CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 123Hearing Impairment and CommunicationLanguage Development and DisordersCategorization, perception, and language

Iconicity and Sign Lexical Acquisition: A Review

Open access
Ortega, Gerardo·2017·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280PMC PMC5539242
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The study of iconicity, defined as the direct relationship between a linguistic form and its referent, has gained momentum in recent years across a wide range of disciplines. In the spoken modality, there is abundant evidence showing that iconicity is a key factor that facilitates language acquisition. However, when we look at sign languages, which excel in the prevalence of iconic structures, there is a more mixed picture, with some studies showing a positive effect and others showing a null or negative effect. In an attempt to reconcile the existing evidence the present review presents a critical overview of the literature on the acquisition of a sign language as first (L1) and second (L2) language and points at some factor that may be the source of disagreement. Regarding sign L1 acquisition, the contradicting findings may relate to iconicity being defined in a very broad sense when a more fine-grained operationalisation might reveal an effect in sign learning. Regarding sign L2 acquisition, evidence shows that there is a clear dissociation in the effect of iconicity in that it facilitates conceptual-semantic aspects of sign learning but hinders the acquisition of the exact phonological form of signs. It will be argued that when we consider the gradient nature of iconicity and that signs consist of a phonological form attached to a meaning we can discern how iconicity impacts sign learning in positive and negative ways.

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.2017.01280

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • It is because gesture activates visual representations of concrete concepts that it facilitates learning.

    “It is further hypothesized that it is because gesture activates visual representations of concrete concepts that it facilitates learning [33].”

    From Can grammatical morphemes be taught? Evidence of gestures influencing second language procedural learning in middle childhood (2023) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Introduction says iconic gestures can facilitate word learning by helping learners connect perceptual features with a referent. It does not say that gesture does so by activating visual representations of concrete concepts; the Sign L2 Learning section describes a separate visualization condition but does not establish that mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Syntax can be taught.

    “This is obviously not the case [32,33].”

    From Can grammatical morphemes be taught? Evidence of gestures influencing second language procedural learning in middle childhood (2023) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Sign L2 Learning section describes instruction in individual signs and improved sign articulation after lessons, but does not address whether syntax can be taught. The Sign Iconicity and Linguistic Constraints section discusses grammatical structures without making a claim about teaching syntax (searched: syntax, grammar instruction). (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 104 · Cited by 123

Research works printed but not linked: 85

  1. Akita K. (2009). A Grammar of Sound-Symbolic Words in Japanese: Theoretical Approaches to Iconic and Lexical Properties of Mimetics. Ph.D. dissertation, Kobe University, Kobe.
  2. Anderson D. Reilly J. (2002). The MacArthur communicative development inventory: normative data for American sign language. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 7 83– 106. 10.1093/deafed/7.2.83 15451878 · DOI
  3. Assaneo M. F. Nichols J. I. Trevisan M. A. (2011). The anatomy of onomatopoeia. PLoS ONE 6 1– 27. 10.1371/journal.pone.0028317 PMC3237459 22194825 · DOI
  4. Barcroft J. (2004). Second language vocabulary acquisition: a lexical input processing approach. Foreign Lang. Ann. 37 200– 208. 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02193.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. Baus C. Carreiras M. Emmorey K. (2012). When does iconicity in sign language matter? Lang. Cogn. Proc. 28 261– 271. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.012 PMC3608132 23543899 · DOI
  6. Baus C. Costa A. (2015). On the temporal dynamics of sign production: an ERP study in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Brain Res. 1609 40– 53. 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.03.013 25801115 · DOI
  7. Baus C. Gutiérrez-Sigut E. Quer J. Carreiras M. (2008). Lexical access in Catalan Signed Language (LSC) production. Cognition 108 856– 865. 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.012 18656181 · DOI
  8. Bornstein M. H. Putnick D. L. Cote L. R. Haynes O. M. Suwalsky J. T. D. (2015). Mother-infant contingent vocalizations in 11 countries. Psychol. Sci. 26 1272– 1284. 10.1177/0956797615586796 26133571 PMC4529355 · DOI
  9. Boyes-Braem P. (1986). “ Two aspects of psycholinguistic research: iconicity and temporal structure,” in Proceedings of the Second European Congress on Sign Language Research; Signs of Life, (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam).
  10. Brentari D. (1999). A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  11. Campbell R. Martin P. White T. (1992). Forced choice recognition of sign in novice learners of British Sign Language. Appl. Psycholinguist. 13 185– 201. 10.1093/applin/13.2.185 · DOI
  12. Caramazza A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 14 177– 208. 10.1080/026432997381664 · DOI
  13. Carreiras M. Gutiérrez-Sigut E. Baquero S. Corina D. (2008). Lexical processing in Spanish Sign Language (LSE). J. Mem. Lang. 58 100– 122. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.004 · DOI
  14. Caselli N. Pyers J. E. (2017). The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate sign of acquisition language. Pscyhol. Sci. 28 979– 987. 10.1177/0956797617700498 PMC5507709 28557672 · DOI
  15. Chen Pichler D. (2011). “ Sources of handshape error in first-time signers of ASL,” in Deaf Around the World: The Impact of Language, eds Mathur G. Napoli D. J. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 96– 126.
  16. Chen Pichler D. Dicus D. Dudley S. Taylor S. Watkins M. (2016). Refining coding criteria for phonological accuracy of L2 signing. Paper Presented at the 12th International Conference for Theoretical Issues on Sign Language Research, Melbourne, VIC.
  17. Cuxac C. (1999a). French sign language: proposition of a structural explanation by iconicity. Gesture Based Commun. Hum. Comput. 1739 165– 184. 10.1007/3-540-46616-9_16 · DOI
  18. de Nooijer J. A. van Gog T. Paas F. Zwaan R. A. (2014). Words in action: Using gestures to improve verb learning in primary school children. Gesture 14 46– 69. 10.1075/gest.14.1.03noo · DOI
  19. de Saussure F. (1916). Course in General Linguistics. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
  20. Dell D. O’Seaghdha P. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition 42 287– 314. 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90046-K 1582160 · DOI
  21. Dingemanse M. (2012). Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Lang. Linguist. Compass 6 654– 672. 10.1002/lnc3.361 · DOI
  22. Dingemanse M. Blasi D. E. Lupyan G. Christiansen M. H. Monaghan P. (2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity and systematicity in language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19 603– 615. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 26412098 · DOI
  23. Dingemanse M. Schuerman W. Reinisch E. Tufvesson S. Mitterer H. (2016). What sound symbolism can and cannot do: testing the iconicity of ideophones from five languages. Language 92 e117– e133. 10.1353/lan.2016.0034 · DOI
  24. Dye M. Shih S. (2006). “ Phonological priming in British sign language,” in Laboratory Phonology, eds Goldstein L. Whalen D. H. Best C. T. Vol. 8 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 243– 263.
  25. Emmorey K. (2014). Iconicity as structure mapping. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci 369: 20130301 10.1098/rstb.2013.0301 PMC4123680 25092669 · DOI
  26. Emmorey K. (ed.) (2003). Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  27. Fernald A. Marchman V. Weisleder A. (2013). SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Dev. Sci. 16 234– 248. 10.1111/desc.12019 23432833 PMC3582035 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 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. 10.1044/jshd.4604.388 7300266 · DOI
  29. Gutiérrez E. Müller O. Baus C. Carreiras M. (2012). Electrophysiological evidence for phonological priming in Spanish Sign Language lexical access. Neuropsychologia 50 1335– 1346. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.02.018 22401990 · DOI
  30. Herold D. S. Nygaard L. C. Namy L. L. (2011). Say it like you mean it: mothers’ use of prosody to convey word meaning. Lang. Speech 55 423– 436. 10.1177/0023830911422212 23094322 · DOI
  31. Imai M. Kita S. (2014). The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and language evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 369: 20130298 10.1098/rstb.2013.0298 PMC4123677 25092666 · DOI
  32. 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
  33. Kantartzis K. Imai M. Kita S. (2011). Japanese sound-symbolism facilitates word learning in english-speaking children. Cogn. Sci. 35 575– 586. 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01169.x · DOI
  34. Kantor R. (1980). The acquisition of classifiers in American sign language. Sign Lang. Stud. 28 198– 208. 10.1353/sls.1980.0000 · DOI
  35. Kelly S. D. Lee A. L. (2012). When actions speak too much louder than words: Hand gestures disrupt word learning when phonetic demands are high. Lang. Cogn. Process. 27 793– 807. 10.1080/01690965.2011.581125 · DOI
  36. Kelly S. D. McDevitt T. Esch M. (2009). Brief training with co-speech gesture lends a hand to word learning in a foreign language. Lang. Cogn. Process. 24 313– 334. 10.1080/01690960802365567 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Kendon A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511807572 · DOI
  38. Klima E. Bellugi U. (1979). The Signs of Language. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  39. Laing C. E. (2014). A phonological analysis of onomatopoeia in early word production. First Lang. 34 387– 405. 10.1177/0142723714550110 · DOI
  40. Levelt W. J. Roelofs A. Meyer A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behav. Brain Sci. 22 1– 38. 10.1017/S0140525X99001776 11301520 · DOI
  41. Levelt W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  42. Liddell S. K. (2003). Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511615054 · DOI
  43. Lieberth A. K. Gamble M. E. (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
  44. Lockwood G. Dingemanse M. Hagoort P. (2016). Sound-symbolism boosts novel word learning. J. Exp. Psychol. 42 1274– 1281. 10.1037/a0028642 26844577 · DOI
  45. Macedonia M. Klimesch W. (2014). Long-term effects of gestures on memory for foreign language words trained in the classroom. Mind Brain Educ. 8 74– 88. 10.1111/mbe.12047 · DOI
  46. Macedonia M. von Kriegstein K. (2012). Gestures enhance foreign language learning. Biolinguistics 6 393– 416. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01467 · DOI
  47. Mandel M. A. (1977). “ Iconic devices in American Sign Language,” in On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language, ed. Friedman A. (New York, NY: Academic Press), 57– 107.
  48. Marshall C. R. Morgan G. (2015). From gesture to sign language: conventionalization of classifier constructions by adult hearing learners of British sign language. Top. Cogn. Sci. 7 61– 80. 10.1111/tops.12118 25329326 · DOI
  49. McNeill D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  50. Meier R. Mauk C. E. Cheek A. Moreland C. J. (2008). The form of children’s early signs: Iconic or motoric determinants? Lang. Learn. Dev. 4 63– 98. 10.1080/15475440701377618 · DOI
  51. Morett L. M. (2015). Lending a hand to signed language acquisition: enactment and iconicity enhance sign recall in hearing adult American Sign Language learners. J. Cogn. Psychol. 27 1– 26. 10.1080/20445911.2014.999684 · DOI
  52. Namy L. (2004). The changing role of iconicity in non-verbal symbol learning: a U-shaped trajectory in the acquisition of arbitrary gestures. J. Cogn. Dev. 5 37– 41. 10.1207/s15327647jcd0501_3 · DOI
  53. Namy L. (2008). Recognition of iconicity doesn’t come for free. Dev. Sci. 11 841– 846. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00732.x 19046152 · DOI
  54. Newport E. L. Meier R. P. (1985). “ The acquisition of American Sign Language,” in The Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition Vol. 1 ed. Slobin D. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 881– 938.
  55. 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
  56. Orlansky M. D. Bonvillian J. D. (1984). The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 49 287– 292. 10.1044/jshd.4903.287 6748624 · DOI
  57. Ortega G. (2013). Acquisition of a Signed Phonological System by Hearing Adults: The Role of Sign Structure and Iconicity. Ph.D. thesis, University College London, London.
  58. Ortega G. Morgan G. (2015a). Input processing at first exposure to a sign language. Second Lang. Res. 19 443– 463. 10.1177/0267658315576822 · DOI
  59. Ortega G. Morgan G. (2015b). Phonological development in hearing learners of a sign language: the influence of phonological parameters, sign complexity, and iconicity. Lang. Learn. 65 660– 688. 10.1111/lang.12123 · DOI
  60. Ortega G. Morgan G. (2015c). The effect of iconicity in the mental lexicon of hearing non-signers and proficient signers: evidence of cross- modal priming. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 30 574– 585. 10.1080/23273798.2014.959533 · DOI
  61. Ortega G. Sümer B. Özyürek A. (2014). “ Type of iconicity matters: Bias for action-based signs in sign language acquisition,” in Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds Bello P. Guarini M. McShane M. Scassellatie B. (Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society), 1114– 1119.
  62. Ortega G. Sümer B. Özyürek A. (2017). Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children. Dev. Psychol. 53 89– 99. 10.1037/dev0000161 27808524 · DOI
  63. Paivio A. (1986). Mental Representations. A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  64. Perniss P. Lu J. C. Morgan G. Vigliocco G. (2017). Mapping language to the world: The role of iconicity in the sign language input. Dev. Sci. 10.1111/desc.12551 [Epub ahead of print]. 28295866 · DOI
  65. Perniss P. Thompson R. L. Vigliocco G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Front. Psychol. 1: 227 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227 PMC3153832 21833282 · DOI
  66. Perniss P. Vigliocco G. (2014). The bridge of iconicity?: from a world of experience to the experience of language the bridge of iconicity?: from a world of experience to the experience of language. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 369: 20130300 10.1098/rstb.2013.0300 PMC4123679 25092668 · DOI
  67. Pietrandrea P. (2002). Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Lang. Stud. 2 296– 321. 10.1353/sls.2002.0012 · DOI
  68. Revill K. P. Namy L. L. Defife L. C. Nygaard L. C. (2014). Cross-linguistic sound symbolism and crossmodal correspondence: evidence from fMRI and DTI. Brain Lang. 128 18– 24. 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.11.002 24316238 · DOI
  69. Rinaldi P. Caselli M. C. Di Renzo A. Gulli T. Volterra V. (2014). Sign vocabulary in deaf toddlers exposed to sign language since birth. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 19 303– 318. 10.1093/deafed/enu007 24688068 · DOI
  70. Sandler W. Lillo-Martin D. (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9781139163910 · DOI
  71. Stokoe W. C. (1960). Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf, Vol. 8 Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press 15585746
  72. Stokoe W. C. (2001). Semantic Phonology. Sign Lang. Stud. 1 434– 441. 10.1353/sls.2001.0019 · DOI
  73. Strickland B. Geraci C. Chemla E. Schlenker P. Kelepir M. Pfau R. (2015). Event representations constrain the structure of language: sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112 5968– 5973. 10.1073/pnas.1423080112 25918419 PMC4434776 · DOI
  74. Suanda S. H. Walton K. M. Broesch T. Kolkin L. Namy L. L. (2013). Why two-year-olds fail to learn gestures as object labels: evidence from looking time and forced-choice measures. Lang. Learn. Dev. 9 50– 65. 10.1080/15475441.2012.723189 · DOI
  75. Sümer B. (2015). Acquisition of Spatial Language by Signing and Speaking Children: A Comparison of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) and Turkish. Ph.D. thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
  76. Tamminen J. Gaskell M. G. (2008). Newly learned spoken words show long-term lexical competition effects. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 61 361– 371. 10.1090/17470210701634545 17943648 · DOI
  77. Taub S. (2001). Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511509629 · DOI
  78. Thompson R. L. Vinson D. P. Vigliocco G. (2010). The link between form and meaning in British sign language: effects of iconicity for phonological decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36 1017– 1027. 10.1037/a0019339 20565217 · DOI
  79. Thompson R. L. Vinson D. P. Woll B. Vigliocco G. (2013). The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychol. Sci. 23 1443– 1448. 10.1177/0956797612459763 23150275 · DOI
  80. 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
  81. VanPatten B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment in consciousness. Stud. Second Lang. Acquisit. 12 287– 301. 10.1017/S0272263100009177 · DOI · Paper page
  82. VanPatten B. Cadierno T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: a role for instruction. Mod. Lang. J. 77 45– 57. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01944.x · DOI
  83. Vigliocco G. Perniss P. Vinson D. (2014). Language as a multimodal phenomenon: implications for language learning, processing and evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 369: 20130292 10.1098/rstb.2013.0292 PMC4123671 25092660 · DOI
  84. 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. 10.3758/brm.40.4.1079 19001399 · DOI
  85. Woolfe T. Herman R. Roy P. Woll B. (2010). Early vocabulary development in deaf native signers: a British Sign Language adaptation of the communicative development inventories. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discip. 51 322– 331. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02151.x 19843318 · DOI

Authors
Ortega, G.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Ortega, Gerardo
ORCID
Ortega, Gerardo
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2017-08-02
Volume
8
Pages
1280-1280
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280
PMC
PMC5539242
OpenAlex
W2741460618
Cited by
123
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Veni 016.154.003)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
iconicity, sign language acquisition, vocabulary acquisition, sign language as first language, phonological form, sign learning

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