SignWriting List Forum| Message 1905 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] | Message Index |
|
SignWriting List Forum |
|||
|
|
From:
Fernando Capovilla Date: Thu Oct 7, 1999 9:39 pm Subject: Writing vs drawing | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dear friends, when we talk about writing versus drawing we are invoking the concept of information representation and processing. There have been a large number of studies (involving calosotomized patients, Japanese aphasics, and deaf aphasics as well) proving that there is most definitely a sharp line distinguishing writing and drawing, at least from an information processing perspective (i.e., a neuropsychological standpoint). All these research studies have established that Language (whether sign language, spoken language, alphabetic writing, sign writing) is processed by the dominant (usually left) cerebral hemisphere, whereas Imagery (whether visuo-spatial such as iconic drawings, proprioceptive such as corepgraphic dances, auditory such as melodies) is processed by the dominant (usually right) hemisphere. (Interested colleagues may enjoy reading the studies of Roger Sperry, Gazzaniga, Paivio, Kosslyn, Galaburda, Poizner, Klima, Bellugi, Morais, Robinson, among others). Thus, even though SignWriting evolved from SignDancing, one could never talk about sign language as merely a dance (except as poetic license, of course). Left hemisphere lesion tends to produce aphasia in both hearing and deaf, with the consequent loss of the capacity to encode language (in anterior lesions) or to decode language (in posterior lesions), either by speech or sign. Whether hearing or deaf, aphasics normally present alexia (difficulty in decoding written lext, whether alphabetical or composits of Chinese characters or even, much likely, SignWriting) and/or agraphia (the same but for for encoding). In Japan Hatta had demonstrated that isolated Kanjis may be processed by the right hemisphere, but sometime later, in China, Tzeng demonstrated beyond doubt that left hemisphere fuctions are absolutely essential to permit reading strings of Chinese characters. In Western science, Gazzaniga and co-workers had already demonstrated that the right hemisphere is capable of reading, but only in an ideographic way, that is, in a way not mediated by phonological recoding (which is an exclusive capability of the dominant hemisphere). It is also well known that Ancient Chinese characters stood for single words, and were thus logographic. However, contemporary Chinese characters have frequently two components, one semantic and the other phonetic. So a number of contemporary Chinese characters do have phonetic values and must not be called ideograms. Mao Tse Tung's Cultural Revolution included an ortographic revision based, among other things, on the sounds of speech. And there is not one successful writing system that may ignore phonetic (or cheremic) properties, so that a logography, such as Blissymbols will probably never reach full success. Even hieroglyphic writing was WRITING, since, as demonstrated by Champollion, they could be decyphered using tables of phonetic values. Phonemes and cheremes are language phenomena, and systems devoted to representing them are writing systems. We should not be misguided by the fact that there is plenty of evidence that language systems have at least some foundations on the soil of imagery. Klima and Bellugy had already demonstrated that children's invented signs tend to be iconic since they mimmic analogical properties of the referents, and thus they are born in the soil of visual imagery (of the iconic). But as the sign is inserted in the string of language, it loses its analogical properties and iconicity is swallowed up by arbitrariness. (The colleague may remember at this point the example in Klima and Bellugi's bool of the invented sign for audiotape and the way the finger movements changed as it was incorporated as a full lexical sign). There is an interpretation that the same may be true to a certain extent to Greek characters (e.g., alpha originated from the drawing of aleph, cattle head). A considerable number of ancient Chinese characters with exclusively semantic value (ideograms) might have resulted to a certain extent (that is debatable, though) from their original pictographic forms, which again were in the soil of the imagery. But what is important is that when the speaker or signer suffers a left lesion and becomes aphasic (language loss), the original iconicity re-emerges with full importance (imagery contrast). That is why we clinical neuropsychologists use pictorial (iconic) signs and simbols as communication systems for aphasics: because they have lost the linguistic capabilities, but not the iconic (visual imagery) ones, because the right hemisphere is preserved. And that is why they tend to use their own drawings as a communicative device when they lose the ability to speak and write. The same hemisphere specialization helps to explain why we use melodic therapy for aphasics: because auditory imagery (drawing with sounds) is processed by the right hemisphere. Finally, it also helps to understand why people with "pure word deafness" (a kind of aphasia) are indeed capable of listening to the sounds of nature, but are simply uncapable of understanding the sounds of speech. In essence, colleagues, the distinction between writing and drawing is not merely cultural but has a neuropsychological reality to it. Drawing and writing are most certainly different, and there is absolutely no room for confusion when we look at the data while trying to find the best way to help people with neurological lesions. (Sorry I wrote too much, folks. I just intended to give my two cents and ended up losing my wallet!). (I hope the currency is not too foreign). (By the way, we foreigners also find it funny being called "alien". It makes us feel even more green as we try to hide that conspicuous antennae on our forefronts). Fernando Capovilla :-) PS: I hope the message above helps someone to DRAW some conclusion (even if it is in WRITING). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|