When does iconicity in sign language matter?

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 261-271

  Baus, Cristina ^a,b   Carreiras, Manuel ^b,c,d   Emmorey, Karen ^e  

^a UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRA   (Spain)

^b BASQUE CENTER ON COGNITION   (Spain)

^c BASQUE FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

^e SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

American Sign Language; Bilingualism; Iconicity; Translation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOGNITION; SIGN LANGUAGE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 84875866473     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2011.620374     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Anderson, D. and Reilly, J. 2002. The MacArthur communicative development inventory: Normative data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(2): 83-106.
2. Armstrong, D. F., Stokoe, W. C. and Wilcox, S. E. 1995. Gesture and the nature of language, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. and Gulikers, L. 1995. The CELEX lexical database [CDROM], Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
4. Bosworth, R. G. and Emmorey, K. 2010. Effects of iconicity and semantic relatedness on lexical access in American Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 36(6): 1573-1581.
5. Brentari, D. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
6. Campbell, R., Martin, P. and White, T. 1992. Forced choice recognition of sign in novice British Sign Language learners. Applied Linguistics, 13: 185-201.
7. Chen, H.-C. and Leung, Y. S. 1989. Patterns of lexical processing in a nonnative language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition, 15: 316-325.
8. Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M. and Provost, J. 1993. PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 25(2): 257-271.
9. Coltheart, M. 1981. The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A: 497-505.
10. De Groot, A. M. B. 1992. Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 18: 1001-1018.
11. De Groot, A. M. B. and Poot, R. 1997. Word translation at three levels of proficiency in second language: the ubiquitous involvement of conceptual memory. Language Learning, 47: 215-264.
12. Emmorey, K., Grabowski, T., McCullough, S., Damasio, H., Ponto, L.Hichwa, R. 2004. Motor-iconicity of sign language does not alter the neural systems underlying tool and action naming. Brain and Language, 89(1): 27-37.
13. Finkbeiner, M. and Nicol, J. 2003. Semantic category effects in second language word learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24: 369-383.
14. Grote, K. and Linz, E. 2003. "The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization". In From sign to signing: Iconicity in language and literature, Edited by: Müller, W. G. and Fischer, O. 23-40. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
15. Klima, U. and Bellugi, U. 1979. The signs of language, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Kroll, J. F., & Curley, J. 1988. Lexical memory in novice bilinguals: The role of concepts in retrieving second language words. In: M. Grunenberg, P. Morris & R. Sykes, Practical aspects of memory (Vol. 2, pp. 389-395). London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
17. Kroll, J. F. and Stewart, E. 1994. Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33: 149-174.
18. Liddell, S. and Johnson, R. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies, 64: 197-277.
19. Lieberth, A. K. and Gamble, M. E. B. 1991. The role of iconicity in sign language learning by hearing adults. Journal of Communication Disorders, 24: 89-99.
20. Luftig, R. L. and Lloyd, L. L. 1981. Manual sign translucency and referential concreteness in the learning of signs. Sign Language Studies, 30: 49-60.
21. Macizo, P. and Bajo, T. 2005. Reading for repetition and reading for translation: Do they involve the same processes?. Cognition, 99: 1-34.
22. Mandel, M. 1977. "Iconic devices in American Sign Language". In On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language, Edited by: Friedman, L. 57-107. New York, NY: Academic Press.
23. Marshall, J., Atkinson, J., Smulovitch, E., Thacker, A. and Woll, B. 2004. Aphasia in a user of British Sign Language: Dissociation between sign and gesture. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21(5): 537-554.
24. Newport, E. L. and Meier, R. P. 1985. "The acquisition of American Sign Language". In The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Edited by: Slobin, D. 881-938. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Orlansky, M. D. and Bonvillian, J. D. 1984. The role of inconicity in early sign language acquisition. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49(3): 287-292.
26. Ormel, E., Hermans, D., Knooers, H. and Verhoeven, L. 2009. The role of sign phonology and iconicity during sign processing: the case of deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14: 436-448.
27. Perniss, P., Thompson, R. and Vigliocco, G. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1: 1-15.
28. Pietrandrea, P. 2002. Iconicity and arbitrareness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 2(3): 296-321.
29. Poizner, H., Bellugi, U. and Tweney, R. D. 1981. Processing of formational, semantic, and iconic information in American Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7(5): 1146-1159.
30. Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
31. Taub, S. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
32. Thompson, R., Emmorey, K. and Gollan, T. 2005. Tip-of-the-fingers experiences by ASL signers: Insights into the organization of a sign-based lexicon. Psychological Science, 16(11): 856-860.
33. Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P. and Vigliocco, G. 2009. The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35(2): 550-557.
34. Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P. and Vigliocco, G. 2010. The link between form and meaning in British Sign Language: Lexical processing effects in a phonological decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 36(4): 1017-1027.
35. Tokowicz, N. and Kroll, J. F. 2007. Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(5): 727-779.
36. van der Hulst, H. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology, 10: 209-241.