Negation, questions, and structure building in a homesign system

Abstract

Deaf children whose hearing losses are so severe that they cannot acquire spoken language, and whose hearing parents have not exposed them to sign language, use gestures called homesigns to communicate. Homesigns have been shown to contain many of the properties of natural languages. Here we ask whether homesign has structure building devices for negation and questions. We identify two meanings (negation, question) that correspond semantically to propositional functions, that is, to functions that apply to a sentence (whose semantic value is a proposition, φ) and yield another proposition that is more complex (¬φ for negation; ?φ for question). Combining φ with¬ or ? thus involves sentence modification. We propose that these negative and question functions are structure building operators, and we support this claim with data from an American homesigner. We show that: (a) each meaning is marked by a particular form in the child’s gesture system (side-to-side headshake for negation, manual flip for question); (b) the two markers occupy systematic, and different, positions at the periphery of the gesture sentences (headshake at the beginning, flip at the end); and (c) the flip is extended from questions to other uses associated with the wh-form (exclamatives, referential expressions of location) and thus functions like a category in natural languages. If what we see in homesign is a language creation process (Goldin-Meadow, 2003), and if negation and question formation involve sentential modification, then our analysis implies that homesign has at least this minimal sentential syntax. Our findings thus contribute to ongoing debates about properties that are fundamental to language and language learning.

Is displacement possible without language? Evidence from preverbal infants and chimpanzees

“…This means that deaf children are not exposed to any conventional sign language because they are not part of a deaf community. However, although home-sign languages are not handed down from generation to generation, being created anew in each familiar context, they present many of the core features of natural languages in their morphology and syntax (Franklin, Giannakidou, & Goldin-Meadow, 2011). For this reason, home-sign languages have been presented by Chomskian linguists as evidence of an innate language module.…”

“…(Liszkowski et al, 2009, p. 659) According to Liszkowski et al (2009), displacement is not dependent on, but rather foundational to language, and the observation of displaced gestures in home-sign systems supports this hypothesis. However, data from the Franklin et al (2011) study showed that home-sign systems have structure-building devices for negation and questions, and even for the more complex forms of negation. Then, with these premises, following Liszkowski et al's argument, it should be concluded that complex forms of negation and questions do not rely on language but instead are foundational to language.…”

“…Interestingly, Franklin et al (2011) suggest that home-sign languages are often the roots of conventional sign languages. This is well documented, for example, in the case of Nicaraguan Sign Language.…”

“…Mainly, negation addresses a belief attributed to the interlocutor that expresses a counterfactual state of affairs. Interestingly, according to Franklin et al (2011), all of the three categories of negation (rejection, nonexistence, and even denial) were produced in the home-sign system of David, the deaf child of their study. He produced gestures (mostly side-to-side headshakes) that functioned like sentential negative markers that have a fixed position at the beginning of the sentences.…”

“…Data from an American home-signer (Franklin et al, 2011) suggests that home-sign languages possess structure-building devices, even for negation and questions:…”