MODALITY DOMINANCE: THE TIMING OF EARLY SIGNING AND SPEAKING REVISITED Anne Baker

presentation LANGUAGE GENESIS: Why are sign languages interesting? Possible that SL’s are forerunners of spoken languages Or Both have their origins in a gestural system

presentation LANGUAGE GENESIS: Theories of language origins Ding-Dong The origin of human language in onomatopoeia: imitative sounds that humans make to mimic the sounds of the world around them. Bow-wow Humans formed their first words by imitating animal sounds. Pooh-pooh The first words developed from sighs of pleasure, moans of pain, and other semi-involuntary cries These then became the names of the phenomena that made people say them. Uh-oh human language begins with the use of arbitrary symbols that represent warnings to other members of the human band.

presentation LANGUAGE GENESIS Theories (cont.) Yo-he-ho language arose in rhythmic chants and vocalisms uttered by people engaged in communal labour. Watch the Birdie human language became elaborated because humans found it advantageous to be able to deceive other humans. Since exclamations and vocalisms can involuntarily reveal your true mental state, humans learned to feign them in order to deceive others for selfish advantage. Ta-ta According to this, human language represents the use of oral gestures that began in imitation of hand gestures that were already in use for communication. View from: Acquisition of sign languages

presentation BACKGROUND: Sign languages as full languages Full grammatical system Not derived from spoken languages Change as any other languages do In contact with spoken languages as result of social situation of Deaf people

presentation BACKGROUND: Acquisition of a signed language Same stages as in a spoken language: Babbling before 1 year One-sign stage around 1 year Two-sign stage around 1year 6 months Multi-sign combinations from 2 years But variability between signed languages as to when specific structures are learned Some claims that a sign language is learned more quickly

presentation BACKGROUND: Multimodality in languages Spoken languages use speech but are also accompanied by gesture & facial expression Sign languages combine manual signs with actions of other body parts: eyebrowseye gaze head movementsmouth movements

presentation Video clip of Laura (0;11) and her mother in NGT

presentation Video clip of Mark (2;0) and his mother in NGT

presentation Non-manual actions in sign languages Mouth actions Eyes, brows, head, body... Mouthings derived from spoken language Mouth gestures not derived from spoken language Echo phonologyAdverbials Enactionsin code blending in loans e.g. to disambiguate

presentation Use of mouth actions in signed languages Signs with mouth gestures, i.e. not derived from spoken words e.g. “fa” in NGT sign FINALLY UNDERSTOOD “pa” in sign THROW AWAY Signs with mouthings, i.e. derived from spoken words e.g. “bal” in NGT sign BAL Latter can be seen as a form of code- blending.

presentation Types of code-blending (1)Dutch Base Language SignedVALLEN Spokendiegaatvallen English thatgoes fall Translation That [doll] is going to fall (2)NGT Base Language SignedINDEX hij JASBLAUW Spokenblauw English INDEX he COATBLUE TranslationHe has a blue coat

presentation Types of Code-blending cont’d (3) Mixed SignedPOP SPELEN Spokengeel English DOLL PLAY yellow Translation (I want) to play with the yellow doll (4)Full

presentation Amount of code-blending by 3 deaf children and their deaf mothers at 3;0 Mothers considerable amount; children little or none at 3;0.

presentation Amount of code-blending by 3 hearing children and their deaf mothers at 3;0 Mothers more than with deaf children; children also a considerable amount.

presentation How to explain the differences between the deaf and hearing children at age 3;0? Level of acquisition in the two languages Input Own language choice

presentation Windows project question At 3 years of age deaf and hearing children are behaving differently in their acquisition: Amount of code-blending is different Base language is different Spoken language seems to be “driving” the hearing children and sign language “driving” the deaf children at this age. How did they get there? What was the starting point?

presentation What is happening in the earliest period of acquisition? How are the two modalities combined from the beginning? 1. mouth actions + hand actions 2. mouth actions + signs (echo phonology?) 3. words + hand actions (incl. sign onset) 4. words + signs What is the timing in these combinations? do mouth actions / words start earlier than hand actions / signs or vice-versa? Is one “driving” the other?

presentation Method Analyze all hand and mouth actions: 3 deaf children (11-13 months to 2 years) 3 hearing children (9-13 months to 2 years) Analyze: Frequency of combined productions Frequency of types of combinations (types 1-4) Timing of manual and oral parts – 1. simultaneous beginning 2. manual action later than mouth action 3. manual action earlier than mouth action

presentation Example of analysis Transcript from Sander (2;0) Mother: Manual: AV_____/ onset_____POES Oral: waar__/ is____________/poes 1 st combination: type 4, simultaneous 2 nd comb.: type 3, manual later 3 rd comb.: type 4, manual earlier

presentation Tools Developed by the Max Planck Institute in Nijmegen with the aim of managing data and metadata files ELAN annotation software The IMDI (ISLE Metadata Initiative) Editor & Browser NWO project Visibase NWO infrastructure project just awarded to Nijmegen & UvA

Example of ELAN coding

presentation Argumentation If hearing children and deaf children are different in this very early period, then hearing status is clearly important and there is no universal pattern that could point to the original relationship between the modalities. If they are similar, this might indicate that there is a universal pattern that suggests the origins of language.

presentation RESULTS: Frequency of combinations of mouth and hand actions in children Hearing status9-13 months24 months Deaf< 1%< 7% Hearing 4.9%24% Deaf children have mainly hand actions overall incl. manual babbling, at 24 months more mouth movements Hearing children equal spread across manual and mouth actions

presentation RESULTS: Frequency of combinations of mouth and hand actions in children and mothers Hearing status9-13 months24 months Deaf< 1% 57%< 7% 71% Hearing 4.9% 36%24% 41% The mothers have far more combinations than their children. This appears to be learned behaviour. The Deaf mothers of the Deaf children have far more combinations compared to the mothers of the hearing children. There is an increase at 24 months.

presentation RESULTS: Main types of combinations of mouth and hand actions in children Hearing status9-13 months24 months Deaf1, 2 Hearing 1, 41, 3, 4 Deaf children have mainly hand+mouth actions and sign+mouth actions Hearing children have no sign+mouth actions.

presentation RESULTS: Examples of children’s combinations Transcript from Laura (0;11) Manual: hands moved up and down Oral: mouth open and shut Type 1 Transcript from Carla (2;0) Manual: SAMEN Oral: lips smacking Type 2

presentation RESULTS: Main types of combinations of mouth and hand actions in children and mothers Hearing status9-13 months24 months Deaf1, 2 3, 4 Hearing 1, 4 3, 41, 3, 4 3, 4 Deaf mothers all have mainly sign+mouth actions and sign+word combinations

presentation RESULTS: Timing of combinations of mouth and hand actions in children and mothers Children: There is no clear pattern. The manual actions in combination with a mouth action do not begin consistently earlier or late. The deaf and hearing children are not different in this respect. Mothers: The mothers do have the tendency to produce word+sign combinations with identical semantic content with a simultaneous beginning.

presentation Interpretation Hearing children and deaf children are producing relatively few combined utterances in the early months but the proportion increases. The hearing children are different from the deaf children in having more combined utterances. The type patterns seem to be different. The timing is not clearly indicative of one modality driving the other. Conclusion: there seems to be no universal pattern that could point to the original relationship between the modalities. The patterns found seem more related to hearing status and input patterns.

Collaborators on the Acquisition project Universiteit van Amsterdam Beppie van den Bogaerde, Roland Pfau, Marijke Scheffener, Joni Oyserman And all the families.