The eye and the other: Language and ethics in deaf Nepal

Abstract

This article examines interactions between deaf and hearing people in Nepal that are conducted in natural sign, a mode of signed communication involving relatively small repertoires of conventional signs complemented by iconic and indexical strategies. Natural sign is an exemplary case for unpacking the claim that ethics is not only intrinsic to linguistic interaction but also grounds its very possibility. While this is ultimately true for all language use, natural sign heightens this quality and its consequences, in terms of both interaction (whether people understand) and analysis (how scholars understand whether people understand). Bringing together Nepali Sign Language users’ insights with academic theories of interaction, pragmatics, and semiotics, this article demonstrates the high stakes for deaf natural signers of being rendered intelligible or unintelligible by the “ordinary” ethical actions of their interlocutors.

Cline and punishment: A comment on Angermeyer

“…Angermeyer concludes by advocating ‘more emphasis on the study of comprehension and understanding, and [to] advocate for understanding between people, rather than translation between languages’ (p. 854). Again, I agree, although Green's (2022) cautions about the necessary mutual moral positioning (albeit in a very different communicational context) involved in ‘being rendered intelligible or unintelligible’—part of the main business of interpreters—suggest that the very notion of ‘understanding’ stands in need of critical transdisciplinary, institutional, ethnographic, political, and ethical scrutiny 20…”

Writing as Being: On the Existential Primacy of Writing for a Deaf Scholar

“…This relationship often rests on fundamental power imbalances and lack of reciprocity between deaf and hearing people (Clark, 2021). In other words, there are "ways of knowing, modes of truth, that forcibly define intelligibility" (Butler, 2004, p. 57) and define who is seen as intelligible (see Green, 2021). In mediated communication, there is a perceived absence of intersubjectivity between deaf and hearing individuals, and the presence of interpreters as a symbol of the deaf person's access can paradoxically work to reinforce, rather than dismantle inequalities (Young et al, 2019).…”

Iconicity as Multimodal, Polysemiotic, and Plurifunctional

“…Finally, there are the iconic ensembles co-articulated by Pradip and the Mumbai shopkeeper in Figure 10 . These icons are more restricted in terms of non-referential indexicality, since so much effort is invested in establishing referential common ground, but look closely and it is there: in Pradip’s expert labouring and strategic use of iconicity in building mutual understanding, to achieve self-determination and personal agency by connecting directly with someone who has a vastly different sensory embodiment, rather than indirectly through a ‘helper’ who can rely heavily on describing, such as a signed language interpreter (see also Clark, 2021 ; Moriarty and Kusters, 2021 ; Green, 2022 ). Herein lies the social role of iconicity, and the power it affords: we use iconicity to index our relationships, our experiences, and our socialities.…”

“…Yet when we consider how iconicity manifests between people with sensorial asymmetries such as Pradip and the shopkeeper, it becomes apparent how much effort and labour is often involved in signalling through depicting. This highlights a moral aspect to using iconicity: it can also reflect people’s willingness to both understand and make oneself understood, especially during interactions when people must rely on ‘far leaner linguistic resources than users of conventional languages’ ( Green, 2022 : 22; see also Goodwin, 1995 ; Moriarty and Kusters, 2021 ). Thus, the socio-functional role of iconicity may also change according to the people interacting and the sociocultural context.…”