Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-16T16:10:29.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive pragmatics: Insights from homesign conversations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2023

Connie de Vos Open the ORCID record for Connie de Vos [Opens in a new window]
Connie de Vos*
Affiliation:
Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication, Tilburg University, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands. [email protected] https://elisa.uvt.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Homesign is a visual–gestural form of communication that emerges between deaf individuals and their hearing interlocutors in the absence of a conventional sign language. I argue here that homesign conversations form a perfect testcase to study the extent to which pragmatic competence is foundational rather than derived from our linguistic abilities.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e8
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

de Vos, C. (2012). Sign-spatiality in Kata Kolok: How a village sign language in Bali inscribes its signing space. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Gagne, D., & Coppola, M. (2017). Visible social interactions do not support the development of false belief understanding in the absence of linguistic input: Evidence from deaf adult homesigners. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Brentari, D. (2017). Gesture, sign, and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, E46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, S. C. (2019). Interactional foundations of language: The interaction engine hypothesis. In Human language: From genes and brain to behavior (pp. 189–200). MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutzenberger, H. (2022). Kata Kolok phonology – Variation and acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Marsaja, I. G. (2008). Desa Kolok: A deaf village and its sign language in Bali, Indonesia. Ishara Press.Google Scholar
McBurney, S. (2012). 38. History of sign languages and sign language linguistics. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (Eds.), Sign language (pp. 909–948). De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, I., Sandler, W., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M. (2010). Emerging sign languages. In Marschark, M. & Spencer, P. E. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (Vol. 2, pp. 267–280). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Motamedi, Y., Schouwstra, M., Smith, K., Culbertson, J., & Kirby, S. (2019). Evolving artificial sign languages in the lab: From improvised gesture to systematic sign. Cognition, 192, 103964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mudd, K., de Vos, C., & De Boer, B. (2020). The effect of cultural transmission on shared sign language persistence. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyst, V. (2019). The impact of cross-linguistic variation in gesture on sign language phonology and morphology: The case of size and shape specifiers. Gesture, 18(2–3), 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safar, J. (2019). Translanguaging in Yucatec Maya signing communities. Applied Linguistics Review, 10(1), 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safar, J., & de Vos, C. (forthcoming). Pragmatic competence without a language model: Other-initiated repair in Balinese homesign. Journal of Pragmatics.Google Scholar
Senghas, A., Kita, S., & Ozyurek, A. (2004). Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science (New York, N.Y.), 305(5691), 1779–1782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeshan, U., & de Vos, C. (2012). Sign languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights (p. 413). de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar