Skip to main content

Eavesdropping on a Silent Conversation

It seems like many of the experiences, that I want to post about, occur during the food-stop in the middle of a bicycle ride. Why is that? Is it the mood that cycling puts me in? It certainly seems to be true that one's appreciation of a Thing depends more on the Context of the thing, than on the thing itself.

At any rate, it happened again today. A couple of deaf people were having an animated conversation at a table in front of the window of a food stop. I could pretend to watch my unlocked bicycle just outside that window, without it being obvious that I was "eavesdropping" on their conversation in sign language. (I do not "sign.") Through my sunglasses I could watch them out of the corner of my eye.

They had each other's undivided attention. No distractions. Compare the quality of the conversation of these two "handicapped" people to the usual 'barely listening' conversation of non-handicapped people! We struggle with the crappy background music, if nothing else.

How strange that this has never happened before in my fairly long life. It surprised me that they put so much facial and upper body emphasis to their conversation. It seemed more "analog", and less "digital", than I expected.

How many "bytes" of information flowed between them, compared to a regular conversation between "hearing" people? Surely they transmit less in the same time. But I'm really not so sure.

What was the basic quantum of their language: a letter, syllable, word, or metaphor?

After awhile it dawned on me that the special emphasis I imagined to be there might be due to them being a possible couple -- and that they were flirting with each other. Normally a person is sensitive to the slightest clue of that; but it might not apply here because I didn't understand the first thing about their language. But it certainly was a possible substratum in their language. (I hope it was.)

Linguistics has interested me since I went to Mexico a couple times in my RV.  Imagine explaining the different meanings of 'OK', depending on the intonations, to somebody who is learning English.

So off I went, to Wikipedia to learn about sign language. How disappointing the article was! It probably wasn't the author's fault. But when your curiosity is really hot on some topic, it takes the form of questions. Then we read an article about the topic; but the information isn't organized as an Answer to that Question. Perhaps it can't be.

But if it could be, then even a retro-grouch must admit this to be genuine, qualitative progress brought on by the internet, instead of the usual quantitative expansion of garbage-information. If somebody could find a way to write in terms of answering questions of the reader, it would be the greatest conversation of all.

Comments

Bob said…
Here is my interpretation of verbal communication. Verbal communication is, let's just say ten percent of understanding the conversation and the other ninety percent is body language. In other words, most of what we say is with our face and body language. Therefore, when we talk on the phone, we lose ninety percent of the conversation. I hate phones. :O) Your OK thing is a good example of this. You may adjust the percentages if you like, but just a little. :O)
So, if you are taking a break, sitting around and talking and not really paying attention, enjoying the landscape, your conversation is lacking.
Bob
Allison said…
This is a pretty good article on the importance of facial expressions to modify the signs in ASL.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/11/why-great-sign-language-interpreters-are-so-animated/264459/
XXXXX said…
Big difference between hearing and listening. Most hearing folk assume they have no problem with their listening skills. To me, this blog points out that it makes no difference whether one can hear or not when measuring this same person's listening skills. I think truly listening to another means putting oneself aside for the moment and that would allow one to take in every pause, every change of voice to detect the feeling and emotion that are behind the words. Body language helps, of course, but not absolutely necessary. You go with what you've got. The old fashioned custom of letter writing perhaps made it easier to truly listen as one could consult the letter again and again in order to examine every detail and ponder the situation before responding with reflection.

When I read novels written in the 1800's for the purpose of detecting their society, it seems just by the way they are written, that there was more attention to the details of another. It isn't just background music that is our demise nowadays. We just have a comparatively neurotic society of do, do, do.....go, go go, and fewer people are willing to slow down enough to truly settle into the other person for a moment. So many seem more concerned with getting across their own point and gaining their own satisfaction in the conversation and do not seem to wonder about how the conversation is being experienced by the other person.
Bob Giddings said…
"If somebody could find a way to write in terms of answering questions of the reader, it would be the greatest conversation of all."

Ah, yesss, the mind-reading app. I'd like to see one of those myself.
Writers can anticipate questions, to some extent. But it seems easier to imagine the best way to bring a reader up to speed on a certain topic. Writers on Wikipedia, newspapers, and magazines do a pretty good job of that. But anticipating questions is harder.
Thanks for the link, Allison.
I guess I agree that much of the content of MOST conversations is non-verbal. But what if there really IS some important information or ideas in the conversation? Then the ideas matter more, and so-and-so's feelings about it matter less.
I've gotten better in personal conversations, over the years, just by admitting the brutal truth: the other person's attention span is only good for 5 seconds. If I can't say it in 5 seconds, I might as well shut up.

Worse yet, I am not sure I'm all that much better as a listener!