Iconicity and Sign Lexical Acquisition: A Review

Abstract

The study of iconicity, defined as the direct relationship between a linguistic form and its referent, has gained momentum in recent years across a wide range of disciplines. In the spoken modality, there is abundant evidence showing that iconicity is a key factor that facilitates language acquisition. However, when we look at sign languages, which excel in the prevalence of iconic structures, there is a more mixed picture, with some studies showing a positive effect and others showing a null or negative effect. In an attempt to reconcile the existing evidence the present review presents a critical overview of the literature on the acquisition of a sign language as first (L1) and second (L2) language and points at some factor that may be the source of disagreement. Regarding sign L1 acquisition, the contradicting findings may relate to iconicity being defined in a very broad sense when a more fine-grained operationalisation might reveal an effect in sign learning. Regarding sign L2 acquisition, evidence shows that there is a clear dissociation in the effect of iconicity in that it facilitates conceptual-semantic aspects of sign learning but hinders the acquisition of the exact phonological form of signs. It will be argued that when we consider the gradient nature of iconicity and that signs consist of a phonological form attached to a meaning we can discern how iconicity impacts sign learning in positive and negative ways.

An Introduction to Embodied Cognitive Phonology: Claw-5 Hand-shape Distribution in ASL and Libras

“…In British Sign Language (BSL) (Thompson, Vinson and Vigliocco 2010), motivated phonological forms have been found to increase response times and reduce accuracy in phonological decision tasks. And in the realm of second language acquisition, motivated phonological mappings have been shown to aid in the acquisition of meaning, but hinder the acquisition of distinct phonological properties, in non-native BSL users (Ortega 2013(Ortega , 2017. This research shows that motivation and iconicity influence both the organization and processing of signed languages.…”

Defining iconicity: An articulation-based methodology for explaining the phonological structure of ideophones

“…The visual modality is full of iconicity (McNeill 2000;Brentari 2010;Channon & van der Hulst 2011;Östling et al 2018). Our reason for drawing on the visual modality to inform this methodology is because sign language and gesture researchers have clear ideas about what is iconic and what is systematic (Bellugi & Klima 1976;McNeill 2000;Kendon 2004;Emmorey 2014;Ortega 2017;Östling et al 2018). Research in this vein of the visual modality is based on gesture (handshape, hand movement), something which is analogically relatable via oral articulatory gesture to the spoken modality.…”

“…The answer is imitation or, again, what Emmorey (2014) calls structure mapping. 4 Signs involving iconic properties, like those in row 3 of Table 2, have also been shown to be easier for naïve signers to learn (Ortega 2017), as opposed to the prosaic signs in rows 1 and 2. When it comes to iconic signs, this ease of learnability speaks to their imitative nature which is accessible even to those with little or no sign language background.…”

“…methodology is problematic because one is never entirely certain of what linguistic or cognitive intuitions speakers are 'tapping into' when making such a judgement (Akita & Dingemanse 2019). Instead, they argue that iconicity is in fact grounded in imitation or imitative properties, through either analogical or perceptuo-motor means (Nuckolls 2000;Dingemanse 2012;Dingemanse et al 2015;Hatton 2016), much like the iconicity we see in hand gestures or sign languages (McNeill 2000;Kendon 2004;Emmorey 2014;Ortega et al 2017;Ortega 2017). Phonosemantics is thus the phonological encoding of the imitation inherent to iconicity.…”

“…Following on from that, we take the position that phonosemantic mappings should be explainable in terms of imitation. When it comes to communication in the visual modality, this is highly intuitive and can be easily tested for universal tendencies by simply showing a sign or gesture to someone (Drijvers & Özyürek 2017;Ortega 2017;Ortega et al 2017;Östling et al 2018). But additional layers of language-specific complexity in spoken languages such as phonotactics, phonological inventories, or lexical association prevent the phonosemantics from jumping out at us like the imitation seen in the visual modality.…”