1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Diachronica
  4. Volume 41, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 41, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study traces the development of discrete, combinatorial structure in Zinacantec Family Homesign (‘Z Sign’), a sign language developed since the 1970s by several deaf siblings in Mexico (Haviland 2020b), focusing on the expression of motion. The results reveal that the first signer, who generated a homesign system without access to language models, represents motion events holistically. Later-born signers, who acquired this homesign system from infancy, distribute the components of motion events over sequences of discrete signs. Furthermore, later-born signers exhibit greater regularity of form-meaning mappings and increased articulatory efficiency. Importantly, these changes occur abruptly between the first- and second-born signers, rather than incrementally across signers. This study extends previous findings for Nicaraguan Sign Language (Senghas et al. 2004) to a social group of a much smaller scale, suggesting that the parallel processes of cultural transmission and language acquisition drive language emergence, regardless of community size.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22039.ger
2023-12-07
2025-04-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dia.22039.ger
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler
    2005 Morphological universals and the sign language type. InGeert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.) Yearbook of morphology 2004, 19–39. Dordrecht, Netherlands & Norwell, MA: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑2900‑4_2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2900-4_2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, Alison C., Kathryn D. Schuler, Sarah Furlong & Elissa L. Newport
    2022 Learning a language from inconsistent input: Regularization in child and adult learners. Language Learning and Development18(3). 249–277. 10.1080/15475441.2021.1954927
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2021.1954927 [Google Scholar]
  3. Benedicto, Elena, Sandra Cvejanov & Josep Quer
    2008 The morphosyntax of verbs of motion in serial constructions: A crosslinguistic study in three signed languages. InJosep Quer (ed.) Signs of the times: Selected papers from TISLR [Theorectical Issues in Sign Language Research] 2004 (International Studies on Sign Language and the Communication of the Deaf 51), 111–132. Seedorf, Germany: Signum.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Brentari, Diane, Rabia Ergin, Ann Senghas, Pyeong Whan Cho, Eli Owens & Marie Coppola
    2021 Community interactions and phonemic inventories in emerging sign languages. Phonology38(4). 571–609. 10.1017/S0952675721000336
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675721000336 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brentari, Diane & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    2017 Language emergence. Annual Review of Linguistics31. 363–388. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011415‑040743
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040743 [Google Scholar]
  6. Christiansen, Morten H. & Nick Chater
    2008 Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences31(5). 489–509. 10.1017/S0140525X08004998
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08004998 [Google Scholar]
  7. Christiansen, Morten H. & Joseph T. Devlin
    1997 Recursive inconsistencies are hard to learn: A connectionist perspective on universal word order correlations. InProceedings of the 19th Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference, 113–118.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith & Zed Sevcikova-Sehyr
    2015 Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language & Linguistics18(2). 167–204. 10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor [Google Scholar]
  9. Couvee, Sascha & Roland Pfau
    2018 Structure and grammaticalization of serial verb constructions in sign language of the Netherlands – A corpus-based study. Frontiers in Psychology91. 993. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00993
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00993 [Google Scholar]
  10. Emmorey, Karen
    2003 Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. New York & London: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9781410607447
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607447 [Google Scholar]
  11. Flaherty, Molly, Dea Hunsicker & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    2021 Structural biases that children bring to language learning: A cross-cultural look at gestural input to homesign. Cognition2111. 104608. 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104608
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104608 [Google Scholar]
  12. Franklin, Amy, Anastasia Giannakidou & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    2011 Negation and structure building in a home sign system. InEtsuyo Yuasa, Tista Bagchi & Katharine Beals (eds.) Pragmatics and autolexical grammar: In honor of Jerry Sadock (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 176), 261–276. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.176.16fra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.176.16fra [Google Scholar]
  13. Frishberg, Nancy
    1975 Arbitratiness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language51(3). 696–719. 10.2307/412894
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412894 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gagne, Deanna L.
    2017 With a little help from my friends: The contributions of a peer language network on the conventionalization of space in an emerging language. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldin-Meadow, Susan
    1982 The resilience of recursion: A study of a communication system developed without a conventional language model. InEric Wanner & Lila R. Gleitman (eds.) Language acquistion: The state of the art, 51–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 1987 Underlying redundancy and its reduction in a language developed without a language model: Constraints imposed by conventional linguistic input. InBarbara Lust (ed.) Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, vol. 2: Applying the constraints (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 6), 105–133. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3387‑3_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3387-3_6 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Cynthia Butcher, Carolyn Mylander & Mark Dodge
    1994 Nouns and verbs in a self-styled gesture system: What′s in a name?Cognitive Psychology27(3). 259–319. 10.1006/cogp.1994.1018
     https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1994.1018 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldin-Meadow, Susan & Heidi Feldman
    1977 The development of language-like communication without a language model. Science197(4301). 401–403. 10.1126/science.877567
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.877567 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldin-Meadow, Susan & Carolyn Mylander
    1990 The role of parental input in the development of a morphological system. Journal of Child Language17(3). 527–563. 10.1017/S0305000900010874
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900010874 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Carolyn Mylander & Cynthia Butcher
    1995 The resilience of combinatorial structure at the word level: Morphology in self-styled gesture systems. Cognition56(3). 195–262. 10.1016/0010‑0277(95)00662‑I
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00662-I [Google Scholar]
  21. Haviland, John B.
    2011 Nouns, verbs, and constituents in an emerging ‘Tzotzil’ sign language. InRodrigo Gutiérrez-Bravo, Line Mikkelsen & Eric Potsdam (eds.) Representing language: Essays in honor of Judith Aissen, 157–171. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Linguistic Research Center.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 2013a Xi to vi: “Over that way, look!”: (Meta)spacial representation of an emerging (Mayan?) sign language. InPeter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.) Space in language and linguistics: Geographical, interactional, and cognitive perspectives (Linguae & Litterae 24), 334–400. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110312027.334
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110312027.334 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2013b (Mis)understanding and obtuseness: “Ethnolinguistic borders” in a miniscule speech community. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology23(3). 160–191. 10.1111/jola.12025
     https://doi.org/10.1111/jola.12025 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2013c The emerging grammar of nouns in a first generation sign language: Specification, iconicity, and syntax. Gesture13(3). 309–353. 10.1075/gest.13.3.04hav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.3.04hav [Google Scholar]
  25. 2016 “But you said ‘four sheep’…!”: (Sign) language, ideology, and self (esteem) across generations in a Mayan family. Language & Communication461. 62–94. 10.1016/j.langcom.2015.10.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2019 Grammaticalizing the face (as well as the hands) in a first generation sign language: The case of Zinacantec Family Homesign. InMichela Cennamo & Claudia Fabrizio (eds.) Historical linguistics 2015: Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics [ICHL], Naples, 27–31 July 2015 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 348), 519–560. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.348.25hav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.348.25hav [Google Scholar]
  27. 2020a Signs, interaction, coordination, and gaze: Interactive foundations of “Z”—an emerging (sign) language from Chiapas, Mexico. InOlivier Le Guen, Josefina Safar & Marie Coppola (eds.) Emerging sign languages of the Americas, 35–96. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501504884‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504884-002 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2020b Zinacantec family homesign (or “Z”). InOlivier Le Guen, Josefina Safar & Marie Coppola (eds.) Emerging sign languages of the Americas, 393–400. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501504884‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504884-002 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2022 How and when to sign “Hey!”: Socialization into grammar in Z, a 1st generation family sign language from Mexico. Languages7(2). 80. 10.3390/languages7020080
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020080 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hockett, Charles F.
    1960 The origin of speech. Scientific American203(3). 88–97. 10.1038/scientificamerican0960‑88
     https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88 [Google Scholar]
  31. Horton, Laura, Lynn Hou, Austin German & Jenny Singleton
    . Forthcoming. Sign language socialization and participant frameworks in three indigenous Mesoamerican communities: A qualitative comparative study. Research on Language and Social Interaction.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Horton, Laura A.
    2018 Conventionalization of shared homesign systems in Guatemala: Social, lexical, and morphophonological dimensions. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hou, Lynn Yong-Shi
    2016 “Making hands”: Family sign languages in the San Juan Quiahije community. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kirby, Simon, Hannah Cornish & Kenny Smith
    2008 Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105(31). 10681–10686. 10.1073/pnas.0707835105
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707835105 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kirby, Simon & James R. Hurford
    2002 The emergence of linguistic structure: An overview of the iterated learning model. InAngelo Cangelosi & Domenico Parisi (eds.) Simulating the evolution of language, 121–147. London: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4471‑0663‑0_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0663-0_6 [Google Scholar]
  36. Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi
    1979 The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Labov, William
    2007 Transmission and diffusion. Language83(2). 344–387. 10.1353/lan.2007.0082
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0082 [Google Scholar]
  38. Loos, Cornelia, Austin German & Richard P. Meier
    2022 Simultaneous structures in sign languages: Acquisition and emergence. Frontiers in Psychology992589. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.992589
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.992589 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mayer, Mercer
    1967 A boy, a frog, and a dog. London: Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 1969 Frog, where are you?New York: Dial Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. McNeill, David
    1992 Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Meier, Richard P.
    2002 Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. InRichard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.) Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2010 Emerging sign languages. InMarc Marschark & Elizabeth Spencer (eds.) The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education21, 268–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195390032.013.0018
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195390032.013.0018 [Google Scholar]
  44. Metzger, Melanie
    1995 Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. InCeil Lucas (ed.) Sociolinguistics in deaf communities, 255–271. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Mitchell, Ross E. & Michaela Karchmer
    2004 Chasing the mythical ten percent: Parental hearing status of deaf and hard of hearing students in the United States. Sign Language Studies4(2). 138–163. 10.1353/sls.2004.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0005 [Google Scholar]
  46. Newport, Elissa L.
    1988 Constraints on learning and their role in language acquisition: Studies of the acquisition of American Sign Language. Language Sciences10(1). 147–172. 10.1016/0388‑0001(88)90010‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(88)90010-1 [Google Scholar]
  47. Nyst, Victoria A. S.
    2007 A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Özyürek, Asli, Reyhan Furman & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    2015 On the way to language: Event segmentation in homesign and gesture. Journal of Child Language42(1). 64–94. 10.1017/S0305000913000512
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000512 [Google Scholar]
  49. Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
    2010 The grammar of space in two new sign languages. InDiane Brentari (ed.) Sign languages(Cambridge Language Surveys), 570–592. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.026
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.026 [Google Scholar]
  50. Quinto-Pozos, David
    2007a Can constructed action be considered obligatory?Lingua117(7). 1285–1314. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2007b Why does constructed action seem obligatory? An analysis of “classifiers” and the lack of articulator-referent correspondence. Sign Language Studies7(4). 458–506. 10.1353/sls.2007.0027
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2007.0027 [Google Scholar]
  52. Quinto-Pozos, David & Sarika Mehta
    2010 Register variation in mimetic gestural complements to signed language. Journal of Pragmatics42(3). 557–584. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  53. Roberts, Gareth, Jirka Lewandowski & Bruno Galantucci
    2015 How communication changes when we cannot mime the world: Experimental evidence for the effect of iconicity on combinatoriality. Cognition1411. 52–66. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sanders, Nathan & Donna Jo Napoli
    2016 Reactive effort as a factor that shapes sign language lexicons. Language92(2). 275–297. 10.1353/lan.2016.0032
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0032 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sandler, Wendy, Mark Aronoff, Irit Meir & Carol Padden
    2011a The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory291. 503–543. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9128‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9128-2 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Svetlana Dachkovsky, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2011b The emergence of complexity in prosody and syntax. Lingua121(13). 2014–2033. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2005 The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences102(7). 2661–2665. 10.1073/pnas.0405448102
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405448102 [Google Scholar]
  58. Schick, Brenda S.
    1987 The acquisition of classifier predicates in American Sign Language. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Schuler, Kathryn, Charles Yang & Elissa Newport
    2021 Testing the tolerance principle: Children form productive rules when it is more computationally efficient. CogSci2016. 10.31234/osf.io/utgds
     https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/utgds [Google Scholar]
  60. Senghas, Ann
    2021 Connecting language acquisition and language evolution: Clues from the emergence of Nicaraguan Sign Language. InMaria D. Sera & Melissa Koenig (eds.) Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Human Communication: Origins, Mechanisms, and Functions 40), 57–85. Wiley. 10.1002/9781119684527.ch3
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119684527.ch3 [Google Scholar]
  61. Senghas, Ann & Marie Coppola
    2001 Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science12(4). 323–328. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00359
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00359 [Google Scholar]
  62. Senghas, Ann, Sotaro Kita & Asli Özyürek
    2004 Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science305(5691). 1779–1782. 10.1126/science.1100199
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100199 [Google Scholar]
  63. Senghas, Ann, Alsi Özyürek & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    2013 Homesign as a way-station between co-speech and sign language: The evolution of segmentation and sequencing. InRudolf Botha & Martin Everaert (eds.) The evolutionary emergence of human language: Evidence and inference (Oxford Studies in the Evolution of Language), 62–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654840.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654840.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  64. Singleton, Jenny L. & Elissa L. Newport
    2004 When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology49(4). 370–407. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.05.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  65. Slobin, Dan I.
    2004 The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. InSven Strömqvist & Ludo Verhoven (eds.) Relating events in narrative, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, 219–257. New York & London: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Slobin, Dan I. & Nini Hoiting
    1994 Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Berkeley Linguistics Society [BLS]201, 487–505. Berkeley: Univeristy of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v20i1.1466
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1466 [Google Scholar]
  67. Supalla, Ted
    1990 Serial verbs of motion in ASL. InSusan D. Fischer (ed.) Theoretical issues in sign language research [TISLR]11, 127–152. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 1982 Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Langauge. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Talmy, Leonard
    1991 Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. InLaurel A. Sutton, Christopher Johnson & Ruth Shields (eds.) Proceedings of the seventeenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society [BLS] February 15–18, 1991: General session and parasession on the grammar of event structure, 480–519. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v17i0.1620
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v17i0.1620 [Google Scholar]
  70. Tamariz, Monica & Simon Kirby
    2016 The cultural evolution of language. Current Opinion in Psychology81. 37–43. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  71. Tang, Gladys & Gu Yang
    2007 Events of motion and causation in Hong Kong Sign Language. Lingua117(7). 1216–1257. 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.01.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  72. Verhoef, Tessa, Simon Kirby & Bart de Boer
    2016 Iconicity and the emergence of combinatorial structure in language. Cognitive Science40(8). 1969–1994. 10.1111/cogs.12326
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12326 [Google Scholar]
  73. Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Lorraine Lesson & Onno Crasborn
    (eds.) 2007 Simultaneity in signed languages: A string of sequentially organised issues (Current Trends in Linguistic Theory 281). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.281
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.281 [Google Scholar]
  74. Winston, Elizabeth A.
    1991 Spatial referencing and cohesion in an American Sign Language text. Sign Language Studies731. 397–410. 10.1353/sls.1991.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1991.0003 [Google Scholar]
  75. Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann & Han Sloetjes
    2006 ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. InCalzolari (eds.) Proceedings of the fifth International Confererence on Language Resources and Evalution (LREC'06), 1556–1559. Genoa: European Language Resources Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Zheng, Mingyu & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    2002 Thought before language: How deaf and hearing children express motion events across cultures. Cognition85(2). 145–175. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00105‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00105-1 [Google Scholar]
  77. Zuidema, Willem
    2002 How the poverty of the stimulus solves the poverty of the stimulus. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems151.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Zwitserlood, Inge
    2012 Classifiers. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.) Sign language: An international hanbook, 158–186. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.158
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.158 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22039.ger
Loading
Abrupt grammatical reorganization of an emergent sign language
Diachronica 41, 171 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22039.ger
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22039.ger
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.22039.ger
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): acquisition; combinatorial structure; cultural transmission; expression of motion; homesign; language emergence; segmentation; sign language

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error