CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 442

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Iconicity as a General Property of Language: Evidence from Spoken and Signed Languages

Perniss, Pamela, Thompson, Robin L., Vigliocco, Gabriella·2010·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227PMC PMC3153832
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 74

  1. Armstrong D. F. Stokoe W. C. Wilcox S. (1995). Gesture and the Nature of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  2. Barsalou L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 577– 609 11301525
  3. Barsalou L. W. Simmons W. K. Barbey A. K. Wilson C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 84– 91 12584027
  4. Bates E. MacWhinney B. (1982). “Functionalist approaches to grammar,” in Child Language: The State of the Art, eds Wanner E. Gleitman L. (New York: Cambridge University Press), 173– 21817396957
  5. Bergen B. K. (2004). The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Lang. 80, 290– 311 10.1353/lan.2004.0056 · DOI
  6. Berlin B. (1994). “Evidence for pervasive synesthetic sound symbolism in ethnozoological nomenclature,” in Sound Symbolism, eds Hinton L. Nichols J. Ohala J. J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 76– 103
  7. Boyes-Braem P. (1981). Significant Features of the Handshape in American Sign Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley7319115
  8. Brackbill Y. Little K. B. (1957). Factors determining the guessing of meanings of foreign words. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 54, 312– 318 13448833
  9. Brown R. (1980). “Why are signed languages easier to learn than spoken languages?” in Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, ed. Stokoe W. C. (Washington, DC: National Association of the Deaf), 9– 24
  10. Brown R. W. Black A. H. Horowitz A. E. (1955). Phonetic symbolism in natural languages. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 50, 388– 393 14381156
  11. Campbell R. Martin P. White T. (1992). Forced choice recognition of sign in novice learners of British sign language. Appl. Linguist. 13, 185– 201 10.1093/applin/13.2.185 · DOI
  12. Casey S. K. (2003). “Agreement” in Gestures and Signed Languages: The Use of Directionality to Indicate Referents Involved in Actions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego
  13. Childs G. T. (1994). “African ideophones,” in Sound Symbolism, eds Hinton L. Nichols J. Ohala J. J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 178– 206
  14. Chu M. Kita S. (2008). Spontaneous gestures during mental rotation tasks: insights into the microdevelopment of the motor strategy. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 137, 706– 723 18999362
  15. Croft W. (1990). Typology and Universals. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  16. Cuxac C. (1999). “French sign language: proposition of a structural explanation by iconicity,” in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the 3rd Gesture Workshop ’99 on Gesture and Sign Language in Human-Computer Interaction, eds Braffort A. Gherbi R. Gibet S. Richardson J. Teil D. (Berlin: Springer), 165– 184
  17. Dingemanse M. (in press). “Ezra pound among the mawu: ideophones and iconicity in Siwu,” in Selected Proceedings of ILL 2009 (Iconicity in Language and Literature 10). eds Fischer O. Ljungberg C. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
  18. Fernald A. (1989). Intonation and communicative intent in mothers’ speech to infants: is melody the message? Child Dev. 60, 1497– 1510 2612255
  19. Firth J. R. (1930). Speech. London: Benn's Sixpenny Library Reprinted in Strevens P. (ed.). (1964). The Tongues of Men and Speech London: Oxford University Press.
  20. Foroni F. Semin G. R. (2009). Language that puts you in touch with your bodily feelings. The multimodal responsiveness of affective expressions. Psychol. Sci. 20, 974– 980 19594858
  21. Friedman L. (1976). Phonology of a Soundless Language: Phonological Structure of the American Sign Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley792001
  22. Frishberg N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American sign language. Language. 51, 676– 710 10.2307/412894 · DOI
  23. Garrett M. F. (1984). “The organisation of processing structure for language production: applications to aphasic speech,” in Biological Perspectives on Language, eds Caplan D. Lecours A. R. Smith A. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 172– 193
  24. Gasser M. (2004). “The origins of arbitrariness in language,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago, IL, 26
  25. Gebels G. (1969). An investigation of phonetic symbolism in different cultures. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 8, 310– 312 10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80083-6 · DOI
  26. Greenberg J. H. (1963). “Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements,” in Universals of Language, ed. Greenberg J. H. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 73– 113
  27. Griffith P. L. Robinson J. H. Panagos J. M. (1981). Perception of iconicity in American sign language by hearing and deaf subjects. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 46, 388– 397 7300266
  28. Haiman J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation. Language 56, 515– 540 10.2307/414448 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Haiman J. (1985). Natural Syntax. Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Vol. 44 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  30. Hostetter A. B. Alibali M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: gestures as simulated action. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15, 495– 514 18567247
  31. Imai M. Kita S. Nagumo M. Okada H. (2008). Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition 109, 54– 65 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.015 18835600 · DOI
  32. Joseph B. D. (1987). On the use of iconic elements in etymological investigation: some case studies from Greek. Diachronica 4, 1– 26 10.1075/dia.4.1-2.02jos · DOI
  33. Kelly S. D. Özyürek A. Maris E. (2010). Two sides of the same coin: speech and gesture mutually interact to enhance comprehension. Psychol. Sci. 21, 260– 267 20424055
  34. Klima E. Bellugi U. (1979). The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press393066
  35. Kovic V. Plunkett K. Westermann G. (2010). The shape of words in the brain. Cognition 114, 19– 28 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.016 19828141 · DOI
  36. Levelt W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  37. Levelt W. J. M. Roelofs A. Meyer A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 1– 75 11301520
  38. Levinson S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  39. Lieberth A. K. Gamble M. E. B. (1991). The role of iconicity in sign language learning by hearing adults. J. Commun. Disord. 24, 89– 99 10.1016/0021-9924(91)90013-9 2066475 · DOI
  40. Mandel M. A. (1977). “Iconic devices in American sign language,” in On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language, ed. Friedman L. A. (New York: Academic Press), 57– 107 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1977.tb55919.x · DOI
  41. Maurer D. Pathman T. Mondloch C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Dev. Sci. 9, 316– 322 16669803
  42. McNeill D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press
  43. McNeill D. (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press
  44. McRae K. Cree G. S. Seidenberg M. S. McNorgan C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 37, 547– 559 16629288
  45. Meier R. P. (1982). Icons, Analogues, and Morphemes: the Acquisition of Verb Agreement in American Sign Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego17396957
  46. Meteyard L. Vigliocco G. (2008). “The role of sensory and motor information in semantic representation,” in Handbook of Cognitive Science: An Embodied Approach, Chapter 15, eds Calvo P. Gomilla A. (London: Elsevier Academic Press), 291– 312
  47. Monaghan P. Christiansen M. H. (2006). “Why form-meaning mappings are not entirely arbitrary in language,” in Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver
  48. Newmeyer F. J. (1992). Iconicity and generative grammar. Language 68, 756– 796 10.2307/416852 · DOI
  49. Nuckolls J. (1996). Sounds Like Life. New York: Oxford University Press
  50. Nygaard L. C. Cook A. E. Namy L. L. (2009). Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition 112, 181– 186 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.04.001 19447384 · DOI
  51. Nygaard L. C. Herold D. S. Namy L. L. (2009). The semantics of prosody: listeners’ use of acoustic correlates to word meaning. Cogn. Sci. 33, 127– 146 21585466
  52. Ohala J. J. (1984). An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica 41, 1– 16 10.1159/000261706 6204347 · DOI
  53. Okrent A. (2002). “A modality-free notion of gesture and how it can help us with the morpheme vs. gesture question in sign language linguistics (Or at least give us some criteria to work with),” in Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages, eds Meier R. P. Cormier K. Quinto-Pozos D. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 175– 198
  54. Orlansky M. Bonvillian J. D. (1984). The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 49, 287– 292 6748624
  55. Ormel E. Hermans D. Knoors H. Verhoeven L. (2009). The role of sign phonology and iconicity during sign processing: the case of deaf children. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 14, 436– 448 10.1093/deafed/enp021 19620251 · DOI
  56. Poizner H. Kilma E. Bellugi U. (1987). What the Hands Reveal about the Brain? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  57. Rizzolatti G. Arbib M. A. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends Neurosci. 21, 188– 194 10.1016/S0166-2236(98)01260-0 9610880 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Sallandre M.-A. Cuxac C. (2002). “Iconicity in sign Language: a theoretical and methodological point of view,” in Gesture-based Communication in Human-Computer Interaction. Proceedings of the International Gesture Workshop (GW 2001), eds Wachsmuth I. Sowa T. (Berlin: Springer), 171– 180
  59. Sandler W. Lillo-Martin D. (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  60. Sandler W. (2009). Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica 174, 241– 275 10.1515/semi.2009.035 20445832 PMC2863338 · DOI
  61. Stokoe W. (2001). Language in Hand: Why Sign Came Before Speech. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
  62. Sutton-Spence R. (2005). Analysing Sign Language Poetry. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
  63. Taub S. (2001). Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  64. Thompson R. L. Emmorey K. Gollan T. (2005). Tip-of-the-fingers experiences by ASL signers: insights into the organization of a sign-based lexicon. Psychol. Sci. 16, 856– 860 16262769
  65. Thompson R. L. Vinson D. P. Vigliocco G. (2009). The link between form and meaning in American sign language: lexical processing effects. J. Exp. Psychol. Lang. Mem. Cogn. 35, 550– 557 PMC3667647 19271866
  66. Thompson R. L. Vinson D. P. Vigliocco G. (2010). The link between form and meaning in British sign language: lexical processing effects in a phonological decision task. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36, 1017– 1027 20565217
  67. Tolar T. D. Lederberg A. R. Gokhale S. Tomasello M. (2008). The development of the ability to recognize the meaning of iconic signs. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 13, 225– 240 10.1093/deafed/enm045 17827446 · DOI
  68. Vigliocco G. Vinson D. P. Woolfe T. Dye M. W. Woll B. (2005). Words, signs and imagery: when the language makes the difference. Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 1859– 1863 PMC1559869 16096100
  69. Vinson D. P. Cormier K. Denmark T. Schembri A. Vigliocco G. (2008). The British sign language (BSL) norms for age of acquisition, familiarity and iconicity. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 1079– 1087 19001399
  70. Walker P. Bremner J. G. Mason U. Spring J. Mattock K. Slater A. Johnson S. P. (2010). Preverbal infants’ sensitivity to synaesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psychol. Sci. 21, 21– 25 20424017
  71. Westbury C. (2005). Implicit sound symbolism in lexical access: evidence from an interference task. Brain Lang. 93, 10– 19 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.07.006 15766764 · DOI
  72. Wilbur R. B. (2003). Representations of telicity in ASL. Proc. Annu. Meet. Chic. Linguistic Society 39, 354– 368
  73. Wilbur R. B. (2009). Productive reduplication in ASL, a fundamentally monosyllabic language. Lang. Sci. 31, 325– 342 20046863 PMC2792944
  74. Woll B. Sieratzki J. S. (1998). Echo phonology: signs of a link between gesture and speech. Behav. Brain Sci. 21, 531– 532 10.1017/S0140525X98481263 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 442

Metadata

Authors
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L., & Vigliocco, G.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2010
Volume
1
ISSN
1664-1078
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
PMC
PMC3153832
Cited by
442
References
2

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Iconicity as a General Property of Language: Evidence from Spoken and Signed Languages. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
The paper
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a General Property of Language: Evidence from Spoken and Signed Languages. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227