Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wlg5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T21:54:13.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments

Part of: Iconicity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2019

ZED SEVCIKOVA SEHYR Open the ORCID record for ZED SEVCIKOVA SEHYR [Opens in a new window]  and
KAREN EMMOREY
ZED SEVCIKOVA SEHYR
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
KAREN EMMOREY
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Iconicity is often defined as the resemblance between a form and a given meaning, while transparency is defined as the ability to infer a given meaning based on the form. This study examined the influence of knowledge of American Sign Language (ASL) on the perceived iconicity of signs and the relationship between iconicity, transparency (correctly guessed signs), ‘perceived transparency’ (transparency ratings of the guesses), and ‘semantic potential’ (the diversity (H index) of guesses). Experiment 1 compared iconicity ratings by deaf ASL signers and hearing non-signers for 991 signs from the ASL-LEX database. Signers and non-signers’ ratings were highly correlated; however, the groups provided different iconicity ratings for subclasses of signs: nouns vs. verbs, handling vs. entity, and one- vs. two-handed signs. In Experiment 2, non-signers guessed the meaning of 430 signs and rated them for how transparent their guessed meaning would be for others. Only 10% of guesses were correct. Iconicity ratings correlated with transparency (correct guesses), perceived transparency ratings, and semantic potential (H index). Further, some iconic signs were perceived as non-transparent and vice versa. The study demonstrates that linguistic knowledge mediates perceived iconicity distinctly from gesture and highlights critical distinctions between iconicity, transparency (perceived and objective), and semantic potential.

Keywords

iconicitytransparencyAmerican Sign Language

Information

Type
Special Issue on Iconicity
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 11 , Issue 2: Special Issue on Iconicity , June 2019 , pp. 208 - 234
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2019 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC010997 and by the National Science Foundation Grant BCS-1625954. The authors would like to thank Dan Fisher for help with data coding.

References

references

Bellugi, U. & Klima, E. S. (1976). Two faces of sign: iconic and abstract. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1), 514–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Börstell, C., Lepic, R. & Belsitzman, G. (2017). Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39(2), 391–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google 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 28(7), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, N. K., Sevcikova Sehyr, Z., Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. & Emmorey, K. (2017). ASL-LEX: a lexical database of American Sign Language. Behavioral Research Methods 49(2), 784–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dingemanse, M. (2012). Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10), 654–672.CrossRefGoogle 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(10), 603–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dingemanse, M., Schuerman, W., Reinisch, E., Tufvesson, S. & Mitterer, H. (2016). What sound symbolism can and cannot do: testing the iconicity of ideophones from five languages. Language 92(2), E117–E133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K. (2014). Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactios of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651). doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0301Google ScholarPubMed
Emmorey, K. & Pyers, J. (2017). Cognitive biases in construing iconic mappings. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Iconicity in Language and Literature, April, Brighton, UK. Online <https://osf.io/awyg2>..>Google Scholar
Griffith, P. L., Robinson, J. H. & Panagos, J. M. (1981). Perception of iconicity in American Sign Language by hearing and deaf subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 46, 388–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoemann, H. W. (1975). The transparency of meaning of sign language gestures. Sign Language Studies 7, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, E. & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lepic, R. (2019). A usage-based alternative to ‘lexicalization’ in sign language linguistics. Glossaa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1), 23. doi:10.5334/gjgl.840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepic, R., Börstell, C., Belsitzman, G. & Sandler, W. (2016). Taking meaning in hand: iconic motivations in two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics 19(1), 37–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, G., Dingemanse, M. & Hagoort, P. (2016). Sound-symbolism boosts novel word learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 42(8), 1274–1281.Google ScholarPubMed
Micklos, A. (2017). Iconic strategies in silent gesture: perceiving the difference between nouns and verbs. Paper presented at the the 11th International Symposium on Iconicity in Language and Literature, April, Brighton, UK. Online <http://www.iconicity.ch/download/ILL_BOOK_OF_ABSTRACTS_final.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Occhino, C., Anible, B., Wilkinson, E. P. & Morford, J. (2017). Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder. Gesture 16(1), 100–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, G. & Özyürek, A. (2016). Generalisable patterns of gesture distinguish semantic categories in communication without language. In Papafragou, A., Grodner, D., Mirman, J. & Trueswell, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1182–1187). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Ortega, G. & Özyürek, A. (2019). Systematic mappings between semantic categories and types of iconic representations in the manual modality: a normed database of silent gesture. Behavior and Research Methods. doi:10.3758/s13428-019-01204-6Google Scholar
Ortega, G., Schiefner, A. & Özyürek, A. (2017). Speakers’ gestures predict the meaning and perception of iconicity in signs. In Gunzelmann, G., Howe, A. & Tenbrink, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2017) (pp. 889–894). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A., Meir, I., Hwang, S., Lepic, R., Seegers, S. & Sampson, T. (2013). Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13(3), 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlman, M., Little, H., Thompson, B. & Thompson, R. (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., 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 369(20130300). doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, 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 ScholarPubMed
Pizzuto, E. & Volterra, V. (2000). Iconicity and transparency in sign languages: a cross-linguistic cross-cultural view. In Emmorey, K. & Lane, H. (eds.), The signs of language revisited: an anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 261–286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the body: iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R., Vinson, D. & Vigliocco, G. (2009). The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35(2), 550–557.Google ScholarPubMed
van Nispen, K., van de Sandt-Koenderman, W. M. & Krahmer, E. (2017). Production and comprehension of pantomimes used to depict objects. Frontiers in Psychology 8(1095). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01095CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilcox, S. (2004). Cognitive iconicity: conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2), 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sevcikova Sehyr and Emmorey supplementary material

Sevcikova Sehyr and Emmorey supplementary material 1

Download Sevcikova Sehyr and Emmorey supplementary material(File)
File 9.1 KB