1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Gesture
  4. Volume 16, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1568-1475
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9773
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

A renewed interest in understanding the role of iconicity in the structure and processing of signed languages is hampered by the conflation of and in the definition and operationalization of iconicity as a variable. We hypothesize that iconicity is fundamentally different than transparency since it arises from individuals’ experience with the world and their language, and is subjectively mediated by the signers’ construal of form and meaning. We test this hypothesis by asking American Sign Language (ASL) signers and German Sign Language (DGS) signers to rate iconicity of ASL and DGS signs. Native signers consistently rate signs in their own language as more iconic than foreign language signs. The results demonstrate that the perception of iconicity is intimately related to language-specific experience. Discovering the full ramifications of iconicity for the structure and processing of signed languages requires operationalizing this construct in a manner that is sensitive to language experience.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
This work is currently available as a sample.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ
2017-06-29
2024-12-03

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adam, Meike, Wiebke Iversen, Erin Wilkinson, & Jill P. Morford
    (2007) Meaning on the one and on the other hand: Iconicity in native vs. foreign signed languages. Insistent Images, 5, 209–225.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anible, Benjamin
    (2016) Iconicity effects in translation direction: Bimodal bilingual language processing. Dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Anible, Benjamin, Corrine Occhino-Kehoe, & Jeannine Kammann
    (2013) The interface of phonology and semantics in ASL: An online-processing study. Presented atthe Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) Conference 11, London, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Anible, Benjamin, Corrine Occhino-Kehoe, & Teri Jaquez
    (2014) The effects of sign language experience on hand shape perception. Presented atthe Sign Language and Signed Linguistics Hub Conference (SL2Hub-DC), Washington, D.C.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Battison, Robbin
    (1978) Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Baus, Cristina, Manuel Carreiras, & Karen Emmorey
    (2013) When does iconicity in sign language matter?Language and Cognitive Processes, 28 (3), 261–271. doi:  10.1080/01690965.2011.620374
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.620374 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, Joan L.
    (1985) Diagrammatic iconicity in stem inflection relations. InJohn Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford, June 24–26, 1983 (pp.11–48). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/tsl.6.03byb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.03byb [Google Scholar]
  8. (2001) Phonology and language use. Cambridge, UK & New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511612886
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge, UK & New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cuxac, Christian & Marie-Anne Sallandre
    (2007) Iconicity and arbitrariness in French sign language: Highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. InElena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea, & Raffaele Simone (Eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, Charles J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InThe Linguistics Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischer, Andreas
    (1999) What, if anything, is phonological iconicity?InMax Nänny & Olga Fischer (Eds.), Iconicity in language and literature, Vol.1 (pp.123–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Frishberg, Nancy
    (1972) Sharp and soft: Two aspects of movement in sign. Unpublished Manuscript, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA.
  14. (1975) Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51 (3), 696–719. doi:  10.2307/412894
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412894 [Google Scholar]
  15. Givón, Talmy
    (1985) Iconicity, isomorphism, and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. InJohn Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford, June 24–26, 1983 (pp.187–220). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/tsl.6.10giv
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.10giv [Google Scholar]
  16. Grote, Klaudia & Erika Linz
    (2003) The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. InWolfgang G. Müller & Olga Fischer (Eds.), From sign to signing: Iconicity in language and literature, Vol.3 (pp.23–40). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/ill.3.05gro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.3.05gro [Google Scholar]
  17. Grote, Klaudia & Klaus Willmes
    (2003) Do organizational principles in the mental lexicon influence the internal architecture of visual semantic categories?InAnne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde, & Onno Crasborn (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives in sign language research. Selected papers from TISLR 2000 (pp.283–306). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Haiman, John
    (1980) The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56 (3), 515–540. doi:  10.2307/414448
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414448 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2003) Iconicity. InLynn Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science, Vol.2. London: Nature Publishing Group.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kaiser, Lizanne
    (1999) Representing the structure-discourse iconicity of the Japanese post-verbal construction. InMichael Darnell, Edith A. Moravcsik, Michael Noonan, Frederic J. Newmeyer, & Kathleen Wheatley (Eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, Vol.2: Case studies (pp.107–129). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:  10.1075/slcs.42.08kai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.42.08kai [Google Scholar]
  21. Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi
    (1979) The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kohonen, Teuvo
    (2001) Self-organizing maps (3rd ed). Berlin & New York: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑3‑642‑56927‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56927-2 [Google Scholar]
  23. Langacker, Ronald W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol.1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lepic, Ryan
    (2015) Motivation in morphology: Lexical patterns in ASL and English. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, CA.
  26. Lund, Kevin & Curt Burgess
    (1996) Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28 (2), 203–208. doi:  10.3758/BF03204766
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204766 [Google Scholar]
  27. McClelland, John L. & Jeffrey L. Elman
    (1986) The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0285(86)90015‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0 [Google Scholar]
  28. Meier, Richard P.
    (1987) Elicited imitation of verb agreement in American Sign Language: Iconically or morphologically determined?Journal of Memory and Language, 26 (3), 362–376. doi:  10.1016/0749‑596X(87)90119‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(87)90119-7 [Google Scholar]
  29. Meir, Irit
    (2010) Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language, 86 (4), 865–896.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Morford, Jill P., Jenny L. Singleton, & Susan Goldin-Meadow
    (1993) The role of iconicity in manual communication. InKatharine Beals, Gina Cook, David Kathman, Sotaro Kita, Karl-Erik McCullough, David Testen (Eds.), Papers from the Chicago Linguistic Society: The parasession, 29 (2), 243–253.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Occhino, Corrine
    (2016). A cognitive approach to phonology: Evidence from signed languages. Dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
  32. Orlansky, Michael & John Bonvillian
    (1984) The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49 (3), 287–292. doi:  10.1044/jshd.4903.287
     https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4903.287 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ormel, Ellen, Harry Knoors, Daan Hermans, & Ludo Verhoeven
    (2009) The role of sign phonology and iconicity during sign processing: The case of deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14 (4), 485–502. doi:  10.1093/deafed/enp021
     https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enp021 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ortega, Gerardo & Gary Morgan
    (2014) The effect of iconicity in the mental lexicon of hearing non-signers and proficient signers: evidence of cross-modal priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30 (5), 574–585. doi:  10.1080/23273798.2014.959533
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.959533 [Google Scholar]
  35. Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson, & Gabriella Vigliocco
    (2010) Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, Article 227. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227 [Google Scholar]
  36. Perniss, Pamela & Gabriella Vigliocco
    (2014) The bridge of iconicity: from a world of experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369 (1651). doi:  10.1098/rstb.2013.0300
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0300 [Google Scholar]
  37. Petitto, Laura-Ann
    (1987) On the autonomy of language and gesture: Evidence from the acquisition of personal pronouns in American Sign Language. Cognition, 27 (1), 1–52. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0277(87)90034‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(87)90034-5 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pietrandrea, Paola
    (2002) Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 2 (3), 296–321. doi:  10.1353/sls.2002.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2002.0012 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pizzuto, Elena, Paola Pietrandrea, & Raffaele Simone
    (Eds.) (2007) Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies. Berlin  & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Plato
    (1926) Cratylus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias (withtranslation byHarold North Fowler). London: Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Poizner, Howard, Ursula Bellugi, & Ryan D. Tweney
    (1981) Processing of formational, semantic, and iconic information in American Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1146–1159. doi:  10.1037/0096‑1523.7.5.1146
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.7.5.1146 [Google Scholar]
  42. Reilly, Jamie & Jacob Kean
    (2007) Formal distinctiveness of high- and low-imageability nouns: Analyses and theoretical implications. Cognitive Science, 31 (1), 157–168. doi:  10.1080/03640210709336988
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210709336988 [Google Scholar]
  43. Russo, Tommaso
    (2004) Iconicity and productivity in sign language discourse: an analysis of three LIS discourse registers. Sign Language Studies, 4 (2), 164–197. doi:  10.1353/sls.2004.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0006 [Google Scholar]
  44. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    (1986) Course in general linguistics. LaSalle, Ill: Open Court.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Shook, Anthony & Viorica Marian
    (2013) The Bilingual Language Interaction Network for Comprehension of Speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (2), 304–324. doi:  10.1017/S1366728912000466
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000466 [Google Scholar]
  46. Taub, Sarah
    (2001) Language from the body. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511509629
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  47. Thompson, Robin L., David P. Vinson, & Gabriella Vigliocco
    (2009) The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 550–557. doi:  10.1037/a0014547
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014547 [Google Scholar]
  48. Thompson, Robin, David Vinson, & Gabriella Vigliocco
    (2010) The link between form and meaning in British Sign Language: Effects of iconicity for phonological decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36 (4), 1017–1027. doi:  10.1037/a0019339
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019339 [Google Scholar]
  49. Vinson, David P., Kearsy Cormier, Tanya Denmark, Adam Schembri, & Gabriella Vigliocco
    (2008) The British Sign Language (BSL) norms for age of acquisition, familiarity, and iconicity. Behavior Research Methods, 40 (4), 1079–1087. doi:  10.3758/BRM.40.4.1079
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1079 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
    (1979) American Sign Language and sign systems. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Wilcox, Phyllis
    (2000) Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Wilcox, Sherman
    (2004) Conceptual spaces and embodied actions: Cognitive iconicity and signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (2), 119–147. doi:  10.1515/cogl.2004.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wilkinson, Erin
    (2009) Typology of signed languages: Differentiation through kinship terminology. Dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ
Loading
Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder
Gesture 16, 100 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ
/content/journals/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ASL; construal; DGS; iconicity; signed language

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error