Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:03:43.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consequences of the Now-or-Never bottleneck for signed versus spoken languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

Karen Emmorey
Karen Emmorey*
Affiliation:
School of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92120. [email protected]://emmoreylab.sdsu.edu/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Signed and spoken languages emerge, change, are acquired, and are processed under distinct perceptual, motor, and memory constraints. Therefore, the Now-or-Never bottleneck has different ramifications for these languages, which are highlighted in this commentary. The extent to which typological differences in linguistic structure can be traced to processing differences provides unique evidence for the claim that structure is processing.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

References

Aronoff, M., Meir, I. & Sandler, W. (2005) The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81(2):301–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellugi, U., Klima, E. S. & Siple, P. (1975) Remembering in signs. Cognition 3:93–25.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (1998) A prosodic model of sign language phonology. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2000) The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24:87–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, A., Hawkins, J. A. & Gilligan, G. (1985) The suffixing preference: A processing explanation. Linguistics 23:723–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K. (1995) Processing the dynamic visual-spatial morphology of signed languages. In: Morphological aspects of language processing: Cross-linguistic perspectives, ed. Feldman, L. M., pp. 29–54. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Bosworth, R. & Kraljic, T. (2009) Visual feedback and self-monitoring of sign language. Journal of Memory and Language 61:398–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, M. & Bavelier, D. (2009) Short-term memory stages in sign versus speech: The source of the serial span discrepancy. Cognition 120:54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A. & Butterfield, S. (1997) The possible word constraint in the segmentation of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 34:191–43.Google Scholar
Orfanidou, E., Morgan, G., Adam, R. & McQueen, J. (2010) Recognition of signed and spoken language: Different sensory inputs, the same segmentation procedure. Journal of Memory and Language 62:272–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. (1986) The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 50:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I. & Padden, C. (2011) The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29:503–43.Google Scholar
Supalla, S. (1991) Manually coded English: The modality question in signed language development. In: Theoretical issues in sign language research, ed. Siple, P. & Fischer, S. D., pp. 85–109. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Supalla, S. & McKee, C. (2002) The role of manually coded English in language development of deaf children. In: Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, ed. Meier, R. P., Cormier, K. & Quinto-Pozos, D., pp. 143–65. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. & Emmorey, K. (1997) A visual-spatial “phonological loop” in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language. Memory and Cognition 25(3):313–20.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. & Emmorey, K. (1998) A “word length effect” for sign language: Further evidence on the role of language in structuring working memory. Memory and Cognition 26(3):584–90.Google Scholar