Language is inherently social. Human interaction shapes language acquisition and use (Ochs & Scheiffelin Reference Ochs, Scheiffelin, Duff and Hornberger2008), and thus it shapes the cognitive and neural mediators of language. But those human interactions are not neutral. Research on signed and spoken languages underscore the dynamism of language, by investigating the way humans use languages (or not), who gets to use certain languages, and which languages are promoted or suppressed (LeMaster & Monaghan Reference LeMaster, Monaghan and Duranti2004; Ramsey & Quinto-Pozos Reference Ramsey, Quinto-Pozos and Brentari2010). As Goldin-Meadow & Brentari (G-M&B) demonstrate through their arguments and the use of mathematical examples, gestural components of signing can predict some types of learning readiness. However, language readiness is also a social-political phenomenon, not just a cognitive one.
The authors suggest that sign-based gestures often communicate different kinds of information than do speech-based gestures. This point highlights the fundamental role that social information and interpretation play in how language learning develops among deaf children. Educators who are deaf or near-native (i.e., children of deaf adults) or fluent signers may use gesture differently than nonnative signers, which lines up with the authors’ point that gesture can be (a) incorporated into signing and (b) exist as something separate and utilized in conjunction with signing. Thus, a teacher's skill and experience with sign language may affect their ability to understand and/or interpret information conveyed through sign-based gesture. In effect, an educator or interpreter's fluency in sign language may enhance (or inhibit) their ability to predict the steps that learners take (please see also Pfister, Reference Pfisterin press). Therefore, in educational environments for deaf students, fluent signers – such as children and adults capable of modeling sign language vocabulary and syntax – as well as the availability of well-trained sign language interpreters, are additional factors that influence learning readiness and meaning making among deaf students (Pfister Reference Pfister2015a; Reference Pfister2015b; Pfister et al. Reference Pfister, Vindrola-Padros and Johnson2014).
The authors state in the target article that “whether sign language can be stripped of its gestural elements and still be as effective as speech is when it is delivered without its gestural elements (e.g., over the radio or the phone) is an open question” (sect. 7.3, para. 7). We believe that an emphasis on face-to-face communication for deaf learners illustrates how sign and gesture convey meaning together, to “form an integrated system,” precisely because the information conveyed depends on the social context and the fluency of the partners engaged in communication.
One limitation the authors face in extending their model in the directions they indicate – where gesture and sign form an integrated system that conveys meaning – is their emphasis on an information-based and internal approach to cognition. This approach does permit powerful modeling and in-depth consideration of how imagistic and categorical types of information might play out in linguistic cognition. However, language – as an integrated system – extends beyond internal cognition, as recent work on language evolution and neurobiology indicates (Christiansen & Chater Reference Christiansen and Chater2008; Evans & Levinson Reference Evans and Levinson2009). Recognizing how cognition works in the wild (Hutchins Reference Hutchins1995) through more interactive, extended, and embodied models (Clark Reference Clark2008) might offer a starting point for achieving the authors’ overall goals. Subsequently, to more fully consider the social, political, and cultural side of language learning, G-M&B could utilize recent work in neuroanthropology, which integrates cognitive science with anthropology and related fields (Lende & Downey Reference Lende and Downey2012a; Reference Lende and Downey2012b). For example, the concept of language readiness might be transformed by considering it not just in terms of individual readiness, but also through the embodied acquisition of gestures and signs in specific situations and specific times (Downey Reference Downey2010). The social practices that differentiate gesture and sign would then shape, at a fundamental level, how categorization works within the brain (Roepstorff et al. Reference Roepstorff, Niewohnerc and Beck2010).
Accordingly, we suggest that the authors could extend the presentation of their research by recognizing that signing is a skill best learned and promoted in social settings. In communities of practice, members learn through mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and (particularly germane to this discussion) a shared repertoire (Wenger Reference Wenger1998). In other words, the concept of communities of practice brings together context, sociality, and meaning, to emphasize the interactivity of language and socialization (Pfister Reference Pfister2015b). Only by attending to the dynamics of skill within a community of practice is it possible to understand how gestures paired with signs may convey meaning differently. The authors miss this crucial aspect of language by promoting an overly formulaic “communicative act” that they suggest consists of only imagistic and categorical formats. Research among deaf youth who experience language socialization among signing peers in Mexico City has provided an example of how community participation and sociality cannot be divorced from understanding (Pfister Reference Pfister2015a; Reference Pfister2015b; Reference Pfister2015c; in press; Pfister et al. Reference Pfister, Vindrola-Padros and Johnson2014). We argue that the social components of language influence meaning making because the context, sociality, and shared experience conveyed within communities of practice factor heavily into better understanding, and researching further, G-M&B's emphasis on the “whole of a communicative act” (sect. 8, para. 2).
Finally, we understand that the authors’ aim is not to equate sign with gesture, but instead to establish the role of gesture when paired with sign language. Yet, early in the target article, they draw our attention to recent history when signs were considered “nothing more” than gestures. Recognizing the important status of signed languages as legitimate forms of human language, we caution of the potential danger in sign languages becoming too closely associated with gesture once again. We challenge readers to consider how the consequences of such an association might affect the political economy of sign language. This is seen most clearly in educational settings, where some languages are valued, elected, and funded (i.e., spoken languages), while others are simultaneously devalued, discouraged, and underfunded (i.e., signed languages). In Mexico, for example, sign language is often misunderstood to be mimicry (mímica), which is not gesture, per se, but nonetheless occupies a position precariously distant from bona fide language. Mexican educational policy is influenced by oralist and inclusion ideologies, and public schools are not mandated to provide an education accessible to deaf students in Mexican Sign Language. Thus, as in many parts of the world, sign language is not readily accessible for many deaf Mexicans (Pfister Reference Pfister2015a; Reference Pfister2015b; Reference Pfister2015c). Language readiness among deaf learners, therefore, is social and political as well as cognitive.
You have
Access
Language is inherently social. Human interaction shapes language acquisition and use (Ochs & Scheiffelin Reference Ochs, Scheiffelin, Duff and Hornberger2008), and thus it shapes the cognitive and neural mediators of language. But those human interactions are not neutral. Research on signed and spoken languages underscore the dynamism of language, by investigating the way humans use languages (or not), who gets to use certain languages, and which languages are promoted or suppressed (LeMaster & Monaghan Reference LeMaster, Monaghan and Duranti2004; Ramsey & Quinto-Pozos Reference Ramsey, Quinto-Pozos and Brentari2010). As Goldin-Meadow & Brentari (G-M&B) demonstrate through their arguments and the use of mathematical examples, gestural components of signing can predict some types of learning readiness. However, language readiness is also a social-political phenomenon, not just a cognitive one.
The authors suggest that sign-based gestures often communicate different kinds of information than do speech-based gestures. This point highlights the fundamental role that social information and interpretation play in how language learning develops among deaf children. Educators who are deaf or near-native (i.e., children of deaf adults) or fluent signers may use gesture differently than nonnative signers, which lines up with the authors’ point that gesture can be (a) incorporated into signing and (b) exist as something separate and utilized in conjunction with signing. Thus, a teacher's skill and experience with sign language may affect their ability to understand and/or interpret information conveyed through sign-based gesture. In effect, an educator or interpreter's fluency in sign language may enhance (or inhibit) their ability to predict the steps that learners take (please see also Pfister, Reference Pfisterin press). Therefore, in educational environments for deaf students, fluent signers – such as children and adults capable of modeling sign language vocabulary and syntax – as well as the availability of well-trained sign language interpreters, are additional factors that influence learning readiness and meaning making among deaf students (Pfister Reference Pfister2015a; Reference Pfister2015b; Pfister et al. Reference Pfister, Vindrola-Padros and Johnson2014).
The authors state in the target article that “whether sign language can be stripped of its gestural elements and still be as effective as speech is when it is delivered without its gestural elements (e.g., over the radio or the phone) is an open question” (sect. 7.3, para. 7). We believe that an emphasis on face-to-face communication for deaf learners illustrates how sign and gesture convey meaning together, to “form an integrated system,” precisely because the information conveyed depends on the social context and the fluency of the partners engaged in communication.
One limitation the authors face in extending their model in the directions they indicate – where gesture and sign form an integrated system that conveys meaning – is their emphasis on an information-based and internal approach to cognition. This approach does permit powerful modeling and in-depth consideration of how imagistic and categorical types of information might play out in linguistic cognition. However, language – as an integrated system – extends beyond internal cognition, as recent work on language evolution and neurobiology indicates (Christiansen & Chater Reference Christiansen and Chater2008; Evans & Levinson Reference Evans and Levinson2009). Recognizing how cognition works in the wild (Hutchins Reference Hutchins1995) through more interactive, extended, and embodied models (Clark Reference Clark2008) might offer a starting point for achieving the authors’ overall goals. Subsequently, to more fully consider the social, political, and cultural side of language learning, G-M&B could utilize recent work in neuroanthropology, which integrates cognitive science with anthropology and related fields (Lende & Downey Reference Lende and Downey2012a; Reference Lende and Downey2012b). For example, the concept of language readiness might be transformed by considering it not just in terms of individual readiness, but also through the embodied acquisition of gestures and signs in specific situations and specific times (Downey Reference Downey2010). The social practices that differentiate gesture and sign would then shape, at a fundamental level, how categorization works within the brain (Roepstorff et al. Reference Roepstorff, Niewohnerc and Beck2010).
Accordingly, we suggest that the authors could extend the presentation of their research by recognizing that signing is a skill best learned and promoted in social settings. In communities of practice, members learn through mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and (particularly germane to this discussion) a shared repertoire (Wenger Reference Wenger1998). In other words, the concept of communities of practice brings together context, sociality, and meaning, to emphasize the interactivity of language and socialization (Pfister Reference Pfister2015b). Only by attending to the dynamics of skill within a community of practice is it possible to understand how gestures paired with signs may convey meaning differently. The authors miss this crucial aspect of language by promoting an overly formulaic “communicative act” that they suggest consists of only imagistic and categorical formats. Research among deaf youth who experience language socialization among signing peers in Mexico City has provided an example of how community participation and sociality cannot be divorced from understanding (Pfister Reference Pfister2015a; Reference Pfister2015b; Reference Pfister2015c; in press; Pfister et al. Reference Pfister, Vindrola-Padros and Johnson2014). We argue that the social components of language influence meaning making because the context, sociality, and shared experience conveyed within communities of practice factor heavily into better understanding, and researching further, G-M&B's emphasis on the “whole of a communicative act” (sect. 8, para. 2).
Finally, we understand that the authors’ aim is not to equate sign with gesture, but instead to establish the role of gesture when paired with sign language. Yet, early in the target article, they draw our attention to recent history when signs were considered “nothing more” than gestures. Recognizing the important status of signed languages as legitimate forms of human language, we caution of the potential danger in sign languages becoming too closely associated with gesture once again. We challenge readers to consider how the consequences of such an association might affect the political economy of sign language. This is seen most clearly in educational settings, where some languages are valued, elected, and funded (i.e., spoken languages), while others are simultaneously devalued, discouraged, and underfunded (i.e., signed languages). In Mexico, for example, sign language is often misunderstood to be mimicry (mímica), which is not gesture, per se, but nonetheless occupies a position precariously distant from bona fide language. Mexican educational policy is influenced by oralist and inclusion ideologies, and public schools are not mandated to provide an education accessible to deaf students in Mexican Sign Language. Thus, as in many parts of the world, sign language is not readily accessible for many deaf Mexicans (Pfister Reference Pfister2015a; Reference Pfister2015b; Reference Pfister2015c). Language readiness among deaf learners, therefore, is social and political as well as cognitive.