It has long been postulated that language is not purely learned, but arises from an interaction between environmental exposure and innate abilities. The innate component becomes more evident in rare situations in which the environment is markedly impoverished. The present study investigated the language production of a generation of deaf Nicaraguans who had not been exposed to a developed language. We examined the changing use of early linguistic structures (specifically, spatial modulations) in a sign language that has emerged since the Nicaraguan group first came together. In under two decades, sequential cohorts of learners systematized the grammar of this new sign language. We examined whether the systematicity being added to the language stems from children or adults; our results indicate that such changes originate in children aged 10 and younger. Thus, sequential cohorts of interacting young children collectively possess the capacity not only to learn, but also to create, language.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, R.W. (1983). A language acquisition interpretation of pidginization and creolization. In R. Anderson (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition (pp. 1–56). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
2.
Bickerton, D. (1984). The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 173–188.
3.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Chomsky, N. and M. Halle (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
5.
Fischer, S. (1978). Sign language and creoles. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language theory through sign language research (pp. 309–331). New York: Academic Press.
6.
Goldin-Meadow, S. and C. Mylander (1984). Gestural communication in deaf children: The effects and non-effects of parental input on early language development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 49(3–4, Serial No. 207).
7.
Goldin-Meadow, S. and C. Mylander (1998). Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature, 391, 279–281.
8.
Hyltenstam, K. and N. Abrahamsson (2000). Who can become native-like in a second language? All, some, or none? On the maturational constraints controversy in second language acquisition. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 150–166.
9.
Johnson, J.S. and E.L. Newport (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.
10.
Kegl, J. and G. Iwata (1989). Lenguaje de Signos Nicaragüense: A pidgin sheds light on the creole? ASL. In R. Carlson, S. DeLancey, S. Gilden, D. Payne and A. Saxena (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference (pp. 266–294). Eugene: University of Oregon, Department of Linguistics.
11.
Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In E. Bach and R.T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 170–202). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
12.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
13.
Newport, E.L. (1981). Constraints on structure: Evidence from American Sign Language and language learning. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology: Vol. 14. Aspects of the development of competence (pp. 93–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
Newport, E.L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28.
15.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.
16.
Polich, L.G. (1998). Social agency and deaf communities: A Nicaraguan case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
17.
Ross, D.S. and E.L. Newport (1996). The development of language from non-native linguistic input. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes and A. Zukowski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 634–645). Boston: Cascadilla Press.
18.
Sankoff, G. and S. Laberge (1973). On the acquisition of native speakers by a language. Kivung, 6, 32–47.
19.
Senghas, A. (1995). Children's contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
20.
Senghas, A. (2000). The development of early spatial morphology in Nicaraguan Sign Language. In S.C. Howell, S.A. Fish and T. Keith-Lucas, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 696–707). Boston: Cascadilla Press.
21.
Senghas, R.J. (1997). An ‘unspeakable, unwriteable’ language: Deaf identity, language & personhood among the first cohorts of Nicaraguan signers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
22.
Singleton, J.L. and E.L. Newport (in press). When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology.
23.
Slobin, D.I. (1977). Language change in childhood and history. In J. Macnamara (Ed.), Language learning and thought (pp. 185–214). New York: Academic Press.
24.
Snow, C.E. and M. Hoefnagel-Höhle (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114–1128.
25.
Supalla, T. (1995). An implicational hierarchy in verb agreement in American Sign Language. Unpublished manuscript, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
