Language: September 2007 Archives

On September 27, several of the world's most reputable news sources reported on events in Myanmar (what most Americans know as Burma).

The Economist: On the Brink: How Myanmar's people rose up against its regime—and the regime rose up against its people.

The Associated Press: Myanmar Troops Kill 9 More Protesters

Today, there is evidence the brutality may have succeeded in quelling the people's protest:
Myanmar Protests Falter After Crackdown

CNN, reporting on the arrival of a United Nations Envoy in the capital city of Yangon, expands:

A source in Myanmar told CNN that students and other civilians "are playing a terrible game of cat and mouse" with security forces.

"The boldest 100 stand about three blocks away from the line of soldiers and shout slogans and taunts at them," the source said.

"A block behind the bold crowd is another large group of more than 100 in the street waiting to see what happens. All along the sidewalks, people are milling, watching and waiting. People hang out of the storefronts and sit out on their patios watching," the source added.

MoveOn.org, a non-partisan political action group in the US, is helping to sponsor a petition.

Seriously! Roman Jakobson (Prague School Linguist, functionalist), describes a kind of aphasia that brings the distinctions between metaphoric and metonymic speech. Metaphoric speech operates by substitution - you say something, I say something about another thing that reminds me of that thing you said - it "re-fills" the same space by replacement of an equivalent. Metonymic speech jumps levels, instead of substitution, you say something, and I say something related in terms of meaning but operating at a different position within a realist hierarchy.

While reading The metaphoric and metonymic poles today (subsequent to a few other articles, too) I became convinced that simultaneous interpreters can orient themselves to the performance of interpretation as verbal art, possibly even a kind of poetry. Some already do, but I think these are possibly a minority? Or, perhaps the dominant paradigm prevents full admission of the poetic latitude often exercised. :-)

I have a mixed reaction, leaning to the negative, concerning news of a software translation program for British Sign Language. The avatars look cool, and the idea is neat, but I cannot imagine that Artificial Intelligence has suddenly improved so much that the translations represent a wide swath of potential meanings instead of a cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all reduction to dictionary definitions.

I was surprised at the endorsement from the Royal National Institute for Deaf people (RNID), until I looked at their website. I admit, I have not looked all that closely and do not know any contextualizing history...but the RNID is registered as a charity and the products on the home page are geared to late-deafened and hard-of-hearing people, not the culturally Deaf who use BSL as their native language.

In other words, the avatar system might work just fine for people using BSL now but whose first language is English. Notice the difference in the homepage of the British Deaf Association Sign Community. In fact, looking at their internal link on language, I'd say it looks like the most useful thing allies and advocates can do is make BSL legal and - therefore - subject to anti-discrimination law.

BSL was recognised as an official British language by the UK government on 18 th March 2003, but it does not have any legal protection. This means that Deaf people do not have full access to information and services that hearing people take for granted, including education, health and employment.

{I wrote most of this right after the blogpost linked below...so much of this line of thinking is percolating concerning my prospectus, grant proposal, teaching, interpreting physics....anyway, today is the Celebration Party for the Crew and Shore Support for Shemaya's Serenity Sail, 2007. More thoughts will follow, I'm sure!}

Just because sailing resists the dominant forces of modernity, does not necessarily make it postmodern, eh? I have continued to wonder if describing my deja vu moment (while sailing) as a "personal cosmology" (as I did on the boat) was the best framing, or if "personal ontology" (as I wrote in that blogpost) is most accurate.

I'm sure cosmology is what leapt to mind because of Laurence Bergreen's application of the term to those metaphysical thinkers trying to imagine the entire universe during Magellan's time. Interestingly, the wikipedia entry states that the first use of the term did not occur until 1730, more than two centuries after Magellan's voyage. Ontology, however, is more precise (for this particular usage) because the term is used to describe a set of concepts and the relationships among them. The "objects" (in this case) are myself (!), my conscious - as in deliberately chosen - epistemology, and the phenomenological experience known as deja vu.

I think the original philosophical definitions and use of "ontology" and the recent borrowing of the label by the field of Artificial Intelligence serve equally well to describe the (known, apperceived) structural framework of my personal consciousness. As John Gregg (who maintains a terrific site on consciousness) defines it, "Essentially, ontology is the study of what actually is. For most people, for most purposes, ontology ultimately comes down to physics." Yes. The structure of knowledge (paradigm) that I have adopted concerning the experience of deja vu emphasizes the aspect of its meaning which implies "remembering the future." Despite our conscious experience of time as linear (and all the physical evidence around us indicating that it only moves in one direction), the physics of temporality is much more complicated. This is related to Gregg's

"hard problem" of subjective consciousness. The hard problem is hard because it just does not seem amenable to the sort of analysis that modern science knows how to do.

The microsocial challenge is wrestling ourselves (individually, interpersonally, relationally) out of the dialectical grip of modernity's knowledge constructs; the macrosocial parallel is the institutionalization of paradigms based on the new knowledges gleaned (especially) from quantum physics, cognitive neuroscience, and language studies (e.g., voice, language-as-action).

Andrew asked if I think it is possible (or beneficial) to achieve a full explanation of the relationship between language and consciousness, which brought me right back to tonight's seminar and the discussion of Nietzsche's critique of language as a tool by which we deceive ourselves (On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense).

I linked (yesterday) to a comment Andrew posted about Charlotte Mason; thinking perhaps I ought to check her out. From Andrew's blogroll I just found this (Chapter 11, Vol 2, September 12, 2007):

No Infallible Sense of ‘Ought’––Where does the ought get its awful Majesty? That there is in the human breast an infallible sense of ‘ought’ is an error prolific of much evil.

Since I myself have been guilty of moral righteousness, I have some sympathy for those whose convictions seem so right, so true, or otherwise absolute and nonnegotiable. Speaking for myself, it has been beneficial to have better explanations for the relationship between my consciousness, what I say, and how the language that I use leads to certain kinds of outcomes which have often been counter to what I had hoped. Is it possible for anyone, everyone to do this? Technically, sure - my neurocognitive wiring is not special. Learning to recognize the internal firing patterns and interrupt the patterned, habitual responses of my consciousness as it seeks to assert itself through language, however, is freaking hard work. Painful, even (sometimes).

I wonder if Nietzsche would have felt the need to withdraw from and condemn society if he lived now. Part of his despair was the recognition that his ambitions were based on a knowledge inaccessible to the vast majority of people of his time. I am not sure if the percentage of the population that understands the hopeful, optimistic power Nietzsche articulates is enough (yet, either in magnitude or concentration) to shift social relations in dramatically coordinated ways, but it seems to me the potential realization of such a day draws closer.

A Wordpress blogpost categorized under "teaching" led me to this timely piece: Charlotte Mason on neuroscience.

Who has "the explanation" for the relationship between language and consciousness, philosophers or neuroscientists? This debate has been going on for a long time; its competitiveness ~ as if one side has an answer or can determine the truth ~ bothers me. :-/

You're invited! Canoes, kayaks, riverbank scrambling, scuba divers -- and a
river left cleaner than when we arrived! (To continue reading this in English, please look further down!)

¡Ud. Está Invitado a Participar! Canoas, kayac, cruzando la orilla del río, buzos - ¡y un río más limpio de que cuando llegamos a hacer la limpieza!

La 11a Anual Limpieza del Río Connecticut "Source to Sea" - Patrocinado en cuatro estados por el Concilio de la Cuenca del Río Connecticut y por New England Family Farms Milk, y aquí en Holyoke por los Amigos del Río de Holyoke.

La limpieza "Source to Sea" es un evento annual de un solo día que tomará lugar desde el norte de New Hampshire hasta el océano, organizado por el Concilio de la Cuenca del Río Connecticut, y por comunidades locales a lo largo del Río Connecticut y sus afluentes.

Los Amigos del Río de Holyoke participarán en la Limpieza "Source to Sea" el sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2007. Estamos trabajando juntos con el Club de Buceo del Pioneer Valley, Appalachian Mountain Club Berkshire chapter, y otras organizaciones locales y personas de la comunidad. Nuestro foco específico es de sacar la basura directamente del río, y también la limpieza normal de sacar la basura de la orilla del río.

¡Nos gustaría mucho tener su ayuda! Tendremos buzos, un barco con una grúa para sacar los objetos grandes del río, voluntarios en canoas y kayac para ayudar los buzos, llevando la basura pequeña a los sitios de colección de las oriallas, voluntarios en las orillas sacando la basura en los bordes del río, y más gente en canoas y kayac para ayudar a transportar la basura de las orillas hasta los sitios de colección. (La Orialla del Río Connecticut en Holyoke no tiene mucho acceso del lado de la tierra.)

La diversión empieza a las 9 a.m., con [registration] y refrescos proporcionados por Don Wielgus y sus amigos. Vamos a encontrar en El Centro de Acceso del Río de Jones Ferry, La Calle Jones Ferry, Holyoke.

Para más información, entre en contacto con los Amigos del Río de Holyoke al 413-538-5772, y vea el sitio en internet del Concilio de la Cuenca del Río Connecticut en: http://www.ctriver.org/cleanup/index.html

Que: La Limpieza del Río Connecticutt "Source to Sea" en Holyoke
Cuando: 9 a.m., sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2007
Fecha en caso de lluvia: domingo, 7 de octubre de 2007
Donde: encontrarse en El Centro de Acceso del Río de Jones Ferry, La Calle Jones Ferry, Holyoke
Persona de Contacto: Shemaya Laurel, Amigos del Río de Holyoke, 413-538-5772
o Andrea Donlon, El Concilio de la Cuenca del Río (Connecticut River
Watershed Council), 413-772-2020, www.ctriver.org

________________________

for English:

I should have watched these training clips about using a Blackberry before signing my presentation in class the other day! The discourse structure of ASL is evident in each clip: first, the point, second - the illustration, third, the point again/expanded. One can watch how technical terminology is introduced and then incorporated naturally - with the side effect of contributing to the standardization of new terms in the lexicon. (I notice he does not fingerspell "email" for instance, which will annoy at least a few of my purist friends!) There's evidence of contextualization: the same sign is used for "escape" and "sprint" - illustrating how meaning coheres in different combinations of signifiers/signifieds within different languages. (Hence, why interpreters, when asked, "What's the sign for _______?" usually say, "It depends.") Finally, there is much to notice about the logic of the visual in ASL.

This is an area in which (it seems to me), non-deaf people need serious education. I, myself, am still learning how to shift out of the linearity of sound-based logic to the three-dimensionality of the visual - eighteen years (!) after I began to learn ASL. One of the most common ways this non-knowledge shows up is the curiosity of non-deaf people about whether any particular deaf person can lipread. My hypothesis is that the assumptions behind this question involve a) how much are you similar to me, and b) how far can you come to my way of communicating? Vikki Washington addresses this in her blogpost, Squealing for Attention.

Then, there's the relational problem between interpreters and deaf folk whom we serve. My issue has always been the way we (interpreters) subtly - and not so subtly - reinforce the dominant model of oppression/discrimination by "being on the deaf person's side." We serve the non-deaf people in the room just as much, but few people understand this. It seems normal to assume that we are interpreting "for the deaf person" and no one else. Another view on this issue comes from Jeannette Johnson (a.k.a. Deaf Pundit), writing on fallout from friendships with interpreters: The Interpreter and The Deaf Community Hitman. The misunderstanding she describes sounds painful, although - on principle - I would be inclined to suggest there's room for growth (forgiveness?) on both sides, especially given the foundation of friendship. The principle I'm thinking of is how to accomplish long-term structural change. Everytime we, as individuals, fail to repair our relationships with each other, I suspect this is a social metonym for the failure of larger groups of people (deaf/non-deaf; racial and ethnic groups with contentious histories; even nations - think Israel/Palestine) - to find ways to stop war and shift systemic oppressions to relations involving more social justice.

So, I am happily encouraged to read (and watch, via a vlog) alternative stories about deaf and non-deaf people become allies on common causes, such as Jack Barr's union activism.

Complicating the friendship angle from the interpreter's point-of-view, is the persistence of activist organizations to create inclusion through calls for volunteer interpreters. Not that I wouldn't do it, but it is the other extreme of the "non-friendship clause" invoked (above) by Deaf Pundit. I'm not sure what happened regarding ASL/English interpretation at the recent U.S. Social Forum, but there was a call that circulated for volunteer interpretation. If I could have gone I probably would have volunteered, but still.... isn't there a double-standard at work? Non-deaf people still approach interpreting as the work of charity (instead of as a profession that requires years of training, serious testing, and on-going professional development); and deaf people (sometimes) accept our work as volunteers on an impersonal basis. In my own experience, I have never felt unappreciated, even if I have been excruciatingly aware that my presence is undesired (given the intimate nature of the business at hand). So - I'm not trying to generate any accusations toward any one in particular. I am reflecting on the way we talk about the relationship between interpreters and members of the deaf community. Sometimes, there is a disconnect between our talk and our actions; sometimes our talk perpetuates actions that hurt us all in the long run.

Who knows how much of what happens between deaf persons and interpreters is an extension from experiences with parents who themselves were not deaf (90% of deaf people are born outside of the linguistic/cultural community). "Our parents were usually the first to betray us--not knowing how to effectively deal with our deafness," writes Carl Schroeder, in Betrayal of the Deaf: Grow Up and Get English.

All the links to Deaf blogs and vlogs were shared with me by Amanda. Thanks! :-) If you still wanna check out more, click through to the Best of Deaf Blogs and Vlogs. Thriving under threat, if you ask me!

I uploaded a five minute video of my brief introduction (in American Sign Language) to my proposed dissertation research.

The shaking in my hands and legs stopped about half an hour later. "Did you accomplish the effect you wanted?" a friend asked after class. No, I knew I had not created the simulation I intended, and I did not yet know what - if any - effect there might be. "Why so nervous? You do this everyday!" Yes, but...this was so obviously for show. Without live interpretation, did it make sense to still do it?

Later, when I watched the video for the first time, I noticed the errors. My idiosyncratic mixing of coded English and ASL, fingerspelling that was too fast, rushing through parts of the presentation. Was it worth making public despite these imperfections? Was it sensible enough? I had my doubts.

Then I received an email from a peer in the class regarding something unrelated, but she added:

I kept thinking about signing while reading over and over about how written language is inadequate and arbitrary. I was wondering, did you alter your performance at all for a non-deaf audience? I thought the most interesting effect was watching everyone struggle to choose between the written script and your performance.

Now I'm psyched! :-)

I did not alter my performance FOR a non-deaf audience, but it is obvious to me some of the ways the clarity suffered because there was not a deaf person in the room. I lacked the nonverbal feedback indicating comprehension/confusion. If someone literate in ASL had been watching, I would have known when I needed to repeat, embellish, or rephrase. Instead, I plunged on too rapidly. (Or at least, I'm worried that I did.)

One thing I definitely did do in order to frame the presentation for a (non-present) deaf audience is consider the opening carefully. The logical structure of discourse is different in ASL than in English; I really wanted to be comprehensible. Basically, I guess I did what I often do when I am interpreting: tune out the non-signing hearing audience! ( Should I be making this confession?!)

I was unaware of the struggle between choosing to read the text or watch the signing while I was giving the presentation. I mean, I did notice that some people were looking at me, others at the handout, and some looked back and forth, but I experienced this matter-of-factly. Not as an indication of "struggle" associated with the choice. Now I am intrigued as to what this choice meant! Some people did comment on this afterwards, about not knowing whether to watch or read, and about trying (?) to match up the signing with the written text. Was there more going on with the need to make that choice than the obvious? (The "obvious," in my mind, being one language is accessible/understandable and the other not.)

Here's a link to the handout, with the text prepared for the (hoped for) interpreters. Below is more background on how I came up with this idea and prepared for it.

God is a DJ, by Faithless.

The signer is using British Sign Language (note the two-handed alphabet for "D" and "J"). He seems to rely on a literal translation, taking few liberties with BSL's capacity to generate meaning beyond the coded English. Since I do not actually know BSL, this is just an impression, but notice the production difference between the song lyrics and the clip of Deaf Britons talking. I'm not referring to the stylistic use of no facial expression - I assume this is an aesthetic choice by the interpreter - rather, the difference in the general animation of the language in use.

Cool. Very very cool. :-) Thanks David!

some day remains on my mind. I was authorized to receive a Visa this past June. I really should follow-up with the proper authorities, to see if I can use the same visa permission in the next year or two, since I could not swing the conference I hoped to attend this past summer on such short notice.

In the Wordpress blogworld I came across this story posted by Free Schools India: Confidential Iran memo exposes policy to deny Baha’i students university education.

The sectarianism is discouraging, reminding me of the Sunni-Shiite split in Iraq. How does one contribute to peace without imposing a pre-established moral framework prescribing how? The road to reconciliation and revamped institutional systems is long and hard, requiring an (apparently rare) combination of ethical vision and personal courage. I do think language provides the only tool we humans have that can accomplish deep historical shifts in socially patterned dynamics.

Meanwhile, DUO II approaches.