this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
397 points (92.5% liked)
Technology
59329 readers
5017 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You misunderstand language itself, not just sign language, if you think a universal language is possible or even a good thing
All twenty of us Esperanto speakers just entered the chat! 🤩
It would certainly be limited and rudimentary; I wouldn't suggest a solution exists capable of any broad nuance. But gesture is a unique variety of communication, in that it can convey "innate" meaning in ways verbal language simply cannot, except in the case of onomatopoeia. Pointing is nearly universal, smiling is nearly universal, beckoning is nearly universal. Gesture is a spatial form of communication, centered around our primary means of material interaction with the world.
Grammar and syntax aside, I'd argue that it would be possible to assemble a vocabulary of universal concepts (eat, drink, sleep, travel, me, you, communicate, cooperate, come here, go away, etc). Certainly not a language for extended detailed conversation, but a codification and extension of gestures which are already nearly universal by virtue of their innate implications alone. Enough to communicate that you're hungry, but not enough to send for takeout.
A universal language, at the level of any other sophisticated language, is obviously impossible. A formal codification of simple gestures to communicate at the most basic human concepts is much more doable.
I can tell you only speak one language, or maybe another Latin based language in addition to English. If you'd learned something like Mandarin, you'd understand how complex, regional, and historical language is. It's based on layers and shifts constantly. Sometimes, that's specifically because people don't want to be understood by everyone.
I really recommend reading academic books about this topic if you are curious. My favorite is Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology, by David Caplan. You may also enjoy Chomsky's works because he talks about commonalities in language or universal language.
There's no need to formally codify those hand gestures, because we innately already understand and make them. Making eating motions (which may look different depending on regional utensils) is pretty universal right? But it looks different in different places.
I am familiar with the regionality of language. I don't understand your point, you're simultaneously saying that you can't have universal understanding, but we have gestures we instantly understand instantly so there's no need to codify them, but they look different.
I think you're wildly overestimating the scope of my proposal.
You are simply moving goalposts. My point is that I disagree with your idea of making sign language universal or formally making even a rudimentary universal sign language. I think that would be impossible if you understand language itself. I gave you resources so you could educate yourself about why.
Yes, the sign for eating would look different in China vs Ethiopia vs the US. So what sign are you going to have it be to imitate eating in your formal language? Do you see how this can perpetuate colonization?
My goalposts are in precisely the place they started: a collection of basic international gestures to facilitate the most basic communication. Where are you jumping to colonization? Where did I say that my cultural group gets to decide what the signs are? You're, again, wildly overestimating the scope of my proposal and jumping to ridiculous, unsubstantiated conclusions.
You get a group of signers from around the world to develop an international pidgin (like they already do informally at international gatherings) and come to consensus based on commonality. When the majority agree on a sign, use it. Where there's little agreement, choose a new sign. No finger spelling, no complex abstract concepts, just a formalization of gestures most people could probably figure out anyway. I fail to see how that perpetuates colonization unless that's what you're setting out to do with your methodology.
I didn't provide a conclusion, I asked you a question - how do you pick the official, global sign for eating? What will it look like?
If you can't understand the colonization aspect, then please read the books/authors I listed previously. Having a majority decide language for others/everyone is pretty classic colonization. That's part of why native Americans were forced to learn English (many of your arguments are very similar to why colonizers believed English should be established as a global lingua franca)
"It would be nice to develop an auxiliary sign language to bridge the accessibility gap between the hard of hearing and those who don't learn a dedicated sign"
"You're just as bad as the colonizers that decimated native American cultures"
Get out of here with that bad faith savior complex nonsense. Teaching indigenous people English wasn't the problem, the problem was beating children for using their native language. I guess you think literacy is racist too because literacy requirements were used to disenfranchise black Americans, huh?
Your sanctimonious colonization comments are dripping with irony. I asked a question, directly to another person, about their opinion of the concept as a deaf/hard of hearing person. You interceded uninvited, deliberately ignored the explicitly stated context of the question (gestural languages having unique properties from verbal ones) so you could shoehorn in your opinion about a topic explicitly excluded by that context, which you smugly assumed I wasn't familiar with, purporting the relevance by referencing authors who wrote very little about the actual topic at hand.
You want to talk about colonizers, look at your own actions here.
Never said that. Strawman. 🥱