Cover not available
Part of
Where do nouns come from?
Edited by John B. Haviland
[Benjamins Current Topics 70] 2015
► pp. 43–63

Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons

| University of California, San Diego
| University of Haifa, Israel

Iconicity is an acknowledged property of both gesture and sign language. In contrast to the familiar definition of iconicity as a correspondence between individual forms and their referents, we explore iconicity as a shared property among groups of signs, in what we call patterned iconicity. In this paper, we focus on iconic strategies used by hearing silent gesturers and by signers of three unrelated sign languages in an elicitation task featuring pictures of hand-held manufactured tools. As in previous gesture literature, we find that silent gesturers largely prefer a handling strategy, though some use an instrument strategy, in which the handshape represents the shape of the tool. There are additional differences in use of handling and instrument strategies for hand-held tools across the different sign languages, suggesting typological differences in iconic patterning. Iconic patterning in each of the three sign languages demonstrates how gestural iconic resources are organized in the grammars of sign languages.

Published online: 17 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.70.03pad
References
Bank, Richard, Onno Crasborn, & Roeland van Hout
(2011) Variations in mouth actions with manual signs in sign language of the Netherlands (NGT). Sign Language & Linguistics, 14 (2), 248–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyatzis, Chris & Malcolm Watson
(1993) Preschool children’s symbolic representation of objects through gestures. Child Development, 64 (3), 729–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyes-Braem, Penny
(1981) Features of the handshape in American sign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Marie Coppola, Laura Mazzoni, & Susan Goldin-Meadow
(2012) When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30, 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Cecil
(1995) Lexical acculturation and ethnobiology: Utilitarianism versus intellectualism. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 5 (1), 51–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Han Sloetjes
(2008) Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.
Crasborn, Onno, Els van der Kooij, Dafydd Waters, Bencie Woll, & Johanna Mesch
(2008) Frequency distribution and spreading behavior of different types of mouth actions in three sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics, 11 (1), 45–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, Harold & Edith Kaplan
(1963) Disturbance of gesture and pantomime in aphasia. Brain, 86 (4), 703–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunsicker, Dea & Susan Goldin-Meadow
(2013) How handshape type can distinguish between nouns and verbs in homesign. Gesture, 13 (3), 354–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, Assaf & Wendy Sandler
(2012) Phonological category resolution: A study of handshapes in younger and older sign languages. In Rachel Channon & Harry van der Hulst (Eds.), Formational units in sign language (pp. 177–202). Nijmegen & Berlin: Ishara Press & Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi
(1979) The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan
(1984) When the mind hears: A history of the deaf (1st ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan, Richard Pillard, & Ulf Hedberg
(2011) The people of the eye: Deaf ethnicity and ancestry. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott
(2003) Grammar, gesture and meaning in American sign language. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott & Robert Johnson
(1989) American sign language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies, 64, 197–277.Google Scholar
McDonald, Betsy
(1982) Aspects of the American sign language predicate system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
McKee, Rachel & Graeme Kennedy
(2005) New Zealand sign language. In Allan Bell, Ray Harlow, & Donna Starks (Eds.), Languages of New Zealand (pp. 271–297). Wellington: Victoria University Press.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit
(2010) Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language, 86 (4), 865–896.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff, & Wendy Sandler
(2007) Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics, 43, 531–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Wendy Sandler, & Mark Aronoff
(2013) Competing iconicities in the structure of sign languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 24 (2), 309–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden, & Mark Aronoff
(2010) Emerging sign languages. In Marc Marschark & Patricia Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education (Vol. 2, pp. 267–280). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, Anne
(1995) Using representations: Comprehension and production of actions with imagined objects. Child Development, 66 (4), 999–1010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overton, Willis & Joseph Jackson
(1973) The representation of imagined objects in action sequences: A developmental study. Child Development, 44 (2), 309–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, Mark Aronoff, & Wendy Sandler
(2010) The grammar of space in two new sign languages. In Diane Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey (pp. 570–592). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic, & Sharon Seegers
(2014) Tools for Language: Patterned Iconicity in Sign Language Nouns and Verbs. Topics in cognitive science, 7 (1), 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Robin Thompson, & Gabriella Vigliocco
(2010) Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena & Virginia Volterra
(2000) Iconicity and transparency in sign languages: A cross-linguistic cross-cultural view. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (Eds.), Signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 261–286). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
(2006) Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Carol Padden, & Mark Aronoff
(2005) The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 102 (7), 2661–2665.
Schembri, Adam, Caroline Jones, & Denis Burnham
(2005) Comparing action gestures and classifier verbs of motion: Evidence from Australian sign language, Taiwan sign language, and nonsigners’ gestures without speech. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20 (3), 272–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schick, Brenda
(1990) The effects of morphological complexity on simplification in ASL. Sign Language Studies, 66, 25–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Supalla, Ted
(1986) The classifier system in American sign language. In Colette Craig (Ed.), Noun classification and categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Supalla, Ted & Elissa Newport
(1978) How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American sign language. In Patricia Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah
(2001) Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American sign language. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tkachman, Oksana & Wendy Sandler
(2013) The noun-verb distinction in two young sign languages. Gesture, 13 (3), 253–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike
(2004) Interrogative constructions in sign languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language, 80 (1), 7–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar