Examining perceptions of graphic symbols across cultures: Preliminary study of the impact of culture/ethnicity

Perceptions of three aided graphic symbol sets used in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) (Blissymbols, DynaSyms®, and Picture Communication Symbols) were examined across four groups of adult participants with differing cultural histories and life experiences. One hundred and forty-seven individuals who identified themselves as African American, Chinese, European American, or Mexican and who ranged in age from 30 to 64 years participated in the investigation. Graphic symbols with translated referents (in English, Mexican Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese) from a 41-item lexicon were rated on a 7-point scale of iconicity. Results suggest that individuals from different cultural/ethnic groups perceive graphic symbols differently. Methodological issues related to the study of the impact of culture/ethnicity on graphic symbol recognition are described, and implications for the practice of AAC across cultures are discussed.

[1]  J. Mauchly.  Significance Test for Sphericity of a Normal $n$-Variate Distribution , 1940 .

[2]  Roger S. Brown,et al.  Why Are Signed Languages Easier to Learn than Spoken Languages? Part Two , 1978 .

[3]  Mark Mizuko,et al.  Transparency and ease of learning of symbols represented by Blissymbols, PCS, and Picsyms , 1987 .

[4]  Lyle L. Lloyd,et al.  A study of physical and semantic characteristics of a graphic symbol system as predictors of perceived complexity , 1987 .

[5]  L L Lloyd,et al.  Augmentative and alternative communication. , 1989, American journal of mental retardation : AJMR.

[6]  K. Bloomberg,et al.  The comparative translucency of initial lexical items represented in five graphic symbol systems and sets. , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[7]  Lyle L. Lloyd,et al.  Toward a common usage of iconicity terminology , 1991 .

[8]  Lyle L. Lloyd,et al.  Further development of an Augmentative and Alternative Communication symbol taxonomy , 1992 .

[9]  Graphic representational systems and literacy learning , 1993 .

[10]  R. Johnson,et al.  The picture communication symbols , 1993 .

[11]  Kimberly A. Ganley.  Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 1994 .

[12]  Jan L. Bedrosian,et al.  Limitations in the use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research , 1995 .

[13]  David R. Beukelman,et al.  Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Management of Severe Communication Disorders in Children and Adults , 1995 .

[14]  D. Jeffery Higginbotham,et al.  Subject selection in AAC research: Decision points , 1995 .

[15]  Peter Lindsay,et al.  Approaching literacy with AAC graphics , 1995 .

[16]  D. Jeffery Higginbotham,et al.  Use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research: Confessions of a research infidel , 1995 .

[17]  O. Hetzroni,et al.  Cultural aspects in the development of AAC users , 1996 .

[18]  M. B. Huer,et al.  Culturally Inclusive Assessments for Children Using Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) , 1997 .

[19]  Alan F. Newell,et al.  How do members of different language communities compose sentences with a picture-based communication system? - A cross-cultural study of picture-based sentences constructed by English and Japanese speakers , 1998 .

[20]  S. McNaughton.  Reading acquisition of adults with severe congenital speech and physical impairments, theoretical infrastructure, empirical investigation, educational application , 1998 .

[21]  Yeshayahu Shen,et al.  Semantic transparency and translucency in compound blissymbols , 1998 .

[22]  Multicultural Issues , 2002 .