What is iconicity?

References

1. Barsalou, Lawrence W.
   2008 Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology59(1). 617–645. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 [Google Scholar]
2. Baus, Cristina, Manuel Carreiras & Karen Emmorey
   2013 When does iconicity in sign language matter?Language and Cognitive Processes28(3). 261–271. 10.1080/01690965.2011.620374
   https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.620374 [Google Scholar]
3. Campbell, Ruth, Paula Martin & Theresa White
   1992 Forced choice recognition of sign in novice learners of British Sign Language. Applied Linguistics13(2). 185–201. 10.1093/applin/13.2.185
   https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/13.2.185 [Google Scholar]
4. Caselli, Naomi K. & Jennie E. Pyers
   2020 Degree and not type of iconicity affects sign language vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition46(1). 127–139.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Dingemanse, Mark, Damián E. Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H. Christiansen & Padraic Monaghan
   2015 Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences19(10). 603–615. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 [Google Scholar]
6. Dudschig, Carolin, Claudia Maienborn & Barbara Kaup
   2016 Is there a difference between stripy journeys and stripy ladybirds? The N400 response to semantic and world-knowledge violations during sentence processing. Brain and Cognition1031. 38–49. 10.1016/j.bandc.2016.01.001
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2016.01.001 [Google Scholar]
7. Emmorey, Karen
   2014 Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences369(1651). 10.1098/rstb.2013.0301
   https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0301 [Google Scholar]
8. Evans, Vyvyan
   2009 How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001
   https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
9. Frege, Gottlob
   1892 Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik1001. 25–50.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Grote, Erika & Klaudia Linz
    2003 The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. InWolfgang G. Müller & Olga Fischer (eds.), From sign to signing, 23–40. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ill.3.05gro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.3.05gro [Google Scholar]
11. Hagoort, Peter & Jos van Berkum
    2007 Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences362(1481). 801–811. 10.1098/rstb.2007.2089
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2089 [Google Scholar]
12. Hagoort, Peter, Lea Hald, Marcel Bastiaansen & Karl Magnus Petersson
    2004 Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science304(5669). 438–441. 10.1126/science.1095455
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095455 [Google Scholar]
13. Jackendoff, Ray
    2019 Conceptual semantics. InClaudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics – theories, 86–113. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110589245‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110589245-004 [Google Scholar]
14. Jäger, Gerhard
    1999 Stage levels, states, and the semantics of the copula. InEwald Lang & Ljudmila Geist (eds.), Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen als Syntax/Semantik-Schnittstellen, 65–94. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. 10.21248/zaspil.14.1999.5
    https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.14.1999.5 [Google Scholar]
15. Joseph, John E.
    2004 The linguistic sign. InCarol Sanders (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Saussure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CCOL052180051X.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052180051X.005 [Google Scholar]
16. Joseph, John E.
    2015 Iconicity in Saussure’s linguistic work, and why it does not contradict the arbitrariness of the sign. Linguistica Historiographia42(1/2). 85–105. 10.1075/hl.42.1.05jos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.42.1.05jos [Google Scholar]
17. Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi
    1979 The signs of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Kripke, Saul A.
    1980 Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1991a Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1991b Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application. Vol.21. Standford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
22. Lepic, Ryan
    2015 Motivation in morphology: Lexical patterns in ASL and English. San Diego: University of California dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Lepic, Ryan & Corrine Occhino
    2018 A construction morphology approach to sign language analysis. InGeert Booij (ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology, 141–172. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_6 [Google Scholar]
24. Lieberth, Ann K. & Mary Ellen Bellile Gamble
    1991 The role of iconicity in sign language learning by hearing adults. Journal of Communication Disorders24(2). 89–99. 10.1016/0021‑9924(91)90013‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9924(91)90013-9 [Google Scholar]
25. Löbner, Sebastian
    2013 Understanding semantics. London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203528334
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203528334 [Google Scholar]
26. Maienborn, Claudia
    2017 Konzeptuelle Semantik. InSven Staffeldt & Jörg Hagemann (eds.), Semantiktheorien: Lexikalische Analysen im Vergleich, 151–188. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Massaro, Dominic W. & Marcus Perlman
    2017 Quantifying iconicity’s contribution during language acquisition: Implications for vocabulary learning. Frontiers in Communication21. 4. 10.3389/fcomm.2017.00004
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2017.00004 [Google Scholar]
28. Meier, Richard P., Claude E. Mauk, Adrianne Cheek & Christopher J. 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]
29. Meir, Irit
    2012 Word classes and word formation. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 77–111. Berlin & Boston: DeGruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.77
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.77 [Google Scholar]
30. Meir, Irit & Ariel Cohen
    2018 Metaphor in sign languages. Frontiers in Psychology91. 1025. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01025
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01025 [Google Scholar]
31. Meir, Irit & Oksana Tkachman
    2018 Iconicity. InMark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.343
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.343 [Google Scholar]
32. Newport, Elissa L. & Richard P. Meier
    1985 The acquisition of American Sign Language. InDan Isaac Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, 881–938. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Novogrodsky, Rama & Natalia Meir
    2020 Age, frequency, and iconicity in early sign language acquisition: Evidence from the Israeli Sign Language MacArthur-Bates Communicative Developmental Inventory. Applied Psycholinguistics41(4). 817–845. 10.1017/S0142716420000247
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716420000247 [Google Scholar]
34. Nyst, Victoria, Marta Morgado, Timothy Mac Hadjah, Marco Nyarko, Mariana Martins, Lisa van der Mark, Evans Burichani, Tano Angoua, Moustapha Magassouba & Dieydi Sylla
    2021 Object and handling handshapes in 11 sign languages: Towards a typology of the iconic use of the hands. Linguistic Typology26(3). 573–604. 10.1515/lingty‑2021‑0026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2021-0026 [Google Scholar]
35. Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible & Jill P. Morford
    2020 The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape. Language and Cognition12(1). 114–137. 10.1017/langcog.2020.1
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.1 [Google Scholar]
36. Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible, Erin Wilkinson & Jill P. Morford
    2017 Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder: How language experience affects perceived iconicity. Gesture16(1). 100–126. 10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ [Google Scholar]
37. Ogden, Charles Kay & Ivor Armstrong Richards
    1923 The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of thought and of the science of symbolism. Nature1111. 566. 10.1038/111566b0
    https://doi.org/10.1038/111566b0 [Google Scholar]
38. Orlansky, Michael D. & John D. Bonvillian
    1984 The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders49(3). 287–292. 10.1044/jshd.4903.287
    https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4903.287 [Google Scholar]
39. Ortega, Gerardo
    2017 Iconicity and sign lexical acquisition: A review. Frontiers in Psychology81. 1280. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280 [Google Scholar]
40. Ortega, Gerardo, Beyza Sumer & Asli Ozyurek
    2014 Type of iconicity matters: Bias for action-based signs in sign language acquisition. In36th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2014), 1114–1119.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Östling, Robert, Carl Börstell & Servane Courtaux
    2018 Visual iconicity across sign languages: Large-scale automated video analysis of iconic articulators and locations. Frontiers in Psychology91. 725. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00725
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00725 [Google Scholar]
42. Perniss, Pamela, Jenny C. Lu, Gary Morgan & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2018 Mapping language to the world: The role of iconicity in the sign language input. Developmental Science21(2). e12551. 10.1111/desc.12551
    https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12551 [Google Scholar]
43. Perniss, Pamela, Robin Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology11. 227. 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227 [Google Scholar]
44. 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 Sciences369(1651). 20130300. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0300
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0300 [Google Scholar]
45. Pfau, Roland
    2010 Handwaving and headshaking? On the linguistic structure of sign languages. InLes llengües de signes com a llengües minoritàries: perspectives lingüıstiques, socials i polıtiques (Actes del seminari del CUMIPB- CEL 2008), 59–84. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Pietrandrea, Paola
    2002 Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies2(3). 296–321. 10.1353/sls.2002.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2002.0012 [Google Scholar]
47. Pylkkänen, Liina, Bridget Oliveri & Andrew J. Smart
    2009 Semantics vs. world knowledge in prefrontal cortex. Language and Cognitive Processes24(9). 1313–1334. 10.1080/01690960903120176
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903120176 [Google Scholar]
48. Radden, Günter & Zoltán Kövecses
    1999 Metonymy in language and thought. InKlaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, 17–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
49. Radden, Günther
    2021 Iconicity. InXu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 268–296. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑19
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-19 [Google Scholar]
50. Recanati, François
    2021 Fictional reference as simulation. InEmar Maier & Andreas Stokke (eds.), The language of fiction, 17–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198846376.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198846376.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
51. Roberts, Gareth, Jirka Lewandowski & Bruno Galantucci
    2015 How communication changes when we cannot mime the world: Experimental evidence for the effect of iconicity on combinatoriality. Cognition1411. 52–66. 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.001 [Google Scholar]
52. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    1912 Adjectifs indo-européens du type caecus ‘aveugle’. InFestschrift Vilhelm Thomsen zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 25. Januar 1912, dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern, 202–206. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    1916 Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne: Payot.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    2011 Course in general linguistics. Trans. byWade Baskin. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Sehyr, Zed Sevcikova & 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]
56. Taub, Sarah F.
    2001 Language 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]
57. Taylor, John R.
    2017 Lexical semantics. InBarbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 246–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.017 [Google Scholar]
58. Thibault, Paul J.
    2013 Re-reading Saussure: The dynamics of signs in social life. London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203443767
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203443767 [Google Scholar]
59. Thompson, Arthur Lewis & Youngah Do
    2019 Defining iconicity: an articulation-based methodology for explaining the phonological structure of ideophones. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics4(1): 72. 10.5334/gjgl.872
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.872 [Google Scholar]
60. Thompson, Robin L.
    2011 Iconicity in language processing and acquisition: What signed languages reveal. Language and Linguistics Compass5(9). 603–616. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2011.00301.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00301.x [Google Scholar]
61. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
62. 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]
63. Tolar, Tammy D., Amy R. Lederberg, Sonali Gokhale & Michael Tomasello
    2008 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]
64. Urmson, James Opie
    1976 Fiction. American Philosophical Quarterly13(2). 153–157.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Warren, Tessa & Michael Walsh Dickey
    2021 The use of linguistic and world knowledge in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass15(4). e12411. 10.1111/lnc3.12411
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12411 [Google Scholar]
66. Warren, Tessa & Kerry McConnell
    2007 Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review14(4). 770–775. 10.3758/BF03196835
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196835 [Google Scholar]
67. Warren, Tessa, Evelyn Milburn, Nikole D. Patson & Michael Walsh Dickey
    2015 Comprehending the impossible: What role do selectional restriction violations play?Language, Cognition and Neuroscience30(8). 932–939. 10.1080/23273798.2015.1047458
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1047458 [Google Scholar]
68. Wilcox, Sherman
    2004 Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed language. Cognitive Linguistics15(2). 119–147. 10.1515/cogl.2004.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
69. Wilcox, Sherman & Rocío Martínez
    2021 Signed languages and cognitive linguistics. InXu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 251–274. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑33
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-33 [Google Scholar]
70. Zeshan, Ulrike
    2003 Aspects of Türk Isaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). Sign Language & Linguistics6(1). 43–75. 10.1075/sll.6.1.04zes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.6.1.04zes [Google Scholar]