Cargando…
One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language
Linguistic research has identified abstract properties that seem to be shared by all languages—such properties may be considered defining characteristics. In recent decades, the recognition that human language is found not only in the spoken modality but also in the form of sign languages has led to...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4084854/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25013534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1297 |
_version_ | 1782324575609028608 |
---|---|
author | Lillo-Martin, Diane C Gajewski, Jon |
author_facet | Lillo-Martin, Diane C Gajewski, Jon |
author_sort | Lillo-Martin, Diane C |
collection | PubMed |
description | Linguistic research has identified abstract properties that seem to be shared by all languages—such properties may be considered defining characteristics. In recent decades, the recognition that human language is found not only in the spoken modality but also in the form of sign languages has led to a reconsideration of some of these potential linguistic universals. In large part, the linguistic analysis of sign languages has led to the conclusion that universal characteristics of language can be stated at an abstract enough level to include languages in both spoken and signed modalities. For example, languages in both modalities display hierarchical structure at sub-lexical and phrasal level, and recursive rule application. However, this does not mean that modality-based differences between signed and spoken languages are trivial. In this article, we consider several candidate domains for modality effects, in light of the overarching question: are signed and spoken languages subject to the same abstract grammatical constraints, or is a substantially different conception of grammar needed for the sign language case? We look at differences between language types based on the use of space, iconicity, and the possibility for simultaneity in linguistic expression. The inclusion of sign languages does support some broadening of the conception of human language—in ways that are applicable for spoken languages as well. Still, the overall conclusion is that one grammar applies for human language, no matter the modality of expression. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4084854 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40848542014-09-08 One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language Lillo-Martin, Diane C Gajewski, Jon Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci Overviews Linguistic research has identified abstract properties that seem to be shared by all languages—such properties may be considered defining characteristics. In recent decades, the recognition that human language is found not only in the spoken modality but also in the form of sign languages has led to a reconsideration of some of these potential linguistic universals. In large part, the linguistic analysis of sign languages has led to the conclusion that universal characteristics of language can be stated at an abstract enough level to include languages in both spoken and signed modalities. For example, languages in both modalities display hierarchical structure at sub-lexical and phrasal level, and recursive rule application. However, this does not mean that modality-based differences between signed and spoken languages are trivial. In this article, we consider several candidate domains for modality effects, in light of the overarching question: are signed and spoken languages subject to the same abstract grammatical constraints, or is a substantially different conception of grammar needed for the sign language case? We look at differences between language types based on the use of space, iconicity, and the possibility for simultaneity in linguistic expression. The inclusion of sign languages does support some broadening of the conception of human language—in ways that are applicable for spoken languages as well. Still, the overall conclusion is that one grammar applies for human language, no matter the modality of expression. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2014-07 2014-06-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4084854/ /pubmed/25013534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1297 Text en © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Cognitive Science published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Overviews Lillo-Martin, Diane C Gajewski, Jon One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language |
title | One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language |
title_full | One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language |
title_fullStr | One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language |
title_full_unstemmed | One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language |
title_short | One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language |
title_sort | one grammar or two? sign languages and the nature of human language |
topic | Overviews |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4084854/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25013534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1297 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lillomartindianec onegrammarortwosignlanguagesandthenatureofhumanlanguage AT gajewskijon onegrammarortwosignlanguagesandthenatureofhumanlanguage |