Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:19:08.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An investigation of iconic language development in four datasets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2021

David M. SIDHU Open the ORCID record for David M. SIDHU [Opens in a new window] ,
Jennifer WILLIAMSON ,
Velina SLAVOVA  and
Penny M. PEXMAN
David M. SIDHU*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Canada
Jennifer WILLIAMSON
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Canada
Velina SLAVOVA
Affiliation:
New Bulgarian University, Bulgaria
Penny M. PEXMAN
Affiliation:
University of Calgary, Canada
*
Corresponding author: David M. Sidhu E-mail: dmsidhu@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Iconic words imitate their meanings. Previous work has demonstrated that iconic words are more common in infants’ early speech, and in adults’ child-directed speech (e.g., Perry et al., 2015; 2018). This is consistent with the proposal that iconicity provides a benefit to word learning. Here we explored iconicity in four diverse language development datasets: a production corpus for infants and preschoolers (MacWhinney, 2000), comprehension data for school-aged children to young adults (Dale & O'Rourke, 1981), word frequency norms from educational texts for school aged children to young adults (Zeno et al., 1995), and a database of parent-reported infant word production (Frank et al., 2017). In all four analyses, we found that iconic words were more common at younger ages. We also explored how this relationship differed by syntactic class, finding only modest evidence for differences. Overall, the results suggest that, beyond infancy, iconicity is an important factor in language acquisition.

Type
Brief Research Report
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , March 2022 , pp. 382 - 396
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aryani, A., Conrad, M., Schmidtke, D., & Jacobs, A. (2018). Why ‘piss’ is ruder than ‘pee’? The role of sound in affective meaning making. PloS ONE, 13(6).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asano, M., Imai, M., Kita, S., Kitajo, K., Okada, H., & Thierry, G. (2015). Sound symbolism scaffolds language development in preverbal infants. Cortex, 63, 196–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, H., Bates, D., Kliegle, R., & Vasishth, S. (2015). RePsychLing: Data sets from Psychology and Linguistics experiments. R package version 0.0.4.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015a). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv:1506.04967 [stat]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015b). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarstrom, H., Stadler, P. F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2016). Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 113, 10818–10823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brysbaert, M., & Biemiller, A. (2017). Test-based age-of-acquisition norms for 44 thousand English word meanings. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1520–1523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brysbaert, M., New, B., & Keuleers, E. (2012). Adding part-of-speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 991–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, E., & O'Rourke, J. (1981). The living word vocabulary, the words we know: A national vocabulary inventory. Chicago: World Book.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 603–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dingemanse, M., Perlman, M., & Perniss, P. (2020). Construals of iconicity: experimental approaches to form–meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition, 12, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenson, L. (2007). MacArthur-Bates communicative development inventories. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Frank, M. C., Braginsky, M., Yurovsky, D., & Marchman, V. A. (2017). Wordbank: an open repository for developmental vocabulary data. Journal of Child Language, 44, 677–694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinojosa, J. A., Haro, J., Magallares, S., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Ferr, P. (2020). Iconicity ratings for 10,995 Spanish words and their relationship with psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01496-zGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hockett, C. (1963). The problem of universals in language. In Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 1–22). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Imai, M., & Kita, S. (2014). The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and language evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130298. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0298CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M., & Okada, H. (2008). Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition, 109, 54–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imai, M., Miyazaki, M., Yeung, H. H., Hidaka, S., Kantartzis, K., Okada, H., & Kita, S. (2015). Sound symbolism facilitates word learning in 14-month olds. PLoS ONE, 10, e0116494. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanero, J., Imai, M., Okuda, J., Okada, H., & Matsuda, T. (2014). How sound symbolism is processed in the brain: A study on Japanese mimetic words. PLoS ONE, 9, e97905. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovic, V., Plunkett, K., & Westermann, G. (2010). The shape of words in the brain. Cognition, 114, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 978–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laing, C. E. (2017). A perceptual advantage for onomatopoeia in early word learning: Evidence from eye-tracking. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 161, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laing, C. E. (2019). A role for onomatopoeia in early language: Evidence from phonological development. Language and Cognition, 11, 173–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, G., & Dingemanse, M. (2015). Iconicity in the lab: A review of behavioral, developmental, and neuroimaging research into sound-symbolism. Frontiers in Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01246Google ScholarPubMed
Lockwood, G., Dingemense, M., & Hagoort, P. (2016). Sound symbolism boosts novel word learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 1274–1281.Google ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd edn.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Massaro, D. W., & Perlman, M. (2017). Quantifying iconicity's contribution during language acquisition: Implications for vocabulary learning. Frontiers in Communication, 2, 1–14. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2017.00004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: Sound-shape correspondence in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9, 316–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaghan, P., Christiansen, M. H., & Fitneva, S. A. (2011). The arbitrariness of the sign: Learning advantages from the structure of the vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 325–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monaghan, P., Shillcock, R. C., Christiansen, M. H., & Kirby, S. (2014). How arbitrary is language?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0299CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, A. K., & Dingemanse, M. (2020). Iconicity in word learning and beyond: A critical review. Language and Speech. doi:10.1177/0023830920914339Google ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, A., & Rendall, D. (2012). The source and magnitude of sound-symbolic biases in processing artificial word material and their implications for language learning and transmission. Language and Cognition, 4, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozturk, O., Krehm, M., & Vouloumanos, A. (2013). Sound symbolism in infancy: Evidence for sound-shape cross-modal correspondences in 4-month olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 173–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perlman, M., Fusaroli, R., Fein, D., & Naigles, L. (2017). The use of iconic words in early child-parent interactions. In Gunzelmann, G., Howes, A., Tenbrink, T. & Davelaar, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2017) (pp. 913–918). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Perlman, M., Little, H., Thompson, B., & Thompson, R. L. (2018). Iconicity in signed and spoken vocabulary: A comparison between American Sign Language, British Sign Language, English, and Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1433. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01433CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perniss, P., Lu, J. C., Morgan, G., & Vigliocco, G. (2018). Mapping language to the world: The role of iconicity in sign language input. Developmental Science, 21, e12551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perniss, P., & Vigliocco, G. (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, 20130300. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrt, L. K., Perlman, M., & Lupyan, G. (2015). Iconicity in English and Spanish and its relation to lexical category and age of acquisition. PLoS ONE, 10, e0137147. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, L. K., Perlman, M., Winter, B., Massaro, D. W., & Lupyan, G. (2018). Iconicity in the speech of children and adults. Developmental Science, 21, e12572. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team (2018). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Online <https://www.R-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2010). Exploring lexical co-occurrence space using HiDEx. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 393–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2018a). Five mechanisms of sound symbolic association. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 1619–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2018b). Lonely sensational icons: semantic neighbourhood density, sensory experience and iconicity. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidhu, D. M., Vigliocco, G., & Pexman, P. M. (2020). Effects of iconicity in lexical decision. Language and Cognition, 12, 164–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidhu, D. M., Westbury, C., Hollis, G., & Pexman, P. M. (in press). Sound symbolism shapes the English language: The maluma/takete effect in English nouns. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.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, 23, 1443–1448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tzeng, C. Y., Nygaard, L. C., & Namy, L. L. (2017). Developmental change in children's sensitivity to sound symbolism. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 107–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vinson, D. P., Cormier, K., Denmark, T., Schembri, A., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). The British Sign Language (BSL) norms for age of acquisition, familiarity, and iconicity. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1079–1087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, B., Perlman, M., Perry, L. K., & Lupyan, G. (2017). Which words are most iconic? Iconicity in English sensory words. Interaction Studies, 18, 433–454.Google Scholar
Yang, J., Asano, M., Kanazawa, S., Yamaguchi, M. K., & Imai, M. (2019). Sound symbolism processing is lateralized to the right temporal region in the prelinguistic infant brain. Scientific Reports, 9, 1–10.Google Scholar
Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart's N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The Educator's Word Frequency Guide. New York, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc.Google Scholar