1887
Volume 23, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Humans can use language to refer to and describe endless varieties of situations, thoughts, ideas, and topics, actual or hypothetical. This capacity, which distinguishes human language from communication systems of other animals, is referred to here as A key factor in explaining topic-open-endedness early in the life of a new sign language is the nature of the linguistic symbols, the words, and the human ability to extend their meanings – e.g., through metonymy and metaphor – to novel semantic domains, applying a finite lexicon to infinite situations and topics. Other early language properties such as predication and negation facilitate creativity and flexibility from the beginning. The property of recursion accounts for the creation of an infinite number of sentences from a finite set of words and rules. But it account for the open-endedness of the of those sentences. Therefore, the importance attributed to recursion as the mechanism that is is overrated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00051.mei
2020-10-30
2020-11-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bickerton, Derek
    1990Language and species. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226220949.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226220949.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2009Adam’s tongue: How humans made language, how language made humans. New York: Hill and Wang.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Carstairs-McCarty, Andrew
    1999The origins of complex language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dachkovsky, Svetlana
    2016The development of a relative clause marker from a deictic gesture in Israeli Sign Language. Talk presented atAnnual Meeting of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS), Workshop 7: Sign language agreement revisited: New theoretical and experimental perspectives, Konstanz.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2018Grammaticalization of intonation in Israeli Sign Language: From information structure to relative clause relations. Haifa: University of HaifaPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Deacon, Terry
    1997The symbolic species: The coevolution of language and the brain. New York: Norton.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ergin, Rabia
    2017Central Taurus Sign Language: A unique vantage point into language emergence. Somerville, MA: Tufts UniversityPhD dissertation. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/openview/69f73091abbc97d1d2997408076c5301/1?pq-origsite=gscholarandcbl=18750anddiss=y
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Evans, Nicholas
    2003Bininj gun-wok: A pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Evans, Nicholas & Steven Levinson
    2009 The myth of language universals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences32. 429–492. 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X [Google Scholar]
  10. Everett, Dan
    2012Language: The cultural tool. New York: Pantheon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Frege, Gottlob
    1952 On concept and object. InPeter Geach (trans.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, 42–55. Oxford: Blackwell. [Original 1892 Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie16. 192–205].
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gil, David
    2009 How much grammar does it take to sail a boat?InGeoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (Eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable, 19–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldin-Meadow, Susan
    2003The resilience of language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2005 What language creation in the manual modality tells us about the foundations of language. Linguistic Review22. 199–225. 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2‑4.199
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.199 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hauser, Marc
    1996The evolution of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hauser, Marc, Noam Chomsky & Tecumseh Fitch
    2002 The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve. Science298. 1569–1579. 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2007The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hobaiter, Cat & Richard W. Byrne
    2014 The meanings of Chimpanzee gestures. Current Biology24. 1596–1600. 10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.066
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.066 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hockett, Charles F.
    1960 The origin of speech. Scientific American203. 88–111. 10.1038/scientificamerican0960‑88
    https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88 [Google Scholar]
  20. Holm, John
    1989Pidgins and Creoles. VolII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jackendoff, Ray
    2011 What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language87(3). 586–624. 10.1353/lan.2011.0063
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0063 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kastner, Itamar, Irit Meir, Wendy Sandler & Svetlana Dachkovsky
    2014 The emergence of embedded structure: Insights from Kafr Qasem Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology5. 1–15. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00525
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00525 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kocab, Annemarie, Ann Senghas & Jesse Snedeker
    2016 Recursion in Nicaraguan Sign Language. InA. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman & J. C. Trueswell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1343–1348. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Available at: https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2016/papers/0239/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Krifka, Manfred
    2008 Functional similarities between bimanual coordination and topic/comment structure. InRegine Eckardt, Gerhard Jäger & Tonjes Veenstra (Eds), Variation, selection, development. Probing the evolutionary model of language change, 307–336. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Liebal, Katja & Joseph Call
    2012 The origins of non-human primates’ manual gestures. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B367(1585). 118–128. 10.1098/rstb.2011.0044
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0044 [Google Scholar]
  26. Meir, Irit
    2010 Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical use of iconic forms. Language84(4). 865–896. 10.1353/lan.2010.0044
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0044 [Google Scholar]
  27. Meir, Irit & Ariel Cohen
    2018 Metaphor in sign languages. Frontiers in Psychology9. 1025. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01025
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01025 [Google Scholar]
  28. Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2010 Emerging sign languages. InMarc Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Vol.2, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Yifat Ziv Ben-Zeev, Sara Lanesman & Meyad Sarsour
    2016 How does a lexicon emerge in a new language? Insights from village sign languages of Israel. Iyunim be Safa ve-Hevra8(1–2). 11–43 (in Hebrew).
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mithun, Marianne
    1984 How to avoid subordination. Berkeley Linguistic Society10. 493–509. 10.3765/bls.v10i0.1937
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v10i0.1937 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pika, Simone & John C. Mitani
    2009 The directed scratch: Evidence for a referential gesture in chimpanzees?InRudolf Botha & Chris Knight (Eds.), The prehistory of language, 166–180. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199545872.003.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199545872.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pinker, Steven & Ray Jackendoff
    2005 The faculty of language: What’s special about it?Cognition95. 201–236. 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pollick, Amy S. & Frans B. M. de Waal
    2007 Ape gesture and language evolution. The National Academy of Sciences104. 8184–8189. 10.1073/pnas.0702624104
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702624104 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Svetlana Dachkovsky, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2011 The emergence of complexity in prosody and syntax. Lingua121. 2014–2033. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2005 The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. The National Academy of Sciences102(7). 2661–2665. 10.1073/pnas.0405448102
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405448102 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sandler, Wendy
    2009 Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica174(1/4). 241–275.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2010 Prosody and syntax in sign languages. Transactions of the Philological Society108(3). 298–328. 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.2010.01242.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.2010.01242.x [Google Scholar]
  38. 2012 Dedicated gestures in the emergence of sign language. Gesture12(3). 265–307. 10.1075/gest.12.3.01san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.12.3.01san [Google Scholar]
  39. Taub, Sarah
    2001Language from the body. Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00051.mei
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00051.mei
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): compositionality , meaning extension , open-ended , predication , recursion , symbols and young languages
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