from iconic handshapes to grammatical contrasts: longitudinal evidence from a child homesigner
Clicks: 363
ID: 207509
2014
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
363 views
64 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #45 of 1,131 articles by views in accounts of chemical research
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,131 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Many sign languages display crosslinguistic consistencies in the use of two iconic aspects of handshape, handshape type and finger group complexity. Handshape type is used systematically in form-meaning pairings (morphology): Handling handshapes (Handling-HSs), representing how objects are handled, express events with an agent (hand-as-hand iconicity), and Object handshapes (Object-HSs), representing an object's size/shape, are used to express events without an agent (hand-as-object iconicity). Second, in the distribution of meaningless properties of form (morphophonology), Object-HSs display higher finger group complexity than Handling-HSs. Some adult homesigners, who have not acquired spoken or signed language and instead use a self-generated gesture system, exhibit these two properties as well. We examined both structures over time in one child homesigner, Julio, age 7;4 (years; months) to 12;8. We elicited descriptions of events with and without agents to determine whether morphophonology and morphosyntax can develop without linguistic input during childhood, and their relative timing. Within this period: 1) Julio used handshapes differently in his responses to vignettes with and without an agent; however, his pattern differed from that seen in signers, adult homesigners, or gesturers: while he tended to use a Handling-HS for events with an agent (82%), he was less likely to use an Object-HS for non-agentive events (49%); 2) his Object-HSs showed higher finger group complexity than his Handling-HSs, as in previously studied signers and adult homesigners; and 3) these two levels of structure developed independently, with phonological structure showing a sign-like pattern at an earlier age than morphosyntactic structure. We conclude that iconicity alone is insufficient to explain the development of linguistic contrasts in homesign. These findings also highlight the importance of considering the distribution of forms within an emerging linguistic system.
| Reference Key |
ecoppola2014frontiersfrom
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Marie eCoppola;Diane eBrentari |
| Journal | accounts of chemical research |
| Year | 2014 |
| DOI |
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00830
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.