Sign Language and Linguistic Universals

Abstract

Sign languages are of great interest to linguists, because while they are the product of the same brain, their physical transmission differs greatly from that of spoken languages. In this 2006 study, Wendy Sandler and Diane Lillo-Martin compare sign languages with spoken languages, in order to seek the universal properties they share. Drawing on general linguistic theory, they describe and analyze sign language structure, showing linguistic universals in the phonology, morphology, and syntax of sign language, while also revealing non-universal aspects of its structure that must be attributed to its physical transmission system. No prior background in sign language linguistics is assumed, and numerous pictures are provided to make descriptions of signs and facial expressions accessible to readers. Engaging and informative, Sign Language and Linguistic Universals will be invaluable to linguists, psychologists, and all those interested in sign languages, linguistic theory and the universal properties of human languages.

Activation cascading in sign production.

“…The latter result confirms that the facilitation found in English derives from the phonological similarities of the picture names rather than pictorial or semantic differences in the materials. Having been replicated in multiple studies (Kuipers & La Heij, 2009;Meyer & Damian, 2007;Navarrete & Costa, 2005; but see Jescheniak, Oppermann, Hantsch, Wagner, Madebach, & Schriefers, 2009) Linguistic analyses on sign articulation in natural languages have revealed four major phonological parameters that are probably universal: handshape, location of the sign relative to the body, movement of the hand, and orientation (Battison, 1978;Sandler & Lollio-Martin, 2006;Stokoe, Casterline, & Croneberg, 1965). These parameters vary cross-linguistically in number and typology, and are combined according to language-specific and language universal constraints giving rise to the whole inventory of signs in a given language.…”

Preexisting semantic representation improves working memory performance in the visuospatial domain

“…They develop independently of the spoken languages that surround them and have a different grammatical structure (Emmorey, 2002). However, the sublexical structure of signed languages can be understood in terms similar to those used to describe the phonology of spoken languages (Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2006). Spoken language phonology relates to a largely sequential set of contrasts, manifest in the notion of minimal pairs -where two words contrast in a single phonological element, such as the final consonants in words like bag and bad, or in rhyme.…”

“…Spoken language phonology relates to a largely sequential set of contrasts, manifest in the notion of minimal pairs -where two words contrast in a single phonological element, such as the final consonants in words like bag and bad, or in rhyme. In signed languages, the less sequential phonological elements comprising the shape, movement and location of the signing hands (Sandler & Lillo-Martin, 2006) give rise to minimal pairs consisting of two signs differing e.g. in location only, such as British Sign Language (BSL) NAME and AFTERNOON , see Figure 1.…”

Dissociating cognitive and sensory neural plasticity in human superior temporal cortex

“…Sign languages have developed naturally in deaf communities. Like spoken languages, they are organized at phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic levels 5 . Not only do auditory deprivation and language experience mediate plastic changes in deaf individuals, but the robust left-hemisphere involvement in language potentially allows a clear anatomical segregation between them: as the left STC is involved in the processing of language independently of modality (see refs [6][7][8], plastic changes in this region are likely to be mediated by mechanisms supporting the development and acquisition of sign language, and not by general visual processing effects; this constraint may not be true of the right STC.…”