Language and imagery: effects of language modality

Across spoken languages, properties of wordforms (e.g. the sounds in the word hammer) do not generally evoke mental images associated to meanings. However, across signed languages, many signforms readily evoke mental images (e.g. the sign HAMMER resembles the motion involved in hammering). Here we assess the relationship between language and imagery, comparing the performance of English speakers and British sign language (BSL) signers in meaning similarity judgement tasks. In experiment 1, we found that BSL signers used these imagistic properties in making meaning similarity judgements, in contrast with English speakers. In experiment 2, we found that English speakers behaved more like BSL signers when asked to develop mental images for the words before performing the same task. These findings show that language differences can bias users to attend more to those aspects of the world encoded in their language than to those that are not; and that language modality (spoken versus signed) can affect the degree to which imagery is involved in language.

[1]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Neural foundations of imagery , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[2]  D. Slobin.  Thinking for Speaking , 1987 .

[3]  M. Garrett,et al.  Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  G. Miller,et al.  Language and Perception , 1976 .

[5]  Philip K. McGuire,et al.  Neural Correlates of British Sign Language Comprehension: Spatial Processing Demands of Topographic Language , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  A. Damasio,et al.  Neural Correlates of Naming Actions and of Naming Spatial Relations , 2001, NeuroImage.

[7]  Ferdinand de Saussure.  Course in General Linguistics , 1916 .

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

[9]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Why Nouns Are Learned before Verbs: Linguistic Relativity Versus Natural Partitioning. Technical Report No. 257. , 1982 .

[10]  P Garrard,et al.  Dissociation of Lexical Syntax and Semantics: Evidence from Focal Cortical Degeneration , 2004, Neurocase.

[11]  Karen Emmorey,et al.  Neural Systems Underlying Spatial Language in American Sign Language , 2002, NeuroImage.

[12]  D. Slobin.  From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking” , 1996 .

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

[14]  M. Arbib,et al.  Language within our grasp , 1998, Trends in Neurosciences.

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

[16]  U. Bellugi,et al.  Dissociation between linguistic and nonlinguistic gestural systems: A case for compositionality , 1992, Brain and Language.

[17]  M. Grossman,et al.  Not all words are created equal Category‐specific deficits in central nervous system disease , 1998, Neurology.

[18]  A K Romney,et al.  Cultural universals: measuring the semantic structure of emotion terms in English and Japanese. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  Alex Martin,et al.  Representation of Manipulable Man-Made Objects in the Dorsal Stream , 2000, NeuroImage.

[20]  Christine D. Wilson,et al.  Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  Cynthia L Fisher,et al.  Structure and meaning in the verb lexicon: Input for a syntax-aided verb learning procedure , 1994 .

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

[23]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Visual imagery and visual-spatial language: Enhanced imagery abilities in deaf and hearing ASL signers , 1993, Cognition.

[24]  F. Saussure,et al.  Course in General Linguistics , 1960 .

[25]  S. Engel.  Thought and Language , 1964 .