Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children.

Abstract

Recent research on signed as well as spoken language shows that the iconic features of the target language might play a role in language development. Here we ask further whether different types of iconic depictions modulate children's preferences for certain types of signreferent links during vocabulary development for objects in sign language. Results from a picture description task indicate that lexical signs with two possible variants are used in different proportions by deaf signers from different age groups. While pre-school and schoolaged children favoured variants representing actions associated with their referent (e.g., a writing hand for the sign PEN), adults preferred variants representing the perceptual features of those objects (e.g., upwards index finger representing a thin, elongated object for the sign PEN). Deaf parents interacting with their children, however, used action and perceptual based variants in equal proportion and favoured action variants more than adults signing to other adults. We propose that when children are confronted with two variants for the same concept, they initially prefer action-based variants because they give them the opportunity to link a linguistic label to familiar schemas linked to their action/motor experiences. Our results echo findings showing a bias for action based depictions in the development of iconic co-speech gestures suggesting a modality bias for such representations during development.

Natural reference: A phylo‐ and ontogenetic perspective on the comprehension of iconic gestures and vocalizations

“…Experiment 4 showed that gesture comprehension was immune to the way that children learned about the action (through observation or experience), suggesting that the difference between conditions is not due to gestures being more informative because they relate to multiple aspects of experience simultaneously. This pattern resonates with other research, finding that action-based gestures, like the ones we used here, are especially suited to establish reference in the absence of language (Cartmill, Rissman, Novack, & Goldin-Meadow, 2017;Fay, Lister, Ellison, & Goldin-Meadow, 2014;Ortega, Sümer, & Özyürek, 2017). Ortega et al (2017) proposed that the advantage of actionbased gestures stems from their direct connection to motor experience.…”

“…This pattern resonates with other research, finding that action-based gestures, like the ones we used here, are especially suited to establish reference in the absence of language (Cartmill, Rissman, Novack, & Goldin-Meadow, 2017;Fay, Lister, Ellison, & Goldin-Meadow, 2014;Ortega, Sümer, & Özyürek, 2017). Ortega et al (2017) proposed that the advantage of actionbased gestures stems from their direct connection to motor experience. Our results from experiment 4 show that motor and visual experience are interchangeable as the basis for gesture comprehension, suggesting that gesture relates to action representations in a more general way.…”

“…Ortega et al. () proposed that the advantage of action‐based gestures stems from their direct connection to motor experience. Our results from experiment 4 show that motor and visual experience are interchangeable as the basis for gesture comprehension, suggesting that gesture relates to action representations in a more general way.…”

Hearing non-signers use their gestures to predict iconic form-meaning mappings at first exposure to signs

“…Interestingly, the preferred form of iconic representation tends to reflect actions associated with the referent regardless of whether it is an action or an object (e.g., the concept 'beer' is often depicted by mimicking the motion of drinking from a glass). This action-based preference echoes findings in developmental psychology that show that deaf and hearing children exhibit a bias to produce and comprehend manual forms representing bodily actions (Ortega, Sümer, & Ozyürek, 2017;Pettenati, Sekine, Congestrì, & Volterra, 2012. See also Brentari, Renzo, Keane, & Volterra, 2015).…”

Iconicity and Sign Lexical Acquisition: A Review

“…These claims received further support from studies showing that it is not until after the age of three that toddlers are capable of making form-meaning associations ( Namy, 2008 ; Tolar et al, 2008 ). More recently, however, the role of iconicity has been revisited with studies showing that the first signs acquired by deaf children are iconic ( Thompson et al, 2013 ) and that type of iconicity is relevant in sign development ( Tolar et al, 2008 ; Ortega et al, 2014 , 2017 ). Further, some studies investigating the acquisition of a sign language as a second language report a positive effect in hearing non-signers ( Lieberth and Gamble, 1991 ; Campbell et al, 1992 ; Baus et al, 2012 ; Morett, 2015 ).…”