Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:36:06.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hierarchical Structure in a Self-Created Communication System: Building Nominal Constituents in Homesign

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Dea Hunsicker and
Susan Goldin-Meadow
Dea Hunsicker*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Susan Goldin-Meadow*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
University of Chicago, Department of Psychology, 5848 S. University Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 [deash@uchicago.edu]
[sgm@uchicago.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Deaf children whose hearing losses are so severe that they cannot acquire spoken language and whose hearing parents have not exposed them to sign language nevertheless use gestures, called HOMESIGNS to communicate. Homesigners have been shown to refer to entities by pointing at that entity (a demonstrative, that). They also use iconic gestures and category points that refer, not to a particular entity, but to its class (a noun, bird). We used longitudinal data from a homesigner called David to test the hypothesis that these different types of gestures are combined to form larger, multigesture nominal constituents (that bird). We verified this hypothesis by showing that David’s multigesture combinations served the same semantic and syntactic functions as demonstrative gestures or noun gestures used on their own. In other words, the larger unit substituted for the smaller units and, in this way, functioned as a nominal constituent. Children are thus able to refer to entities using multigesture units that contain both nouns and demonstratives, even when they do not have a conventional language to provide a model for this type of hierarchical constituent structure.

Keywords

deafhomesignmultigesture unitsnominal constituentsnouns and demonstrativeshierarchical structure

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 88 , Issue 4 , December 2012, pp. 732 - 763
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abney, Stephen R 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Bahan, Benjamin, Kegl, Judy, MacLaughlin, Dawn; and Neidle, Carol. 1995. Convergent evidence for the structure of determiner phrases in American Sign Language. Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, vol 2: Syntax II & semantics/pragmatics, ed. by Gabriele, Leslie, Hardison, Debra, and Westmoreland, Robert, 1–12. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Bernath, Jeffrey L. 2009. Pinning down articles and adjectives in American Sign Language. European Summer School on Logic, Language, and Information Workshop: Formal approaches to Sign Language, Université Bordeaux 2 Site de la Victoire.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Coppola, Marie, Mazzoni, Laura; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2012. When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bošković, Željko. 2004. Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion, and scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 613–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 37.1.101–14.Google Scholar
Boster, Carole T. 1996. On the quantifier-noun phrase split in American Sign Language and the structure of quantified phrases. International review of sign linguistics, ed. by Edmondson, William H. and Wilbur, Ronnie B., 159–208. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Butcher, Cynthia, Mylander, Carolyn; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 1991. Displaced communication in a self-styled gesture system: Pointing at the nonpresent. Cognitive Development 6. 315–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and McClelland, James L.. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22. 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coppola, Marie, and Newport, Elissa L.. 2005. Grammatical subjects in home sign: Abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102. 19249–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coppola, Marie, and Senghas, Ann. 2010. Deixis in an emerging sign language. Sign languages, ed. by Brentari, Diane, 543–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coppola, Marie, Spaepen, Elizabet; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2010. Communicating about number without a language model: Linguistic devices for number are robust. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz, and Chicago: University of Chicago, ms.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Order of demonstrative and noun. The world atlas of language structures, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard, 358–59. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Feldman, Heidi M., Goldin-Meadow, Susan; and Gleitman, Lila R.. 1978. Beyond Herodotus: The creation of language by linguistically deprived deaf children. Action, symbol, and gesture: The emergence of language, ed. by Lock, Andrew, 351–414. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, Amy, Giannakidou, Anastasia; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2011a. Negation as structure building in a home sign system. Pragmatics and autolexical grammar: In honor of Jerry Sadoch, ed. by Yuasa, Etsuyo, Bagchi, Tista, and Beals, Katharine, 261–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Franklin, Amy, Giannakidou, Anastasia; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2011b. Negation, questions, and structure building in a homesign system. Cognition 118.3.398–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., and Giudice, Alex Del. 2005. Subject auxiliary inversion: A natural category. The Linguistic Review 22. 411–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 1982. The resilience of recursion: A study of a communication system developed without a conventional language model. Language acquisition: The state of the art, ed. by Warner, Eric and Gleitman, Lila R., 51–77. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2003a. The resilience of language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2003b. Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2005. What language creation in the manual modality tells us about the foundations of language. The Linguistic Review 22. 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Butcher, Cynthia, Mylander, Carolyn; and Dodge, Mark. 1994. Nouns and verbs in a self-styled gestures system: Whaťs in a name? Cognitive Psychology 27. 259–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, and Feldman, Heidi M.. 1977. The development of language-like communication without a language model. Science 197. 401–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Gelman, Susan; and Mylander, Carolyn. 2005. Expressing generic concepts with and without a language model. Cognition 96. 109–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, McNeill, David; and Singleton, Jenny L.. 1996. Science is liberating: Removing the handcuffs on grammatical expression in the manual modality. Psychological Review 103. 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, and Mylander, Carolyn. 1983. Gestural communication in deaf children: Non-effect of parental input on language development. Science 221. 372–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, and Mylander, Carolyn. 1984. Gestural communication in deaf children: The effects and noneffects of parental input on early language development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 49. 1–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, and Mylander, Carolyn. 1998. Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature 391. 279–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Mylander, Carolyn; and Butcher, Cynthia. 1995. The resilience of combinatorial structure at the word level: Morphology in self-styled gesture systems. Cognition 56. 195–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Mylander, Carolyn; and Franklin, Amy. 2007. How children make language out of gesture: Morphological structure in gesture systems developed by American and Chinese deaf children. Cognitive Psychology 55. 87–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmeister, Robert, and Wilbur, Ronnie. 1980. Developmental: The acquisition of sign language. Recent perspectives on American Sign Language, ed. by Lane, Harlane L. and Grosjean, François, 61–78. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, Annette. 1979. A functional approach to child language: A study of determiners and reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kyle, Jim G., Woll, Bencie, Pullen, Gloria; and Maddix, Frank. 1985. Sign language: The study of deaf people and their language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena V., Pine, Julian M.; and Baldwin, Gillian. 1997. Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language 24. 187–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lillo-Martin, Diane C. 1991. Universal grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the null argument parameters. (Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics.) Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane C., and de Quadros, Roníce Müller. 2008. Focus constructions in American Sign Language and Lingua de Sinais Brasileira. Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, ed. by Quer, Josep, 161–76. Seedorf: Signum.Google Scholar
Lou, Mimi W.-P. 1988. The history of language use in education of the Deaf. Language learning and deafness, ed. by Strong, Michael, 75–98. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1991. Natural language and universal grammar. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meier, Richard P., and Newport, Elissa L.. 1990. Out of the hands of babes: On a possible sign advantage in language acquisition. Language 66. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Kegl, Judy, MacLaughlin, Dawn, Bahan, Benjamin; and Lee, Robert G.. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua B.; and Regier, Terry. 2011. The leamability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition 118. 306–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singleton, Jenny L., Morford, Jill P.; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 1993. Once is not enough: Standards of well-formedness in manual communication created over three different timespans. Language 69. 683–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, William. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2000a. The item-based nature of children’s early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Science 4.4.156–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2000b. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 11. 61–82.10.1515/cogl.2001.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2005. Beyond formalities: The case of language acquisition. The Linguistic Review 22. 183–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valían, Virginia. 1986. Syntactic categories in the speech of young children. Developmental Psychology 22. 562–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valían, Virginia. 2009. Abstract linguistic representations and innateness: The development of determiners. Time and again: Theoretical perspectives on formal linguistics in honor of D. Terence Langendoen, ed. by Lewis, William D., Karimi, Simin, Harley, Heidi, and Farrar, Scott O., 189–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waxman, Sandra R., Senghas, Ann; and Bienveniste, Susana. 1997. A cross-linguistic examination of the noun-category bias: Its existence and specificity in French- and Spanish-speaking preschool-aged children. Cognitive Psychology 32. 183–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmer, June, and Patschke, Cynthia. 1990. A class of determiners in ASL. Sign language research: Theoretical issues, ed. by Lucas, Ceil, 201–10. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar