WEBVTT

1
00:00:03.393 --> 00:00:08.051
STEREOTYPE AS A KEY TO THE LINGUISTIC
WORLDVIEW OF THE CZECH DEAF: PART 1

2
00:00:08.812 --> 00:00:14.715
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
colleagues, friends.

3
00:00:14.899 --> 00:00:20.049
Let me first try to master
the microphone a bit.

4
00:00:22.838 --> 00:00:24.023
Is it okay now?

5
00:00:27.389 --> 00:00:31.112
I am very happy
that all of today will be dedicated to

6
00:00:31.137 --> 00:00:36.346
cognitive linguistics of sign languages
and cognitive linguistics in general.

7
00:00:36.980 --> 00:00:43.980
We have been preparing
today's programme for quite a long time.

8
00:00:44.663 --> 00:00:48.750
With my colleagues,
we had a special seminar.

9
00:00:49.451 --> 00:00:54.716
Its result was the theme of stereotypes,

10
00:00:54.768 --> 00:01:01.768
which gathers what is important
in cognitive linguistics.

11
00:01:02.647 --> 00:01:06.622
But before starting
to talk about a stereotype,

12
00:01:08.666 --> 00:01:15.666
I'd like to say that
the theoretical talk to be held by me

13
00:01:16.849 --> 00:01:19.578
was divided into three parts,

14
00:01:21.661 --> 00:01:24.051
separated by breaks.

15
00:01:25.815 --> 00:01:32.815
And as your materials contain only
the Stereotypes 1, 2 and 3,

16
00:01:34.602 --> 00:01:38.555
we will outline
what the individual parts will cover.

17
00:01:41.047 --> 00:01:45.523
The first part will address
the research context,

18
00:01:46.363 --> 00:01:52.197
the cognitive linguistics,
the term "linguistic worldview",

19
00:01:53.062 --> 00:01:59.691
which needs to be taken into account
when a stereotype is addressed.

20
00:02:00.222 --> 00:02:02.555
It needs to be
our point of departure.

21
00:02:02.659 --> 00:02:04.926
Then we will address categorization

22
00:02:05.434 --> 00:02:10.911
because it is something that
a stereotype is closely linked with.

23
00:02:12.686 --> 00:02:17.516
Afterwards we will move on
to characterize a stereotype.

24
00:02:18.648 --> 00:02:24.788
The second part, after the break,
will address social stereotypes.

25
00:02:28.580 --> 00:02:35.580
These are stereotypes representing
something typical in their category.

26
00:02:38.432 --> 00:02:43.347
And we will also
address these in the talks

27
00:02:43.589 --> 00:02:49.430
held by my colleagues
Lucie Břinková, Marie Basovníková.

28
00:02:53.770 --> 00:02:57.187
These are stereotypes
related to persons:

29
00:02:57.487 --> 00:03:00.619
Stereotypes of professions,
of nationalities.

30
00:03:01.181 --> 00:03:08.167
In my talk, this will be illustrated
by the stereotype of a gypsy, a Romani

31
00:03:08.670 --> 00:03:13.444
in the milieu of the Czech Republic,
i.e. what the stereotype of a gypsy is.

32
00:03:15.708 --> 00:03:18.040
We will see
how to detect stereotypes,

33
00:03:18.040 --> 00:03:20.725
by what sort of linguistic data,

34
00:03:22.000 --> 00:03:25.867
how stereotypes are detected
in spoken languages

35
00:03:25.919 --> 00:03:28.056
where dictionaries are available

36
00:03:28.658 --> 00:03:35.658
and where most of
the things are "frozen".

37
00:03:37.201 --> 00:03:42.291
Then we will address
the issue of what kind of data

38
00:03:42.291 --> 00:03:49.245
suitable for looking for stereotypes
are available in sign languages.

39
00:03:51.344 --> 00:03:55.289
This is what we discussed
a lot in our seminar.

40
00:03:57.817 --> 00:04:02.833
We will ask these questions
to let you, too, reflect on them.

41
00:04:04.675 --> 00:04:10.271
The third part will be
perhaps most closely linked to

42
00:04:12.341 --> 00:04:17.717
the stereotypes in sign languages,
more precisely in the Czech SL.

43
00:04:18.309 --> 00:04:20.970
We will see that
they are constructed

44
00:04:21.070 --> 00:04:27.464
on the basis of double mapping,

45
00:04:27.787 --> 00:04:32.130
metaphorical or metonymical one

46
00:04:32.130 --> 00:04:34.436
but with iconic background.

47
00:04:35.648 --> 00:04:40.942
This will be illustrated by examples
of significant personalities in CzSL.

48
00:04:41.620 --> 00:04:48.620
Many of you have already explored
stereotypes in your sign languages,

49
00:04:49.063 --> 00:04:52.789
having been assigned
tasks and instructions as to

50
00:04:52.789 --> 00:04:58.646
what to prepare
for our Summer School's workshops.

51
00:04:59.412 --> 00:05:04.391
So the individual puzzle pieces
might start to come together now

52
00:05:04.566 --> 00:05:08.548
and you'll be realizing what it was
that you were actually doing

53
00:05:08.739 --> 00:05:11.055
when you were looking for the signs,

54
00:05:11.107 --> 00:05:18.055
or e.g. for anecdotes about
the hearing in your sign languages,

55
00:05:19.488 --> 00:05:23.962
i.e. what can be the result:
what kind of image, stereotype.

56
00:05:26.027 --> 00:05:31.035
So then I will give the floor
to my colleagues-students

57
00:05:31.228 --> 00:05:34.528
who will follow up
with their specific presentations.

58
00:05:34.617 --> 00:05:40.581
Afterwards participants
will disperse into individual workshops.

59
00:05:41.725 --> 00:05:44.591
Let me begin the actual talk now.

60
00:05:45.207 --> 00:05:48.188
When speaking about a stereotype,

61
00:05:48.266 --> 00:05:55.266
we need to, as indicated, start with
the term "linguistic worldview"

62
00:05:56.358 --> 00:06:03.358
because a stereotype
is a part and a kind of unit

63
00:06:04.528 --> 00:06:06.529
of linguistic worldview.

64
00:06:08.755 --> 00:06:11.774
Our heads,
as may be seen in the picture,

65
00:06:11.774 --> 00:06:15.411
contain a certain model of the world,

66
00:06:15.741 --> 00:06:22.741
harboured there
on the basis of language,

67
00:06:23.824 --> 00:06:28.199
be it spoken or sign one.

68
00:06:30.715 --> 00:06:34.556
The model of the world is
projected back into the language

69
00:06:34.649 --> 00:06:39.478
and, conversely,
the language affects our minds.

70
00:06:44.757 --> 00:06:47.632
The basic postulate
of cognitive linguistics is

71
00:06:47.942 --> 00:06:54.750
that language is fundamentally
related, on one hand, to our thinking,

72
00:06:54.750 --> 00:07:00.301
to our mind, human cognitivity
in the narrower sense of the word,

73
00:07:01.094 --> 00:07:05.219
and, on the other hand,
to a certain community's culture.

74
00:07:06.201 --> 00:07:10.205
Both is significantly
reflected in language.

75
00:07:11.505 --> 00:07:17.486
A well-known example may be given,

76
00:07:18.202 --> 00:07:23.933
I believe a telling one
in spite of how traditional it is:

77
00:07:25.060 --> 00:07:29.466
The division of colour scales
in various languages,

78
00:07:29.987 --> 00:07:36.987
again no matter whether
in spoken or sign ones.

79
00:07:37.954 --> 00:07:43.707
If we have
the standard equipment of sight,

80
00:07:43.744 --> 00:07:48.077
if we are not e.g. colour-blind,

81
00:07:49.958 --> 00:07:54.972
we all see the same colour scale,

82
00:07:55.072 --> 00:08:02.072
as our sensorial,
physiological equipment allows us.

83
00:08:03.345 --> 00:08:09.110
From the physical and physiological view
we only have one colour scale.

84
00:08:10.262 --> 00:08:13.287
But we know
that different languages

85
00:08:13.687 --> 00:08:19.921
divide the scale to individual colours
in a different manner.

86
00:08:21.586 --> 00:08:23.956
We may ask ourselves,

87
00:08:24.612 --> 00:08:28.961
when looking at the models' clothes,

88
00:08:29.033 --> 00:08:33.208
what colour each of them wears.

89
00:08:34.729 --> 00:08:38.457
If speakers of different languages
are present,

90
00:08:39.200 --> 00:08:42.570
they can provide differing answers.

91
00:08:44.155 --> 00:08:51.155
In Czech or English,
the basic colours are green and blue.

92
00:08:52.427 --> 00:08:57.822
The prototype of green
is the colour of plants.

93
00:08:58.960 --> 00:09:02.315
The prototype of blue
is the colour of the sky.

94
00:09:02.571 --> 00:09:06.755
One workshop will also
deal with the colours.

95
00:09:10.541 --> 00:09:15.031
But when we ask a Russian

96
00:09:16.786 --> 00:09:21.958
about one of the pictures,
the last one or last but one,

97
00:09:22.219 --> 00:09:29.219
where a Czech or an English speaker
would identify the blue colour,

98
00:09:29.623 --> 00:09:34.422
a Russian would answer that,
in the former case,

99
00:09:34.422 --> 00:09:38.573
the colour is called "goluboy",

100
00:09:39.186 --> 00:09:41.125
and "siniy" in the latter case.

101
00:09:43.455 --> 00:09:47.543
The prototype is, in the former case,
the daytime sky.

102
00:09:48.014 --> 00:09:50.740
In the latter case,
it is the nighttime sky.

103
00:09:51.462 --> 00:09:54.315
In Russian these are basic colours.

104
00:09:56.620 --> 00:10:01.868
The most interesting language
for our culture might be

105
00:10:01.870 --> 00:10:04.723
a rather remote one

106
00:10:04.876 --> 00:10:06.675
such as Vietnamese,

107
00:10:06.875 --> 00:10:09.318
which is mentioned
as the third example.

108
00:10:09.809 --> 00:10:14.464
Vietnamese includes
all the colour shades

109
00:10:14.464 --> 00:10:17.840
in a single colour "xanh".

110
00:10:18.483 --> 00:10:23.245
I wonder if there is a Vietnamese
participant here to confirm this.

111
00:10:23.245 --> 00:10:26.844
I have only read it
in academic literature.

112
00:10:27.039 --> 00:10:29.166
But it is supposed to be the case.

113
00:10:30.015 --> 00:10:35.469
It is the colour of calm sea,
sky, plants and rocks.

114
00:10:40.024 --> 00:10:44.158
This is an example
of linguistic relativity

115
00:10:44.381 --> 00:10:51.381
and of how our conceptualization
is influenced by culture,

116
00:10:51.386 --> 00:10:57.527
i.e. to which culture we belong
and which language is our mother tongue.

117
00:10:57.763 --> 00:11:04.360
Another example of how the worldviews
or models of the world are varied:

118
00:11:05.521 --> 00:11:10.555
When I say "Jsem svobodný/
svobodná" in Czech,

119
00:11:11.063 --> 00:11:14.142
it can mean two things

120
00:11:14.586 --> 00:11:21.488
and would have to be translated
in two different ways into English:

121
00:11:22.221 --> 00:11:27.217
When desiring to express
that "I am free, independent",

122
00:11:27.442 --> 00:11:29.554
the translation is "I am free".

123
00:11:31.338 --> 00:11:35.413
This is what refers to
political freedom or independence.

124
00:11:35.673 --> 00:11:39.958
Or one can say that
a criminal is free again.

125
00:11:40.991 --> 00:11:46.752
The free movement, freedom of
thinking, of speech, etc., is implied.

126
00:11:47.140 --> 00:11:52.555
In Czech, though,
one says "Jsem svobodná"

127
00:11:53.528 --> 00:11:57.914
even when desiring to express
that "I am not married".

128
00:11:58.525 --> 00:12:00.972
Or "Nejsem ženatý" for a man.

129
00:12:00.984 --> 00:12:01.984
"I am single."

130
00:12:05.407 --> 00:12:09.077
We can see that
the range of meanings

131
00:12:11.235 --> 00:12:14.881
of a term may differ
in various languages.

132
00:12:14.881 --> 00:12:17.951
The demarcation lines
between meanings are varied.

133
00:12:17.952 --> 00:12:21.202
The meaning develops
in various directions.

134
00:12:21.239 --> 00:12:25.356
Which is what is addressed
by congnitive linguistics

135
00:12:25.356 --> 00:12:28.889
and by cultural linguistics,
the ethnolinguistics.

136
00:12:30.910 --> 00:12:37.910
Let me now outline our theoretical
and methodological points of departure.

137
00:12:39.706 --> 00:12:46.706
It is, for one thing,
the classical US cognitive linguistics,

138
00:12:48.354 --> 00:12:53.526
which thematizes especially
the terms "metaphor", "metonymy",

139
00:12:54.695 --> 00:12:58.642
"categorization",
"prototype", "corporeality".

140
00:12:58.842 --> 00:13:00.470
We will cover these later.

141
00:13:02.075 --> 00:13:07.422
The US cognitive linguistics
is represented e.g. by George Lakoff,

142
00:13:07.765 --> 00:13:11.022
Mark Johnson, Eleanor Rosch,

143
00:13:11.583 --> 00:13:16.720
whom we will be referring to today.
We will disregard the rest for now.

144
00:13:18.704 --> 00:13:23.278
Let me mention the cognitive linguistics
of sign languages here, too,

145
00:13:23.351 --> 00:13:29.065
which has been developing
considerably in the past decades.

146
00:13:29.978 --> 00:13:35.248
It's a pity that
Mrs and Mr Wilcox are not here with us.

147
00:13:35.781 --> 00:13:40.756
Phyllis Wilcox and Sherman Wilcox
are leading representatives

148
00:13:40.756 --> 00:13:43.649
of the cognitive linguistics
of sign languages.

149
00:13:43.755 --> 00:13:48.138
Let me also mention e.g. Sarah Taub.

150
00:13:48.710 --> 00:13:54.459
All these deal with
iconicity of sign languages

151
00:13:54.459 --> 00:13:58.144
and metaphor and metonymy,

152
00:13:58.144 --> 00:14:04.756
which is closely linked with
the iconicity in sign languages.

153
00:14:05.127 --> 00:14:10.491
This is specific to sign languages
compared to spoken ones.

154
00:14:10.491 --> 00:14:13.582
The SL are distinguished
by very strong iconicity.

155
00:14:14.718 --> 00:14:18.676
As for the "double mapping",
we will cover that later.

156
00:14:19.334 --> 00:14:26.107
Our second source, which might
be quoted most frequently today

157
00:14:26.107 --> 00:14:30.351
and from which we borrowed
the term "stereotype",

158
00:14:30.904 --> 00:14:35.567
is Polish ethnolinguistics.

159
00:14:36.267 --> 00:14:40.701
In the Polish town of Lublin
there is a university

160
00:14:40.733 --> 00:14:45.341
where Prof. Jerzy Bartmiński works,

161
00:14:47.955 --> 00:14:53.150
together with the team
of his colleagues and students,

162
00:14:53.350 --> 00:15:00.350
who have been developing
a school of linguistic research

163
00:15:01.549 --> 00:15:07.536
which has recently been called
"cognitive ethnolinguistics".

164
00:15:07.627 --> 00:15:10.224
The part "ethno" is very important

165
00:15:11.022 --> 00:15:18.022
as the cultural dimension
of languages is taken into account.

166
00:15:21.342 --> 00:15:28.342
The terms like "linguistic worldview" or
"stereotype" are crucial in this school.

167
00:15:33.494 --> 00:15:40.494
I'd also like to mention briefly
the philosophical basis of our research.

168
00:15:41.723 --> 00:15:46.005
I hope at least some of you
will find it interesting.

169
00:15:46.216 --> 00:15:49.675
The philosophical basis
is phenomenology,

170
00:15:51.188 --> 00:15:53.037
the European one.

171
00:15:53.497 --> 00:15:57.956
In particular,
in our Czech context,

172
00:15:57.956 --> 00:16:02.794
I'd like to mention
the Czech philosopher Jan Patočka.

173
00:16:03.517 --> 00:16:10.517
If you know something about
our culture, our mental world,

174
00:16:10.557 --> 00:16:15.792
then you are likely to know the name,
perhaps also from another context,

175
00:16:16.171 --> 00:16:22.726
but I'd like to mention him in relation
with his term "natural world".

176
00:16:23.851 --> 00:16:28.088
Instead, you might have heard

177
00:16:28.088 --> 00:16:34.429
Edmund Husserl's term "Lebenswelt",

178
00:16:34.891 --> 00:16:37.364
which is similar in many respects.

179
00:16:39.442 --> 00:16:45.806
Another one is "fourness",
which anchors man in his existence

180
00:16:46.168 --> 00:16:48.529
as what is most important of him,

181
00:16:49.521 --> 00:16:54.717
i.e. body, community, language, world.

182
00:16:57.286 --> 00:17:00.681
Corporeality, as may be seen
in one of the pictures,

183
00:17:00.681 --> 00:17:07.283
is very important,
determinative, for our thinking.

184
00:17:08.144 --> 00:17:11.817
Our body is also in our mind.

185
00:17:12.781 --> 00:17:19.781
A cognitivistic book by Mark Johnson
is called "The Body in the Mind".

186
00:17:23.634 --> 00:17:26.624
Which is shown to be
the case in all languages,

187
00:17:26.660 --> 00:17:33.660
to be the basis under which
one cannot dig any deeper,

188
00:17:34.214 --> 00:17:39.102
under which nothing more basal than
our corporeal experience may be found.

189
00:17:39.665 --> 00:17:45.185
The other crucial aspect is culture,
living in a certain community

190
00:17:45.898 --> 00:17:50.424
and sharing the worldview with it.

191
00:17:50.479 --> 00:17:54.653
And the worldview
is rooted in language,

192
00:17:55.252 --> 00:17:58.419
again, be it spoken or sign language.

193
00:17:59.545 --> 00:18:04.603
The principles I mentioned
may be outlined within this scheme.

194
00:18:05.263 --> 00:18:08.530
All this is connected, interrelated.

195
00:18:09.040 --> 00:18:13.389
The mind rises from the body,
the corporeality,

196
00:18:13.697 --> 00:18:20.188
and is interconnected with the culture,
with what is called "ethnos".

197
00:18:20.188 --> 00:18:23.053
One may speak about collective mind.

198
00:18:23.053 --> 00:18:26.403
And, on the right side
of the scheme, we may see

199
00:18:26.403 --> 00:18:33.308
Patočka's
"body-community-language-world".

200
00:18:35.926 --> 00:18:39.299
Here we can see a definition...

201
00:18:42.383 --> 00:18:47.547
I apologize if this is too difficult
for the interpreters.

202
00:18:47.547 --> 00:18:49.271
I will slow down a little.

203
00:18:59.403 --> 00:19:00.703
OK, we can continue.

204
00:19:00.800 --> 00:19:03.687
OK, the definition
of the linguistic worldview.

205
00:19:03.687 --> 00:19:09.304
Let me also read it in Czech.
It is devised by Jerzy Bartmiński.

206
00:19:10.729 --> 00:19:17.729
It is "interpretation of reality
encoded in a given language,"

207
00:19:18.236 --> 00:19:22.174
"which may be perceived as
a sum of judgements about the world."

208
00:19:22.716 --> 00:19:26.973
"The judgements may either
be entrenched in the language,"

209
00:19:26.973 --> 00:19:32.950
"its grammatical forms, lexicon
and 'frozen' texts, e.g. proverbs,"

210
00:19:33.350 --> 00:19:38.553
"or only implied by
linguistic forms and texts."

211
00:19:39.433 --> 00:19:46.433
Language may contain these judgements
in a more or less explicit manner.

212
00:19:48.079 --> 00:19:54.055
One may also say that this is
conceptualization of the world

213
00:19:54.130 --> 00:19:56.627
which is frozen in language.

214
00:19:57.266 --> 00:20:02.121
Which implies that it is ascertainable
on the basis of language,

215
00:20:02.121 --> 00:20:08.162
of linguistic facts,
of language and text.

216
00:20:11.277 --> 00:20:15.896
The term "linguistic worldview"
and the research

217
00:20:15.896 --> 00:20:20.627
done by the Polish cognitive school

218
00:20:21.551 --> 00:20:28.551
currently concern, of course, primarily,
or better to say, only spoken languages.

219
00:20:30.689 --> 00:20:37.253
But a certain worldview is, naturally,
frozen in sign languages, too.

220
00:20:38.436 --> 00:20:45.436
The question is: What worldview is it
and how to ascertain it?

221
00:20:46.156 --> 00:20:49.029
Based on what kind of data?

222
00:20:49.451 --> 00:20:55.328
The data helping us
to capture the stereotypes

223
00:20:55.628 --> 00:21:01.204
in spoken languages have already
been researched; they are set.

224
00:21:01.297 --> 00:21:05.681
One could even say that
a certain manual can be followed.

225
00:21:07.651 --> 00:21:13.307
It is available and both me
and my colleagues will demonstrate it.

226
00:21:14.185 --> 00:21:19.262
The question is whether
this theory and methodology

227
00:21:19.262 --> 00:21:21.752
can also be applied
to sign languages.

228
00:21:26.442 --> 00:21:30.722
A lot has been written
about the linguistic worldview.

229
00:21:31.549 --> 00:21:38.549
I'd like to condense everything
into this single slide.

230
00:21:39.850 --> 00:21:46.407
The linguistic worldview is,
in a nutshell, anthropocentric.

231
00:21:46.445 --> 00:21:51.661
It is very important and, again, valid
both for spoken and sign languages.

232
00:21:52.842 --> 00:21:56.673
As indicated, humans are
anchored in the space via their body

233
00:21:58.185 --> 00:22:05.185
they know and feel where up and down,
in front and behind, left and right is,

234
00:22:06.717 --> 00:22:09.582
have certain motoric skills,

235
00:22:10.857 --> 00:22:17.708
have sensory equipment as the world
gives itself to us through senses.

236
00:22:17.780 --> 00:22:19.676
as postulated
by phenomenology.

237
00:22:20.139 --> 00:22:22.025
All this is shown in language.

238
00:22:22.414 --> 00:22:24.613
Lakoff and Johnson state:

239
00:22:25.300 --> 00:22:29.685
If we were shaped as spheres,

240
00:22:30.523 --> 00:22:34.865
or if we were altogether weightless,

241
00:22:37.154 --> 00:22:41.230
what would "up", "down" mean?

242
00:22:43.198 --> 00:22:46.761
We would not be able
to handle our languages at all.

243
00:22:46.761 --> 00:22:50.156
Our languages could not
be what they are

244
00:22:50.156 --> 00:22:55.331
because they are
based on our corporeality.

245
00:22:57.474 --> 00:23:02.708
Related to anthropocentrism
is the "own-foreign" opposition.

246
00:23:05.388 --> 00:23:11.924
What is my own, mine,
what belongs into my group

247
00:23:12.916 --> 00:23:16.189
tends to be viewed as positive,

248
00:23:16.776 --> 00:23:20.815
as the basis, as normal,
as good and proper.

249
00:23:21.093 --> 00:23:25.804
And what is foreign
tends to be viewed as bad.

250
00:23:26.599 --> 00:23:29.383
We are now also arriving at the fact

251
00:23:29.383 --> 00:23:33.969
that the linguistic worldview
is full of assessment.

252
00:23:34.586 --> 00:23:36.574
That it is axiological.

253
00:23:36.574 --> 00:23:39.943
I forgot to mention this
explicitly in the slide.

254
00:23:41.126 --> 00:23:44.526
but the axiology,
the assessment, is very important.

255
00:23:46.828 --> 00:23:52.502
The linguistic worldview also
employs strongly the stereotype,

256
00:23:52.502 --> 00:23:54.978
which is based on
the anthropocentrism,

257
00:23:54.978 --> 00:23:57.487
on the "own-foreign" opposition,

258
00:23:57.487 --> 00:24:00.375
on what is considered

259
00:24:00.375 --> 00:24:06.956
normal in our group,

260
00:24:08.156 --> 00:24:15.156
or what we idealize
and what we would like to be the case,

261
00:24:15.207 --> 00:24:17.820
what is ideal for us.

262
00:24:17.825 --> 00:24:20.902
This is what is also
projected in the stereotype.

263
00:24:23.673 --> 00:24:26.680
OK, we can move on.

264
00:24:31.005 --> 00:24:37.580
As stated, linguistic worldview has been
explored on spoken languages so far.

265
00:24:37.844 --> 00:24:44.844
The question is: Can this methodology
be applied to sign languages?

266
00:24:45.179 --> 00:24:47.830
Or, what methodology can be applied?

267
00:24:47.830 --> 00:24:50.626
What is the linguistic
worldview of the Deaf,

268
00:24:50.626 --> 00:24:53.285
that of the Czech Deaf?

269
00:24:53.905 --> 00:24:59.119
How is it different from the linguistic
worldview of the hearing Czechs,

270
00:24:59.119 --> 00:25:03.566
i.e. from the view rooted in Czech?

271
00:25:05.662 --> 00:25:10.718
And how is the worldview
of the Czech Deaf different

272
00:25:10.718 --> 00:25:13.440
from that of the German Deaf?

273
00:25:13.803 --> 00:25:15.487
That of the American Deaf?

274
00:25:15.733 --> 00:25:18.536
That of the Polish Deaf? Etc.

275
00:25:19.174 --> 00:25:22.548
What is common to all sign languages?

276
00:25:22.910 --> 00:25:27.645
What is common to all languages,
i.e. spoken as well as sign ones?

277
00:25:27.645 --> 00:25:28.981
What is universal?

278
00:25:29.083 --> 00:25:33.969
Those are the questions that may be
posed by cognitive linguistics

279
00:25:33.969 --> 00:25:37.498
and by cognitive linguistics
of sign languages.

280
00:25:41.127 --> 00:25:46.135
The specificity of
how the Deaf experience the world

281
00:25:46.215 --> 00:25:53.051
is given, to a great extent,
by their different corporeal equipment.

282
00:25:53.111 --> 00:25:59.388
The different bodying constitutes
a distinct manner of being in the world.

283
00:25:59.888 --> 00:26:06.888
It might be somewhat reduced
compared to what the hearing experience

284
00:26:06.888 --> 00:26:10.533
but might contain
something extra, something different,

285
00:26:10.622 --> 00:26:16.846
something interesting for us
because difference is always enriching.

286
00:26:16.846 --> 00:26:22.423
It is always interesting,
allowing us to view what is ours

287
00:26:22.423 --> 00:26:28.014
as completely different,
 interesting.

288
00:26:28.639 --> 00:26:35.639
I.e. it is very interesting even for us,
e.g. Czech Studies scholars,

289
00:26:35.639 --> 00:26:40.635
or those dealing with
linguistics of sign languages,

290
00:26:40.635 --> 00:26:45.854
to look at the sign languages
from this perspective

291
00:26:46.907 --> 00:26:50.324
as something new,
different will be revealed to us

292
00:26:50.324 --> 00:26:53.168
about our languages
and spoken language, too.

293
00:26:55.127 --> 00:27:02.127
In this slide I also mentioned one of
our dear guests, Prof. Trevor Johnston,

294
00:27:02.544 --> 00:27:06.457
because the term "Umwelt"
caught my attention in his paper.

295
00:27:08.654 --> 00:27:12.303
It is connected to the Deaf culture

296
00:27:13.003 --> 00:27:20.003
and might, to a certain extent,
also correspond to the "natural world"

297
00:27:20.303 --> 00:27:27.000
and certainly with what Patočka,
within the "fourness", calls the "world"

298
00:27:27.774 --> 00:27:34.774
because here the "world" signifies
the context in which we view the things

299
00:27:34.776 --> 00:27:37.020
and which is always very important.

300
00:27:38.549 --> 00:27:45.447
Stereotypes may be considered
in three kinds of context.

301
00:27:46.091 --> 00:27:52.935
So far it has been debated and outlined
in relation to the linguistic worldview.

302
00:27:53.582 --> 00:27:58.054
Let us now outline
the categorization context.

303
00:27:58.169 --> 00:28:04.340
It is something which a stereotype
is inherently connected with.

304
00:28:04.531 --> 00:28:06.174
Then we will see

305
00:28:06.474 --> 00:28:13.474
the stereotype in connection with
meaning and semantic connotations.

306
00:28:13.792 --> 00:28:18.402
But this will be addressed
only in the following parts.

307
00:28:19.093 --> 00:28:21.688
Let us now begin
with the categorization.

308
00:28:23.844 --> 00:28:30.844
When we look around,
be it here or around a landscape,

309
00:28:33.250 --> 00:28:38.330
when we imagine the sky,
woods, trees in the landscape,

310
00:28:40.382 --> 00:28:43.810
when we look at such a landscape,
what do we see?

311
00:28:44.776 --> 00:28:48.877
We probably do not see
undifferentiated continuum

312
00:28:50.186 --> 00:28:57.186
but as people equipped
with a certain language

313
00:28:57.965 --> 00:29:04.237
by means of which a certain
notional system is created in us,

314
00:29:04.237 --> 00:29:10.873
we perceive the reality
in a segmented manner.

315
00:29:11.433 --> 00:29:17.215
And we thus see a tree as a tree,
a wood as a wood, a sky as a sky.

316
00:29:19.968 --> 00:29:25.061
We, as humans, need to reduce

317
00:29:25.061 --> 00:29:29.203
complexity of the world,
to make it clearer.

318
00:29:29.843 --> 00:29:36.325
This is because the world which
we live in is very diverse, variable.

319
00:29:37.432 --> 00:29:39.625
We need to make it simpler.

320
00:29:40.129 --> 00:29:45.463
And this is what
our categorization skill helps us to do.

321
00:29:47.584 --> 00:29:53.838
I.e. we keep converting things
to common denominators.

322
00:29:55.476 --> 00:30:02.476
By thinking and speaking,
we keep categorizing.

323
00:30:04.370 --> 00:30:11.370
This is how we arrange chaos,
which could otherwise drive us insane

324
00:30:12.218 --> 00:30:14.986
if not for our ability to simplify it.

325
00:30:16.762 --> 00:30:22.082
Based on their own experience and,
in particular, based on a convention,

326
00:30:23.182 --> 00:30:30.182
or culture, humans perceive
certain common features of things.

327
00:30:30.646 --> 00:30:36.587
They assort them into classes,
i.e. categories.

328
00:30:37.390 --> 00:30:43.518
Based on various categories,
we classify things as "wood", "sun",

329
00:30:44.328 --> 00:30:51.328
"bird", "fear" or a certain emotion,
i.e. abstract nouns are included,

330
00:30:51.985 --> 00:30:57.645
as well as activities, qualities, etc.
Categorization concerns everything.

331
00:31:00.805 --> 00:31:05.004
According to a basic model
starting already with Aristotle,

332
00:31:06.568 --> 00:31:12.981
categorization means sorting things

333
00:31:13.493 --> 00:31:20.493
into "drawers" based on
what they have in common.

334
00:31:21.485 --> 00:31:26.242
There are drawers labelled "dog", "cat",

335
00:31:27.143 --> 00:31:34.143
and when their specimen is in our view,
we assort it somewhere.

336
00:31:35.073 --> 00:31:37.265
This is the traditional conception.

337
00:31:37.985 --> 00:31:44.985
But cognitive linguistics offers
slightly more complex perspective.

338
00:31:47.030 --> 00:31:54.030
We know well that
it can sometimes be difficult

339
00:31:55.072 --> 00:31:57.799
to tell whether
the colour is blue or green.

340
00:31:58.782 --> 00:32:05.184
Or whether a melon
is a vegetable or a fruit.

341
00:32:06.342 --> 00:32:12.099
Whether a certain piece
of clothing is a blouse or a dress.

342
00:32:13.005 --> 00:32:18.043
We do not know
because it lacks unique features.

343
00:32:19.723 --> 00:32:25.993
Cognitive linguistics
does not view a category as a vessel

344
00:32:25.993 --> 00:32:29.458
where something belongs or not

345
00:32:29.873 --> 00:32:36.455
but rather as certain space
with a centre and a periphery.

346
00:32:37.688 --> 00:32:40.888
Located in the centre
is a prototype, or stereotype,

347
00:32:42.458 --> 00:32:46.727
i.e. the most typical example,

348
00:32:48.400 --> 00:32:53.586
e.g. of a blue colour,
of a dress or fruits.

349
00:32:55.516 --> 00:32:59.456
In our culture, for example,
the most typical fruit is an apple.

350
00:32:59.837 --> 00:33:03.276
Located in the centre of
the fruit category is an apple.

351
00:33:05.824 --> 00:33:11.093
This is the representative
with the most typical features.

352
00:33:11.323 --> 00:33:18.323
Let us mention the US cognitive
psychologist Eleanor Rosch here,

353
00:33:18.769 --> 00:33:22.220
who has conducted
a lot of research.

354
00:33:24.457 --> 00:33:31.457
Perhaps the best-known one
deals with the prototype of a bird.

355
00:33:33.131 --> 00:33:35.388
She was asking respondents

356
00:33:37.150 --> 00:33:41.324
which bird they consider
the most typical one.

357
00:33:41.325 --> 00:33:47.294
The research was conducted
in the early 1970s.

358
00:33:50.167 --> 00:33:53.606
The respondents were seeking
the best example of a bird

359
00:33:56.380 --> 00:34:01.235
and were then placing
other bird representatives

360
00:34:01.709 --> 00:34:08.340
at various distances
from the prototype.

361
00:34:08.596 --> 00:34:13.337
This is because it was discovered,
also based on this research,

362
00:34:13.449 --> 00:34:17.954
that adherence to
a category is scaled.

363
00:34:18.248 --> 00:34:24.509
That a certain bird is
more of a bird than another bird.

364
00:34:25.406 --> 00:34:32.406
We could also try to solve
the problem received by the respondents.

365
00:34:33.383 --> 00:34:40.374
I listed several birds
and you should determine the prototype,

366
00:34:40.374 --> 00:34:46.458
as well as which of them
are actually no birds

367
00:34:47.404 --> 00:34:50.678
and which are birds
only to a certain extent.

368
00:34:53.104 --> 00:34:58.105
What is the basis
on which our mind proceeds?

369
00:34:58.177 --> 00:35:01.172
These are all unconscious processes.

370
00:35:04.725 --> 00:35:10.331
But research can then reveal

371
00:35:10.548 --> 00:35:17.520
what the most typical bird has to be
distinguished by to be so labelled.

372
00:35:18.508 --> 00:35:25.248
A bird, not only the most typical one,
is distinguished by wings, feathers,

373
00:35:25.954 --> 00:35:30.852
a beak, incontestably, lays eggs...

374
00:35:32.137 --> 00:35:35.096
But a bird can also fly.

375
00:35:35.505 --> 00:35:37.739
In our view,
a typical bird can fly.

376
00:35:38.762 --> 00:35:45.372
We may then have doubt if the non-fliers
such as a penguin or ostrich are birds.

377
00:35:47.310 --> 00:35:54.310
In our view, a typical bird
also tends to be a small songbird.

378
00:35:58.252 --> 00:36:03.569
Based on her research,
even Eleanor Rosch concluded

379
00:36:03.569 --> 00:36:09.272
that this is what a typical bird is
for US respondents.

380
00:36:11.039 --> 00:36:17.275
In Czech and Polish,
the typical bird is a sparrow.

381
00:36:17.346 --> 00:36:19.819
Let us see it now.

382
00:36:21.494 --> 00:36:23.134
It is a similar bird.

383
00:36:25.227 --> 00:36:29.935
The translation of the word "robin"
poses certain problems.

384
00:36:30.015 --> 00:36:32.527
Sometimes it is translated as "thrush",

385
00:36:33.417 --> 00:36:36.288
sometimes as "redbreast".

386
00:36:38.286 --> 00:36:43.072
Here we can show that
what is important is not only

387
00:36:43.260 --> 00:36:47.553
what kind of categorization mechanisms
there are in our minds

388
00:36:47.978 --> 00:36:52.886
but also in what culture
and environment we live in.

389
00:36:53.551 --> 00:36:56.218
This is e.g. because this small bird

390
00:36:56.218 --> 00:37:02.896
is not as widespread here
in Central Europe as in the USA.

391
00:37:04.590 --> 00:37:10.487
We may now contemplate
what is a prototypical bird

392
00:37:10.487 --> 00:37:12.718
in various sign languages.

393
00:37:12.731 --> 00:37:17.762
Perhaps such debates
will be led in corridors.

394
00:37:23.060 --> 00:37:27.618
As mentioned, this is
the typical Czech bird, a sparrow.

395
00:37:29.817 --> 00:37:35.055
It is often portrayed in flocks

396
00:37:35.055 --> 00:37:39.316
because it can rarely be found alone;
there is always a lot of them.

397
00:37:39.556 --> 00:37:41.843
And it has certain typical features.

398
00:37:42.085 --> 00:37:46.094
I do not think
I should elaborate on this now.

399
00:37:46.094 --> 00:37:51.371
But let us take a look at
another interesting thing.

400
00:37:51.409 --> 00:37:55.426
Categorization can be
variously played around with.

401
00:37:55.745 --> 00:38:00.424
And, indeed, we do so, e.g. when
teaching children or in artistic texts.

402
00:38:00.424 --> 00:38:04.494
And this is a play with categorization
in children's literature.

403
00:38:06.009 --> 00:38:12.162
I found a fairy tale featuring a bird

404
00:38:13.462 --> 00:38:16.159
which does not know where it belongs.

405
00:38:17.736 --> 00:38:21.270
It has features of three birds:

406
00:38:23.556 --> 00:38:30.556
A peacock, a crow, a sparrow.
It resembles each of them a bit.

407
00:38:31.935 --> 00:38:38.935
However, it is neither a peacock,
nor a crow, nor a sparrow.

408
00:38:41.143 --> 00:38:45.811
We can see that we are
approaching the stereotype now.

409
00:38:46.111 --> 00:38:52.944
Imagine a stereotypical peacock:
it has a distinctive tail.

410
00:38:53.300 --> 00:38:57.390
This is how we recognize
and characterize it.

411
00:38:59.009 --> 00:39:05.367
A stereotypical rook or crow is black.

412
00:39:07.651 --> 00:39:10.528
And it may have other features

413
00:39:10.528 --> 00:39:15.778
which are based
on typical scenarios in which we fit it.

414
00:39:15.784 --> 00:39:18.029
But that is another story.

415
00:39:19.996 --> 00:39:26.996
This is another issue
that we have to address here,

416
00:39:28.103 --> 00:39:32.326
at least for the sake of
our internal communication:

417
00:39:32.638 --> 00:39:38.748
Eleanor Rosch and US cognitive linguists
prefer the term "prototype"

418
00:39:40.056 --> 00:39:43.691
whereas Bartmiński
uses the term "stereotype".

419
00:39:44.789 --> 00:39:49.023
Linguists interpret these variously.

420
00:39:49.023 --> 00:39:51.836
Sometimes both terms
are considered identical.

421
00:39:52.291 --> 00:39:59.150
They are basically the same thing
but the prototype accentuates

422
00:40:00.520 --> 00:40:04.657
the cognitive-psychological dimension.

423
00:40:04.697 --> 00:40:09.762
I.e. how the image of an object
is being created in our mind.

424
00:40:11.387 --> 00:40:13.517
The stereotype, on the other hand,

425
00:40:14.719 --> 00:40:21.719
takes account of and perhaps highlights
the sociocultural domain.

426
00:40:22.376 --> 00:40:29.376
I.e. how a typical representative
functions in a certain community.

427
00:40:30.949 --> 00:40:34.512
This is why the titles of

428
00:40:36.095 --> 00:40:40.765
this lecture and
the following workshops

429
00:40:42.438 --> 00:40:44.316
include the term "stereotype".

430
00:40:44.317 --> 00:40:51.036
This is because we are interested
in the social, shared dimension.

431
00:40:51.675 --> 00:40:57.594
Also, the most typical stereotypes
are the social ones,

432
00:40:57.594 --> 00:40:59.792
i.e. those associated with humans.

433
00:41:00.771 --> 00:41:06.531
This is because the term "stereotype"
originated in sociology.

434
00:41:08.948 --> 00:41:15.948
Its first professional use
dates back to 1922

435
00:41:19.063 --> 00:41:26.063
when German-born US sociologist
Walter Lippmann's book was published.

436
00:41:27.220 --> 00:41:31.286
Lippmann dealt with stereotypes
from the sociological perspective.

437
00:41:31.590 --> 00:41:36.680
He, too, however, was pointing out that
stereotypes are rooted in language,

438
00:41:36.769 --> 00:41:38.479
rooted linguistically.

439
00:41:41.656 --> 00:41:45.846
The social and cultural aspect of
the stereotype is thus emphasized.

440
00:41:46.129 --> 00:41:51.987
It usually features
a strong assessing aspect

441
00:41:52.943 --> 00:41:55.811
sometimes also a self-defining one.

442
00:41:56.426 --> 00:41:59.363
These are already
the social stereotypes.

443
00:42:03.307 --> 00:42:08.808
As far the stereotype
in linguistic research is concerned,

444
00:42:08.808 --> 00:42:13.155
it can be encountered
only much later than in 1922.

445
00:42:17.295 --> 00:42:24.295
A significant attempt to incorporate
research on stereotypes into linguistics

446
00:42:25.850 --> 00:42:28.229
was made by
an American scholar Putnam,

447
00:42:28.675 --> 00:42:34.428
followed by an even greater effort,
with emphasis on the cultural aspect,

448
00:42:34.428 --> 00:42:36.241
by the said Jerzy Bartmiński.

449
00:42:38.782 --> 00:42:45.049
We are drawing to
an end of this part now.

450
00:42:45.049 --> 00:42:47.700
I believe that we are
more or less on time.

451
00:42:51.311 --> 00:42:55.030
We have moved on to
the definition of stereotype.

452
00:42:56.078 --> 00:42:58.856
Let me borrow it again
from Jerzy Bartmiński.

453
00:43:00.164 --> 00:43:04.727
In his words, a stereotype is
"representation of an object,"

454
00:43:05.410 --> 00:43:12.109
"formed in a certain
shared empirical framework"

455
00:43:13.360 --> 00:43:18.851
"and defining what the object is,
what it looks like,"

456
00:43:18.851 --> 00:43:22.845
what impression it makes,
how one treats it."

457
00:43:23.898 --> 00:43:28.396
"This definition is
entrenched in language"

458
00:43:30.611 --> 00:43:34.189
"and forms part of
shared awareness of the world."

459
00:43:35.371 --> 00:43:40.757
Again, as stated, the stereotype
forms part of the linguistic worldview.

460
00:43:42.391 --> 00:43:45.147
We are really drawing to a close now.

461
00:43:45.685 --> 00:43:47.840
Let me emphasize the following:

462
00:43:48.469 --> 00:43:54.426
A stereotype is
a certain type of a term.

463
00:43:54.960 --> 00:44:00.262
Another type of a term
is the scientific, theoretical term.

464
00:44:00.262 --> 00:44:01.821
E.g. a technical term.

465
00:44:03.064 --> 00:44:08.550
The technical term
does not feature assessment.

466
00:44:11.545 --> 00:44:16.747
It contains no cultural aspects,
is shared internationally.

467
00:44:16.756 --> 00:44:21.705
One could call it a term
"free of smell and taste".

468
00:44:22.645 --> 00:44:29.645
Let us demonstrate it
on the stereotype of the Sun.

469
00:44:29.980 --> 00:44:36.958
When "Sun" corresponds
to the technical term,

470
00:44:36.958 --> 00:44:40.427
e.g. an astrophysical one,

471
00:44:42.006 --> 00:44:48.093
relating to the gaseous sphere
of certain composition and functioning,

472
00:44:48.648 --> 00:44:52.002
with certain impact on the outer space,

473
00:44:52.142 --> 00:44:58.489
it is shared internationally;
all physicists understand one another.

474
00:44:58.489 --> 00:45:04.445
They communicate in technical terms
in order to understand one another.

475
00:45:06.693 --> 00:45:13.693
The sun within the linguistic worldview
on the "naive" level,

476
00:45:14.797 --> 00:45:19.182
in the natural world,
is a different sun.

477
00:45:19.190 --> 00:45:26.190
It is a sun which, as used in Czech and
other spoken languages, rises and sets.

478
00:45:27.073 --> 00:45:33.841
I.e. we seem to adhere naively
to the geocentric worldview.

479
00:45:33.887 --> 00:45:39.571
This is because the term "sun"
originated very long time ago

480
00:45:39.815 --> 00:45:45.902
and the naive view of the world
was the primary one back then.

481
00:45:46.414 --> 00:45:48.955
It is also primary for children.

482
00:45:48.955 --> 00:45:52.619
Briefly, it is the perspective
of the natural world.

483
00:45:53.566 --> 00:45:58.934
Very frequently, the sun occurs
in diminutives. We call it "sluníčko".

484
00:45:59.110 --> 00:46:06.110
We often personify it,
hence the drawings of the face.

485
00:46:08.326 --> 00:46:14.068
This concludes the first part
of our presentation.

486
00:46:15.537 --> 00:46:18.869
I will be looking forward
to the second part,

487
00:46:18.869 --> 00:46:23.197
where the social stereotypes
will be addressed.

488
00:46:23.340 --> 00:46:29.367
Thank you for your attention
and see you again after the break.