fbpx
Wikipedia

Home sign

January 30, 2023

Home sign (or kitchen sign) is a gestural communication system, often invented spontaneously by a deaf child who lacks accessible linguistic input.[1] Home sign systems often arise in families where a deaf child is raised by hearing parents and is isolated from the Deaf community. Because the deaf child does not receive signed or spoken language input, these children are referred to as linguistically isolated.[2][3]

Because home sign systems are used regularly as the child's form of communication, they develop to become more complex than simple gestures.[4] Though not considered to be a complete language, these systems may be classified as linguistic phenomena that show similar characteristics to signed and spoken language. Home sign systems display significant degrees of internal complexity, using gestures with consistent meanings, word order, and grammatical categories. Linguists have been interested in home sign systems as insight into the human ability to generate, acquire, and process language.[3][5]

Identifying features

In 1987, Nancy Frishberg set out a framework for identifying and describing home-based sign systems. She states that home signs differ from sign languages in that they:[6]

  • do not have a consistent meaning-symbol relationship,
  • do not pass on from generation to generation,
  • are not shared by one large group,
  • and are not considered the same over a community of signers.

However, there are certain "resilient" properties of language whose development can proceed without guidance of a conventional language model. More recent studies of deaf children's gestural systems show systematicity and productivity.[7][page needed] Across users, these systems tend to exhibit a stable lexicon, word order tendency, complex sentence usage, and noun-verb pairs. Gesture systems have also been shown to have the property of recursion, which allows system to be generative. Deaf children may borrow spoken language gestures, but these gestures are altered to serve as linguistic markers. As the child develops, their utterances grow in size and complexity. Adult home signers use systems that mature to display more linguistic features than the simpler systems used by child home signers.[8][9]

Lexicon

Studies of home signing children and adults show consistent pairing between the form of a gesture token and its meaning. These signs are also combined in compound gestures to create new words.[8] The lack of bidirectionality in creation of home sign systems between the parent and child restricts the invention of signs with arbitrary meanings. The emergence of a conventionalized lexicon proceeds slower in a home sign system than in natural languages with a richer social network.[5][10] Study of adult home signers in Nicaragua show that home signers use gesture to communicate about number, with cardinal numeral and non-cardinal numeral markings.[11]

Morphology

Home sign systems have simple morphology. Gestures are composed of parts with a limited set of handshape forms.[9] Hand shapes can be used in two ways: to represent a hand as it manipulates an object, or to represent the object itself.[7] Morphophonological patterns in handshape production are more similar to conventionalized sign language handshapes than hearing individuals’ gestures. These handshapes are high in finger complexity for object handshapes and low in finger complexity for handling handshapes.[12] Home signers also use handshape as a productive morphological marker in predicates, displaying a distinction between nominals and predicates.[13] Study of adolescent home signers show ability to express motion events, though this strategy differs from conventional sign language.[14] The motions of signs used in home sign systems can vary in length of path and directionality. Most of the hand shape morphemes could be found in combination with more than one motion morpheme, and vice versa.[7]

Syntax

Within an individual system, home signers show consistency in a particular word order that distinguishes the subject of the utterance. Across home sign systems there is preference for action to be utterance-final. Structural dependency, words grouped based on a hierarchical structure or pattern, has been studied in Brazilian home signers who consistently produce modifiers with the noun modified. Gestural markers for negation (side to side head shake) and wh-form questions (manual flip) show consistent meaning, use, and position.[8][15] Home signers mark grammatical subjects in sentences and are able to distinguish the subject from the topic of the sentence.[16] These systems show some evidence of a prosodic system for marking phrase and utterance boundaries.[17]

Narratives

Home signing children vary greatly in how often they display narrative skills; however, their narratives show similar structural patterns.[18] This includes elaborating on basic narrative by including setting, actions, a complication, and temporal order. Hearing mothers produce co-narration with deaf children less frequently (than hearing mothers do with hearing children), and these contributions are spoken and rarely gestural.

Conditions for emergence

The context of home sign system creation includes limited or no exposure to a spoken or signed language model, isolation from deaf children and adults, and parental choices regarding communication with the deaf child. Home sign creation is a common experience of deaf children in hearing families, as approximately 75% of hearing parents do not sign and communicate with their deaf children using a small set of gestures, speaking, and lipreading.[1] In a home with parents who are deaf or know sign language, a child can pick up the sign language in the same way a hearing child can pick up spoken language.[4]

Home signs are a starting point for many sign languages. When a group of deaf people come together without a common sign language, they may share features of their individual home sign systems creating a village sign language that may establish itself as a complete language over time. However, home signs are rarely passed on to more than one generation, because they generally fade when the deaf child is exposed to language outside of the home.[4]

Deaf children who use home sign are distinguished from feral children who are deprived of meaningful social and linguistic interaction. Home signing children are socially integrated to an extent with lack of conventional linguistic interaction. Home sign systems have some elements of language, and children who use these systems are able to acquire a natural sign language later in school.[5]

Development of a home sign system

The deaf child is the creator of a home sign system. Mothers of adult home signers in Nicaragua were evaluated to determine their role in the development of their child's home sign system. The results of this study concluded that mothers comprehended spoken Spanish descriptions of events better than home sign descriptions, and native ASL signers performed better than mothers at understanding home sign productions. This suggests that mothers do not directly transmit home sign systems to their deaf children. Though caregivers' co-speech gestures may serve as an initial foundation for their child's home sign system, children surpass this input. Hearing caregivers typically do not share the same gestural communication system with the deaf child, using fewer gestures with less consistency and displaying different sentence-level patterns. A deaf child's gestural system is more likely to overlap with that of another home signer, including cross culturally.[19][20]

Social network structure influences the development of a home sign system, impacting the conventionalization of referring expressions among members. Richly connected networks, where all participants interact with one another using the communication system, show greater and faster conventionalization. Home sign systems are typically sparsely connected networks, where the home signer communicates with each member of the network but the members do not use home sign to communicate with each other.[21]

Impact of lacking a language model

Studies by Deanna Gagne and Marie Coppola of perspective-taking abilities in adult home signers reveal that home signers do not pass experimental false-belief tasks, despite having visual observation of social interaction. False-belief understanding, integral to the development of theory of mind, requires language experience and linguistic input. Further study of these adult home signers indicates that home signers show precursor abilities for theory of mind, such as visual perspective taking.[22][23]

Lack of conventional language for numbers has been shown to affect numerical ability. In comparison to unschooled hearing and signing deaf individuals, adult home signers do not consistently produce gestures that accurately represent cardinal values of larger sets and do not exhibit effective use of finger counting strategies.[24] Further study indicates home signers are able to recall gestures used as nouns, verbs, and adjectives, but they show poor number recall, which worsens as numbers increase.[25]

Cross-cultural comparisons

Syntactic structure is similar between groups of home signers in different cultures and geographical regions, including word order preferences and complex sentence usage. For example, home sign systems of children in Turkey and the United States exhibit similar patterns in sentence-level structure.[20]

Certain gestures, such as pointing, head shaking, and shrugging, share similar meanings throughout cultures. Young children shake their heads to indicate negation before they express negative meanings through language. However, most young children use the head shake as an initial marker of negation, and replace it with speech or manual signs once language is acquired. Children using a home sign system do not have exposure to a structured language, and therefore do not replace the head shake with manual signs until language is acquired.[15]

Home sign systems differ across cultures in terms of gesture use by hearing caregivers. Compared to American mothers, Chinese mothers show more similarity in gesture form (handshape and motion) and syntax with systems used by their deaf children. In comparing narratives from Chinese and American deaf children, home signing children produce culturally appropriate narratives. Variability between home signers are group internal, with different individual home signers having their own set of gestures for the same type of object or predicate.[1][18]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Hill, Joseph C.; Lillo-Martin, Diane C.; Wood, Sandra K. (2018-12-12), "Homesign systems", Sign Languages, Routledge, pp. 117–133, doi:10.4324/9780429020872-7, ISBN 978-0-429-02087-2, S2CID 239536813
  2. ^ Torigoe, Takashi; Takei, Wataru (2002). "A Descriptive Analysis of Pointing and Oral Movements in a Home Sign System". Sign Language Studies. 2 (3): 281–295. doi:10.1353/sls.2002.0013. ISSN 1533-6263. S2CID 144022392.
  3. ^ a b Hoff, Erika, 1951- (January 2013). Language development (Fifth ed.). Belmont, CA. ISBN 978-1-133-93909-2. OCLC 843489860.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ a b c Walker, J. "Home Signs". www.signedlanguage.co.uk. Retrieved 2020-03-23.
  5. ^ a b c Begby, Endre (2016-08-17). "Language from the Ground Up: A Study of Homesign Communication". Erkenntnis. 82 (3): 693–714. doi:10.1007/s10670-016-9839-1. ISSN 0165-0106. S2CID 125691967.
  6. ^ Frishberg, Nancy. "Home Sign". Gallaudet encyclopedia of deaf people and deafness. Vol. 3. pp. 128–131.
  7. ^ a b c Mylander, Carolyn; Goldin-Meadow, Susan (1991). "Home Sign Systems in Deaf Children: The Development of Morphology without a Conventional Language Model". In Siple, P.; Fischer, S. D. (eds.). Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 41–63.
  8. ^ a b c Hill, Joseph C.; Lillo-Martin, Diane C.; Wood, Sandra K. (2018-12-12). "Homesign systems". Sign Languages. Routledge: 117–133. doi:10.4324/9780429020872-7. ISBN 978-0-429-02087-2. S2CID 239536813.
  9. ^ a b Goldin-Meadow, Susan (2005-04-05). The Resilience of Language. doi:10.4324/9780203943267. ISBN 9780203943267.
  10. ^ Richie, Russell; Yang, Charles; Coppola, Marie (2014). "Modeling the Emergence of Lexicons in Homesign Systems". Topics in Cognitive Science. 6 (1): 183–195. doi:10.1111/tops.12076. ISSN 1756-8765. PMC 3909872. PMID 24482343.
  11. ^ Coppola, Marie; Spaepen, Elizabet; Goldin-Meadow, Susan (2013-08-01). "Communicating about quantity without a language model: Number devices in homesign grammar". Cognitive Psychology. 67 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.05.003. ISSN 0010-0285. PMC 3870334. PMID 23872365.
  12. ^ Brentari, Diane; Coppola, Marie; Mazzoni, Laura; Goldin-Meadow, Susan (2012). "When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory (published 2011). 30 (1): 1–31. doi:10.1007/s11049-011-9145-1. ISSN 0167-806X. PMC 3665423. PMID 23723534.
  13. ^ Goldin-Meadow, S.; Brentari, D.; Coppola, M.; Horton, L.; Senghas, A. (2015). "Watching language grow in the manual modality: Nominals, predicates, and handshapes". Cognition. 136: 381–395. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.029. PMC 4308574. PMID 25546342.
  14. ^ Morford, Jill P. (2002-01-01). "The expression of motion events in homesign". Sign Language & Linguistics. 5 (1): 55–71. doi:10.1075/sll.5.1.05mor. ISSN 1387-9316.
  15. ^ a b Franklin, Amy; Giannakidou, Anastasia; Goldin-Meadow, Susan (2011). "Negation, questions, and structure building in a homesign system". Cognition. 118 (3): 398–416. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.017. PMC 3658158. PMID 23630971.
  16. ^ Coppola, Marie; Newport, Elissa L. (2005-12-27). "Grammatical Subjects in home sign: Abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 102 (52): 19249–19253. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10219249C. doi:10.1073/pnas.0509306102. PMC 1315276. PMID 16357199.
  17. ^ Applebaum, Lauren; Coppola, Marie; Goldin-Meadow, Susan (2014). "Prosody in a communication system developed without a language model". Sign Language & Linguistics. 17 (2): 181–212. doi:10.1075/sll.17.2.02app. ISSN 1387-9316. PMC 4285364. PMID 25574153.
  18. ^ a b Van Deusen-Phillips, Sarah B.; Goldin-Meadow, Susan; Miller, Peggy J. (2001). "Enacting Stories, Seeing Worlds: Similarities and Differences in the Cross-Cultural Narrative Development of Linguistically Isolated Deaf Children". Human Development. 44 (6): 311–336. doi:10.1159/000046153. ISSN 1423-0054. S2CID 145070424.
  19. ^ Carrigan, Emily; Coppola, Marie (2012). "Mothers Do Not Drive Structure in Adult Homesign Systems: Evidence from Comprehension". Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. 34 (34). ISSN 1069-7977.
  20. ^ a b Goldin-Meadow, Susan; Namboodiripad, Savithry; Mylander, Carolyn; Özyürek, Aslı; Sancar, Burcu (2015). "The Resilience of Structure Built Around the Predicate: Homesign Gesture Systems in Turkish and American Deaf Children". Journal of Cognition and Development. 16 (1): 55–80. doi:10.1080/15248372.2013.803970. ISSN 1524-8372. PMC 4316383. PMID 25663828.
  21. ^ Richie, Russell; Hall, Matthew L.; Cho, Pyeong Whan; Coppola, Marie (2020). "Converging evidence: Network structure effects on conventionalization of gestural referring expressions". Language Dynamics and Change. doi:10.1163/22105832-bja10008. S2CID 229023731.
  22. ^ Gagne, Deanna L.; Coppola, Marie (2017). "Visible Social Interactions Do Not Support the Development of False Belief Understanding in the Absence of Linguistic Input: Evidence from Deaf Adult Homesigners". Frontiers in Psychology. 8: 837. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00837. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 5454053. PMID 28626432.
  23. ^ Gagne, Deanna; Goico, Sara; Pyers, Jennie; Coppola, Marie (2019). "False Belief Understanding Requires Language Experience, but Its Precursor Abilities Do Not" (PDF). Proceedings of the 43rd Boston University Conference on Language Development. Cascadilla Press (published November 2018): 256–269.
  24. ^ Spaepen, Elizabet; Coppola, Marie; Spelke, Elizabeth S.; Carey, Susan E.; Goldin-Meadow, Susan (2011-02-22). "Number without a language model". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (8): 3163–3168. Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.3163S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1015975108. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 3044352. PMID 21300893.
  25. ^ Spaepen, Elizabet; Coppola, Marie; Flaherty, Molly; Spelke, Elizabeth; Goldin-Meadow, Susan (2013-11-01). "Generating a lexicon without a language model: Do words for number count?". Journal of Memory and Language. 69 (4): 496–505. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.05.004. ISSN 0749-596X. PMC 3811965. PMID 24187432.

January 30, 2023
home, sign, kitchen, sign, gestural, communication, system, often, invented, spontaneously, deaf, child, lacks, accessible, linguistic, input, systems, often, arise, families, where, deaf, child, raised, hearing, parents, isolated, from, deaf, community, becau. Home sign or kitchen sign is a gestural communication system often invented spontaneously by a deaf child who lacks accessible linguistic input 1 Home sign systems often arise in families where a deaf child is raised by hearing parents and is isolated from the Deaf community Because the deaf child does not receive signed or spoken language input these children are referred to as linguistically isolated 2 3 Because home sign systems are used regularly as the child s form of communication they develop to become more complex than simple gestures 4 Though not considered to be a complete language these systems may be classified as linguistic phenomena that show similar characteristics to signed and spoken language Home sign systems display significant degrees of internal complexity using gestures with consistent meanings word order and grammatical categories Linguists have been interested in home sign systems as insight into the human ability to generate acquire and process language 3 5 Contents 1 Identifying features 1 1 Lexicon 1 2 Morphology 1 3 Syntax 1 4 Narratives 2 Conditions for emergence 2 1 Development of a home sign system 3 Impact of lacking a language model 4 Cross cultural comparisons 5 See also 6 ReferencesIdentifying features EditIn 1987 Nancy Frishberg set out a framework for identifying and describing home based sign systems She states that home signs differ from sign languages in that they 6 do not have a consistent meaning symbol relationship do not pass on from generation to generation are not shared by one large group and are not considered the same over a community of signers However there are certain resilient properties of language whose development can proceed without guidance of a conventional language model More recent studies of deaf children s gestural systems show systematicity and productivity 7 page needed Across users these systems tend to exhibit a stable lexicon word order tendency complex sentence usage and noun verb pairs Gesture systems have also been shown to have the property of recursion which allows system to be generative Deaf children may borrow spoken language gestures but these gestures are altered to serve as linguistic markers As the child develops their utterances grow in size and complexity Adult home signers use systems that mature to display more linguistic features than the simpler systems used by child home signers 8 9 Lexicon Edit Studies of home signing children and adults show consistent pairing between the form of a gesture token and its meaning These signs are also combined in compound gestures to create new words 8 The lack of bidirectionality in creation of home sign systems between the parent and child restricts the invention of signs with arbitrary meanings The emergence of a conventionalized lexicon proceeds slower in a home sign system than in natural languages with a richer social network 5 10 Study of adult home signers in Nicaragua show that home signers use gesture to communicate about number with cardinal numeral and non cardinal numeral markings 11 Morphology Edit Home sign systems have simple morphology Gestures are composed of parts with a limited set of handshape forms 9 Hand shapes can be used in two ways to represent a hand as it manipulates an object or to represent the object itself 7 Morphophonological patterns in handshape production are more similar to conventionalized sign language handshapes than hearing individuals gestures These handshapes are high in finger complexity for object handshapes and low in finger complexity for handling handshapes 12 Home signers also use handshape as a productive morphological marker in predicates displaying a distinction between nominals and predicates 13 Study of adolescent home signers show ability to express motion events though this strategy differs from conventional sign language 14 The motions of signs used in home sign systems can vary in length of path and directionality Most of the hand shape morphemes could be found in combination with more than one motion morpheme and vice versa 7 Syntax Edit Within an individual system home signers show consistency in a particular word order that distinguishes the subject of the utterance Across home sign systems there is preference for action to be utterance final Structural dependency words grouped based on a hierarchical structure or pattern has been studied in Brazilian home signers who consistently produce modifiers with the noun modified Gestural markers for negation side to side head shake and wh form questions manual flip show consistent meaning use and position 8 15 Home signers mark grammatical subjects in sentences and are able to distinguish the subject from the topic of the sentence 16 These systems show some evidence of a prosodic system for marking phrase and utterance boundaries 17 Narratives Edit Home signing children vary greatly in how often they display narrative skills however their narratives show similar structural patterns 18 This includes elaborating on basic narrative by including setting actions a complication and temporal order Hearing mothers produce co narration with deaf children less frequently than hearing mothers do with hearing children and these contributions are spoken and rarely gestural Conditions for emergence EditThe context of home sign system creation includes limited or no exposure to a spoken or signed language model isolation from deaf children and adults and parental choices regarding communication with the deaf child Home sign creation is a common experience of deaf children in hearing families as approximately 75 of hearing parents do not sign and communicate with their deaf children using a small set of gestures speaking and lipreading 1 In a home with parents who are deaf or know sign language a child can pick up the sign language in the same way a hearing child can pick up spoken language 4 Home signs are a starting point for many sign languages When a group of deaf people come together without a common sign language they may share features of their individual home sign systems creating a village sign language that may establish itself as a complete language over time However home signs are rarely passed on to more than one generation because they generally fade when the deaf child is exposed to language outside of the home 4 Deaf children who use home sign are distinguished from feral children who are deprived of meaningful social and linguistic interaction Home signing children are socially integrated to an extent with lack of conventional linguistic interaction Home sign systems have some elements of language and children who use these systems are able to acquire a natural sign language later in school 5 Development of a home sign system Edit The deaf child is the creator of a home sign system Mothers of adult home signers in Nicaragua were evaluated to determine their role in the development of their child s home sign system The results of this study concluded that mothers comprehended spoken Spanish descriptions of events better than home sign descriptions and native ASL signers performed better than mothers at understanding home sign productions This suggests that mothers do not directly transmit home sign systems to their deaf children Though caregivers co speech gestures may serve as an initial foundation for their child s home sign system children surpass this input Hearing caregivers typically do not share the same gestural communication system with the deaf child using fewer gestures with less consistency and displaying different sentence level patterns A deaf child s gestural system is more likely to overlap with that of another home signer including cross culturally 19 20 Social network structure influences the development of a home sign system impacting the conventionalization of referring expressions among members Richly connected networks where all participants interact with one another using the communication system show greater and faster conventionalization Home sign systems are typically sparsely connected networks where the home signer communicates with each member of the network but the members do not use home sign to communicate with each other 21 Impact of lacking a language model EditStudies by Deanna Gagne and Marie Coppola of perspective taking abilities in adult home signers reveal that home signers do not pass experimental false belief tasks despite having visual observation of social interaction False belief understanding integral to the development of theory of mind requires language experience and linguistic input Further study of these adult home signers indicates that home signers show precursor abilities for theory of mind such as visual perspective taking 22 23 Lack of conventional language for numbers has been shown to affect numerical ability In comparison to unschooled hearing and signing deaf individuals adult home signers do not consistently produce gestures that accurately represent cardinal values of larger sets and do not exhibit effective use of finger counting strategies 24 Further study indicates home signers are able to recall gestures used as nouns verbs and adjectives but they show poor number recall which worsens as numbers increase 25 Cross cultural comparisons EditSyntactic structure is similar between groups of home signers in different cultures and geographical regions including word order preferences and complex sentence usage For example home sign systems of children in Turkey and the United States exhibit similar patterns in sentence level structure 20 Certain gestures such as pointing head shaking and shrugging share similar meanings throughout cultures Young children shake their heads to indicate negation before they express negative meanings through language However most young children use the head shake as an initial marker of negation and replace it with speech or manual signs once language is acquired Children using a home sign system do not have exposure to a structured language and therefore do not replace the head shake with manual signs until language is acquired 15 Home sign systems differ across cultures in terms of gesture use by hearing caregivers Compared to American mothers Chinese mothers show more similarity in gesture form handshape and motion and syntax with systems used by their deaf children In comparing narratives from Chinese and American deaf children home signing children produce culturally appropriate narratives Variability between home signers are group internal with different individual home signers having their own set of gestures for the same type of object or predicate 1 18 See also EditIdioglossia Language Isolate Language deprivation in deaf and hard of hearing childrenReferences Edit a b c Hill Joseph C Lillo Martin Diane C Wood Sandra K 2018 12 12 Homesign systems Sign Languages Routledge pp 117 133 doi 10 4324 9780429020872 7 ISBN 978 0 429 02087 2 S2CID 239536813 Torigoe Takashi Takei Wataru 2002 A Descriptive Analysis of Pointing and Oral Movements in a Home Sign System Sign Language Studies 2 3 281 295 doi 10 1353 sls 2002 0013 ISSN 1533 6263 S2CID 144022392 a b Hoff Erika 1951 January 2013 Language development Fifth ed Belmont CA ISBN 978 1 133 93909 2 OCLC 843489860 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint multiple names authors list link a b c Walker J Home Signs www signedlanguage co uk Retrieved 2020 03 23 a b c Begby Endre 2016 08 17 Language from the Ground Up A Study of Homesign Communication Erkenntnis 82 3 693 714 doi 10 1007 s10670 016 9839 1 ISSN 0165 0106 S2CID 125691967 Frishberg Nancy Home Sign Gallaudet encyclopedia of deaf people and deafness Vol 3 pp 128 131 a b c Mylander Carolyn Goldin Meadow Susan 1991 Home Sign Systems in Deaf Children The Development of Morphology without a Conventional Language Model In Siple P Fischer S D eds Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Chicago The University of Chicago Press pp 41 63 a b c Hill Joseph C Lillo Martin Diane C Wood Sandra K 2018 12 12 Homesign systems Sign Languages Routledge 117 133 doi 10 4324 9780429020872 7 ISBN 978 0 429 02087 2 S2CID 239536813 a b Goldin Meadow Susan 2005 04 05 The Resilience of Language doi 10 4324 9780203943267 ISBN 9780203943267 Richie Russell Yang Charles Coppola Marie 2014 Modeling the Emergence of Lexicons in Homesign Systems Topics in Cognitive Science 6 1 183 195 doi 10 1111 tops 12076 ISSN 1756 8765 PMC 3909872 PMID 24482343 Coppola Marie Spaepen Elizabet Goldin Meadow Susan 2013 08 01 Communicating about quantity without a language model Number devices in homesign grammar Cognitive Psychology 67 1 1 25 doi 10 1016 j cogpsych 2013 05 003 ISSN 0010 0285 PMC 3870334 PMID 23872365 Brentari Diane Coppola Marie Mazzoni Laura Goldin Meadow Susan 2012 When does a system become phonological Handshape production in gesturers signers and homesigners Natural Language amp Linguistic Theory published 2011 30 1 1 31 doi 10 1007 s11049 011 9145 1 ISSN 0167 806X PMC 3665423 PMID 23723534 Goldin Meadow S Brentari D Coppola M Horton L Senghas A 2015 Watching language grow in the manual modality Nominals predicates and handshapes Cognition 136 381 395 doi 10 1016 j cognition 2014 11 029 PMC 4308574 PMID 25546342 Morford Jill P 2002 01 01 The expression of motion events in homesign Sign Language amp Linguistics 5 1 55 71 doi 10 1075 sll 5 1 05mor ISSN 1387 9316 a b Franklin Amy Giannakidou Anastasia Goldin Meadow Susan 2011 Negation questions and structure building in a homesign system Cognition 118 3 398 416 doi 10 1016 j cognition 2010 08 017 PMC 3658158 PMID 23630971 Coppola Marie Newport Elissa L 2005 12 27 Grammatical Subjects in home sign Abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 52 19249 19253 Bibcode 2005PNAS 10219249C doi 10 1073 pnas 0509306102 PMC 1315276 PMID 16357199 Applebaum Lauren Coppola Marie Goldin Meadow Susan 2014 Prosody in a communication system developed without a language model Sign Language amp Linguistics 17 2 181 212 doi 10 1075 sll 17 2 02app ISSN 1387 9316 PMC 4285364 PMID 25574153 a b Van Deusen Phillips Sarah B Goldin Meadow Susan Miller Peggy J 2001 Enacting Stories Seeing Worlds Similarities and Differences in the Cross Cultural Narrative Development of Linguistically Isolated Deaf Children Human Development 44 6 311 336 doi 10 1159 000046153 ISSN 1423 0054 S2CID 145070424 Carrigan Emily Coppola Marie 2012 Mothers Do Not Drive Structure in Adult Homesign Systems Evidence from Comprehension Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 34 34 ISSN 1069 7977 a b Goldin Meadow Susan Namboodiripad Savithry Mylander Carolyn Ozyurek Asli Sancar Burcu 2015 The Resilience of Structure Built Around the Predicate Homesign Gesture Systems in Turkish and American Deaf Children Journal of Cognition and Development 16 1 55 80 doi 10 1080 15248372 2013 803970 ISSN 1524 8372 PMC 4316383 PMID 25663828 Richie Russell Hall Matthew L Cho Pyeong Whan Coppola Marie 2020 Converging evidence Network structure effects on conventionalization of gestural referring expressions Language Dynamics and Change doi 10 1163 22105832 bja10008 S2CID 229023731 Gagne Deanna L Coppola Marie 2017 Visible Social Interactions Do Not Support the Development of False Belief Understanding in the Absence of Linguistic Input Evidence from Deaf Adult Homesigners Frontiers in Psychology 8 837 doi 10 3389 fpsyg 2017 00837 ISSN 1664 1078 PMC 5454053 PMID 28626432 Gagne Deanna Goico Sara Pyers Jennie Coppola Marie 2019 False Belief Understanding Requires Language Experience but Its Precursor Abilities Do Not PDF Proceedings of the 43rd Boston University Conference on Language Development Cascadilla Press published November 2018 256 269 Spaepen Elizabet Coppola Marie Spelke Elizabeth S Carey Susan E Goldin Meadow Susan 2011 02 22 Number without a language model Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 8 3163 3168 Bibcode 2011PNAS 108 3163S doi 10 1073 pnas 1015975108 ISSN 0027 8424 PMC 3044352 PMID 21300893 Spaepen Elizabet Coppola Marie Flaherty Molly Spelke Elizabeth Goldin Meadow Susan 2013 11 01 Generating a lexicon without a language model Do words for number count Journal of Memory and Language 69 4 496 505 doi 10 1016 j jml 2013 05 004 ISSN 0749 596X PMC 3811965 PMID 24187432 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Home sign amp oldid 1133834927, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.