The role of sign phonology and iconicity during sign processing: The case of deaf children

Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 436-448

  Ormel, Ellen ^a   Hermans, Daan ^b   Knoors, Harry ^a   Verhoeven, Ludo ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b Radboud University Nijmegen ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SIGN LANGUAGE;

ADULT; CHILD; DEAFNESS; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; SIGN LANGUAGE;

EID: 70249119969     PISSN: 10814159     EISSN: 14657325     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enp021     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Atkinson, J., Marshall, J., Woll, B., & Thacker, A. (2005). Testing comprehension abilities in users of British Sign Language. Brain and Language, 94, 233-248.
2. Baayen, R., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database. Technical report, Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
3. Corina, D., & Knapp, H. P. (2006). Lexical retrieval in American Sign Language Production. In L. M. Goldstein, D. H. Whalen, & C. T. Best (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 8. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
4. Corina, D. P., & Sandler, W. (1993). On the nature of phonological structure in sign language. Phonology, 10, 165-207.
5. Dye, M. W. G., & Shih, S. (2006). Phonological priming in British Sign Language. In L. M. Goldstein, D. H. Whalen, & C. T. Best (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 8. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
6. Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Emmorey, K., & Corina, D. (1990). Lexical recognition in sign language: Effects of phonetic structure and morphology. Perceptual and Motor skills, 71, 1227-1252.
8. Emmorey, K., Grabowski, T., McCullough, S., Damasio, H., Ponto, L., Hichwa, R., et al. (2004). Motor-iconicity of sign language does not alter the neural systems underlying tool and action naming. Brain and Language, 89, 27-37.
9. Emmorey, K., McCullough, S., & Brentari, D. (2003). Categorical perception in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 21-45.
10. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 613-656.
11. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1999). Ambiguity, competition, and blending in spoken word recognition. Cognitive Science, 23, 439-462.
12. Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2002). Representation and competition in the perception of spoken words. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 220-266.
13. Glenberg, A. M., & Kashak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558-565.
14. Hildebrandt, U., & Corina, D. (2002). Phonological similarity in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 593-612.
15. Irausquin, R., & Mommers, C. (2001). Leesladder. Een programma voor kinderen met leesmoeilijkheden [Reading ladder. A program for children with reading difficulties]. Tilburg: Uitgeverij Zwijsen.
16. Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Luftig, R. L. (1983). Variables influencing the learnability of individual signs and sign lexicons: A review of the literature. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 361-376.
18. Markman, P. T., & Justice, E. M. (2004). Sign language iconicity and its influence on the ability to describe the function of objects. Journal of Communication Disorders, 37, 535-546.
19. Marthur, G., & Best, C. (2007, March). Three experimental techniques for investigating sign language processing. Paper presented at CUNY 2007, 20th Annual CUNY Conference on human sentence processing, San Diego, CA.
20. Mayberry, R. I., & Witcher, P. (2006). What age of acquisition effects reveal about the nature of phonological processing (Center for Research in Language, Technical Reports No. 17(3)). San Diego: University of California.
21. Meier, R. (2002). Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. In R. P. Meier, K. Cormier, & D. Quinto-Pozos (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages (pp. 1-25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Morford, J. (1996). Insights to language from the study of gesture: A review of research on the gestural communication of non-signing deaf people. Language & Communication, 16, 165-178.
23. Namy, L. L., Campbell, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2004). The changing role of iconicity in non-verbal symbol learning: A U-shaped trajectory in the acquisition of arbitrary gestures. Journal of Cognition and Development, 5, 37-57.
24. Orlansky, M. D., & Bonvillian, J. D. (1984). The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 287-292.
25. Pietrandrea, P. (2002). Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 2, 296-321.
26. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology software tools, Learning Research and Development Centre, University of Pittsburgh.
27. Schrooten, W., & Vermeer, A. (1994). Woorden in het basisonderwijs. 15.000 woorden aangeboden aan leerlingen, Studies in meertaligheid 6 [Words in primary education. Offering 15.000 words to pupils, Studies in multilingualism 6]. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
28. Thompson, R., Emmorey, K., & Gollan, T. (2005). "Tip of the fingers" experiences by deaf signers. Psychological Science, 16, 856-860.
29. Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Language, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 550-557.
30. Tolar, T. D., Lederberg, A. R., Gokhale, S., & Tomasello, M. (2007). The development of the ability to recognize the meaning of iconic signs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13, 225-240.
31. van der Kooij, E. (2002). Phonological categories in Sign Language of The Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
32. van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Disentangling context availability and concreteness in lexical decision and word translation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A(1), 41-63.
33. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Woolfe, T., Dye, M. W. G., & Woll, B. (2005). Language and imagery: Effects of language modality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 1859-1863.