1887
Volume 23, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Observations that iconicity diminishes over time in sign languages (Frishberg 1975) pose a puzzle: Why should something so evidently useful and functional decrease? Using an archival dataset of signs elicited over 15 years from 4 first-cohort and 4 third-cohort signers of an emerging sign language (Nicaraguan Sign Language), we investigated changes in pantomimic (body-to-body) and perceptual (body-to-object) iconicity. We make three key observations: (1) there is greater variability in the signs produced by the first cohort compared to the third; (2) while both types of iconicity are evident, pantomimic iconicity is more prevalent than perceptual iconicity for both groups; and (3) across cohorts, pantomimic elements are dropped to a greater proportion than perceptual elements. The higher rate of pantomimic iconicity in the first-cohort lexicon reflects the usefulness of body-as-body mapping in language creation. Yet, its greater vulnerability to change over transmission suggests that it is less favored by children’s language acquisition processes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00044.pye
2020-10-30
2021-01-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arbib, Michael A.
    2008 From grasp to language: Embodied concepts and the challenge of abstraction. Journal of Physiology-Paris102(1–3). 4–20. 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Battison, Robbin
    1978Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boyatzis, Chris & Malcolm Watson
    1993 Preschool children’s symbolic representation of objects through gestures. Child Development64(3). 729–735. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑8624.1993.tb02939
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02939 [Google Scholar]
  4. Caselli, Naomi K. & Jennie E. Pyers
    2017 The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate acquisition of sign language. Psychological Science28(7). 979–987. 10.1177/0956797617700498
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617700498 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2020 Degree and not type of iconicity affects sign language vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition46(1). 127–139. doi:  10.1037/xlm0000713
    https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000713 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, Jenny, Rachel Magid & Jennie Pyers
    2016, November. The effect of iconicity type on preschoolers’ gesture learning: A role for embodiment?Poster presented at the41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Coppola, Marie & Elissa Newport
    2005 Grammatical subjects in home sign: Abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input. National Academy of Sciences102. 19249–19253. 10.1073/pnas.0509306102
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509306102 [Google Scholar]
  8. Coppola, Marie & Ann Senghas
    2010 The emergence of deixis in Nicaraguan signing. InDiane Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey. 543–569. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.025 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuxac, Christian & Marie-Anne Sallandre
    2007 Iconicity and arbitrariness in French Sign Language: Highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology36. 13–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dingemanse, Mark, Damian Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten Christiansen & Padriac Monaghan
    2015 Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences19. 603–615. doi:  10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 [Google Scholar]
  11. Emmorey, Karen
    2014 Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences369 (1651). doi:  10.1098/rstb.2013.0301
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0301 [Google Scholar]
  12. Frishberg, Nancy
    1975 Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language51(3). 696–719. 10.2307/412894
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412894 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gentner, Dedre
    1983 Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science7. 155–170. doi:  10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3 [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldin-Meadow, Susan
    2005The resilience of language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203943267
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203943267 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldin-Meadow, Susan, David McNeill & Jenny Singleton
    1996 Silence is liberating: Removing the handcuffs on grammatical expression in the manual modality. Psychological Review103(1). 34–55. 10.1037/0033‑295X.103.1.34
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.34 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodglass, Harold & Edith Kaplan
    1963 Disturbance of gesture and pantomime in aphasia. Brain86(4). 703–720. 10.1093/brain/86.4.703
    https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/86.4.703 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hodges, Leslie E., Şeyda Özçalışkan & Rebecca Williamson
    2018 Type of iconicity influences children’s comprehension of gesture. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology166. 327–339. doi:  10.1016/j.jecp.2017.08.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.08.009 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hudson Kam, Carla & Elissa Newport
    2009 Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology59(1). 30–66. doi:  10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hwang, So-One, Nozomi Tomita, Hope Morgan, Rabia Ergin, Deniz İlkbaşaran, Sharon Seegers, Ryan Lepic & Carol Padden
    2017 Of the body and the hands: Patterned iconicity for semantic categories. Language and Cognition9(4). 573–602. 10.1017/langcog.2016.28
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.28 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kantartzis, Katerina, Mutsumi Imai, Danielle Evans & Sotaro Kita
    2019 Sound symbolism facilitates long-term retention of the semantic representation of novel verbs in three-year-olds. Languages4(2). 21. 10.3390/languages4020021
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages4020021 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kanwal, Jasmeen, Kenny Smith, Jennifer Culbertson & Simon Kirby
    2017 Zipf’s law of abbreviation and the principle of least effort: Language users optimize a miniature lexicon for efficient communication. Cognition165. 45–52. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kegl, Judy, Ann Senghas & Marie Coppola
    1999 Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. InMichel DeGraff (Ed.), Language creation and language change: creolization, diachrony, and development, 179–237. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kocab, Annemarie, Jennie E. Pyers & Ann Senghas
    2015 Referential shift in Nicaraguan Sign Language: A transition from lexical to spatial devices. Frontiers in Psychology5. 1540. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01540
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01540 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kocab, Annemarie, Ann Senghas & Jesse Snedeker
    2016 The emergence of temporal language in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cognition156. 147–163. 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  25. Magid, Rachel W. & Jennie E. Pyers
    2017 “I use it when I see it”: The role of development and experience in Deaf and hearing children’s understanding of iconic gesture. Cognition162. 73–86. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.015 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mayberry, Rachel & Susan D. Fischer
    1989 Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The bottleneck of non-native sign language processing. Memory and Cognition17. 740–754. doi:  10.3758/BF03202635
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202635 [Google Scholar]
  27. Meier, Richard P., Claude E. Mauk, Adrianne Cheek & Christopher Moreland
    2008 The form of children’s early signs: Iconic or motoric determinants?. Language Learning and Development4(1). 63–98. 10.1080/15475440701377618
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15475440701377618 [Google Scholar]
  28. Meir, Irit, Mark Aronoff, Wendy Sandler & Carol A. Padden
    2010 Sign languages and compounding. InSergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 301–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.311.23mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.311.23mei [Google Scholar]
  29. Meir, Irit, Carol A. Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
    2007 Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics43(3). 531–563. 10.1017/S0022226707004768
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004768 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2013 Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics24(2). 309–343. 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0010 [Google Scholar]
  31. Motamedi, Yasamin, Marieke Schouwstra, Kenny Smith, Jennifer Culbertson & Simon Kirby
    2019 Evolving artificial sign languages in the lab: From improvised gesture to systematic sign. Cognition192, 103964. 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Namy, Laura L.
    2008 Recognition of iconicity doesn’t come for free. Developmental Science11(6). 841–846. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2008.00732.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00732.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Ortega, Gerardo & Asli Özyürek
    2020 Systematic mappings between semantic categories and types of iconic representations in the manual modality: A normed database of silent gesture. Behavior Research Methods52. 51–67. 10.3758/s13428‑019‑01204‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01204-6 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ortega, Gerardo, Beyza Sümer & Asli Özyürek
    2017 Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children. Developmental Psychology53(1). 89–99. 10.1037/dev0000161
    https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000161 [Google Scholar]
  35. Overton, Willis F. & Joseph P. Jackson
    1973 The representation of imagined objects in action sequences: A developmental study. Child Development44(2). 309–314. doi:  10.2307/1128052
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1128052 [Google Scholar]
  36. Padden, Carol, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic & Sharon Seegers
    2015 Tools for language: Patterned iconicity in sign language nouns and verbs. Topics in Cognitive Science7(1). 81–94. 10.1111/tops.12121
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12121 [Google Scholar]
  37. Perlman, Marcus, Hannah Little, Bill Thompson & Robin L. Thompson
    2018 Iconicity in signed and spoken vocabulary: A comparison between American Sign Language, British Sign Language, English, and Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology9. 1433. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01433
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01433 [Google Scholar]
  38. Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology1. 227. 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pizzuto, Elena & Virginia Volterra
    2000 Iconicity and transparency in sign languages: A cross-linguistic cross-cultural view. InKaren Emmorey & Harlan L. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: an anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 261–286. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Polich, Laura
    2005The emergence of the Deaf community in Nicaragua: “With sign language you can learn so much”. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Saffran, Jenny, Richard Aslin & Elissa Newport
    1996 Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science274 (5294). 1926–1928. doi:  10.1126/science.274.5294.1926
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sandler, Wendy
    2009 Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica174. 241–275. doi:  10.1515/semi.2009.035
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2009.035 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sandler, Wendy, Mark Aronoff, Irit Meir & Carol Padden
    2011 The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory29(2). 503–543. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9128‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9128-2 [Google Scholar]
  44. Senghas, Ann & Marie Coppola
    2001 Children creating language: How Nicaraguan Sign Language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science12(4). 323–328. 10.1111/1467‑9280.00359
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00359 [Google Scholar]
  45. Senghas, Ann
    2010 The emergence of two functions for spatial devices in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Human Development53. 287–302. 10.1159/000321455
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000321455 [Google Scholar]
  46. Senghas, Richard J.
    2003 New ways to be deaf in Nicaragua: Changes in language, personhood, and community. InLeila Monaghan, Karen Nakamura, Constanze Schmaling & Graham H. Turner (Eds.), Many ways to be deaf: International variation in deaf communities, 260–282. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Sevcikova Sehyr, Zed & Karen Emmorey
    2019 The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: Evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cognition11(2). 208–234. 10.1017/langcog.2019.18
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.18 [Google Scholar]
  48. Siple, Patricia
    1978 Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies19(1). 95–110. 10.1353/sls.1978.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1978.0010 [Google Scholar]
  49. Taub, Sarah F.
    2001Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  50. 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 Cognition35(2). 550–557.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Thompson, Robin L., David P. Vinson, Bencie Woll & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2012 The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science23(12). 1443–1448. 10.1177/0956797612459763
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459763 [Google Scholar]
  52. Tolar, Tammy D., Amy R. Lederberg, Sonali Gokhale & Michael Tomasello
    2007 The development of the ability to recognize the meaning of iconic signs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education13(2). 225–240. 10.1093/deafed/enm045
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enm045 [Google Scholar]
  53. Van Nispen, Karin W., Mieke van de Sandt-Koenderman & Emiel Krahmer
    2017 Production and comprehension of pantomimes used to depict objects. Frontiers in Psychology8. 1095. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01095
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01095 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00044.pye
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00044.pye
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): iconicity , language emergence , Nicaraguan Sign Language and vocabulary
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