When does iconicity in sign language matter?

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 noniconic) prior to performing these tasks. Only new learners benefited from sign iconicity, recognising 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 memorisation 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 noniconic signs). Iconicity may also have slowed translation performance by forcing conceptual mediation for iconic signs, which is slower than translating via direct lexical links.

[1]  Gabriella Vigliocco,et al.  Iconicity as a General Property of Language: Evidence from Spoken and Signed Languages , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[2]  D. Slobin,et al.  The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition , 2000 .

[3]  Elissa L. Newport,et al.  The acquisition of American Sign Language. , 1985 .

[4]  Treebank Penn,et al.  Linguistic Data Consortium , 1999 .

[5]  Lyle L. Lloyd,et al.  Manual Sign Translucency and Referential Concreteness in the Learning of Signs , 2013 .

[6]  Judith F. Kroll,et al.  Lexical memory in novice bilinguals the role of concepts in retrieving second language words , 1988 .

[7]  Harry van der Hulst,et al.  Units in the analysis of signs , 1993, Phonology.

[8]  L. Verhoeven,et al.  The role of sign phonology and iconicity during sign processing: the case of deaf children. , 2009, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[9]  D. D. Groot,et al.  Determinants of word translation , 1991 .

[10]  K. Emmorey,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning , Memory , and Cognition Effects of Iconicity and Semantic Relatedness on Lexical Access in American Sign Language , 2010 .

[11]  Sherman Wilcox,et al.  Gesture and the Nature of Language , 1995 .

[12]  Olga Fischer,et al.  From Sign to Signing. Iconicity in Language and Literature 3 , 2003 .

[13]  Diane Brentari,et al.  A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology , 1999 .

[14]  J. D. Bonvillian,et al.  The role of inconicity in early sign language acquisition. , 1984, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[15]  Karen Emmorey,et al.  “Tip of the Fingers” Experiences by Deaf Signers , 2005, Psychological science.

[16]  Judy Reilly,et al.  The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Normative Data for American Sign Language. , 2002, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[17]  J. Kroll,et al.  Category Interference in Translation and Picture Naming: Evidence for Asymmetric Connections Between Bilingual Memory Representations , 1994 .

[18]  A K Lieberth,et al.  The role of iconicity in sign language learning by hearing adults. , 1991, Journal of communication disorders.

[19]  Klaudia Grote,et al.  The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization , 2003 .

[20]  K. Emmorey.  Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights From Sign Language Research , 2001 .

[21]  De Groot A.M.B..  DETERMINANTS OF WORD TRANSLATION , 1992 .

[22]  Sarah Florence Taub,et al.  Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language , 2001 .

[23]  Robin L. Thompson,et al.  The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: lexical processing effects. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  Matthew Flatt,et al.  PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers , 1993 .

[25]  B. Rossion,et al.  Fixation Patterns During Recognition of Personally Familiar and Unfamiliar Faces , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[26]  Wendy Sandler,et al.  Sign Language and Linguistic Universals: Entering the lexicon: lexicalization, backformation, and cross-modal borrowing , 2006 .

[27]  Michael Wilson.  MRC Psycholinguistic Database , 2001 .

[28]  E. Klima.  The signs of language , 1979 .

[29]  Paola Pietrandrea,et al.  Iconicity and Arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language , 2002 .

[30]  Pedro Macizo,et al.  Reading for repetition and reading for translation: do they involve the same processes? , 2006, Cognition.

[31]  Judith F. Kroll,et al.  Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages , 2007 .

[32]  Bencie Woll,et al.  Aphasia in a user of British Sign Language: Dissociation between sign and gesture , 2004, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[33]  J. Nicol,et al.  Semantic category effects in second language word learning , 2003, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[34]  Ruth Campbell,et al.  Forced Choice Recognition of Sign in Novice Learners of British Sign Language. , 1992 .

[35]  A. D. Groot,et al.  Word translation at three levels of proficiency in a second language : The ubiquitous involvement of conceptual memory , 1997 .

[36]  U Bellugi,et al.  Processing of formational, semantic, and iconic information in American sign language. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[37]  Scott K. Liddell,et al.  American Sign Language: The Phonological Base , 2013 .

[38]  David P Vinson,et al.  The link between form and meaning in British sign language: effects of iconicity for phonological decisions. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[39]  Karen Emmorey,et al.  Motor-iconicity of sign language does not alter the neural systems underlying tool and action naming , 2004, Brain and Language.

[40]  Hsuan-Chich Chen,et al.  Patterns of lexical processing in a nonnative language. , 1989 .