Psycholinguistic norms for more than 300 lexical signs in German Sign Language (DGS)

Abstract

Sign language offers a unique perspective on the human faculty of language by illustrating that linguistic abilities are not bound to speech and writing. In studies of spoken and written language processing, lexical variables such as, for example, age of acquisition have been found to play an important role, but such information is not as yet available for German Sign Language (Deutsche Gebärdensprache, DGS). Here, we present a set of norms for frequency, age of acquisition, and iconicity for more than 300 lexical DGS signs, derived from subjective ratings by 32 deaf signers. We also provide additional norms for iconicity and transparency for the same set of signs derived from ratings by 30 hearing non-signers. In addition to empirical norming data, the dataset includes machine-readable information about a sign’s correspondence in German and English, as well as annotations of lexico-semantic and phonological properties: one-handed vs. two-handed, place of articulation, most likely lexical class, animacy, verb type, (potential) homonymy, and potential dialectal variation. Finally, we include information about sign onset and offset for all stimulus clips from automated motion-tracking data. All norms, stimulus clips, data, as well as code used for analysis are made available through the Open Science Framework in the hope that they may prove to be useful to other researchers: 10.17605/OSF.IO/MZ8J4

Sign learning of hearing children in inclusive day care centers—does iconicity matter?

“…The remaining 22 signs were assessed to have a median degree of iconicity ranging from 3 to 5. For five signs from our dataset, norms for iconicity are available ( Trettenbrein et al, 2021 ). The mean and median degree of iconicity in our rating is consistent with these values or differs by at most one point (see Appendix ).…”

A Roadmap for Technological Innovation in Multimodal Communication Research

“…For example, replicability, evaluation of validity, and e.g., clinical utility require systematic investigation of larger data samples [85]. The resulting resources (e.g., stimulus databases, tests, algorithms, tutorials, workshops) should ideally be available to the scientific community according to open science principles (e.g., [165,184]).…”

How (and why) does iconicity effect lexical access: An electrophysiological study of American sign language

“…More recently, it has become apparent that iconicity is in fact far more widely employed in spoken languages, though its degree of use varies considerably among language families as well as individual languages ( Dingemanse, 2017 ; Imai et al, 2015 ; Perniss et al, 2010 ; Perry et al, 2015 ). In contrast, sign languages consistently employ iconicity in a widespread manner throughout the lexicon ( Novogrodsky and Meir, 2020 ; Oomen, 2021 ; Perlman et al, 2018 ; Trettenbrein et al, 2021 ). The frequent use of iconic mappings may be due to the visual three-dimensionality afforded sign languages by the use of visible articulators, which more easily map onto visually-salient features of real world objects and the manner in which they move ( Taub, 2001 ).…”