Content uploaded by Ann Senghas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ann Senghas on Jan 06, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
D. MacLaughlin & S. McEwen (eds.), Proceedings of the Boston University
Conference on Language Development 19, 543-552. Boston: Cascadilla Press.
1995. © 1994 Ann Senghas.
The Development of Nicaraguan Sign Language via the
Language Acquisition Process
Ann Senghas, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1. Introduction
One of the central goals in research on language acquisition is to discover
what knowledge and abilities children bring to the learning situation. Never
before in the history of language research has there been a better opportunity to
ask this question as the current situation in Nicaragua, where young children
deprived of exposure to any language are inventing a new one.
Only sixteen years ago, public schools for deaf children were first
established in Nicaragua. Despite the fact that these schools advocated an oral,
rather than signing, approach to education, they served as a magnet for a new
community of deaf children who had not previously had contact with one
another. Consequently, these children created their own indigenous sign
language. The language is not a simple code or gesture system; it has already
evolved into a full, natural language. It is independent from Spanish, the spoken
language of the region, and is unrelated to American Sign Language (ASL), the
sign language used in most of North America.
The present study examines how this first generation of signers is imposing
grammatical structure on their sign language as it develops. The method which
guides this work is one that is central to language acquisition research: by
examining the structure evident in the children's sign language production, and
subtracting from that the portion present in the language to which the children
were originally exposed, one can discover the children's contribution.
2. The development of Nicaraguan Sign Language
Kegl & Iwata (1989) described some of the earliest stages of Nicaraguan
signing, comparing it to ASL and evaluating its status as a creole. So far, two
distinct forms of the sign language have emerged. The oldest members of the
community, who are now in their mid- to late-twenties, entered the schools in
1978, each with a different, highly idiosyncratic homesign or gesture system.
Upon contact they developed a now partially-crystallized pidgin called Lenguaje
de Signos Nicaragüense (LSN) which they continue to use today. Younger deaf
children (many as young as four years old) who entered the deaf community since
that time were exposed to the pidgin LSN used by the older children. From this
impoverished language input they produced something richer: the new creole
Idioma de Signos Nicaragüense (ISN). ISN is a full-fledged, primary sign
language, resulting from the process of nativization, or abrupt creolization as
Bickerton (1984) defines it.
An initial set of acquisition studies has revealed several specific grammatical
structures that the younger children have developed, including an inflectional
verb morphology system and a noun classifier system. These constructions were
544
found primarily in the signing of the younger ISN signers, and were much less
common in the signing of the older LSN signers (Senghas et al., 1994;
Senghas, 1994).
3. Age at Entry and Year of Entry
The present study attempts to tease apart the potential sources of these
morphological changes. In particular, it examines the degree of grammatical
complexity with respect to two different factors which are predicted to combine
to account for the differences we have noted between older and younger signers.
The first is a child’s age at the time of entry into the signing community, or
Age at Entry. Children who are exposed to a language at a younger age
ultimately achieve greater fluency in the language than those who are exposed
only later in life. This point is clear from common observation, and has been
shown experimentally (Newport, 1990). Because the ages at which deaf
Nicaraguans acquired sign language range from birth to very late adolescence, one
can compare their command of certain constructions to pinpoint the ages at
which the constructions can be mastered. The effect of Age at Entry likely
accounts for a portion of the observed differences between LSN and ISN signers,
since late-exposed signers are more apt to be in the older LSN group.
A second factor which may account for differences in grammatical
complexity is a child’s Year of Entry into the signing community, that is,
whether the child began learning the sign language at an earlier or later point in
time, such as 1981 vs. 1990. If the language is indeed becoming richer over
time, signers who entered the community more recently should have been
exposed to richer signing than signers who entered the community in its earliest
years. More complex signing among children with a later Year of Entry would
be evidence that the complexities have appeared in recent years.
4. Current study: narrative elicitation task
4.1. Procedure
The subjects of the present study are 25 deaf Nicaraguan signers whose ages
at the time of testing ranged from 7;6 to 31;11, with a mean of 21;1. Their Age
at Entry ranges from birth to 27;5, with a mean of 9;10 and their Year of Entry
ranges from 1978 to 1990.
Each subject was presented with a 2-minute animated cartoon (Mr. Koumal
Battles his Conscience, Studio Animovaného Filmu, 1973) and asked to sign the
story to a deaf peer. The narratives were videotaped, and the videotapes were then
coded with respect to what events were represented, and which morphological
devices were used in recounting those events. In particular, we examined certain
features of the verb phrase: how many arguments a verb can take, specific
inflections that can be incorporated into verbs, and whether those inflections are
used to mark agreement with other words in the narrative.
545
4.1.1. Number of arguments per verb
One measure of grammatical complexity is the number of arguments per
verb. It is likely that the syntactic structure needed for a verb to support more
than one argument has only recently appeared in Nicaraguan signing. Verbs’
subjects and/or objects can be articulated in any of three different ways. Some
are simply stated as a noun. Some are indicated with an inflectional feature,
generally an indicator of spatial agreement, such as a pointing motion following
the verb, or a directional orientation of the verb that associates it with a
previously established referent. Some are indicated through a means (which may
be unique to Nicaraguan signing) of using the stem of another verb which has
been previously associated with the intended referent. To produce this form, a
verb is truncated to its uninflected stem form and used later in the narrative in a
nounlike way to refer to its argument (this construction is described in more
detail in Senghas, 1994).
4.1.2. Inflection and agreement
Like many other sign languages, Nicaraguan signing takes advantage of its
spatial component to inflect verbs for person or location. A verb can be oriented
toward a specific locus to indicate third person, for example, or the body can be
shifted toward that locus and the sign produced in the first person. In addition,
verbs can be inflected to indicate number, manner, or completion. Verbs can be
multiply inflected, simultaneously incorporating two or more inflections. A
sign is coded as exhibiting agreement when its inflection corresponds to an
inflection on a previous word in order to co-index them, or to refer to the same
argument. For example, a verb with plural inflection would exhibit agreement
with its argument if the argument were also marked for plural. Several verbs
would be coded as exhibiting agreement if they were similarly inflected, that is,
oriented toward the same locus, in order to indicate that they share an argument.
If younger children are indeed contributing to the complexity of Nicaraguan
signing, we should find that signers with a lower Age at Entry and signers with
a later Year of Entry show more arguments per verb than signers who were older
and signers who were exposed to an earlier form of the language. They should
also use more inflectional marking, and more of their inflected forms should
exhibit agreement across the discourse.
4.2. Results
For all analyses, subjects were grouped by Age at Entry and Year of Entry.
They fell into three groups with respect to Age at Entry: young (0;0-6;6, n=8),
medium (6;7-10;0, n=8), and old (10;1-27;5, n=9). They fell into two groups
with respect to Year of Entry: before 1983 (n=13) and 1983 or later (n=12).
546
4.2.1. Verbs with two or more arguments
The first analysis uses the number of arguments associated with a verb as its
measure of grammatical complexity. The proportion of verb phrases which
indicated two or more arguments was computed for each narrative. This
proportion was examined with respect to the Age at Entry and the Year of Entry
of each signer. The results of this comparison are presented in Figure 1.
<83 >=83
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Verbs with Two or More Arguments
Year of Entry
Verbs with 2+ Args/Verbs
before 1983 1983 or later
Age at Entry: p = .042
Year of Entry: p = .013
young
medium
old
Figure 1. The proportion of verbs which support at least two arguments is
greater for signers who entered the community in 1983 or later , and for
signers who were first exposed to the language at a young age.
An Age at Entry (3) by Year of Entry (2) analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was conducted on the proportion of verbs with two or more arguments. This
analysis revealed a main effect for Year of Entry, F(1, 19)=7.49, p=.013.
Subjects who entered the signing community in 1983 or later use verbs with
two or more arguments more than twice as often (X=.21) as subjects who entered
the community before 1983 (X=.10). This effect is evident in Figure 1 as the
positive slope of the lines corresponding to all three age groups.
The analysis also revealed a main effect for Age at Entry, F(2, 19)=3.77,
p=.042. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the subjects who began signing at a
young age used verbs with two or more arguments more than twice as often
547
(X=.22) than subjects who began signing at an old age (X=.08), F(1,13)=5.33,
p=.04. There was no difference detected between the young and medium
(X=.17)or the medium and old groups in the proportion of verb phrases with at
least two arguments. The effect of Age at Entry is evident in Figure 1 as the
gap between the lines corresponding to each age group.
4.2.2. Inflections per verb
The second analysis uses the number of inflections per verb as its measure
of grammatical complexity. Inflections included number inflection, person
inflection, position or orientation inflection, and aspectual markers. The mean
number of inflections per verb was computed for each narrative. This proportion
was examined with respect to the Age at Entry and the Year of Entry of each
signer. The results of this comparison are presented in Figure 2.
<83 >=83
0
1
2
3
Inflections per Verb
Year of Entry
Inflections/Verbs
before 1983 1983 or later
Age at Entry: p = .001
Year of Entry: p = .038
young
medium
old
Figure 2. The number of inflections per verb is greater overall for signers
who entered the community in 1983 or later, and for signers who were
exposed to the language at a young or medium age. The young and medium
Age at Entry signers are particularly affected by a later Year of Entry.
An Age at Entry (3) by Year of Entry (2) analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was conducted on the number of inflections per verb. This analysis revealed a
548
main effect for Year of Entry, F(1, 19)=4.99, p=.038. Subjects who entered the
signing community in 1983 or later use more inflections per verb (X=1.93) than
subjects who entered the community before 1983 (X=1.71). This effect is
evident in Figure 2 as the positive slope of the lines, particularly of the young
and medium Age at Entry groups.
The analysis also revealed a main effect for Age at Entry, F(2, 19)=10.26,
p=.001. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the subjects who began signing at a
young age used more than twice as many inflections per verb (X=2.34) as
subjects who began signing at an old age (X=1.09), F(1,13)=18.19, p=.0009.
Subjects who began signing at a medium age used nearly twice as many
inflections per verb (X=2.10) as subjects who began signing at an old age
(X=1.09), F(1,13)=11.40, p=.005. There was no difference detected between the
young and medium groups in the number of inflections per verb. The effect of
Age at Entry is evident in Figure 2 as the gap between the lines corresponding to
each age group.
Although there was no interaction detected between the Age at Entry and
Year of Entry factors, the effect of Year of Entry is present in only the young
and medium Age at Entry groups.
4.2.3. Agreement per verb
The third analysis uses the number of inflections exhibiting agreement as its
measure of grammatical complexity. Of the inflections coded in the second
analysis, those exhibiting agreement with another sign in the narrative were
tabulated. The mean number of inflections showing agreement per verb was
computed for each narrative. This proportion was examined with respect to the
Age at Entry and the Year of Entry of each signer. The results of this
comparison are presented in Figure 3.
An Age at Entry (3) by Year of Entry (2) analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was conducted on the number of inflections showing agreement per verb. This
analysis revealed a main effect for Year of Entry, F(1, 19)=8.17, p=.003.
Subjects who entered the signing community in 1983 or later use more
agreement per verb (X=.94) than subjects who entered the community before
1983 (X=.66). This effect is evident in Figure 3 as the positive slope of the
lines, particularly of those corresponding to the young and medium Age at Entry
groups.
The analysis also revealed a main effect for Age at Entry, F(2, 19)=9.07,
p=.007. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the subjects who began signing at a
young age used more than twice as many inflections showing agreement per verb
(X=1.03) as subjects who began signing at an old age (X=.43), F(1,13)=12.54,
p=.004. Subjects who began signing at a medium age also used more than twice
as many inflections showing agreement per verb (X=.98) as subjects who began
signing at an old age (X=.43), F(1,13)=10.69, p=.006. There was no difference
detected between the young and medium groups in the number of inflections
showing agreement per verb. The effect of Age at Entry is evident in Figure 3
as the gap between the lines corresponding to each age group.
549
<83 >=83
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Agreement per Verb
Year of Entry
Agreement/Verbs
before 1983 1983 or later
Age of Entry: p = .003
Year of Entry: p = .007
medium
young
old
Figure 3. The number of inflections showing agreement per verb is greater
overall for signers who entered the community in 1983 or later, and for
signers who were exposed to the language at a young or medium age. The
young and medium Age at Entry signers are particularly affected by a later
Year of Entry.
Although there was no interaction detected between the Age at Entry and
Year of Entry factors, the effect of Year of Entry is present in only the young
and medium Age at Entry groups.
4.3. Discussion
As predicted, the age at which signers are first exposed to a sign language
has a strong effect on their ability to command some of its more complex
structures. Signers who were exposed to Nicaraguan signing at a young age can
indicate more arguments with their verbs than signers who were exposed to the
language only after they were older. The younger learners will also will use the
inflectional verb system more, and are more likely to use it to indicate
grammatical agreement. This finding is consistent with theories that claim that
children’s language-learning abilities decrease with age. Upon closer
550
examination we should be able to discover if certain forms are more available at
different periods of a child’s development.
The calendar year in which signers entered into the Nicaraguan signing
community also strongly affects their command of these same grammatical
structures. Those who have entered the community in more recent years actually
include more of the complex constructions in their signing than those who
began signing longer ago, despite the fact that the more recent learners have had
fewer years of exposure to the language. This evidence strongly suggests that
the language has become measurably richer over the last sixteen years as the new
generation of deaf children has acquired it.
The combination of the two factors of Age at Entry and Year of Entry has
created an unusual situation in which the most proficient signers in the
community are its youngest and newest members.
Although no statistical interaction between the two factors was detected, it
is likely such an interaction will become evident as more narratives are analyzed,
since the effect of Year of Entry is present only in the signers who entered the
community under the age of ten. It may be that older signers are unable to take
advantage of the increased richness of the language that surrounds them; or
perhaps only the younger children enrich the language as they learn it. When
new constructions are added to the language, children young enough to learn or
create them will have those constructions at their disposal.
4.4. Reanalysis or imperfect learning?
It is interesting to look at particular constructions in the grammar that seem
to have undergone a change to try to determine how change in the language
occurs. A closer examination of position or location inflection, for example,
reveals that while signers who began signing in 1980 are using these inflectional
markers, only those who began signing a few years later (and at a young age) use
these inflections to mark agreement.
Similarly, one sign used by many of the older signers incorporates a
shoulder shift with a simultaneous wrist rotation to indicate a change in person
from the previous verb. Younger, more recent signers use a slightly modified
version of this sign, using a shift toward a particular locus consistently
throughout the discourse to refer to (and hence, express agreement with) a
repeated argument.
There are two possible ways of interpreting this difference between older and
younger signers:
• The older signers may have developed the inflectional marker for change of
person early, and used it for several years before younger signers reanalyzed the
construction as a way to mark agreement.
• The younger signers may have introduced a system of inflection and agreement
in one piece in 1983, using person and location inflection to mark agreement.
Older signers, now turning to the younger, more proficient signers as their
551
models, may have learned this system imperfectly, using the inflection to mark a
change of person, but not consistently marking agreement across the discourse.
This question might be resolved by finding examples of this construction or
its precursors in videos taken during earlier years. This would be clear evidence
of how the current construction evolved. The question might also be resolved by
locating signers who were members of the signing community during the early
years but have had little contact with younger deaf children since that time. If
these signers use the inflection, but not as a marker of agreement, it would be
likely that the inflection was reanalyzed by the younger children as an agreement
marker.
5. Conclusion
By using this type of questioning, we can map out when the sign language
in Nicaragua took on different structures, and how specific constructions are
being reanalyzed by children as they learn them. It is clear that these young
children are not merely using a language more proficiently than their models--
they are enriching their language as they learn it.
Following the growth of this new language gives us an unprecedented
opportunity to examine the forces that drive both language learning and language
change. All children have a special inborn ability not only to learn language,
but to surpass the language of the environment when it is weak, and to create a
language where none existed.
Notes
*grateful thanks to Marie Coppola, Richard J. Senghas, Judy Kegl, Noel
Lam (MED), APRIAS, Steven Pinker, Hoyt Bleakley, Rebecca Kaplan,
Malia Crawford, Emily Wallis, and the children at Melania Morales,
Managua, Nicaragua. This research was supported by training grant #T32
MH18823 from the National Institutes of Mental Health to the Department
of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, and from a Spencer Foundation
Dissertation Fellowship to the author.
References
Bickerton, D. 1984. The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 7: 173-221.
Kegl, J., & Iwata, G. (1989). Lenguaje de Signos Nicaragüense: A pidgin
sheds light on the “creole?” ASL. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual
Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference. University of Oregon,
Eugene.
Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive
Science 14: 11-28.
552
Senghas, A. (1994). Nicaragua’s lessons for language acquisition. Signpost
7: 32-39.
Senghas, A., Kegl, J., Senghas, R. J., & Coppola, M. E. V. (1994). Sign
language emergence and sign language change: children's contribution to the
birth of a language. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting for the
Linguistic Society of America, Boston, Massachusetts.
Studio Animovaného Filmu. 1973. Mr. Koumal Battles his Conscience. Bratri
v Triku, Prague.
