Skip to main content

18 Keni language . . . narrative is no longer linear and prosaic. Instead, the essence of sign language is to cut from a normal view to a close-up to a distant shot to a close-up again, even including flashback and flash-forward scenes, exactly as a movie editor works . . . Not only is signing arranged more like edited film than like written narration, but also each signer is placed very much as a camera: the field of vision and angle of view are directed but variable.’ This quality is particularly apt given that Sign literature is necessarily for performance. Undoubtedly then, where such a unique language is the vehicle for creative construction rather than just a cipher for communicating ideas, there might blossom a very different creative process and, therefore, product. Neurophysiological studies suggest that, in the early years, the acquisition of Sign as a primary language seems to wire the developing brain in a way different to that found in hearing subjects. Furthermore, that in the brains of native signers, there is a completely separate representation of ‘linguistic’ space from that of ordinary ‘topographical’ space; i.e., that native signers have developed a new way of representing space, a new type of space that has no equivalent in the hearing and these two spaces are processed in different areas of the brain. Sacks suggests that the strong visuality of deaf people may dispose them to certain ‘visual’ types of memory and thought – that ‘given complex problems with many stages, the deaf tend to arrange these and their hypotheses in logical space, whereas the hearing arrange them in a temporal (or “auditory”) order.’ Experiments conducted in the 1940s and1960s comparing written composition in hearing and deaf students found that the compositions of deaf students were very different in structure – with much use of redundant or recurring phrases, less complex sentences and deviations in word order, disparities which reflect the structural differences between Sign and spoken English. But what about non-verbal rather than verbal composition?

Keni 19 What about original work composed in Sign, work never intended for translation, such as original Sign poetry? ‘Hearing’ poetry, even performance poetry, with very few exceptions such as ‘concrete’ poetry, is not visual. Poetic imagery in a speech poem may be projected on the inner eye, but the poem is entirely dependent on audition. Oliver Sacks makes the point that written word or speech poetry evokes by association, not depiction (except, arguably, by devices such as onomatopoeia), whereas Sign poetry evokes by portrayal . Words are a symbolic approximation of an event, thought or intention. Sign may arguably also be an approximation but whereas words can be distancing/distant/disembodied, Sign cannot be separated from the signer. A poet is fused with the poem he or she ‘recites’ and the event, thought or intention is demonstrated by the signer, not described. Therefore, as Sacks concludes, though Sign can ascend to the abstract it must, by necessity, because it is inseparable from the signer, retain a vividness, a ‘concreteness’ that speech lacks. However, there is much about the visual aesthetic of Sign poetry that goes beyond simple portrayal. A Sign poem literally translated to spoken English makes little poetic ‘sense’ to the ear. The converse is also true – a ‘hearing’ poem translated into everyday Sign also appears to have little visual aesthetic value. When reworked into ‘art Sign’, the modified Sign of performance, the visual beauty of the language becomes apparent. Art Sign differs from conversational Sign in a number of ways – it has much more repetition of both manual (handshape, hand location, movement and direction) and non-manual features (eye gaze, mouth shape, head movement). These can be considered a kind of alliteration or rhyme. The signs are also often extended out of the normal signing space and distorted spatially, temporally and rhythmically for effect. Thus, the signs themselves and the manner in which they are performed are modified to give the poem structure. Art Sign also uses both hands (unlike conversational Sign where one hand tends to be dominant) to give balance and simultaneity.

Page Text

18

Keni

language . . . narrative is no longer linear and prosaic. Instead, the essence of sign language is to cut from a normal view to a close-up to a distant shot to a close-up again, even including flashback and flash-forward scenes, exactly as a movie editor works . . . Not only is signing arranged more like edited film than like written narration, but also each signer is placed very much as a camera: the field of vision and angle of view are directed but variable.’ This quality is particularly apt given that Sign literature is necessarily for performance. Undoubtedly then, where such a unique language is the vehicle for creative construction rather than just a cipher for communicating ideas, there might blossom a very different creative process and, therefore, product. Neurophysiological studies suggest that, in the early years, the acquisition of Sign as a primary language seems to wire the developing brain in a way different to that found in hearing subjects. Furthermore, that in the brains of native signers, there is a completely separate representation of ‘linguistic’ space from that of ordinary ‘topographical’ space; i.e., that native signers have developed a new way of representing space, a new type of space that has no equivalent in the hearing and these two spaces are processed in different areas of the brain. Sacks suggests that the strong visuality of deaf people may dispose them to certain ‘visual’ types of memory and thought – that ‘given complex problems with many stages, the deaf tend to arrange these and their hypotheses in logical space, whereas the hearing arrange them in a temporal (or “auditory”) order.’ Experiments conducted in the 1940s and1960s comparing written composition in hearing and deaf students found that the compositions of deaf students were very different in structure – with much use of redundant or recurring phrases, less complex sentences and deviations in word order, disparities which reflect the structural differences between Sign and spoken English. But what about non-verbal rather than verbal composition?

My Bookmarks

Skip to main content