Book contents
- The Evolution, Acquisition, and Development of Syntax
- The Evolution, Acquisition, and Development of Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The Evolution of Syntax
- Part II The Acquisition of Syntax
- 7 Acquisition of Negation in Jamaican
- 8 Missing Subjects in Creole Acquisition: Insights from Jamaican and Morisyen
- 9 Home Signs as a Window on Language Creation
- 10 Young Children Creating Grammars: Are Twins’ Languages Like Pidgins or Creoles?
- Part III The Development of Syntax
- Index
- References
9 - Home Signs as a Window on Language Creation
from Part II - The Acquisition of Syntax
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 February 2025
By
Book contents
- The Evolution, Acquisition, and Development of Syntax
- The Evolution, Acquisition, and Development of Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The Evolution of Syntax
- Part II The Acquisition of Syntax
- 7 Acquisition of Negation in Jamaican
- 8 Missing Subjects in Creole Acquisition: Insights from Jamaican and Morisyen
- 9 Home Signs as a Window on Language Creation
- 10 Young Children Creating Grammars: Are Twins’ Languages Like Pidgins or Creoles?
- Part III The Development of Syntax
- Index
- References
Summary
Adone’s chapter focuses on home signs, bringing to light the acquisition process against a background of ‘normless’ language environment (Bakker, this volume) and in the absence of exposure to a ‘conventional language model’ (Adone 2005). She thus discusses what absence of exposure means when looking at children home signers. In comparison to previous work, Adone shows that the absence of a conventional language model does not mean complete absence of input. She argues that children ‘scan’ their environment for input and use every bit of language-related information as input. Adone further argues that the verb chains in child home signers’ initial grammars develop into adult-like serial verb constructions. This development can be interpreted as evidence for the view that children exploit input to the best of their ability to ‘create language’.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Evolution, Acquisition and Development of SyntaxInsights from Creole Languages and Beyond, pp. 154 - 169Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Adone, D. (2005). Acquisition without a language model: The case of Mauritian Home Sign. In A. Brugos, M. Clark-Cotton and S. Ha (eds.), BUCLD 29: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 12–33.Google Scholar
Adone, D. (2007). From gestures to Mauritian Sign Language. Paper presented at the Current Issues in Sign language Research Conference. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Adone, D. (2012). The Acquisition of Creole Languages: How Children Surpass Their Input. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adone, D. (2018). Co-speech gestures in Morisyen interaction. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Arbib, M. A. and Bickerton, D. (2010). The Emergence of Protolanguage: Holophrasis vs Compositionality. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1984). The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(2), 173–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00044149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (2010). But how did protolanguage actually start? In Arbib, M. A. and Bickerton, D. (eds.), The Emergence of Protolanguage: Holophrasis vs Compositionality. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 167–74.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (2014). More than Nature Needs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brück, M. A. (2016). Lalang, Zes ek Kiltir: Multimodal reference marking in Kreol Seselwa. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. (1999). Do signers gesture? In Oxford University Press eBooks, pp. 133–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524519.003.0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fusellier-Souza, I. (2006). Emergence and development of sign languages: From a semiogenetic point of view. Sign Language Studies, 7(1), 30–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebert, A. and Adone, D. (2006). Mauritian Sign Language. Language des Signes Mauricienne. Lang Sign Morisien. Vol. I. Vacoas: Editions le Printemps.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003a). Lexical development without a language model. In Hall, G. and Waxman, S. (eds.), Weaving a Lexicon. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press, pp. 225–56.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003b). Thought before language: Do we think ergative? In Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, (eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 493–522.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003c). Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003d). The Resilience of Language. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). Homesign: Gesture to language. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M. and Woll, B. (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 601–25.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. and Feldman, H. M. (1975). The creation of a communication system: A study of deaf children of hearing parents. Sign Language Studies, 1008(1), 225–33. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1975.0011Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. and Feldman, H. M. (1977). The development of language-like communication without a language model. Science, 197, 401–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, S. and Mylander, C. (1984). Gestural communication in deaf children: The effects and non-effects of parental input on early language development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49(3/4). https://doi.org/10.2307/1165838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. and Mylander, C. (1990a). Beyond the input given: The child’s role in the acquisition of language. Language, 66, 323–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. and Mylander, C. (1990b). The role of parental input in the development of a morphological system. Journal of Child Language, 17(3), 527–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900010874CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, S. and Mylander, C. (1998). Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature 91, 279–81.Google Scholar
Iverson, J. M. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science, 16(5), 367–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01542.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kegl, J. and Iwata, G. (1989). Lenguaje de Signos Nicaragüense: A pidgin sheds light on the “Creole?” ASL. In Carlson, R. S., DeLancey, S., Gildea, S., Payne, D. and Saxena, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference. Eugene, OR: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon, pp. 266–94.Google Scholar
Kegl, J. and McWhorter, J. (1997). Perspectives on an emerging language. Proceedings of the Stanford Child Language Research Forum. Palo Alto: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 15–36.Google Scholar
Kegl, J., Senghas, A. and Coppola, M. (1999). Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In DeGraff, M. (ed.), Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony, and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 179–237.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1980a). Description of a Deaf-mute sign language from the Enga Province of Papua New Guinea with some comparative discussion. Part I: The formational properties of Enga Sign Language. Semiotica, 32(1/2), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (1980b). Description of a Deaf-mute sign language from the Enga Province of Papua New Guinea with some comparative discussion. Part II: The semiotic functioning of Enga Signs. Semiotica, 32(1/2), 81–117.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1980c). Description of a Deaf-mute sign language from the Enga Province of Papua New Guinea with some comparative discussion. Part III: Aspects of utterance construction. Semiotica, 32(3/4), 245–313.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1982). The study of gesture: Some observations on its history. Recherches Semiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry, 2(1), 45–62Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1988). Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, Semiotic and Communicative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuschel, R. (1973). The silent inventor: The creation of a sign language by the only Deaf-mute on a Polynesian Island. Sign Language Studies, 3, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2000). Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morford, J. P., Singleton, J. L. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (1995). From homesign to ASL: Identifying the influences of a self-generated childhood gesture system upon language proficiency in adulthood. In MacLaughlin, D. and McEwen, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 104–13.Google Scholar
Morford, J. P. and Kegl, J. (2000). Gestural precursors to linguistic constructs: How input shapes the form of language. In McNeill, D. (ed.), Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 358–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620850.022Google Scholar
Senghas, A. (1995a). Children’s contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Senghas, A. (1995b). The development of Nicaraguan Sign Language via language acquisition process. In MacLaughlin, D. and McEwen, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 19th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 543–52.Google Scholar
Senghas, A. and Coppola, M. (2001). Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science, 12, 323–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singleton, J. L., Goldin-Meadow, S. and McNeill, D. (1995). The cataclysmic break between gesticulation and sign: Evidence against an evolutionary continuum of manual communication. In Emmorey, K. and Reilly, J. (eds.), Language, Gesture and Space. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 287–311.Google Scholar
Singleton, J. L. and Newport, E. L. (2004). When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology, 49(4), 370–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.05.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stam, G. and Ishino, M. (eds.). (2011). Integrating Gestures: The Interdisciplinary Nature of Gesture. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tervoort, B. T. (1961). Esoteric symbolism in the communication behavior of young deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 106, 436–80.Google Scholar