The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language • Hacker News Board

Re: The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language

#31

Post by yummyfajitas » Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 3:55 PM UTC

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #26

retroflexzy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nowadays, there's some factual statements that are almost literally impossible to say in Japanese because the words/phrases/grammar to say them don't match up. Care to elaborate? As a English/Mandarin/Japanese speaker, I am certainly acutely aware of the limitations of translating from one language in to another, but find such an assertion hard to accept without concrete examples.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with Japanese, but I can relate two specific stories from my own experience. While travelling and working in Sweden I picked up enough of the language (alas, now gone) to converse reasonably well over dinner with people I hadn't met before. They were fluent in English, my colleague was fluent in Swedish. I asked about the word "varsågod." It seemed to have many translations, often differ…

Another example is from French. The phrase "Je vous en prie"...effectively means "You're welcome" it actually carries more information. It also says: and our relationship is a formal one, such as staff to employer, and I'm in the subordinate position.

It sounds as if you are saying the lack of a short code in a language makes a concept untranslatable.

But that doesn't seem right. In 1943, I couldn't translate a document about nuclear reactors into French or Spanish because the only languages with words for "nuclear reactor" were English and German. Does that make "nuclear reactor" untranslatable?

Of course, once the concept became relevant to French speakers, they borrowed or created a short coding.

From what you've said, you can translate "je vous en prie" to "you're welcome and I mean that with the respect a subordinate accords his superiors". That just doesn't have a short coding in English because the concept being encoded is rarely relevant to English speakers.

In programming terms, (map f lst) translates to c, it's just not as short.

Re: The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language

#32

Post by tel » Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 4:15 PM UTC

retroflexzy wrote: post #22

lionhearted wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Care to elaborate? As a English/Mandarin/Japanese speaker, I am certainly acutely aware of the limitations of translating from one language in to another, but find such an assertion hard to accept without concrete examples. I'm nowhere near fluent in Japanese, so I'm not the best person to get into it. I do have a couple good friends who are native speakers or expats with a very high level of understanding. A good…

Right. I think I would file all of that under the "hard to translate" category. Now, let me clarify upfront that my minor (technically a "joint-degree", but effectively a minor) is in Linguistics, so this may get wordy and technical. What you are mostly describing is a not a restriction of the language itself, but of social conventions. You can certainly say "いいえ、できません". While it is true that Japanese has a relativel…

I'm curious about the origins of language in East Asia then. I was always under the impression that Chinese dialects heavily influenced both Korean and Japanese (and visa versa) so I'm a little confused by considering both of those to be isolates.

I know the word order is vastly different and the honorific system obscures the language, but what about more fundamental tendencies of Mandarin such as the heavy dependency on chronology or the kind of general sounds of the phonemes. I know, for instance, that it can often take a second or two for me to differentiate Mandarin from Korean or Japanese when it being spoken quickly and loudly (such as when you first turn on a movie).

Re: The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language

#33

Post by RiderOfGiraffes » Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 5:22 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #31

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with Japanese, but I can relate two specific stories from my own experience. While travelling and working in Sweden I picked up enough of the language (alas, now gone) to converse reasonably well over dinner with people I hadn't met before. They were fluent in English, my colleague was fluent in Swedish. I asked about the word "varsågod." It seemed to have many translations, often differ…

Another example is from French. The phrase "Je vous en prie"...effectively means "You're welcome" it actually carries more information. It also says: and our relationship is a formal one, such as staff to employer, and I'm in the subordinate position. It sounds as if you are saying the lack of a short code in a language makes a concept untranslatable. But that doesn't seem right. In 1943, I couldn't translate a docum…

But largely "Je vous en prie" does not translate as "you're welcome and I mean that with the respect a subordinate accords his superiors". There's more, and I really, really can't explain it, because I simply don't have the words. It's not just that there's no short phrase - the fact that it's a short phrase does itself carry information.

Your point about "nuclear reactor" is well taken, but, ultimately, not really relevant. No amount of explanation makes a joke funny to someone who doesn't "get it." Further, many coordinate bilinguals never get this feeling, simply because they're coordinates. Compound bilinguals do get it, and find it impossible to explain.

And here I am, once again, trying to explain a joke to someone who doesn't get it.

(Please note - that last was an analogy. This isn't a joke, it is real that there are some terms that just don't translate, even when you expand your translation into an explanation. Some things need to be experienced, and cannot be appreciated from logic and reason alone.)

Re: The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language

#34

Post by vlisivka » Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 6:03 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #3

One obvious point that somehow isn't mentioned in the article: The speed of human language isn't limited by the ability of "the language" to encode a stream of information. It is limited by the human ability to create and understand the bits of language information. And that limit is much lower than the human ability to take in other streams of information. Vision lets you take in mega-bytes of information in seconds…

> And processing language is a hard problem for people (and computers!)

Processing of some human languages (like English)...

Re: The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language

#35

Post by yummyfajitas » Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 6:27 PM UTC

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #33

yummyfajitas wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another example is from French. The phrase "Je vous en prie"...effectively means "You're welcome" it actually carries more information. It also says: and our relationship is a formal one, such as staff to employer, and I'm in the subordinate position. It sounds as if you are saying the lack of a short code in a language makes a concept untranslatable. But that doesn't seem right. In 1943, I couldn't translate a docum…

But largely "Je vous en prie" does not translate as "you're welcome and I mean that with the respect a subordinate accords his superiors". There's more, and I really, really can't explain it, because I simply don't have the words. It's not just that there's no short phrase - the fact that it's a short phrase does itself carry information. Your point about "nuclear reactor" is well taken, but, ultimately, not really r…

I'm inherently suspicious when someone says something like "conveys information", but then says "logic and reason" don't work.

Would it be fair to say that the particular phrase, rather than conveying information, causes a particular emotional reaction in the hearer? I may not experience what you experience and some particular phrase might simply be a short code for that feeling.

But that doesn't mean the information cannot be conveyed. I can explain fairly easily what 'orange' means to a blind person: "Objects and parts of objects are associated to unique colors, which humans can distinguish via vision. [geometric optics skipped.] One particular color is orange."

They haven't experienced orange, in the sense that the "orange" set of neurons in their brain hasn't fired. But that doesn't mean they lack information when I say "object X is orange."

Re: The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language

#36

Post by retroflexzy » Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 6:33 PM UTC

tel wrote: post #32

retroflexzy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. I think I would file all of that under the "hard to translate" category. Now, let me clarify upfront that my minor (technically a "joint-degree", but effectively a minor) is in Linguistics, so this may get wordy and technical. What you are mostly describing is a not a restriction of the language itself, but of social conventions. You can certainly say "いいえ、できません". While it is true that Japanese has a relativel…

I'm curious about the origins of language in East Asia then. I was always under the impression that Chinese dialects heavily influenced both Korean and Japanese (and visa versa) so I'm a little confused by considering both of those to be isolates. I know the word order is vastly different and the honorific system obscures the language, but what about more fundamental tendencies of Mandarin such as the heavy dependenc…

(Disclaimer: I've not studied any of these languages in detail; the following is a mix of what I have studied, personal knowledge, and logical conclusions derived from both)

Structurally, Japanese and Korean is almost identical. The morphology system are similar, they have the same word order, are both tonal in a similar way, and there are even parallels that can be drawn in terms of their phonology; some words are even phonemically identical. However, their core inventory of phonemes is quite different: there are sounds in Korean that just do not occur in Japanese. Like Japanese, the categorization of Korean is debated; Wikipedia is helpful here if you want to know more.

Now, Mandarin Chinese is entirely different. The tonal system is different, it lacks an overt inflection system, word order is different, and the phoneme inventory is, again, different. While there is vocabulary sharing going on, it's hard to see any technical relationships between them.

I've heard a number of different stories on how the Korean peninsula and Japanese archipelago were settled by the Chinese, from the Chinese, but it just doesn't seem plausible considering the linguistics of the regions. What history I did study in Japan simply never mentioned it. And, to be honest, that is the extent of my historical knowledge of the languages.

Re: The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language

#37

Post by retroflexzy » Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 6:54 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #35

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But largely "Je vous en prie" does not translate as "you're welcome and I mean that with the respect a subordinate accords his superiors". There's more, and I really, really can't explain it, because I simply don't have the words. It's not just that there's no short phrase - the fact that it's a short phrase does itself carry information. Your point about "nuclear reactor" is well taken, but, ultimately, not really r…

I'm inherently suspicious when someone says something like "conveys information", but then says "logic and reason" don't work. Would it be fair to say that the particular phrase, rather than conveying information, causes a particular emotional reaction in the hearer? I may not experience what you experience and some particular phrase might simply be a short code for that feeling. But that doesn't mean the information…

> I'm inherently suspicious when someone says something like "conveys information", but then says "logic and reason" don't work.

Actually, the study of semantics, which is highly logical, will often fail at describing the "true meaning" of an utterance. This is where pragmatics come in, and, frankly, a far more interesting area of study and occasionally even applicable in every day life.

The most useful thing I got out of my semantics course was that I never, ever, want to take that stream ever again.

Re: The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language

#38

Post by RiderOfGiraffes » Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 7:46 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #35

RiderOfGiraffes wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But largely "Je vous en prie" does not translate as "you're welcome and I mean that with the respect a subordinate accords his superiors". There's more, and I really, really can't explain it, because I simply don't have the words. It's not just that there's no short phrase - the fact that it's a short phrase does itself carry information. Your point about "nuclear reactor" is well taken, but, ultimately, not really r…

I'm inherently suspicious when someone says something like "conveys information", but then says "logic and reason" don't work. Would it be fair to say that the particular phrase, rather than conveying information, causes a particular emotional reaction in the hearer? I may not experience what you experience and some particular phrase might simply be a short code for that feeling. But that doesn't mean the information…

Well, I can't say much more really. Natural language semantics are tough, and I've clearly failed to communicate to you the idea that some phrases in other languages can't really be translated. They can sort-of be explained, sometimes, but even then I remain unconvinced that the true sense of the original can always be retained.

Personally, I've experienced it, and perhaps the fact that I can't explain it to you, who haven't experienced it, is more convincing than the attempts at explanations.

Re: The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language

#39

Post by tel » Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 8:03 PM UTC

retroflexzy wrote: post #36

tel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about the origins of language in East Asia then. I was always under the impression that Chinese dialects heavily influenced both Korean and Japanese (and visa versa) so I'm a little confused by considering both of those to be isolates. I know the word order is vastly different and the honorific system obscures the language, but what about more fundamental tendencies of Mandarin such as the heavy dependenc…

(Disclaimer: I've not studied any of these languages in detail; the following is a mix of what I have studied, personal knowledge, and logical conclusions derived from both) Structurally, Japanese and Korean is almost identical. The morphology system are similar, they have the same word order, are both tonal in a similar way, and there are even parallels that can be drawn in terms of their phonology; some words are e…

The story I hear (again from the Chinese) is that Korean is a dialect/divergence from Chinese that lost much of the tonality. I've not studied it personally, but from my knowledge it wouldn't be surprising for a Chinese speaker to believe Korean (and Japanese) lack tonal structure.

Japanese on the other hand is considered more likely to be separate but high influenced due to word sharing from the many wars between China and Japan. this seems pretty plausible considering the sharing of the written language which is widely considered to be Chinese in origin.

It's all interesting because I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the ancient history is obscured by the three proud nations.

Re: The Puzzling Paradox of Sign Language

#40

Post by softbuilder » Sun, Dec 20, 2009, 10:52 PM UTC

TriinT wrote: post #12

softbuilder wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your comment sounds anti-intellectual. Not a thing wrong with that. Fwiw, I file Technology Review with Wired and SciAm. That is, fluff. Hardly intellectual material imho. >I find the entropic analysis of spoken Engligh vs. sign language pretty interesting That would be interesting if they weren't using so poor an approach. Constraining the analysis to handshapes goes too far. Like constraining English analysis to v…

"I file Technology Review with Wired and SciAm. That is, fluff. Hardly intellectual material imho." Sure, TR and Wired are fluff. Except that the article links to an arXiv paper. This is not a standard TR article. Moreover, you can't present scientific research in half a page without making it fluff. That, too, is an interesting information-theoretic problem. "That would be interesting if they weren't using so poor a…

>The point is that someone who does indeed understand how ASL works can read the paper, find out what is missing and build on it.

I just disagree. I have some familiarity with ASL and I feel they've gone off in the wrong direction from the start. I suppose you could say that a future study could build on this one by completely debunking it. Perhaps that argument has some merit.

>Your criticism is too hard

Probably. But I got the feeling from the paper itself that this is someone's last-minute rush to finish a thesis or fulfill a grant obligation or something. I guess I'd like to see a little passion in my science. Sorry if that seems too harsh.