Putting the puzzle together.

 

In an attempt to understand certain similarities across sign languages, some interesting suggestions have been made about the role of iconicity (transparent correspondence between form and meaning) in shaping sign language grammar. Such a possibility runs counter to the by now traditional view that grammatical structure and iconicity are mutually exclusive. This more traditional view assumed, with Saussure (1959), that the elements of language, to be language, must be arbitrary. Therefore, it was assumed to follow that whatever is iconic about sign language is not “linguistic.” Nowadays, however, there is such an abundance of solid evidence that sign languages are real linguistic systemsin every sense of the word, that it is possible to take a fresh look at the whole issue. Allowing for the possibility that iconicity contributes to grammatical structure in sign language opens the door to the possibility that general cognitive concepts – such as spatial relations among referents in a discourse and physical characteristics of objects and their motion – interact directly with the grammatical system (Sandler 1993). In this context it is reasonable, we believe, to develop research paradigms that examine the relationship between modality, iconicity, and grammatical structure. Only by studying the nature of language in the visual modality does this become possible. Attempts to create such paradigms will undoubtedly offer a much deeper understanding of language in general. Another area meriting further exploration is the relation between home sign and developed sign languages.Researchers have discovered the kernels of a structured communication system in the home sign created by deaf children of hearing parents in the absence of a language model. In particular, it can be argued that the rudiments of both the verbs of motion and location system, and the verb agreement system, have been observed in these children. As we have explained, the communication system of these children is far simpler and less systematic than a developed language, and even what does exist differs from developed sign languages. Nevertheless, it seems significant that what these children develop without a model has characteristics that are not only language-like, but unmistakably sign language-like. In particular, the use of space in denoting the referents involved in verb-like signs (as in verb agreement), and the use of handshapes to iconically represent physical classes of objects (as in verbs of motion and location) are found. As the study of the birth of a conventional sign language in Nicaragua reveals, the beginnings of the use of space for reference and handshape as a classifier in complex signs can become much more sophisticated and systematic in the space of one generation of signers. This rapid creolization of a home sign system to a sign language which has similar characteristics to other established sign languages reinforces our interest in accounting for the ubiquitous qualities of sign languages in an explanatory way. A different line of inquiry that ought to be further pursued is the one begun by S. Supalla (e.g. 1990). He has observed deaf school children who have been exposed only to a contrived signing system in which signs are used to translate the words and morphemes of spoken English, and which involves none of the grammatical properties of sign language. In communication among themselves, these children add sign-language-like elements, such as moving verbs in space to refer to subject or object referents, although they have not been exposed to a sign language model. When fit together with future studies in the other areas mentioned here, this work will provide additional important pieces to the puzzle.