Test Your Knowledge Flash Cards 🔒Play Lemonaire 🔒Play Last Stand

Biological Explanation of Language Acquisition » Senghas Sign Language Study

What you'll learn this session

Study time: 30 minutes

Cambridge spec: 6.2.5

The aim, procedure, results and conclusion of Senghas (1995)
How Nicaraguan Sign Language grew in new schools for deaf children
Why younger learners made a richer, more grammatical language
How the study is used as an argument for Chomsky's biological explanation

🔒 Unlock Full Course Content

Unlock This Course

A language that was born in front of researchers

Normally a new language grows slowly over hundreds of years. In Nicaragua, researchers were able to watch a brand new language appear in just a few years. This makes it a rare and powerful piece of evidence for the biological explanation of language acquisition.

Quick reminder: Chomsky said that children are born ready for language. The language acquisition device (LAD) holds universal grammar, and there is a critical period when language is learned most easily. You met these ideas in earlier lessons. This lesson is about the named study that supports them.

Key terms:

Nicaraguan Sign Language: a sign language that was created by deaf children in Nicaragua when they were brought together in new schools.
Cohort: a group of learners who join at about the same time.
Grammatical: following clear rules about how signs or words are put together to give meaning.

The background

Before the late 1970s, deaf children in Nicaragua mostly lived apart from each other. They had no shared language. Each child used simple, personal gestures with their family.

Then new schools for deaf children opened in the capital city, Managua. For the first time, lots of deaf children met every day. They did not arrive with a sign language. They were not taught one by the teachers either. The children made up a shared way of signing among themselves, and it grew over the years as new children joined.

The named study: Senghas (1995)

Ann Senghas studied this new language. Her study is in the syllabus, so you need to know it in the order Cambridge uses: aim, procedure, results, conclusion.

Aim

To find out how Nicaraguan Sign Language developed when deaf children were brought together, and whether children of different ages shaped the language in different ways.

Procedure

How the aim was tested: the signing of deaf people from Nicaragua was compared. The signers had joined the schools at different times, so they belonged to different groups, or cohorts. The earliest children made the first version of the language. Children who joined later met a language that already existed, and they were younger when they first met it.
How data was collected: the researcher observed the signers and recorded how they signed. She then looked at how grammatical and complex each person's signing was.

📝 Think of it like this

The first children in the school made a rough first version of the language. The next children arrived and learned that version while they were still young. The study asks what the younger group did with it.

Results

The main finding is that the younger learners developed a richer, more grammatical language than the older learners. The newer signers did not just copy the signing they saw. They made it more complete and more regular.

The results can be shown in a simple table:

👧 Older learners (first cohort)

Signing was simpler and had less clear grammar.

They joined when the schools opened, had to build the first version of the signing themselves, and were older when they first met the language.

👶 Younger learners (later cohorts)

Signing was richer and more grammatical.

They joined when the language already existed and were younger when they first met it.

You could also show this as a bar chart. There would be one bar for each group. If the bars showed how rich and grammatical the signing was, the younger learners' bar would be taller. The chart compares groups, not single children.

Conclusion

Children can build a complex, rule-based language themselves, even if nobody teaches them one.
Younger children are better at this than older children, so age matters.

How it supports Chomsky

This is the part that turns the study into an argument. The study is used as evidence for Chomsky's biological explanation. Each result links to one of his ideas.

🧠 LAD

Nobody taught the children a language, yet they made one. This fits the idea that the brain is born ready to build language.

📑 Universal grammar

The new language ended up with grammar rules. This fits the idea that children are born with a basic sense of how grammar works.

⏰ Critical period

The younger learners did better than the older learners. This fits the idea that early childhood is the best time for language.

Learn this

Senghas (1995) is used as an argument for Chomsky's theory. Deaf children with no language to copy made a grammatical language, and the youngest learners made the richest one. This points to an inborn ability for language.

Common mistakes

Avoid these slips

Saying the teachers taught the children Nicaraguan Sign Language. The children created it among themselves.
Mixing up the groups. It was the younger learners who made the richer, more grammatical language.
Writing about strengths and weaknesses of the study. The syllabus does not ask for this. Stick to the aim, procedure, results and conclusion.
Describing the study without linking it to Chomsky. Always say why the result supports the biological explanation.
Mixing this up with aphasia. Aphasia is about brain damage after language is learned. Senghas is about children creating a new language.

Exam-style question

Senghas (1995) studied Nicaraguan Sign Language.

(a) State one finding of the study. [1 mark]

(b) Describe the procedure of the study. [2 marks]

Model answer

(a) The younger learners developed a richer, more grammatical language than the older learners (1).

(b) The signing of deaf people who had joined the schools in Managua at different times was compared (1). The researcher observed and recorded the signing to see how grammatical it was (1).

(c) The deaf children were not taught a language, but they still created one with grammar rules (1). This supports the idea of an inborn language acquisition device and universal grammar (1). The younger learners did better than the older learners, which supports the idea of a critical period (1).

Exam tip

In part (c), do not just repeat the results. Link each result to a part of Chomsky's theory, such as the LAD or the critical period.

Test Your Knowledge