Winter, Woodin & Perlman - Defining iconicity for the cognitive sciences

Abstract

Iconicity has become an increasingly hot topic in the cognitive sciences, but research is riddled with inconsistencies in the use of key terminology, including “iconicity” itself as well as other related terms. This chapter presents a precise definition of iconicity that reflects the wide range of research on the topic in cognitive science and linguistics, but also provides clarity moving into the future. We also clarify common terminological confusions with respect to related notions including sound symbolism, systematicity, and indexicality. Our discussion puts the spotlight on aspects of iconicity that are under-appreciated in cognitive science, especially its context-dependent nature, and the fact that iconicity is underpinned by multiple rather than monolithic cognitive mechanisms.

Better letter: iconicity in the manual alphabets of American Sign Language and Swedish Sign Language

“…The definition of iconicity varies between different works addressing the issue, but the shared core tends to state that a linguistic form (e.g., a word) is motivated (i.e., non-arbitrary) in a way that resembles the meaning (i.e., the referent). Since the definition involves resemblance, iconicity is sometimes operationalized in terms of transparency, assuming that if it is possible to guess the meaning of a linguistic formfor instance, a wordwithout previously having learned its specific conventionalized form-meaning relationship, the mapping is iconic (see Dingemanse et al, 2020;Occhino et al, 2020;Ortega, 2017;Sevcikova Sehyr & Emmorey, 2019;Winter et al, 2023). In sign language linguistics, the seminal work by Klima and Bellugi (1979b) categorized signs on the basis of transparency as a way to grade the iconicity of a sign, but later work has also shown that while correlated, transparency and iconicity ratings of signs can differ from one another (Sevcikova Sehyr & Emmorey, 2019).…”

“…Recent studies have included gradience as a property of iconicity, but also noted that subjectivity plays a role in several ways. First, iconicity can be graded as more or less on the basis of how many people rate something as iconic, and how much resemblance they perceive on a scale, but also how many aspects of the form itself can be mapped iconically to the meaning and how many aspects of the referent are iconically depicted (Emmorey, 2014;Grote & Linz, 2003;Motamedi et al, 2019;Occhino, 2017;Winter et al, 2023). For example, many iconic signs depict only a specific, salient feature of the referent, for example, a depicted beak representing the whole referent 'bird'.…”

“…For example, many iconic signs depict only a specific, salient feature of the referent, for example, a depicted beak representing the whole referent 'bird'. Second, iconicity is subjective in the sense that iconicity ratings differ across individuals, such that each individual has their own experience of the extent to which a form resembles the meaning (Dingemanse et al, 2020;Motamedi et al, 2019;Occhino et al, 2017;Winter et al, 2023). For example, some people may perceive a beak-depicting sign for 'bird' to be less iconic than a wingdepicting sign with the same meaning.…”

“…Thus, one way to explain it succinctly is with Dingemanse's (2019) definition of iconicity as a 'perceived resemblance between aspects of form and meaning ' (p. 18). This captures the fact that resemblance is perceived, and therefore subjective to some degree, and that the iconic mapping can be related to parts of the form and/or parts of the meaningthat is, a beak-depicting sign is iconically mapped to 'bird' even if only a part of the referent is depicted (see also Winter et al, 2023). If iconicity is indeed perceived (i.e., subjective), the iconicity of, for example, a word cannot be defined categorically by any one person.…”

“…More recently, iconicity has increasingly become a topic of interest within spoken language linguistics, finding that there are iconic patterns found in all languages to some extent, regardless of modality (Dingemanse et al, 2015;Perlman et al, 2018;Perniss et al, 2010). While iconicity is sometimes defined in terms of transparencythat is, how easy it is to guess the meaning from the form of, for instance, a word (see Occhino et al, 2020;Ortega, 2017) experimental work has found that subjectivity and gradience are key properties of iconicity, and that iconicity ratings may differ between individuals based on, among other things, language experience (Dingemanse et al, 2020;Occhino et al, 2017;Winter et al, 2023). In a study comparing iconicity ratings of signs from American Sign Language (ASL) and German Sign Language (DGS, Deutsche Gebärdensprache), Occhino et al (2017) showed that signers rate the signs of their own sign language as more iconic than corresponding signs in a foreign sign language, even if the iconic mappings are similar, which they attribute to the fact that language experience and entrenchment of exposure and use influence how we interpret and grade form-meaning mappings in languages.…”