Next, we consider how constituent order changes when new sign languages emerge. Senghas et al. (1997) studied the constituent orders used by the first- and second-cohort signers of Nicaraguan Sign Language, and again found that reversibility strongly influencedCogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptHall et al.Pageconstituent order. To describe non-Monocrotaline supplement reversible events, the signers used a mixture of (S)OV orders along with some OSV. For reversible events, however, Senghas et al. did not observe even a single instance of SOV among either the first- or second-cohort signers. Sandler et al. (2005) report that the nascent Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL) community has quickly converged on SOV as a basic word order, but they do not report whether reversibility impacted word order. The above findings lead to the prediction that ABSL signers would avoid SOV for reversible events, but at present it remains an empirical question. Several recent investigations of unrelated sign languages have found that SOV is more common for non-reversible events than for reversible events, while SVO shows the opposite pattern. These include Turkish Sign Language (Sevin? 2006), Russian Sign Language (Kimmelman, 2012), and Kenyan Sign Language (Morgan, 2012). The preceding evidence makes it clear that the pressure to avoid SOV for reversible events is attested in naturalistic contexts. But these systems also have consistent lexicons and interlocutors. Olumacostat glasaretil chemical information Although some of these new languages have indeed begun to use SVO to describe reversible events, we might wonder why this shift is not more widespread, both within and across languages. There are two factors that are likely responsible for this: the availability of other devices for marking semantic relations, and the interaction of competing constraints from production, comprehension, and acquisition. The potential impact of these factors can be illustrated by considering the evolution of pidgins into creoles, and the way that spoken languages change across long time scales. One of the most robust patterns in language evolution is that when a creole emerges out of a pidgin, it will be SVO (Bakker, 2008; McWhorter, 2001). This pattern holds even if the pidgin’s source languages were all SOV (Kouwenberg, 1992). The natural question is why these systems arrive at SVO so quickly while emerging sign languages do not. A likely explanation is that sign languages, unlike spoken languages, can exploit physical space to convey who did what to whom: a function that is commonly performed by case marking in spoken languages. When case marking gradually erodes from spoken languages, it commonly triggers a gradual shift to SVO order (Sinnem i, 2010), including a stage in which case marking is more likely to be retained for reversible events: a pattern known as Differential Object Marking (Aissen, 2003; Bossong, 1991). It is unsurprising, then, that in pidgins, where case marking is quickly dropped, a shift to SVO happens just as quickly. The ability of sign languages to exploit space for grammatical marking may slow this global shift to SVO, resulting in a system that uses SOV for most events, but avoids it for reversible events. (See Gibson et al., in press, for a similar proposal.) To test this hypothesis, future experiments could forbid the use of space to test whether SVO emerges as a preferred constituent order when physical spac.Next, we consider how constituent order changes when new sign languages emerge. Senghas et al. (1997) studied the constituent orders used by the first- and second-cohort signers of Nicaraguan Sign Language, and again found that reversibility strongly influencedCogn Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 June 01.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptHall et al.Pageconstituent order. To describe non-reversible events, the signers used a mixture of (S)OV orders along with some OSV. For reversible events, however, Senghas et al. did not observe even a single instance of SOV among either the first- or second-cohort signers. Sandler et al. (2005) report that the nascent Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL) community has quickly converged on SOV as a basic word order, but they do not report whether reversibility impacted word order. The above findings lead to the prediction that ABSL signers would avoid SOV for reversible events, but at present it remains an empirical question. Several recent investigations of unrelated sign languages have found that SOV is more common for non-reversible events than for reversible events, while SVO shows the opposite pattern. These include Turkish Sign Language (Sevin? 2006), Russian Sign Language (Kimmelman, 2012), and Kenyan Sign Language (Morgan, 2012). The preceding evidence makes it clear that the pressure to avoid SOV for reversible events is attested in naturalistic contexts. But these systems also have consistent lexicons and interlocutors. Although some of these new languages have indeed begun to use SVO to describe reversible events, we might wonder why this shift is not more widespread, both within and across languages. There are two factors that are likely responsible for this: the availability of other devices for marking semantic relations, and the interaction of competing constraints from production, comprehension, and acquisition. The potential impact of these factors can be illustrated by considering the evolution of pidgins into creoles, and the way that spoken languages change across long time scales. One of the most robust patterns in language evolution is that when a creole emerges out of a pidgin, it will be SVO (Bakker, 2008; McWhorter, 2001). This pattern holds even if the pidgin’s source languages were all SOV (Kouwenberg, 1992). The natural question is why these systems arrive at SVO so quickly while emerging sign languages do not. A likely explanation is that sign languages, unlike spoken languages, can exploit physical space to convey who did what to whom: a function that is commonly performed by case marking in spoken languages. When case marking gradually erodes from spoken languages, it commonly triggers a gradual shift to SVO order (Sinnem i, 2010), including a stage in which case marking is more likely to be retained for reversible events: a pattern known as Differential Object Marking (Aissen, 2003; Bossong, 1991). It is unsurprising, then, that in pidgins, where case marking is quickly dropped, a shift to SVO happens just as quickly. The ability of sign languages to exploit space for grammatical marking may slow this global shift to SVO, resulting in a system that uses SOV for most events, but avoids it for reversible events. (See Gibson et al., in press, for a similar proposal.) To test this hypothesis, future experiments could forbid the use of space to test whether SVO emerges as a preferred constituent order when physical spac.
