Author Topic: Ideomorphology (Read 2792 times)

pooka · « **on:** March 04, 2007, 03:55:21 AM »

I just checked to see if this word already exists, and there was 1 google hit for it. I went to check the Google whack rules, and a Googlewhack should contain two words. But this is a single word composed of two morphemes whose meaning should be familiar to the people I intend to read it. So it will always be a googlewhack in my heart. Man, those googlewhacks look like the subject lines of the emails in my junk mail folder.

So, on to ideomorphology. This has been working itself along in my brain since Annie brought it up last week. Also, I was looking at the Worldwide Leadership Training broadcast at LDS.org and it mentioned the material would be available in the ASL edition of the Liahona coming up in June, and I thought "ASL Liahona? Is it on video or do they have some method of writing out ASL?" That got me back to thinking about this.

By the way, the single google hit on ideomorphology seemed to be more about the shape of an idea, than the meaning structure of signs.

The funny thing is "morphology" comes from the greek root for "shape". Though if Jon boy finds a link that says it is for dream, I'm getting out of the etymology business for good. Er, or can I get out of something I was never really in?

Jonathon · « **Reply #1 on:** March 04, 2007, 10:50:24 AM »

I don't understand what you mean by "ideomorphology" or the meaning structure of signs.

pooka · « **Reply #2 on:** March 06, 2007, 08:30:25 AM »

Does it help if I mention that ideo- refers to ideograms, as opposed to ideology? It was something that came up last week.

pooka · « **Reply #3 on:** March 06, 2007, 08:41:59 AM »

This is probably more where I wanted to go with things. This is an excerpt from the wiki article on Sign Language:

Quote

Partially because of this, sign languages are not often written. Most deaf signers read and write the oral language of their country. However, there have been several attempts at developing scripts for sign language. These have included both "phonetic" systems, such as HamNoSys (the Hamburg Notational System) and SignWriting, which can be used for any sign language, and "phonemic" systems such as the one used by William Stokoe in his 1965 Dictionary of American Sign Language, which are designed for a specific language.

These systems are based on iconic symbols. Some, such as SignWriting and HamNoSys, are pictographic, being conventionalized pictures of the hands, face, and body; others, such as the Stokoe notation, are more iconic. Stokoe used letters of the Latin alphabet and Arabic numerals to indicate the handshapes used in fingerspelling, such as 'A' for a closed fist, 'B' for a flat hand, and '5' for a spread hand; but non-alphabetic symbols for location and movement, such as '[]' for the trunk of the body, '×' for contact, and '^' for an upward movement. Lloyd Anderson has gone further and attempted to write ASL using only the Latin alphabet, but has not published his work. David J. Peterson has also attempted to create a phonetic transcription system for signing that is ASCII-friendly known as the Sign Language International Phonetic Alphabet (SLIPA).

SignWriting, being pictographic, is able to represent simultaneous elements in a single sign. The Stokoe notation, on the other hand, is sequential, with a conventionalized order of a symbol for the location of the sign, then one for the hand shape, and finally one (or more) for the movement. The orientation of the hand is indicated with an optional diacritic before the hand shape. When two movements occur simultaneously, they are written one atop the other; when sequential, they are written one after the other. Neither the Stokoe nor HamNoSys scripts are designed to represent facial expressions or non-manual movements, both of which SignWriting accommodates easily, although this is being gradually corrected in HamNoSys.

The thought that interests me about this is wheter all written language is not an overlay onto spoken language. What would be different about how we teach reading and writing if we treated it not as a skill, but as a second language?

Jonathon · « **Reply #4 on:** March 06, 2007, 09:11:06 AM »

There were some good posts on Language Log a week ago about the teaching of reading. Their argument is that "whole language" doesn't work because children do not learn written language by absorbing it, the way that they learn spoken language.

pooka · « **Reply #5 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:28:41 AM »

Gah! Eskimos don't have that many words for snow. I believe they have like 8, which is not that many more than English (snow, powder, sleet, slush, drifts, banks, skiffs- that's not even getting into snowboard jargon). Snopes doesn't have an entry on it, though. I'm not sure how whole language reading relates to what I've mentioned. I do think the tendency to teach languages by first teaching the alphabet of that language has not been successful for me. But maybe I never really applied myself.

pooka · « **Reply #6 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:35:52 AM »

Ha! Wiki validates me at last.

Jonathon · « **Reply #7 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:36:09 AM »

I guess I still don't know what you're talking about, then. It sounded like you were talking about written language as a separate entity (and separate set of skills) from spoken language.

Also, the Eskimo snow vocabulary thing has been discussed on Language Log dozens of times. It's a popular topic for debunking because it's such a popular myth.

pooka · « **Reply #8 on:** March 06, 2007, 11:01:09 AM »

I'm not sure how my proposition that writing and reading constitute a separate language would support whole language. If anything, it would justify greater care and attention to detail in teaching. As envisioned by me, of course. But I don't know, spoken language is more universally natural than reading and writing. Nonetheless, there are very few languages that have not developed a reading and writing system. Perhaps it is better stated that where language is an individual skill, reading and writing is the skill of a group of individuals.

Jonathon · « **Reply #9 on:** March 06, 2007, 11:05:00 AM »

I don't think your proposition supports whole language—just the opposite.

pooka · « **Reply #10 on:** March 06, 2007, 11:57:19 AM »

ici, alon

rivka · « **Reply #11 on:** March 06, 2007, 12:36:03 PM »

Quote

Snopes doesn't have an entry on it, though.

No, but Straight Dope does.

dkw · « **Reply #12 on:** March 06, 2007, 12:59:50 PM »

Pooka, you might enjoy this book: Writing as a Second Language

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #13 on:** March 06, 2007, 01:58:06 PM »

How many English words are there for "water"? I think I could spend an hour listing as many as I could think up, and still miss quite a few.

pooka · « **Reply #14 on:** March 07, 2007, 05:35:55 AM »

Water? You mean like ocean, lake, river, sea, pond? I guess if you want to get into swamps and sloughs... rivulet, stream, run, rill, cascade... I don't think I could go on for an hour, though. Let me hear your 24 (which is the highest number of words for snow found in an arctic indigenous culture).

That book does look cool. I think whole language aligns with the "don't talk down to your kids" thing that people think they do. I guess I might see where it goes along with the Montessori philosophy, that education is about discovery of the self more than change. It has to be both, really, getting back to that whole "wisdom to know the difference" thing.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #15 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:54:54 PM »

Quote

Water? ... Let me hear your 24

Well, 25, off the top of my head:

1. Water
2. steam
3. mist
4. drizzle
5. rain
6. fog
7. moist
8. damp
9. humid
10. puddle
11. river
12. stream
13. brook
14. creak
15. sea
16. lake
17. pond
18. ocean
19. ice
20. snow
21. flurry
22. blizzard
23. slush
24. seltzer
25. dew

pooka · « **Reply #16 on:** March 07, 2007, 02:00:16 PM »

I'm not sure if I would count the adjectives. But I guess between my list and yours and some other words that come to mind, maybe.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #17 on:** March 07, 2007, 02:19:42 PM »

I could come up with more. Frost, hail, sleet...

Porter · « **Reply #18 on:** March 07, 2007, 02:50:54 PM »

What? No dihydrogen oxide?

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #19 on:** March 07, 2007, 03:00:03 PM »

Hey! That's dangerous stuff! Wanna sign a petition to have it banned?

I remember in 3rd grade, the teacher told the class that it was possible to drown in even an inch of water.

Smart aleck even then, I said that you'd really have to try very hard, though.

Porter · « **Reply #20 on:** March 07, 2007, 03:09:46 PM »

rivka · « **Reply #21 on:** March 07, 2007, 07:25:51 PM »

*cough*monoxide*cough*

Porter · « **Reply #22 on:** March 07, 2007, 08:29:17 PM »

Good point.