Article published in:
Gesture
Vol. 16:1 (2017) ► pp. 100–126

Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder

How language experience affects perceived iconicity

| University of New Mexico, Albuquerque | National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology
| University of New Mexico, Albuquerque | Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
| University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
A renewed interest in understanding the role of iconicity in the structure and processing of signed languages is hampered by the conflation of iconicity and transparency 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.
Keywords: iconicity, construal, ASL, DGS, signed language


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 29 June 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ

Full-text

Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder
References

References

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
Anible, Benjamin
(2016) Iconicity effects in translation direction: Bimodal bilingual language processing. Dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
Anible, Benjamin, Corrine Occhino-Kehoe, & Jeannine Kammann
(2013) The interface of phonology and semantics in ASL: An online-processing study. Presented at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) Conference 11, London, UK.Google Scholar
Anible, Benjamin, Corrine Occhino-Kehoe, & Teri Jaquez
(2014) The effects of sign language experience on hand shape perception. Presented at the Sign Language and Signed Linguistics Hub Conference (SL2Hub-DC), Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Battison, Robbin
(1978) Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Baus, Cristina, Manuel Carreiras, & Karen Emmorey
(2013) When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language and Cognitive Processes, 28 (3), 261–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
(1985) Diagrammatic iconicity in stem inflection relations. In John 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 122 ]
(2001) Phonology and language use. Cambridge, UK & New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge, UK & New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuxac, Christian & Marie-Anne Sallandre
(2007) Iconicity and arbitrariness in French sign language: Highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. In Elena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea, & Raffaele Simone (Eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
(1982) Frame semantics. In (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fischer, Andreas
(1999) What, if anything, is phonological iconicity? In Max Nänny & Olga Fischer (Eds.), Iconicity in language and literature, Vol. 1 (pp. 123–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy
(1972) Sharp and soft: Two aspects of movement in sign. Unpublished Manuscript, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
(1975) Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51 (3), 696–719. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
(1985) Iconicity, isomorphism, and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In John 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grote, Klaudia & Erika Linz
(2003) The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. In Wolfgang 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grote, Klaudia & Klaus Willmes
(2003) Do organizational principles in the mental lexicon influence the internal architecture of visual semantic categories? In Anne 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
Haiman, John
(1980) The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56 (3), 515–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Iconicity. In Lynn Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science, Vol. 2. London: Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Lizanne
(1999) Representing the structure-discourse iconicity of the Japanese post-verbal construction. In Michael 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi
(1979) The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kohonen, Teuvo
(2001) Self-organizing maps (3rd ed). Berlin & New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 123 ]
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lepic, Ryan
(2015) Motivation in morphology: Lexical patterns in ASL and English. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Lund, Kevin & Curt Burgess
(1996) Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28 (2), 203–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, John L. & Jeffrey L. Elman
(1986) The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit
(2010) Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language, 86 (4), 865–896.Google Scholar
Morford, Jill P., Jenny L. Singleton, & Susan Goldin-Meadow
(1993) The role of iconicity in manual communication. In Katharine 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
Occhino, Corrine
(2016). A cognitive approach to phonology: Evidence from signed languages. Dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Orlansky, Michael & John Bonvillian
(1984) The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49 (3), 287–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paola
(2002) Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 2 (3), 296–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Plato
(1926) Cratylus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias (with translation by Harold North Fowler). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 124 ]
Reilly, Jamie & Jacob Kean
(2007) Formal distinctiveness of high- and low-imageability nouns: Analyses and theoretical implications. Cognitive Science, 31 (1), 157–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Russo, Tommaso
(2004) Iconicity and productivity in sign language discourse: an analysis of three LIS discourse registers. Sign Language Studies, 4 (2), 164–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
(1986) Course in general linguistics. LaSalle, Ill: Open Court.Google Scholar
Shook, Anthony & Viorica Marian
(2013) The Bilingual Language Interaction Network for Comprehension of Speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (2), 304–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taub, Sarah
(2001) Language from the body. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B.
(1979) American Sign Language and sign systems. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Phyllis
(2000) Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman
(2004) Conceptual spaces and embodied actions: Cognitive iconicity and signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (2), 119–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Erin
(2009) Typology of signed languages: Differentiation through kinship terminology. Dissertation, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2020. Measuring lexical and structural conventionalization in young sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1 Crossref logo
No author info given
2020. Shaw, Emily. 2019. Gesture in multiparty interaction . Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1 Crossref logo
ANIBLE, BENJAMIN
2020. Iconicity in American Sign Language–English translation recognition. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 138 ff. Crossref logo
Bonvillian, John D., Nicole Kissane Lee, Tracy T. Dooley & Filip T. Loncke
2020.  In Simplified Signs, Crossref logo
Brentari, Diane
2019.  In Sign Language Phonology, Crossref logo
Dingemanse, Mark
2018. Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 Crossref logo
Hinojosa, J. A., J. Haro, S. Magallares, J. A. Duñabeitia & P. Ferré
2020. Iconicity ratings for 10,995 Spanish words and their relationship with psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods Crossref logo
Loos, Cornelia, Jens-Michael Cramer & Donna Jo Napoli
2020. The linguistic sources of offense of taboo terms in German Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics 31:1 ► pp. 73 ff. Crossref logo
MOTAMEDI, YASAMIN, HANNAH LITTLE, ALAN NIELSEN & JUSTIN SULIK
2019. The iconicity toolbox: empirical approaches to measuring iconicity. Language and Cognition 11:02 ► pp. 188 ff. Crossref logo
Napoli, Donna Jo & Lorraine Leeson
2020. Visuo-spatial construals that aid in understanding activity in visual-centred narrative. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35:4 ► pp. 440 ff. Crossref logo
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 Psycholinguistics 41:4 ► pp. 817 ff. Crossref logo
OCCHINO, CORRINE, BENJAMIN ANIBLE & JILL P. MORFORD
2020. The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 114 ff. Crossref logo
Ortega, Gerardo, Annika Schiefner & Aslı Özyürek
2019. Hearing non-signers use their gestures to predict iconic form-meaning mappings at first exposure to signs. Cognition 191 ► pp. 103996 ff. Crossref logo
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 Psychology 9 Crossref logo
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 Cognition 11:02 ► pp. 208 ff. Crossref logo
Thompson, Arthur Lewis, Kimi Akita & Youngah Do
2020. Iconicity ratings across the Japanese lexicon: A comparative study with English. Linguistics Vanguard 6:1 Crossref logo
THOMPSON, BILL, MARCUS PERLMAN, GARY LUPYAN, ZED SEVCIKOVA SEHYR & KAREN EMMOREY
2020. A data-driven approach to the semantics of iconicity in American Sign Language and English. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 182 ff. Crossref logo
Östling, Robert, Carl Börstell & Servane Courtaux
2018. Visual Iconicity Across Sign Languages: Large-Scale Automated Video Analysis of Iconic Articulators and Locations. Frontiers in Psychology 9 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 october 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.