The noun–verb distinction in two young sign languages

Abstract

Many sign languages have semantically related noun-verb pairs, such as ‘hairbrush/brush-hair’, which are similar in form due to iconicity. Researchers studying this phenomenon in sign languages have found that the two are distinguished by subtle differences, for example, in type of movement. Here we investigate two young sign languages, Israeli Sign Language (ISL) and Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL), to determine whether they have developed a reliable distinction in the formation of noun-verb pairs, despite their youth, and, if so, how. These two young language communities differ from each other in terms of heterogeneity within the community, contact with other languages, and size of population. Using methodology we developed for cross-linguistic comparison, we identify reliable formational distinctions between nouns and related verbs in ISL, but not in ABSL, although early tendencies can be discerned. Our results show that a formal distinction in noun-verb pairs in sign languages is not necessarily present from the beginning, but may develop gradually instead. Taken together with comparative analyses of other linguistic phenomena, the results lend support to the hypothesis that certain social factors such as population size, domains of use, and heterogeneity/homogeneity of the community play a role in the emergence of grammar.

Types of iconicity and combinatorial strategies distinguish semantic categories in silent gesture across cultures

“…The sequencing of two meaningful units with different types of iconic depictions is reported to be a powerful strategy in emerging sign languages such as Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL; Meir, Sandler, Padden, & Aronoff, 2012) and Yucatec Mayan Sign Language (YMSL; J. Safar, personal communication). Interestingly, these young sign languages have been observed to produce two-sign sequences to refer to hand-held objects (Meir et al, 2010;Tkachman & Sandler, 2013) and single signs to refer to actions associated with those objects (J. Safar, personal communication). In an elicitation task with YMSL users, for example, the concept of 'chopping with a machete' is depicted through a single sign showing the rapid cutting movement of the blade.…”

“…It remains an empirical question whether people will exploit the combinatorial potential of different types of iconic gestures to mark semantic distinctions during spontaneous production of silent gesture even before processes of social transmission begin. Given the prevalence of multi-sign combinations at the earliest stages of sign language emergence around the world (Haviland, 2013;Tkachman & Sandler, 2013), we predict that this combinatorial mechanism can be found outside a signed linguistic system, that is, in the silent gestures of speakers of typologically different languages. Importantly, we expect that perceivers of these different strategies will benefit from them and will be able to identify the referent accurately.…”

Novel compounding and the emergence of structure in two young sign languages

“…Mouthing is usually widespread in sign languages with a history of oralist education for deaf children (Boyes-Braem & Sutton-Spence 2001), and is often used to make a sign's meaning more specific (e.g., mouthing 'brother' or 'sister' for the ISL sign sibling; see also Padden 2001 for similar examples in ASL). Of the languages under investigation, mouthing is very rare in ABSL, whereas it is quite widespread in ISL, especially with nominal signs (Tkachman & Sandler 2013). We report only the ISL data for the mouthing feature, since no mouthing was attested in our ABSL data.…”

“…For example, in ASL, nominal signs often have a repeated movement (especially when they are members of formationally similar noun-verb pairs, Supalla & Newport 1978), but this repetition is often lost in the first component of a compound. Moreover, in a young sign language there may not be reliable features distinguishing word categories (Tkachman & Sandler 2013). Thus, discussion of headedness in sign compounds is usually confined to semantic heads (e.g., in Vercellotti & Mortensen 2012).…”

“…It is not a trivial task to distinguish between Hebrew loan translations and genuine compounds in ISL, since the order of constituents in ISL compounds is not fixed; therefore, merely relying on the word order might result in an overestimate in the number of Hebrew borrowings. Another possible indicator is mouthing: mouthing is very widespread in ISL, especially on nouns (see Tkachman & Sandler 2013), and most of the elicited compounds were of the noun-noun type due to the nature of the elicitation material (pictures of concrete objects). Therefore, a compound was classified as a Hebrew loan if three conditions were met: 1) the signed compound is an existing compound in Hebrew; 2) all the constituents of the compound are mouthed; and 3) the mouthing is that of the Hebrew compound and not of the individual signs.…”