in this case.
According to W. Daniel Hillis (1987), designer of the massively parallel computer The Connection Machine, his blueprint for the design of his machine was the human mind, due entirely to the fact that it uses the principle of parallel processing to comprehend an entire image all at once. It is able to do so due to the enormous number of interconnections between neurons, even though the neurons themselves are thousands of times slower than the silicon gates in computer chips.
The parallel processing of image information proceeds even prior to reaching the brain. The neurons of the retina are interconnected in such a way as to respond to aggregate stimuli such as an edge as a single non-point entity (Hayward & Varela, 1992).
In comprehending the complete sign, all aspects of its production must be considered. In the cognitive terms of Lieser and Gilleron (1990), in order to perceive the brain must calculate simultaneously any impinging aspects of space, time and length. Each of these may contain any number of components, including continuous spectrums of measurement as opposed to discrete entities. While a linear or serial computational model may be used to calculate each of these given enough time, the requirement of simultaneity of processing in order to construct a conscious image of a three dimensional moving figure such as a signer precludes serial processing as a possibility.
While this would seem to serve as the necessary basis for describing visual imagery, Rollins (1989) asserts that these same computational structures are required for the production of language of any sort. His components to language which act as functional equivalents to space, time and length are semantics, process and syntax.
From this it seems that not only is the cognitive computational model useful in the understanding of visual modes of communication and specifically sign langauge, but quite possibly in understanding language in general.
Science and Social Responsibility
A society which supports science should expect that science to in turn act responsibly towards that society. In the case of the investigation of sign language, this becomes apparent when we consider that the particular views adopted by science can have a significant effect on how society behaves towards the deaf segment of that society.
There has been considerable bias towards the deaf in the past, and quite often it is based on the view that they are deficient in communicative ability. This opinion is fed significantly if the consideration of the people is based on their mode of communication, and this in turn is considered on the basis of an ineffective cognitive model which wrongfully labels these people as deficient.
If one insists on using the serial processing and transmission model of communication when considering the parallel processing and transmission of the deaf, one can end up with results similar to those of Bishop (1983) which are based on an "inherent grammatical problem" made visible by basing the test on rigid ordering of response in verbal testing. This is obviously a flawed concept if one participates in a mode of communication where grammatic ordering is irrelevant. Results such as this have been used to justify the concept of disability in the deaf, even though testing has shown that deafness does not correspond to cognitive deficit (Lillo-Martin, Hanson & Smith, 1992).
Even the idea that sign language is a substitute for "real" language should be questioned when findings show that it is learned faster that spoken language (Orlansky & Bonvillian, 1985). Anthropological investigation has shown that it is likely that sign language was in fact the first language used by humans (Hewes, 1973; Teodorsson, 1980).
When one investigates the more useful language concepts such as creativity, then one finds results such as those from Marscharck and West (1985) which indicate that basing language testing on English-like concepts seriously underestimates the cognitive and linguistic abilities of the deaf. Even Geoffery Coulter (1993), editor of Phonetics and Phonology: Current Issues in ASL Phonology, questions the validity of using the concept of syntactic comparisons in investigating sign language, due to the unique nature of sign language.
If one follows the theoretical model that the mode of communication used allows one preferential access to the hemisphere which processes it, then one can arrive at the conclusion that use of sign language would provide for better access to the right hemisphere and its holistic computational operation. This is in fact suggested by Hendren (1989); sign language is suggested as a communicative tool for all students for just this type of thinking.
A significant point for its inclusion into eduction is made by the observation that if a person learns to sign first, and speak later, then that person is able to communicate in both ways at once, with the speech following the normal rules of grammar, and the sign following its normal rules flexible ordering, without conflict of confusion between the two (Jones & Quigley, 1979). This goes beyond the concept of bilingualism, and offers people a chance to communicate from both hemispheres at once, creating clearer and more meaningful communication.
Given the above, it is understandable that the assumed supremacy of spoken language as the standard by which communication is measured has come into question (Televik, 1981). This should be reflected in the way that deaf people are viewed by society.
Charrow and Wilbur (1975) suggest that rather than disabled, it would be more appropriate to consider the deaf as merely the third largest non-English speaking minority in the U.S., and that they should be treated in the respect of a cultural minority rather than a communicatively disabled one. This seems to be preferential to the existing view which results in society trying to force English speaking concepts on these people. Such efforts are doomed to failure (Grove, O'Sullivan & Rodda, 1979), and actually result in damage to the individual (Stokoe, 1978) by alienating them from their native culture, which is inseparable from their language (Stevens, 1980).
Conclusion
Although science must proceed as a lowest common denominator in its descriptions of the real world, and as such requires a language of its own which communicates all of the various parts of the world which it attempts to describe, it also is responsible to be the clearest form of communication. While those theoretical concepts produced based on serial communications are adequate for many purposes, and understandable by most people, they are not adequate to describe communications which occur in a fashion outside the realm of experience of their backgrounds, i.e. parallel forms of communication such as sign langauge. As stated by Lieberman (1984) "the initial functional value of syntax may rest in the limitation of semantic interpretation." As long as the semantic interpretation of a language is based on concepts found to be too limited for a complete understanding, the resulting observations of syntactic structure will be doomed to failure as proper descriptions of the reality they portray.
In order to describe sign language properly, and particularly to compare it with spoken languages, it is necessary to use a theoretical framework which takes into accurate account the natures of the languages. Concepts derived from serial based languages are insufficient to describe parallel based languages, and are therefore insufficient for comparisons.
When social factors regarding the results of one paradigm show obvious bias and damage, and a competing paradigm appears to reduce or nullify the negative effects, while providing for better communication for all as well as better description of reality, I think it imperative for science and society either accept the latter, or provide for a yet greater improvement in science while still reducing the bias created by the outdated paradigm.
REFERENCES
Bellugi, U., Klima, E. & Siple, P. (1975).
Remembering in Signs. Cognition, 3,
93-125.
Bishop, D. V. (1983). Comprehension of english
syntax by profoundly deaf children. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and the
Allied Disciplines, 24, 415-434.
Charrow, V. & Wilbur, R. B. (1975). The deaf
child as a linguistic minority. Theory Into
Practice, 14, 353-359.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of
syntax (p. 180). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Coulter, G. and Anderson, S. (1993).
Introduction. In Geoffery Coulter (Ed.)
Phonetics and phonology, Volume 3: Current
issues in ASL phonology. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Friedman, L. (1976). Phonology of a soundless
language: Phonological structure of American
Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley.
Friedrich, F. J. (1990). Frameworks for the
study of Human Spatial Impairments. In R. P.
Kesner & D. S. Olton (Eds.), Neurobiology of
comparative cognition (pp 317-338).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goodall, G. (1987). Parallel structures in
syntax (p. 172). Cambridge, UK: University
Press.
Gordon B. (1990). Human language. In R. P.
Kesner & D. S. Olton (Eds.), Neurobiology of
comparative cognition (pp 21-50). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grove, C., O'Sullivan, F. D. & Rodda, M. (1979).
Communication and language in severely deaf
adolescents. British Journal of Psychology,
70, 531-540.
Hayward, J. W. & Varela, F. J. (1992). Gentle
Bridges (p. 59). Boston: Shambala.
Hendren, G. R. (1989). Using sign language to
access right brain communication: A tool for
teachers. Journal of Creative Behavior,
23, 116-120.
Hewes, G. W. (1973). Primate communication and
the gestural origin of language. Current
Anthropology, 14, 5-24.
Hillis, W. D. (1987, June). The connection
machine. Scientific American, pp. 174-182.
Jones, M. L., & Quigley, S. (1979). The
acquisition of question formation in spoken
english and american sign language. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 44,
196-208.
Kalat, J. W. (1992) Physiological Psychology
(p. 175). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Liben, L. S., Nowell, R. C. & Posansky, C. J.
(1978). Semantic and formational clustering in
deaf and hearing subjects' free recall of
signs. Memory and Cognition, 6, 599-606.
Lieberman, P. (1984). The biology and
evolution of a language. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard.
Lieser, D. & Gillieron, C. (1990). Cognitive
science and genetic epistemology (p. 25).
New York: Plenum.
Lillo-Martin, D. C., Hanson, V. L. & Smith, S. T.
(1992). Deaf readers' comprehension of
relative clause structure. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 13, 13-30.
Marscharck, M. & West, S. (1985). Creative
language abilities in deaf children. Journal
of Speech and hearing Research, 28, 73-78.
McKeever, W. F., Hoemann, H. W., Florian, V. A. &
VanDeventer, A. D. (1976). Evidence of
minimal cerebral asymmetries for the processing
of english words and american sign language in
the congenitally deaf. Neurophysiologia,
14, 413-423.
Orlansky, M. & Bonvillian, J. (1985). Sign
language acquisition: Language development in
children of deaf parents and implications for
other populations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
31, 127-143.
Padden, C. (1988). Interaction of morphology
and syntax in American Sign Language. New
York: Garland.
Patterson, F. (1978). Linguistic capabilities of
a lowland gorilla. In F. C. C. Peng (Ed.)
Sign language and language acquisition in man
and ape. (pp. 161-202). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Peng, F. (1978). Introduction. In F. Peng (Ed.)
Sign language and language acquisition in man
and ape. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Rollins, M. (1989). Mental imagery (p. xv).
New Haven, CN: Yale.
Ross, P., Pergament, L. & Anisfeld, M. (1979).
Cerebral lateraliztion of deaf and hearing
individuals for the linguistic comparison
judgements. Brain and Language, 8, 69-80.
Shand, M. A. & Klima, E. (1981). Nonauditory
suffix effects in congenitally deaf signers of
american sign language. Journal of
Experimental Psychology Human Learning and
Memory, 7, 464-474.
Stevens, R. (1980). Education is schools for
deaf children. In C. Baker & R. Battison
(Eds.), Sign language and the deaf community
(pp. 177-191). Silver Springs, MD: National
Association of the Deaf.
Stokoe, W. (1972). Semiotics and human sign
languages. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton &
Co.
Stokoe, W. (1978). Sign codes and sign language:
Two orders of communication. Journal of
Communication Disorders, 11, 187-192.
Televik, J. M. (1981). Language and problem
solving ability: A comparison between deaf and
hearing adolescents. Scandanavian Journal of
Psychology, 22, 97-100.
Teodorsson, S. T. (1980). Autonomy and
linguistic status of nonspeech language forms.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9,
121-145.
Wilbur, R. (1987). American sign language:
Linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston,
MA: Little, Brown.
Willis, M. J., Montague, G. A., Morris, A. J. &
Tham, M. T. (1993). Artificial neural
networks: A possible tool for the process
engineer. In E. Rogers & Y. Li Parallel
processing in a control systems environment
(p. 109). New York: Prentice Hall.
NOTES
1. This paper was created as a study in the social implications of communication studies paradigms under the direction of Sandra Joe, Communications Department, Old Dominion University. Her direction is appreciated. Any mistakes however are my responsibility.
2. This paper was originally formatted for APA style. It has been altered in this version to be more readily transferable between computer platforms by deleting all formatting except that which will convert through standard ASCII codes.
3. Any correspondence should be addressed to me at:
5678 Brickell Road, #17
Norfolk, VA 23502
4. Copyright for this material is retained by the author, who freely gives permission for reprinting in any format as long as attribution is maintained.
