Labanotation as a Language

Labanotation as a Language
Submitted by Bradley et al. - April 4, 2001


[Following are excerpts from discussions originally posted on LabanTalk in September 2000.]
Every attempt has been made to get in touch with everyone who contributed to the original discussion, but we were not able to get in touch with everyone. Only those contributions for which we were given permission to post are included here.

Discussion 1, by Karen Bradley, September 5, 2000

Some years ago, I heard that NYU allowed Labanotation and/or LMA to count as a foreign language for doctoral programs. Judy Hanna is writing an article on language and dance and asked me to ask all of you if you know if this is true or still true and if anywhere else accepts Laban's work as a language, foreign or otherwise.

Discussion 2, by Jimmyle Listenbee, September 5, 2000

Yes. Kevin Frey is currently using Motif (LOD) to satisfy his 2nd foreign language requirement for his DMA in Music Composition/Horn at U Wisc., Madison. Janet Van Swoll (San Jose State University) told me that it was previously (maybe presently) acceptable in Doctoral programs at the U of Fla.

Discussion 3, Greg Shenaut, September 5, 2000

[Responding to Jimmyle Listenbee's comments in Discussion 2]

Does anyone on this list besides me find that appalling? Should musicians receive 2nd language credit for reading music notation? Should electronic engineers receive it for reading schematics? Ugh.
Discussion 4, Janet Descutner, September 5, 2000

[Responding to Greg Shenaut's comments in Discussion 3]

I heartily agree. Although I am an enthusiast about Labanotation, music notation, Motif, etc., as a student of 7 verbal languages in my lifetime, starting with French at age 14 and last, Japanese when age 43, I know that the major learning experience from language study requirements is to gain insight into a worldview that is the product of long cultural development and presents a specific viewpoint through its syntax, vocab, etc.

Although I think it's possible that this need might also be applicable to "dance languages"--I use the term in the least scientific of ways, to mean different styles that "privilege" different aspects of the moving rhythmic body, and therefore might be best served by a system that is generated from that perspective, it seems to me that the verbal language requirement is there to inform any living, communicating student of the fact that there are different ways to conceive of the universe and that the way of talking about it will reveal reams about diversity if one studies it adequately to gain these insights.

This would be of great value to a student of the performing arts. Our means of preserving and communicating these arts should not take the place of that different realm of learning experience

Discussion 5, Victoria Watts, September 5, 2000

[Responding to Greg Shenaut's comments in Discussion 3]

I'm not sure how to take your point. Are you seriously suggesting that all undergraduate dance majors should take up to an additional year of full time study in order to be fluent in a movement notation system? This is my inference, since in order for dancers to read their notation with the ease, accuracy and sophistication that its subject matter would demand, this lengthy additional period of study is essential.

Although I am unable to say for certain, it seems unlikely that the electrical engineer of your example was required to encounter a new conceptual framework, alongside the conceptual framework his classes were taught in, in order to read the schematic. For a dancer learning notation, this conceptual leap is, I think, the greatest challenge.

Or perhaps that's your point. That the notation should be taught hand in hand with the other business of dancing. However, although a number of the 20th Century movement notation systems do have a valid claim towards universality (my own experience is limited to Benesh Movement Notation and to Labanotation - both of which allow a notator to write just about any given movement outcome), no one system allows the writer to cast the movement in purely its own terms, or the terms of its composition and conception, rather than the terms, however loose, of the notation language itself.

One must bear in mind the eurocentric biases of the two systems I mentioned, in conjunction with our ever increasing interest in the dance forms of non-Western culture, their alternative ways of conceiving the body and its relationship to music, to space and ask 'what is the language of dance that modern dance departments are teaching?'. Our students are learning many different hybrid physical dance languages. No single conceptual framework seems to fit them all. These students deserve opportunities to learn other forms of dance language too - the abstract symbol notation system being one of them.

And in learning these notation systems dancers come to see movement in new terms, to understand ideas that lay beyond their reach before the concepts of the language, and the point of view it represents, were critiqued and assimilated.

So Greg, I wouldn't be horrified if a dance scholar received language credit for Advanced knowledge of a movement notation system, and I certainly don't find it appalling that a musician can get credit for reading dance notation. When so few dancers do, I actually find it fairly commendable.

Discussion 6, Janet Descutner, September 5, 2000

[Responding to Victoria Watts' comments in Discussion 5]

Re-read Greg's last paragraph. What he said was that notation/recording systems that preserve one's specific dance, music, or engineering needs should not satisfy a requirement to understand the perspective of another culture through studying its language.

Discussion 7, by Judy Van Zile, September 5, 2000

I think it is important to keep in mind that Labanotation is not a "language," but rather a "script." (Drid Williams and some of her students have written on this issue.)

It can certainly be language-like in terms of how it is learned. (I took a "foreign language" class at the same time I was teaching Labanotation a number of years ago, and learned a tremendous amount about how to teach notation.) But the real "language" is the dance itself--e.g., Korean dance has its own/is its own language, bharata natyam has its own/is its own language, etc. We might consider Labanotation a way of "languaging about," or "notating about" dance (see, e.g., Deidre Sklar's article in the most recent issue of Dance Research Journal).

This does not, however, negate Victoria Watts' eloquently stated arguments on substituting Labanotation for a language requirement.

Discussion 8, by Susan Gingrasso, September 5, 2000

We have a first year doctoral student at UC Riverside. Her understanding is that the program will accept Labanotation as a foreign language.

Discussion 9, by Greg Shenaut, September 5, 2000

[Responding to Victoria Watts' comments in Discussion 5]

[Victoria wrote] I'M NOT SURE HOW TO TAKE YOUR POINT. ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT ALL UNDERGRADUATE DANCE MAJORS SHOULD TAKE UP TO AN ADDITIONAL YEAR OF FULL TIME STUDY IN ORDER TO BE FLUENT IN A MOVEMENT NOTATION SYSTEM?

[Greg responds] Actually, what is closer to my position is that if a degree program has a foreign language requirement, then students should know a foreign language if they expect to earn the degree. LN isn't a language, except in the metaphorical sense, and even if it were one, it wouldn't necessarily be a foreign language for dancers.

[Victoria wrote] THIS IS MY INFERRENCE, SINCE IN ORDER FOR DANCERS TO READ THEIR NOTATION WITH THE EASE, ACCURACY AND SOPHISTICATION THAT ITS SUBJECT MATTER WOULD DEMAND THIS LENGTHY ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF STUDY IS ESSENTIAL.
ALTHOUGH I AM UNABLE TO SAY FOR CERTAIN, IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER OF YOUR EXAMPLE WAS REQUIRED TO ENCOUNTER A NEW CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, ALONGSIDE THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK HIS CLASSES WERE TAUGHT IN, IN ORDER TO READ THE SCHEMATIC. FOR A DANCER LEARNING NOTATION, THIS CONCEPTUAL LEAP IS, I THINK, THE GREATEST CHALLENGE.

[Greg responds] General knowledge about reading schematics is taught alongside all the other stuff for the most part, just as general knowledge about music notation is taught alongside ordinary musical training. There can be more detailed, advanced training in both topics, of course.

[Victoria wrote] OR PERHAPS THAT'S YOUR POINT. THAT THE NOTATION SHOULD BE TAUGHT HAND IN HAND WITH THE OTHER BUSINESS OF DANCING. HOWEVER, ALTHOUGH A NUMBER OF THE 20TH CENTURY MOVEMENT NOTATION SYSTEMS DO HAVE A VALID CLAIM TOWARDS UNIVERSALITY (MY OWN EXPERIENCE IS LIMITED TO BENESH MOVEMENT NOTATION AND TO LABANOTATION - BOTH OF WHICH ALLOW A NOTATOR TO WRITE JUST ABOUT ANY GIVEN MOVEMENT OUTCOME), NO ONE SYSTEM ALLOWS THE WRITER TO CAST THE MOVEMENT IN PURELY ITS OWN TERMS, OR THE TERMS OF ITS COMPOSITION AND CONCEPTION, RATHER THAN THE TERMS, HOWEVER LOOSE, OF THE NOTATION LANGUAGE ITSELF.

[Greg responds] Actually, my point didn't have so much to do with movement notation per se; rather, it was directed toward the decline of the importance of foreign languages in (American) education.

[Victoria wrote] ONE MUST BEAR IN MIND THE EUROCENTRIC BIASES OF THE TWO SYSTEMS I MENTIONED, IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR EVER INCREASING INTEREST IN THE DANCE FORMS OF NON-WESTERN CULTURE, THEIR ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF CONCEIVING THE BODY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO MUSIC, TO SPACE AND ASK 'WHAT IS THE LANGUAGE OF DANCE THAT MODERN DANCE DEPARTMENTS ARE TEACHING?'. OUR STUDENTS ARE LEARNING MANY DIFFERENT HYBRID PHYSICAL DANCE LANGUAGES. NO SINGLE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SEEMS TO FIT THEM ALL. THESE STUDENTS DESERVE OPPORTUNITIES TO LEARN OTHER FORMS OF DANCE LANGUAGE TOO - THE ABSTRACT SYMBOL NOTATION SYSTEM BEING ONE OF THEM.

[Greg responds] This is of course one of the frequent metaphorical uses of "language": "language of X", where X can be whatever, dance, art, music, love, football, or even war. However, it's just a metaphor: If I were a ballet student, could I get foreign language credit for learning the mambo?

[Victoria wrote] AND IN LEARNING THESE NOTATION SYSTEMS DANCERS COME TO SEE MOVEMENT IN NEW TERMS, TO UNDERSTAND IDEAS THAT LAY BEYOND THEIR REACH BEFORE THE CONCEPTS OF THE LANGUAGE, AND THE POINT OF VIEW IT REPRESENTS, WERE CRITIQUED AND ASSIMILATED.

[Greg responds] I agree.

[Victoria wrote] SO GREG, I WOULDN'T BE HORRIFIED IF A DANCE SCHOLAR RECEIVED LANGUAGE CREDIT FOR ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF A MOVEMENT NOTATION SYSTEM, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T FIND IT APPALLING THAT A MUSICIAN CAN GET CREDIT FOR READING DANCE NOTATION. WHEN SO FEW DANCERS DO, I ACTUALLY FIND IT FAIRLY COMENDABLE.

[Greg responds] But why "language" credit? People get credit for everything they do in school, course credits, papers, examinations. Shouldn't the foreign language credit be reserved for foreign language competency? To me it would make more sense to replace one of the qualifying exams with a demonstration of LN competency, or to accept an annotated LN score in lieu of a master's thesis. At least some minimal foreign language competency, such as that required to pass the typical exams you find in graduate schools, is a life skill whose importance goes far beyond the specifics of a university or advanced degree program.
If you want to support LN, touting it as a replacement for learning other things is not a method that's likely to succeed in the long run.

Discussion 10, by Karen Bradley, September 6, 2000

Wow--my e-mail was full this morning!

I think the discussion is great and I forwarded most of it to Judy [see Discussion 1]. Some of it is right in line with what she is grappling with in her article.

I want to weigh in--gently--on some of the issues:

The educational issue: Some doctoral programs require competency in two other-than-English languages. I think there is (or should be) a distinction between "foreign" language and language systems. I'm thinking that when I had this conversation many years ago with someone from NYU, that distinction was made. There is certainly great value in learning another language/culture/literature both to avoid our ingrained sense of the supremacy of American thinking and to access the canon of another world view. There is also value in having fluency in a language system that is inherent to one's field of study. If I ran the world, I'd hold out for both.

The language issue: Judy and I really got into this on the phone yesterday. I am certainly no expert on language or semiotics; I am the recipient of many pearls from Sally Ness and Bob Dunn on the subject of LMA as a language. I distinguish between L/N and LMA on this front because I do think L/N is a kind of script and does not claim to be a language system per se, but a tool for observation and preservation of data. LMA has larger aspirations and my questions have to do with whether LMA could be considered a "language". If anyone wants to get into this issue with me, we should do so off the list as I can't imagine Mr. Starhawk --or many others--would care to wrestle at this level.

Discussion 11, by Lee Carlson, September 6, 2000

I think L/N should be part of the mathematics department. After all, the entire system can be thought of as a finite state machine or even a Markov process with a large number of states...reflecting the fact that all forms of dance are inherently mathematical...Western or not.

Discussion 12, by Victoria Watts, September 6, 2000

[Responding to Greg Shenaut's comments in Discussion 9]

[Greg wrote] BUT WHY "LANGUAGE" CREDIT? PEOPLE GET CREDIT FOR EVERYTHING THEY DO IN SCHOOL, COURSE CREDITS, PAPERS, EXAMINATIONS. SHOULDN'T THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE CREDIT BE RESERVED FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE COMPETENCY? TO ME IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO REPLACE ONE OF THE QUALIFYING EXAMS WITH A DEMONSTRATION OF LN COMPETENCY, OR TO ACCEPT AN ANNOTATED LN SCORE IN LIEU OF A MASTER'S THESIS. AT LEAST SOME MINIMAL FOREIGN LANGUAGE COMPETENCY, SUCH AS THAT REQUIRED TO PASS THE TYPICAL EXAMS YOU FIND IN GRADUATE SCHOOLS, IS A LIFE SKILL WHOSE IMPORTANCE GOES FAR BEYOND THE SPECIFICS OF A UNIVERSITY OR ADVANCED DEGREE PROGRAM.

[Victoria responds] This is a point well taken. I studied French and German at Advanced Level in England and have found those language skills to be invaluable in all areas of my life, even though they are now a little rusty. I had always imagined that a foreign language requirement in the humanities was to give scholars access to a wider range of source materials. In dance, language skills and notation skills both accomplish this task in very different ways.

I had not stopped to consider that at PhD level there would be a need to encourage language acquisition for its own sake. However if people need to be given credit for life skills, and to be cajoled into broadening their outlook at that point in their educations, then your point stands. I can only concur ;-)

Discussion 13, by Greg Shenaut, September 6, 2000

[Responding to comments not included in this reprint]

But, you see, LN is not a language. True, it is a skill, but there are many skills that are required to be mastered in earning an advanced degree, but none of them satisfy language competency requirements, as far as I know, unless they are actually languages.

I think we need to remember that the language requirement has been around as long as universities themselves.

Not to mention primary schools: Latin & Greek were assumed to be known by all educated people and could serve as the means of communication between those with different native languages. I suspect, without any specific knowledge, that the requirement that one or two "modern" foreign languages be known is somewhat more recent.

Yes, the original rational is still sufficient: to allow greater access to scholarly materials written in other languages.

"Life skill" doesn't have anything to do with "different ways to conceive of the universe". Learning a foreign language is a life skill because it can be applied to many areas of one's life as a scholar, even areas far afield from what one studied while in school. This is part of what it means to be an "independent scholar", in my view, which is why the requirement exists.

Take me for example: I got my PhD in linguistics, and during my years in grad school passed language competence exams in three languages, but was exposed to many more. Since moving out into the RW [real world], I now almost never read anything from the field of linguistics--most of my academic reading now is in psychology and, increasingly, in dance. In other words, I have evolved as a scholar in a way that has carried me away from what I once concentrated in. But the language and other general skills I learned in school have enabled me to have access to many otherwise inaccessible documents in all of the areas that have attracted my attention over the years. That's why it's a "life skill".

As far as I'm concerned, LN is a life skill in this sense too, along with C programming and grant writing--they're just not "foreign languages".

And, it's true that you can always pick up another language. But I still find it quite awkward literally to equate LN with natural languages.

Discussion 14, by Edward "Ted" Warburton, September 6, 2000

I have recently completed my doctoral dissertation entitled "The Dance on Paper" at Harvard University (Howard Gardner, Advisor). In this study, I examine the effects of notation-use on learning and development in dance. (A peer-reviewed version is to be published by the newly minted Research in Dance Education journal this Fall).

Of all the reading and study that I have done, two books stand out as especially helpful on the issue of dance as language: 1. "Languages of art: An approach to the theory of symbols" (Goodman, 1976) and 2. "The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading" (Olson, 1994).

Since it seems disingenuous of me to recommend reference material and not to offer a view, for what it's worth here's my position: As in the domains of verbal language and music, dance is indeed a language with its own unique notation system, and there are real, "cognitive" implications for its use (and disuse) in dance.

Discussion 15, by Karen Bradley, September 7, 2000

[Responding to Greg Shenaut's comments in Discussion 13]

First of all though I have to say that my perspective on why "foreign" language is essential to an educated person's life predates the entire concept of PC-ness. My mother worked for the State Dept. programming foreign visitors to the US while I was growing up and she, formidable woman that she is, ingrained us with the notion that Americans were notoriously arrogant about other cultures and learning a language was much more than being able to order indigenous foods correctly while travelling or even to translate writing from another language to English. Learning a language means entering into another world view. It means understanding the culture from the inside-out. It should mean we can enter into that culture-mind with some insight. Although it is impossible to "get" every nuance and attitude from language study, we can come a little closer to understanding. I think this is why Latin and Greek are valuable languages. Most of us will not be doing the latest translation of Cicero, but it is essential to understanding say, the dance of that time to experience the conceptual framework of the thinking.

And that's where I get muddled up with the notion that LN is a language. Languages are much more than symbol systems. I can understand LN to be like writing, but writing in English is only part of understanding English. Writing does reflect our thinking though. In this way, I think LMA is more language-like. It asks us to consider context and phrasing as well as space and meter. Or maybe movement is the language and LMA is the syntax and LN is the script.

At any rate, when I was Director of the Cert. Program in LMS, we used the phrase "Be fluent in your other native language" to let people know what the essence of the training was. I don't think of movement, or the analysis of it, to be foreign, but native. This is where the purpose of the language requirement in doctoral programs is essential to deciding if LN or LMA fulfills the requirement. If "foreign" is the operative word and we really want PhDs to have more than one world view, I would not think LN or LMA would qualify. However, if we want PhDs in Dance and related areas to be able to get inside the MOVEMENT of other culture-minds, LMA and/or LN would be appropriate as research methods. I guess then it might be comparable to stats in other fields.

(OOH, how did you all feel about the comment that LN should be taught in the MATH Dept.? I notice no one picked that one up!)

When I describe LMA, I call it a map. Like all maps, it has its distortions but we try to be vigilant and insightful about what these are. It's not the only map but I find it immensely useful in decoding human expression and communication. While LMA and LN have cultural biases (note recent discussions about notating African dance), LMA (and maybe LN--it's been a long time for me!) aspires to account for these and expand to include all aspects of human movement behavior.

Discussion 16, by Ilene Fox, September 7, 2000

[Responding to Karen Bradley's comments in Discussion 15]

[Karen wrote] AND THAT'S WHERE I GET MUDDLED UP WITH THE NOTION THAT LN IS A LANGUAGE. LANGUAGES ARE MUCH MORE THAN SYMBOL SYSTEMS. I CAN UNDERSTAND LN TO BE LIKE WRITING, BUT WRITING IN ENGLISH IS ONLY PART OF UNDERSTANDING ENGLISH. WRITING DOES REFLECT OUR THINKING THOUGH. IN THIS WAY, I THINK LMA IS MORE LANGUAGE-LIKE. IT ASKS US TO CONSIDER CONTEXT AND PHRASING AS WELL AS SPACE AND METER. OR MAYBE MOVEMENT IS THE LANGUAGE AND LMA IS THE SYNTAX AND LN IS THE SCRIPT.

[Ilene responds] I am not arguing that LN is a language, but I will argue that it is much more than a script. The development of the system reflects ways of thinking about movement. The early development reflects a spatial bias. Later developments bring in other ways of thinking of movement, such as with a body emphasis or by looking at relationships. To use LN one must consider context and phrasing, that is not just an element of LMA. I think Karen has oversimplified in her statement above. Looking at different notation systems, one can see different ways of thinking of movement that are used as a basis. In LN, the underlying concept is space, although it has developed to be able to describe movement in other ways, Benesh is based on body relationships, such as the end of the arm is at waist level, Eshkol Wachmann is based on a spatial coordinate system.

Looking just at LN, when it is used well, one can often get an idea of how the movement was thought of by how it is written. What I am getting at is the choice not just the symbol. In English, we can say "Dinner is served." We can say, "Come and get it." We can see, "Here are the eats." Each choice gives a different flavor, no pun intended. The script is what we use to write down the choice. With notation too, there are choices. The script is what is used to write the choice, but there is a whole conceptual system that can be used to express ideas. In English, we have letters that are put together to make words which express meanings. In LN we have a script which can be put together to express movement concepts which express meaning.

[Karen wrote] AT ANY RATE, WHEN I WAS DIRECTOR OF THE CERT. PROGRAM IN LMS, WE USED THE PHRASE "BE FLUENT IN YOUR OTHER NATIVE LANGUAGE" TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THE ESSENCE OF THE TRAINING WAS. I DON'T THINK OF MOVEMENT, OR THE ANALYSIS OF IT, TO BE FOREIGN, BUT NATIVE. THIS IS WHERE THE PURPOSE OF THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT IN DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IS ESSENTIAL TO DECIDING IF LN OR LMA FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENT. IF "FOREIGN" IS THE OPERATIVE WORD AND WE REALLY WANT PHDS TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE WORLD VIEW, I WOULD NOT THINK LN OR LMA WOULD QUALIFY. HOWEVER, IF WE WANT PHDS IN DANCE AND RELATED AREAS TO BE ABLE TO GET INSIDE THE MOVEMENT OF OTHER CULTURE-MINDS, LMA AND/OR LN WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AS RESEARCH METHODS. I GUESS THEN IT MIGHT BE COMPARABLE TO STATS IN OTHER FIELDS.

[Ilene responds] I strongly believe that both LN and LMA have a particular view, a way of looking at movement. They are not innate. Going back to the example before, a Benesh practitioner might look at a movement differently than a Laban one. Both LN and LMA teach a particular "movement" view. I have found that I no longer use the word "natural" to describe movement as what is "natural" in [one movement culture is anything but "natural" in another. In working and teaching dancers of other cultures and who work with other dance genres, too many examples of this have come up. LMA and LN teach one way of looking at movement.
I had heard that Texas Woman's University allowed LN to fulfill a foreign language requirement, but would suggest you check with Penny Hanstein to confirm it.

Discussion 17, by Leslie Rotman, September 7, 2000

I don't know about other schools, but Sarah Lawrence College did accept my fully completed and certified Labanotation Score as my master's thesis. It was not annotated, but had passed the certification process at the DNB.

Discussion 18, by Karen Bradley, September 7, 2000

[Responding to Ilene Fox's comments in Discussion 16]

Thanks for weighing in here Ilene. I'm not nearly as attuned to LN as I am to LMA and I know you understand both approaches. I did not mean to oversimplify and thanks for pulling some of this stuff out...

As a research tool, I agree that the LN/LMA material has a perspective. So, of course, does statistical analysis. Bias exists in any research tool and must be accounted for. I have a quote on my wall: "Real objectivity is not impersonality but wholeness; the filling out of personality to more nearly match the width of the world." I do think we have aspirations to wholeness that are admirable, if elusive.

Discussion 19, by Jack Clark, September 7, 2000

I'm not going to get too involved in this - BUT ! I would like to put my 2 cents in. As a teacher of Labanotation I am constantly relying of the fact that the notation symbol equals a movement response. Symbol = a response. This is then integrated into the whole of the context of the bigger framework of what will be expected in a movement score. This context includes timing, interrelationship of body parts that are moving, phrases, phrasing, meaning (by which I mean how it relates to a specific movement style, technique, or movement vocabulary, or choreographic image/intention...etc). and where that mover is located in the room or stage space. Training the response to one Labanotation symbol is identical in my thought to training the voice to find a note or the mind to attach a vowel sound in response to the visual aid of the alphabet (the visual symbol of "A") but instead of sound, you get movement. The final goal is the same. To communicate in symbol form. That may be part of the "EURO-centric" definition of language as is.

Each Germanic based "language" has a bias as to which sound a symbol will create. In Labanotation, even though it is full of conceptual biases, I feel that the training system is set up to provide an alphabet that will adapt to a variety of movement languages, intentions and conceptual biases that are present in both the movement and in the observer. Labanotation has the tools to describe the same movement from multiple points of views as it pertains to what is being perceived or communicated in the movement. In order to reinterpret the observed movement into symbol forms, some form of conceptual bias must be acknowledged on the part of the mover, or the person notating it. (I come from a drawing and design background, so I tend to relate to the spatial results of movement 1st even if it's not a preoccupation of the mover in front of me - so I need to watch myself when I answer interpretation questions from my students that I don't answer in a space bias). There are many biases inherited in the Labanotation conceptual framework supporting the symbol system, even in the evolution of the autography as it relates to the original block symbol design as a throw-back to the gestalt of 1930's European textile designs and Cubists influences. But these kinds of biases are also present in every written/spoken language. These biases set a portion the context of a language, another element to a "classic" definition of language.

Just recently, those infamous Lifeforms programmers who helped develop the Laban-LifeForms interface were trained in the use of Labanotation to accomplish this project, and as a result, a few of the minor animation problems the LifeForms program had developed due to the biased "anatomical" language used in the interpretation of arm movement direction was modified by the programmers.

Maybe we cannot answer the question today that Labanotation is a language that can be studied in the classic sense of the definition, after all it is only 70-odd years old. But it may eventually find itself becoming a future one through similar initiatives. It has the potential.

Discussion 20, by Naomi Isaacson, September 8, 2000

[Responding to Jack Clark's comments in Discussion 19]

Is it not more accurate to say that Movement is a language, and the notation "vocabulary" both an element of this language and an essential tool for understanding and recording the various "dialects"? The symbol system is essentially a script representing the response it should elicit; we should not confuse the understanding which lies behind the choice of symbol with the actual graphic representation - though of course the choice is governed by the understanding of the movement. The specific dialect determines the choice and arrangement of the symbols which will best convey the imagery and meaning required by the movement. Whilst "symbol = a response" is a useful way of encouraging readers to move quickly through the symbol to the movement, in itself the symbol does not "equal" a response - it represents one. Whilst it would be good to have notation accepted as valid in the study of an extra language, it would probably be more honest to classify the language as Movement, with the notation as an aid to studying - or expanding on - the vocabulary and literature. Perhaps "Movement Vocabulary and Notation" could then fall under the language dept. Is Deaf Sign Language accepted as an extra/"foreign" language??

Re Lifeforms - why "infamous"? As I've been exploring computer animation recently I'd greatly appreciate knowing anything relevant.

Discussion 21, by Georgette Gorchoff September 8, 2000

[Responding to Naomi Isaacson's comments in Discussion 20]

Scripting languages are used by developers who rely on programs, and programmers use various "languages" (such as C++). The LabanWriter program offers us a means to record dances and the LifeForms' program will provide an animated visualization of Labanotation scores. There are several scripting languages (but scripters aren't necessarily programmers since they rely on various programs to develop applications). Like Labanotation, programming is not an end in itself, but the means to another end. It may be called our alphabet for the language of movement.

Discussion 22, by Greg Shenaut, September 8, 2000

[Responding to Naomi Isaacson's comments in Discussion 20]

[Naomi wrote] IS IT NOT MORE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT MOVEMENT IS A LANGUAGE, AND THE NOTATION "VOCABULARY" BOTH AN ELEMENT OF THIS LANGUAGE AND AN ESSENTIAL TOOL FOR UNDERSTANDING AND RECORDING THE VARIOUS "DIALECTS"?

[Greg responds] That's an interesting metaphor, but "Movement" (with systems to represent it) is not, generally speaking, a language in the literal sense of the term.

To make this clear, consider that natural languages are all learned automatically by children; may or may not even have an orthography; have somewhat well-known brain regions dedicated to them; there are "native" languages and "second" languages, each with their own brain and behavioral traits.

Human languages are not designed, they evolve naturally and are constrained not by considerations of efficiency and elegance, but by limits on human perception, memory, and attentional capacity. They also continually change due to contact with other languages and just due to "style".

Natural languages are capable of easily making many distinctions of meaning that would be immensely awkward or perhaps even impossible to make through movement. For example, imagine how hard it would be to communicate this thread through dance or LN.

There is a body of literature describing universal properties of human language, including various levels and features of these levels. A symbol system that shares few if any of the traits of natural languages, such as LN, would be a very poor candidate for "languagehood".

Furthermore and more importantly, in human languages there is a (predominantly) arbitrary relationship between a symbol and its sense. That is, it is possible for a certain sequence of sounds to mean one thing in one language and a totally unrelated thing in another. In contrast, the relationship between movement and meaning is not arbitrary: dancers are basically acting out "things" in most cases. Of course the connection between a gesture and its intended meaning can be played with ad infinitum, but at its core, communication through movement starts with mimicry, not with an arbitrary learned vocabulary and syntax.

This actually makes dance, along with other forms of art, "more" effective as a way to communicate some kinds of meaning: there is something about direct, nonarbitrary representation that allows emotions to be communicated very effectively nonlinguistically. Slapping someone in the face is not a linguistic act, but it certainly communicates very effectively compared to handing them a piece of paper with "I'm angry at you" written on it.

To me, saying that dance is not a language doesn't denigrate dance at all, because human language, in addition to having many capabilities that dance does not, also has many limitations that dance does not. The two are just different.

[Naomi wrote] DEAF SIGN LANGUAGE ACCEPTED AS AN EXTRA/"FOREIGN" LANGUAGE??

[Greg responds] Sign is an interesting case, because it is indeed a language. It shares most of the attributes of spoken language, including many elements of phonology. But it is unlikely that it would be accepted by many departments to satisfy the foreign language competency requirement, because as has been pointed out in this thread before, the goal of the requirement is to verify that candidates have access to scholarly literature published in languages other than English. Sign, not being a written language, would not facilitate such access.

Discussion 23, by Naomi Isaacson's, September 10, 2000

[Responding to her own and Greg Shenaut's comments in Discussion 22]

Whoops! Anyone short of time or space, stop right here! I have copious thoughts on each of Greg's points, but will be as succinct as possible...!

[Naomi wrote in Discussion 20] Is it not more accurate to say that Movement is a language, and the notation "vocabulary" both an element of this language and an essential tool for understanding and recording the various "dialects"?

[Greg wrote in Discussion 22] THAT'S AN INTERESTING METAPHOR, BUT "MOVEMENT" (WITH SYSTEMS TO REPRESENT IT) IS NOT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, A LANGUAGE IN THE LITERAL SENSE OF THE TERM.

[Naomi responds] Can't find my Oxford dictionary right now, so Webster will have to do: language: a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventional signs, sounds, gestures or marks having understood meanings......etc, etc. - perhaps the last would even qualify Ln as a language...???

[Greg wrote in Discussion 22] TO MAKE THIS CLEAR, CONSIDER THAT NATURAL LANGUAGES ARE ALL LEARNED AUTOMATICALLY BY CHILDREN; MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN HAVE AN ORTHOGRAPHY; HAVE SOMEWHAT WELL-KNOWN BRAIN REGIONS DEDICATED TO THEM; THERE ARE "NATIVE" LANGUAGES AND "SECOND" LANGUAGES, EACH WITH THEIR OWN BRAIN AND BEHAVIORAL TRAITS.

[Naomi responds] Before a human even emerges from the womb and utters its first cry, it starts moving (anyone who's been pregnant can vouch for this!). We don't yet know enough about the brain to allocate a specific region dedicated to "movement language"; although humans have many basic actions common universally, each group develops its own "native" action patterns as well as certain localized "secondary" postures and gestures.

[Greg wrote in Discussion 22] HUMAN LANGUAGES ARE NOT DESIGNED, THEY EVOLVE NATURALLY AND ARE CONSTRAINED NOT BY CONSIDERATIONS OF EFFICIENCY AND ELEGANCE, BUT BY LIMITS ON HUMAN PERCEPTION, MEMORY, AND ATTENTIONAL CAPACITY.
[Naomi responds] I believe the above applies to basic movement too - but if languages were completely undesigned and unconstrained, would we have grammar or syntax rules? Admittedly, the latter tend to be loosely used particularly amongst lesser "educated" people, but they do exist in almost every verbal language.

[Greg wrote in Discussion 22] THEY ALSO CONTINUALLY CHANGE DUE TO CONTACT WITH OTHER LANGUAGES AND JUST DUE TO "STYLE".

[ Naomi responds] So does movement language - I notice this daily here in South Africa, where after so many years there is now greater mingling of the various ethnic and religious groups. I don't know the politically correct terms in the US (these seem to change from time to time the world over), so forgive the arbitrary "colour" classification, which is used with great respect for everyone but is an easy way of illustrating my point: "Black" South Africans now operative in the business and commercial sector at higher levels than were permitted under apartheid seem to be adopting Western dress, postural and gestural patterns, whilst many (mainly teenage, I think - but I haven't done proper research on this) "white" people are adopting (or trying to) the less inhibited movement patterns originally more "natural" to other ethnic groups. Although this is interchange is most apparent in the current eclecticism of both social and performance dance, it is perceptible even in general functional movement.

[Greg wrote in Discussion 22] NATURAL LANGUAGES ARE CAPABLE OF EASILY MAKING MANY DISTINCTIONS OF MEANING THAT WOULD BE IMMENSELY AWKWARD OR PERHAPS EVEN IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE THROUGH MOVEMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, IMAGINE HOW HARD IT WOULD BE TO COMMUNICATE THIS THREAD THROUGH DANCE OR LN.

[Naomi responds] believe the reason we have "art" languages such as dance, music, painting and sculpture is that verbal language is inadequate to express certain distinctions of meaning for which these "languages" are superior. So it's irrelevant whether I could say in movement what I'm saying now in words; to qualify as language my medium does not have to be able to communicate everything I can say verbally.

[Greg wrote in Discussion 22] THERE IS A BODY OF LITERATURE DESCRIBING UNIVERSAL PROPERTIES OF HUMAN LANGUAGE, INCLUDING VARIOUS LEVELS AND FEATURES OF THESE LEVELS. A SYMBOL SYSTEM THAT SHARES FEW IF ANY OF THE TRAITS OF NATURAL LANGUAGES, SUCH AS LN, WOULD BE A VERY POOR CANDIDATE FOR "LANGUAGEHOOD".

[Naomi responds] Universal human characteristics include the potential to kill for reasons other than food, loss of temper, status-seeking, an over-riding lust for power, a belief in one's own superiority, belligerence, awkwardness, inadequacy, dishonesty, greed,....etc. Should we say that a person manifesting few if any of these traits would be a poor candidate for "humanhood"?

[Greg wrote in Discussion 22] FURTHERMORE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IN HUMAN LANGUAGES THERE IS A (PREDOMINANTLY) ARBITRARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A SYMBOL AND ITS SENSE. THAT IS, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A CERTAIN SEQUENCE OF SOUNDS TO MEAN ONE THING IN ONE LANGUAGE AND A TOTALLY UNRELATED THING IN ANOTHER.

[Naomi responds] This is true of movement too. Certain very widespread gestures mean different things in different places or societies. Also, deaf sign language differs from country to country.

[Greg wrote in Discussion 22] IN CONTRAST, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOVEMENT AND MEANING IS NOT ARBITARY: DANCERS ARE BASICALLY ACTING OUT "THINGS" IN MOST CASES. OF COURSE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN A GESTURE AND ITS INTENDED MEANING CAN BE PLAYED WITH AD INFINITUM, BUT AT ITS CORE, COMMUNICATION THROUGH MOVEMENT STARTS WITH MIMICRY, NOT WITH AN ARBITARY LEARNED VOCABULARY AND SYNTAX.

[Naomi responds] Doesn't this contradict your point (3) above?? Verbal communication in language form also tends to start with mimicry. We also need to differentiate between mere "self-expression" and "communication".

[Greg wrote in Discussion 22] THIS ACTUALLY MAKES DANCE, ALONG WITH OTHER FORMS OF ART, "MORE" EFFECTIVE AS A WAY TO COMMUNICATE SOME KINDS OF MEANING: THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT DIRECT, NONARBITRARY REPRESENTATION THAT ALLOWS EMOTIONS TO BE COMMUNICATED VERY EFFECTIVELY NONLINGUISTICALLY. SLAPPING SOMEONE IN THE FACE IS NOT A LINGUISTIC ACT, BUT IT CERTAINLY COMMUNICATES VERY EFFECTIVELY COMPARED TO HANDING THEM A PIECE OF PAPER WITH "I'M ANGRY AT YOU" WRITTEN ON IT.

[Naomi responds] The language of a slap as distinct from a gentle touching gesture using a similar spatial and body pattern but with different effort elements, indicates that the "linguistic" structure of movement is important to its communicative power.

[Greg wrote in Discussion 22] TO ME, SAYING THAT DANCE IS NOT A LANGUAGE DOESN'T DENIGRATE DANCE AT ALL, BECAUSE HUMAN LANGUAGE, IN ADDITION TO HAVING MANY CAPABILITIES THAT DANCE DOES NOT, ALSO HAS MANY LIMITATIONS THAT DANCE DOES NOT. THE TWO ARE JUST DIFFERENT.

[Naomi responds] The nature, structure and imagery of different verbal languages is (are?) also varied - but their differences do not disqualify them from being classified as languages.

[Naomi wrote in Discussion 20] Is Deaf Sign Language accepted as an extra/"foreign" language??

[Greg wrote in Discussion 22] SIGN IS AN INTERESTING CASE, BECAUSE IT IS INDEED A LANGUAGE. IT SHARES MOST OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF SPOKEN LANGUAGE, INCLUDING MANY ELEMENTS OF PHONOLOGY. BUT IT IS UNLIKELY THAT IT WOULD BE ACCEPTED BY MANY DEPARTMENTS TO SATISFY THE FOREIGN LANGUAGE COMPETENCY REQUIREMENT, BECAUSE AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THIS THREAD BEFORE, THE GOAL OF THE REQUIREMENT IS TO VERIFY THAT CANDIDATES HAVE ACCESS TO SCHOLARLY LITERATURE PUBLISHED IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH. SIGN, NOT BEING A WRITTEN LANGUAGE, WOULD NOT FACILITATE SUCH ACCESS.

[Naomi responds] With greater use of video and notation of sign language (which has been explored, even if it is currently cumbersome and complex), perhaps this can change? Of course the student would have to study the sign language of a specific "foreign" country to satisfy your requirement for literature published in languages other than English.
Of course, whether any of the above has validity within a conventional language department would depend on whether language study is perceived as an end in itself or as a means for the acquisition of a wider range of knowledge, including non-verbal/experiential learning.

Discussion 24, by Naomi Isaacson September 10, 2000

[Responding to Georgette Gorchoff's comments in Discussion 21]

Thanks for your comments - but rather than a query re notation and computers, my question was specifically in relation to what appears, from Greg's comment, to be a problem with the Lifeforms programmers - I wanted to know what the problem was/is as it may be relevant to my own work.

Discussion 25, by Karen Bradley September 10, 2000

[Responding to Naomi Isaacson's comments in Discussion 23]

This is wonderful--Greg's posting sent me right to my books on language acquisition and I was thinking along the same lines. Greg's explanation of why LN is not a language epursuasive evidence that it is at least a representation of the language-like aspects of movement.

Discussion 26, by Joukje Kolff September 10, 2000

I studied Computational Linguistics at the University of Amsterdam. My final thesis investigated the structure of Labanotation, rather than that of a spoken language. Not quite a situation where the foreign language requirement is replaced by Labanotation, but the faculty accepted a thesis where the focus on spoken language was replaced by a focus on movement.
The thesis presented a formal model, that could be used by a computer to describe movement, which was based on Labanotation as well as on an existing linguistic model.

Discussion 27, by Greg Shenaut September 10, 2000

[Responding to Naomi Isaacson's comments in Discussion 23]

I'm sending Naomi a detailed reply to her comments off the list.

I think what is going on here is something that happens all the time when different academic "cultures" collide. I'm coming at this as a linguist. As such, I've studied languages and language theory for quite a while, and I think I "know" some things about them, including what a language "is". Naomi is coming at this from a movement studies perspective, with a different set of facts and goals.

For me, in order for the things I know about language to "work", a language must be a certain thing; if those properties are absent, then a lot of what I "know" will just vanish.

On the other hand, if you don't happen to be a linguist with such an investment in a certain boundary on "language", then you are free to use "language" in a much less nit-picky way, as a metaphor for any system of communication or set of symbols. You can pick and choose what language-y things you want to use for your own rhetorical purposes. No one would suggest, for example, that your generalizations about a set of movements would require a modification of someone else's theory of noun phrases in Swedish, but within linguistics, it is common practice to apply a result from one language to the analysis of others.

I'm sure that the same thing applies in movement/dance studies: for example, I've seen things on this list that indicate pressure on Laban formalism as the result of observations about non-European dance forms. If changes are made as a result of this, then analyses of European movement could potentially be affected. But it is very hard to imagine how anything about the LN formalism or Laban analysis could ever affect formal models of language in linguistics, or vice versa.

However, I don't think that this metaphorical use of "language" is useful when it comes to the foreign language requirement in grad school. The competency exams are usually pretty simple, such as translating a page from a foreign language journal, or even just answering some questions about an article in a foreign language. Half the words per scholarly article are probably the same as in English anyway, because professional jargon tends to cross language boundaries. It is not an extreme hardship to pass one of these exams, and there is a considerable pay-off.

In a typical university library, there will be thousands of books and journals in the major languages, but not usually very many LN scores. Not only that, even published LN scores tend to have considerable written language associated with them: discussion of how the movements and score came to be developed, explanations of abbreviations or made-up symbols, explanations of movement sequences in words, and comments in the score itself. The ones I've seen have had this extra stuff written in English, but that is only an accident: there is nothing about LN itself that would prevent explanatory material, etc., from being written in some other language.

If I were not a reader of English, it would be hard for me to get the full impact of, say, the Bournonville classes in LN, because there is actually more English than LN in the package.

While it may not be as big an issue for Americans, since most documents found in American university libraries are in English, I think that it serves the world academic community very well to make sure that all holders of advanced degrees are capable of reading one or two foreign languages.

If a department really wants to encourage its students to learn other things "besides" languages, then I don't have such a large problem with saying something like, either demonstrate competence in two foreign languages OR one foreign language and a dance notation system. After all, many departments, including the one in which I currently labor, have no foreign language requirement at all.

My problem comes when you use a dance notation system to "satisfy" rather than possibly to "replace" the foreign language requirement.

That's just what I think.

Discussion 28, by Sandi Kurtz, September 25, 2000

Interestingly, in reference to another discussion, the abstract ["Combining Positional Behavior with Labanotation in Bonobos and Gorillas," refers to L/N as being "language-like." It's a tiny world...

Discussion 29, by Jimmyle Listenbee September 28, 2000

Are you all familiar with Valerie Sutton's Sign Writing system for ASL & other sign languages? It uses visually-designed symbols to represent hand shape, motion, facial expression and body shift. Its logic somewhat overlaps Laban-based notation systems. Her thinking on the relationship of movement notation to "spoken" language is very informative to the consideration of Laban-based notation as a "language." Her website: www.singwriting.org