Abstract
Our study focuses on the perception of the iconicity of handshapes – one of the formational parameters of the sign in signed language. Seventy Hebrew speakers were asked to match handshapes to Hebrew translations of 45 signs (that varied in degree of iconicity), which are specified for one of the handshapes in Israeli Sign Language (ISL). The results show that participants reliably match handshapes to corresponding sign translations for highly iconic signs, but are less accurate for less iconic signs. This demonstrates that there is a notable degree of iconicity in the lexicon of ISL, which is recognizable even to non-signers. The ability of non-signers to detect handshape to form is explained by the fact that word meanings are understood by both deaf and hearing peoples via the mental elaboration of simple iconic sources in which handshape meanings are grounded. The results suggest that while language external iconic mapping could ease the learning of direct iconic forms, it has a more limited capacity to help hearing non-signers learn indirect and opaque forms. The full semiotic distribution of handshapes in the lexicon and their use in language remain difficult for hearing non-signers to understand and depends on more specific language and cultural knowledge.
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. 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.5.19ada.Search in Google Scholar
Anible, Benjamin. 2020. Iconicity in American Sign Language – English translation recognition. Language and Cognition 12(1). 138–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.51.Search in Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1985. The inherent iconism of intonation. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 97–108. Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.6.06bolSearch in Google Scholar
Boyes-Bream, Penny. 1981. Distinctive features of the handshape in American Sign Language. Berkeley: University of California PhD diss.Search in Google Scholar
Brennan, Mary. 1990. Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: University of Stockholm Press.Search in Google Scholar
Caselli, Naomi K. & Jennie E. Pyers. 2017. The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate acquisition of sign language. Psychological Science 28(7). 979–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617700498.Search in Google Scholar
Caselli, Naomi K. & Jennie E. Pyers. 2019. Degree and not type of iconicity affects sign language vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 46(1). 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000713.Search in Google Scholar
Caselli, Naomi K., Zed. S Sehyr, Ariel M. Cohen-Goldberg & Karen Emmorey. 2017. ASL-LEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods 49(2). 784–801. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0742-0.Search in Google Scholar
Cuxac, Christian. 1999. The expression of spatial relations and the spatialization of semantic relations in French Sign Language. In Catherine Fuchs & Stéphane Robert (eds.), Language diversity and cognitive representations, 123–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/hcp.3.11cuxSearch in Google Scholar
De Saussure, Ferdinand. 1959 [1916]. Course in general linguistics, Wade Baskin (trans.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Damian Blasi, Gary E. Lupyan, Morten H. Christiansen & Padriac Monaghan. 2015. Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(10). 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013.Search in Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Marcus Perlman & Pamela Perniss. 2020. Construals of iconicity: Experimental approaches to form–meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition 12(1). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.48.Search in Google Scholar
Duncan, Susan. 2005. Gesture in language: Issues for sign language research. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in signed languages, 259–268. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2014. Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651). 20130301. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0301.Search in Google Scholar
Fernald, Theodore B. & Donna J. Napoli. 2000. Exploitation of morphological possibilities in signed languages: Comparison of American Sign Language with English. Sign Language and Linguistics 3(1). 3–58. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.3.1.03fer.Search in Google Scholar
Fuks, Orit. 2008. Israeli Sign Language (ISL) according to the sign-oriented approach of the Columbia School and the theory of “phonology as human behavior”. Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev PhD diss.Search in Google Scholar
Fuks, Orit. 2014a. The (non-) random distribution of formational parameters in the established lexicon of Israeli Sign Language (ISL). Semiotica 199(1/4). 125–157. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2013-0122.Search in Google Scholar
Fuks, Orit. 2014b. Gradient and categorically: Handshape’s two semiotic dimensions in Israeli Sign Language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 60. 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.023.Search in Google Scholar
Fuks, Orit. 2016. Intensifier actions in Israeli Sign Language (ISL) discourse. Gesture 15(2). 192–223. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.15.2.03fuk.Search in Google Scholar
Fuks, Orit & Yishai Tobin. 2009. The semiotic notion of gesture in Israeli Sign Language. In Proceedings of Gesture and Speech in Interaction GESPIN 2009. Poznan Poland.Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.17Search in Google Scholar
Grote, Klaudia & Erika Linz. 2003. The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. In G. Muller Wolfgane & Olga Fischer (eds.), From sign to signing: Iconicity in language and literature, vol. 3, 23–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ill.3.05groSearch in Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1075/tsl.6Search in Google Scholar
Hervey, Sandor. 1988. Economy and motivation in semiotic systems. La Linguistique 24(2). 27–38.Search in Google Scholar
Hiraga, Masako K. 1994. Diagrams and metaphors: Iconic aspects in language. Journal of Pragmatics 22(1). 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90053-1.Search in Google Scholar
Imai, Mutsumi & Sotaro Kita. 2014. The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and language evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651). 20130298. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0298.Search in Google Scholar
Imai, Mutsumi, Sotaro Kita, Miho Nagumo & Hiroyuk Okada. 2008. Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition 109(1). 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.015.Search in Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1965. Quest for the essence of language. Diogenes 13(51). 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/039219216501305103.Search in Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 1999. On defining lexeme in a sign language. Sign Language and Linguistics 2(1). 115–185. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh.Search in Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2008. Some reflections on the relationship between “gesture” and “sign”. Gesture 8(3). 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.8.3.05ken.Search in Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2014. Semiotic diversity in utterance production and the concept of ‘language’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651). 20130293. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0293.Search in Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lepic, Ryan & Corrine Occhino. 2018. A construction morphology approach to sign language analysis. In The construction of words, 141–172. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_6Search in Google Scholar
Meir, Irit & Oksana Tkachman. 2018. Iconicity. In Mark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford research Encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.343Search in Google Scholar
Morett, Laura M. 2015. Lending a hand to signed language acquisition: Enactment and iconicity enhance sign recall in hearing adult American Sign Language learners. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 27(3). 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.999684.Search in Google Scholar
Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible, Erin P. Wilkinson & Jill Morford. 2017. Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder. Gesture 16(1). 100–126. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ.Search in Google Scholar
Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible & Jill Morford. 2020. The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape. Language and Cognition 12(1). 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.1.Search in Google Scholar
Ormel, Ellen. 2008. Visual word recognition in bilingual deaf children. Nijmegen: Radboud University. PhD diss.Search in Google Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo, Annika Schiefner & Asli Özyürek. 2019. Hearing non-signers use their gestures to predict iconic form-meaning mappings at first exposure to signs. Cognition 191. 103996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.008.Search in Google Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo, Beyze Sümer & Asli Özyürek. 2017. Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children. Developmental Psychology 53(1). 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000161.Search in Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A., Irit Meir, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic, Sharon Seegers & Tory Sampson. 2013. Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13(3). 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.3.03pad.Search in Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A., So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic & Sharon Seegers. 2015. Tools for language: Patterned iconicity in sign language nouns and verbs. Topics in Cognitive Science 7(1). 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12121.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce. In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar
Perlman, Marcus, Nathaniel Clark & Falck M. Johansson. 2015. Iconic prosody in story reading. Cognitive Science 39(6). 1348–1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12190.Search in Google 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 369. 20130300. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0300.Search in Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Jenny C. Lu, Gary Morgan & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2017. Mapping language to the world: The role of iconicity in the sign language input. Developmental Science 21(3). e12551. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12551.Search in Google 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. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227.Search in Google Scholar
Perry, Lynn K. K., Marcus Perlman, Bodo Winter, Dominic W. Massaro & Gary Lupyan. 2018. Iconicity in the speech of children and adults. Developmental Science 21(3). e12572. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12572.Search in Google Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paola. 2002. Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2(3). 296–321. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2002.0012.Search in Google Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paloa & Tommaso Russo. 2007. Diagrammatic and imagic hypoicons in signed and verbal language. In Elena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea & Raffaele Simone (eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies, 35–56. Berlin: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena E., Serena Corazza Camercanna & Virginia Volterra. 1995. Terms for spatio-temporal relations in Italian Sign Language. In Raffaele Simone (ed.), Iconicity in language, 237–256. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.110.17pizSearch in Google Scholar
Sehyr, Zed Sevcikova & 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(2). 208–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.18.Search in Google Scholar
Shintel, Hadas, Howard C. Nusbaum & Arika Okrent. 2006. Analog acoustic expression in speech communication. Journal of Memory and Language 55(2). 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.002.Search in Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Search in Google Scholar
Taub, Sara. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511509629Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Robin L., David P. Vinson, Bencie Woll & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2012. The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science 23(12). 1443–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459763.Search in Google 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: Language, Memory and Cognition 35(2). 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014547.Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Bill, Marcus Perlman, Gary Lupyan, Zed S. Sehyr & Karen Emmorey. 2020. A data-driven approach to the semantics of iconicity in American Sign Language and English. Language and Cognition 12(1). 182–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.52.Search in Google Scholar
Van der Kooij, Els. 2002. Phonological categories in sign language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Utrecht: LOT.Search in Google Scholar
van Nispen, Karin, Mieke W. van de Sandt-Koenderman & Eemiel Krahmer. 2017. Production and comprehension of pantomimes used to depict objects. Frontiers in Psychology 8. 1095. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01095.Search in Google Scholar
Vigliocco, Gabriella, David P. Vinson, Tyron Woolfe, Matthew W. Dye & Bencie Woll. 2005. Words, signs, and imagery: When the language makes the difference. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 272. 1859–1863. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3169.Search in Google 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. 1079–1087. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.4.1079.Search in Google Scholar
Waugh, Linda R. 1994. Degrees of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics 22(1). 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90056-6.Search in Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 2004a. Gesture and language: Cross linguistic and historical data from signed languages. Gesture 4(1). 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.4.1.04wil.Search in Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 2004b. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.005.Search in Google Scholar
Yoshida, Hanako. 2012. A cross-linguistic study of sound symbolism in children’s verb learning. Journal of Cognition and Development 13(2). 232–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2011.573515.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
