When does iconicity in sign language matter?

Abstract

We examined whether iconicity in American Sign Language (ASL) enhances translation performance for new learners and proficient signers. Fifteen hearing nonsigners and 15 proficient ASL-English bilinguals performed a translation recognition task and a production translation task. Nonsigners were taught 28 ASL verbs (14 iconic; 14 non-iconic) prior to performing these tasks. Only new learners benefited from sign iconicity, recognizing iconic translations faster and more accurately and exhibiting faster forward (English-ASL) and backward (ASL-English) translation times for iconic signs. In contrast, proficient ASL-English bilinguals exhibited slower recognition and translation times for iconic signs. We suggest iconicity aids memorization in the early stages of adult sign language learning, but for fluent L2 signers, iconicity interacts with other variables that slow translation (specifically, the iconic signs had more translation equivalents than the non-iconic signs). Iconicity may also have slowed translation performance by forcing conceptual mediation for iconic signs, which is slower than translating via direct lexical links.

Language as a multimodal phenomenon: implications for language learning, processing and evolution

“…Recent work, however, suggests that iconicity affects semantic processing [30,31], facilitates lexical retrieval in production [32] and affects language comprehension [32,33]. Such effects may be limited, however, to tasks where semantic activation is necessary [34,35].…”

Input processing at first exposure to a sign language

“…Despite these links being helpful for learning and recalling iconic signs (Baus et al, 2012;Campbell et al, 1992;Lieberth and Gamble, 1991) they appear to be detrimental for accurate sign production. Future research should determine whether this effect is driven by automatic access to the meaning of iconic signs or is due to gestural interference.…”

“…The question addressed in the current study was what happens when learners are first exposed to a sign language as L2, where the L1 cannot be recruited as a learning aid due to modality differences (speech vs. sign). Iconicity, a feature that allows access to the meaning of signs, has been shown to aid learning (Baus et al, 2012;Campbell et al, 1992;Lieberth and Gamble, 1991). It was therefore assumed that iconicity could also be used as a strategy to process novel linguistic input in the manual modality.…”

“…The alternative hypothesis is that iconicity will have an effect on sign articulation. Iconicity could boost performance in the articulation of iconic signs in the same way that it aids naming, recall and translation (Baus et al, 2012;Campbell et al, 1992;Lieberth and Gamble, 1991). Alternatively, iconic signs could be articulated less accurately because participants will focus on the meaning of the sign rather than its precise phonological form.…”

“…Despite their lack of a signed lexicon, non-signers can associate the form of many iconic signs with their meaning. Sign iconicity has been shown to have a positive effect in remembering new signs (Baus et al, 2012;Campbell et al, 1992;Lieberth and Gamble, 1991), but it has not been investigated how access to the meaning of a sign (via iconicity) is involved in production accuracy. In an attempt to uncover how sign articulation is affected by learners' awareness of the meaning of signs, the current study explores the role of iconicity in the production of the phonological constituents of signs in British Sign Language (BSL).…”