Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 12:3 (2017) ► pp.309–341

The unbounded productivity of (sign) language

Evidence from the Stroop task

| Northeastern University
| Northeastern University
Unbounded productivity is a hallmark of linguistic competence. Here, we asked whether this capacity automatically applies to signs. Participants saw video-clips of novel signs in American Sign Language (ASL) produced by a signer whose body appeared in a monochromatic color, and they quickly identified the signs’ color. The critical manipulation compared reduplicative (αα) signs to non-reduplicative (αβ) controls. Past research has shown that reduplication is frequent in ASL, and frequent structures elicit stronger Stroop interference. If signers automatically generalize the reduplication function, then αα signs should elicit stronger color-naming interference. Results showed no effect of reduplication for signs whose base (α) consisted of native ASL features (possibly, due to the similarity of α items to color names). Remarkably, signers were highly sensitive to reduplication when the base (α) included novel features. These results demonstrate that signers can freely extend their linguistic knowledge to novel forms, and they do so automatically. Unbounded productivity thus defines all languages, irrespective of input modality.
Keywords: rules, sign language, stroop
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • The scope of linguistic generalizations
    • Gauging the scope of phonological generalizations
    • Do signers extend phonological generalizations automatically?
  • Experiment 1
    • Methods
      • Participants
      • Materials
        • Reduplication materials
        • Color-sign interference materials
        • Procedure
      • Results and discussion
        • The color-sign interference
        • The reduplication effect
  • Experiment 2
    • Methods
      • Participants
      • Materials and procedure
    • Results and discussion
      • The color-sign interference
      • The reduplication effect
  • General discussion
    • The origins of the reduplication cost for nonnative signs
    • Why are signers indifferent to the reduplication of native signs?
    • The scope of linguistic generalizations in sign language
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.17016.ber
References (94)
References
Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition, 901, 119–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baus, C., Gutiérrez-Sigut, E., Quer, J., & Carreiras, M. (2008). Lexical access in Catalan Signed Language (LSC) production. Cognition, 1081, 856–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baus, C., Gutiérrez, E., & Carreiras, M. (2014). The role of syllables in sign language production. Frontiers In Psychology, 51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., & Shimron, J. (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the Obligatory Contour Principle. Cognition, 641, 39–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Shimron, J., & Vaknin, V. (2001). Phonological constraints on reading: Evidence from the Obligatory Contour Principle. Journal of Memory and Language, 441, 644–665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I. (2002). Identity avoidance in the Hebrew lexicon: implications for symbolic accounts of word formation. Brain and Language, 811, 326–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Marcus, G. F., Shimron, J., & Gafos, A. I. (2002). The scope of linguistic generalizations: evidence from Hebrew word formation. Cognition, 831, 113–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., & Shimron, J. (2003). Co-occurrence restrictions on identical consonants in the Hebrew lexicon: Are they due to similarity? Journal of Linguistics, 391, 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Vaknin, V., & Shimron, J. (2004). Does a theory of language need a grammar? Evidence from Hebrew root structure. Brain and Language, 901, 170–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., & Marom, M. (2005). The skeletal structure of printed words: Evidence from the Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 311, 328–338.Google Scholar
Berent, I., Pinker, S., Tzelgov, J., Bibi, U., & Goldfarb, L. (2005). Computation of semantic number from morphological information. Journal of Memory and Language, 531, 342–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Bibi, U., & Tzelgov, J. (2006). The autonomous computation of linguistic structure in reading: Evidence from the Stroop task. The Mental Lexicon, 11, 201–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Vaknin, V., & Marcus, G. (2007). Roots, stems, and the universality of lexical representations: Evidence from Hebrew. Cognition, 1041, 254–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Wilson, C., Marcus, G., & Bemis, D. (2012). On the role of variables in phonology: Remarks on Hayes and Wilson. Linguistic Inquiry, 431, 97–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Dupuis, A., & Brentari, D. (2013). Amodal aspects of linguistic design. Plos One, 81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Phonological reduplication in sign language: Rules rule. Frontiers in Language Sciences, 51, 560.Google Scholar
Bosworth, R. G., & Emmorey, K. (2010). Effects of iconicity and semantic relatedness on lexical access in american sign language. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 361, 1573–1581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 1081, 624–652. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Mazzoni, L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gestures, signers and homesigners. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & McClelland, J. L. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. Linguistic Review, 221, 381–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2008). Linguistic universals and language change. In J. Good (Ed.), Linguistic universals and language change (pp. 108–121). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caselli, N. K., & Pyers, J. E. (2017). The Road to Language Learning Is Not Entirely Iconic: Iconicity, Neighborhood Density, and Frequency Facilitate Acquisition of Sign Language. Psychological Science, 281, 979–987. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Gravenhage: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind (Enl. ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
(2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 361, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corina, D. P., & Knapp, H. (2006). Sign language processing and the mirror neuron system. Cortex, 421, 529–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple-Alford, E. (1972). Associative facilitation and interference in the Stroop color-word task. Perception & Psychophysics, 111, 274–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dupuis, A., & Berent, I. (2015). Lexical access to signs is automatic. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 111, 1–6.Google Scholar
Eimas, P., & Seidenberg, M. (1997). Do Infants Learn Grammar with Algebra or Statistics? Science, 2841, 433.Google Scholar
Elman, J. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition, 481, 71–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (2005). Connectionist models of cognitive development: where next? Trends Cogn Sci, 91, 111–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K., Lane, H. L., Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. S. (2000). The signs of language revisited: an anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Grabowski, T., McCullough, S., Damasio, H., Ponto, L., Hichwa, R., et al. (2004). Motor-iconicity of sign language does not alter the neural systems underlying tool and action naming. Brain and Language, 891, 27–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Entel, O., Tzelgov, J., Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Shahar, N. (2015). Exploring relations between task conflict and informational conflict in the Stroop task. An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action, 791, 913–927.Google Scholar
Flemming, E. (2001). Scalar and Categorical Phenomena in a Unified Model of Phonetics and Phonology. Phonology, 181, 7–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 281, 3–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Frisch, S. A., Pierrehumbert, J. B., & Broe, M. B. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 221, 197–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gervain, J., Macagno, F., Cogoi, S., Peña, M., & Mehler, J. (2008). The neonate brain detects speech structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1051, 14222–14227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gervain, J., Berent, I., & Werker, J. (2012). Binding at birth: Newborns detect identity relations and sequential position in speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 241, 564–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1950). The patterning of morphemes in Semitic. Word, 61, 162–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haskell, T. R., MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2003). Language learning and innateness: Some implications of compounds research. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 119–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B., & Wilson, C. (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 391, 379–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hildebrandt, U., & Corina, D. (2002). Phonological Similarity in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 171, 593–612. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, L., Lindsay, D., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 101, 638–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joanisse, M. F., & McClelland, J. L. (2015). Connectionist perspectives on language learning, representation and processing. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Cognitive Science, 61, 235–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Levin, Y., & Tzelgov, J. (2016). Contingency learning is not affected by conflict experience: Evidence from a task conflict-free, item-specific Stroop paradigm. Acta psychologica, 1641, 39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S., & Johnson, R. (1986). American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization and phonological remnants. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 41, 445–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 121, 523–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrate review. Psychological Bulletin, 1091. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. (2001). The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. F. (1998). Rethinking eliminative connectionism. Cognitive Psychology, 371, 243–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, S., & Vishton, P. M. (1999). Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science, 2831, 77–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Fernandes, K. J., & Johnson, S. P. (2007). Infant rule learning facilitated by speech. Psychol Sci, 181, 387–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marom, M., & Berent, I. (2010). Phonological constraints on the assembly of skeletal structure in reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic research, 391, 67–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marschark, M., & Shroyer, E. H. (1993). Hearing Status and Language Fluency as Predictors of Automatic Word and Sign Recognition. American Annals of the Deaf, 1381, 370–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry, 171, 207–263.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1989). Linear order in phonological representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 201, 71–99.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. (2002). Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: what does the evidence rule out? Trends Cogn Sci, 61, 465–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L. (2009). Phonology and perception: A cognitive scientist’s perspective. In P. Boersma & S. Hamann (Eds.), Phonology in perception (pp. 293–314). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., Botvinick, M. M., Noelle, D. C., Plaut, D. C., Rogers, T. T., Seidenberg, M. S., et al. (2010). Letting structure emerge: Connectionist and dynamical systems approaches to cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 141, 348–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ormel, E., Knoors, H., Hermans, D., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). The role of sign phonology and iconicity during sign processing: The case of deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 141, 436–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oudeyer, P. -Y. (2001). The Origins Of Syllable Systems: an Operational Model. In J. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science society, COGSCI’2001 (pp. 744–749): Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Petitto, L. A., Holowka, S., Sergio, L. E., & Ostry, D. (2001). Language rhythms in baby hand movements. Nature, 4131, 35–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (1993). Dissimilarity in Arabic verbal roots. Paper presented at the Proceedings of NELS 23, GLSA, Departments of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 281, 73–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1997a). Words and rules in the human brain. Nature, 3871, 547–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997b). How the mind works. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Proctor, R. W. (1978). Sources of color-word interference in the Stroop color-naming task. Perception & Psychophysics, 231, 413–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rabagliati, H., Senghas, A., Johnson, S., & Marcus, G. F. (2012). Infant rule learning: Advantage language, or advantage speech? Plos One, 71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M., & Dye, M. (2011). Learning language from the input: Why innate constraints can’t explain noun compounding. Cognitive Psychology, 621, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning past tense of English verbs: Implicit rules or parallel distributed processing? In D. Rumelhart, E. J. McClelland, L & T. P. R. Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 21, pp. 216–271). Cambridge MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. C. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Padden, C. (2011). The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 291, 505–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M., & McClelland, J. (1989). A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 961, 523–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. (1997). Language acquistion and use: Learning and applying probabilistic contraints. Science, 2751, 1599–1603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., & Jeffery, L. E. (1999). Do infants Learn Grammar with Algebra or Statistics. Science, 2841, 433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, P., Goldrick, M., & Mathis, D. (2014). Optimization and Quantization in Gradient Symbol Systems: A Framework for Integrating the Continuous and the Discrete in Cognition. Cognitive Science, 381, 1102–1138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, W. C., Jr. (1960). Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 101, 3–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 181, 643–662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Supalla, T., & Newport, E. (1978). How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding Language through Sign Language Research. (pp. 91–132). New-York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 351, 550–557.Google Scholar
(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, 361, 1017–1027.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., Woll, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British sign language. Psychological Science, 231, 1443–1448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effect by manipulating expectation for color related stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 201, 727–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tzelgov, J. (1997). Specifying the relations between automaticity and consciousness: A theoretical note. Consciousness And Cognition, 61, 441–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G. (2016). Experience-Dependent Brain Development as a Key to Understanding the Language System. Topics In Cognitive Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. (1973). The phonology of reduplication. Unpublished Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
(2009). Productive reduplication in a fundamentally monosyllabic language. Language Sciences, 311, 325–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Naranjo-Zeledón, Luis, Mario Chacón-Rivas, Jesús Peral & Antonio Ferrández
2020. Phonological Proximity in Costa Rican Sign Language. Electronics 9:8 ► pp. 1302 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 2024. 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.