Iconicity as structure mapping

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 369, Issue 1651, 2014, Pages

  Emmorey, Karen ^a  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Analogue building model; Anaphora; Iconicity; Metaphor; Sign language; Structure mapping

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; HUMAN BEHAVIOR; LANGUAGE; MAPPING; SIGNALING;

EID: 84905251120     PISSN: 09628436     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0301     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Mandel M. 1977 Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In On the other hand: new perspectives on American Sign Language (ed. LA Friedman), pp. 57-107. New York, NY: Academic Press.
2. Perniss P, Thompson T, Vigliocco G. 2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Front. Psychol. 1, 1-15. (doi: 10. 3389/fpsyg. 2010. 00227).
3. Taub SF. 2001 Language from the body: iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Thompson RL. 2011 Iconicity in language processing and acquisition: what signed languages reveal. Lang. Linguist. Compass 5, 603-616. (doi: 10. 1111/j. 1749-818X. 2011. 00301. x).
5. Gentner D. 1983 Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 7, 155-170.
6. Gentner D, Markman AB. 1997 Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. Am. Psychol. 52, 45-56. (doi: 10. 1037/0003-066X. 52. 1. 45).
7. Wilcox S. 2004 Cognitive iconicity: conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed language. Cogn. Linguist. 15, 119-147. (doi: 10. 1515/cogl. 2004. 005).
8. Wilcox P. 2004 A cognitive key: metonymic and metaphorical mappings in ASL. Cogn. Linguist. 15, 197-222. (doi: 10. 1515/cogl. 2004. 008).
9. Meir I. 2010 Iconicity and metaphor: constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language 86, 865-896. (doi: 10. 1353/lan. 2010. 0044).
10. Lakoff G, Johnson M. 1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
11. Schlenker P. 2011 Iconic agreement. Theor. Linguist. 37, 223-234. (doi: 10. 1515/thli. 2011. 017).
12. Schlenker P. 2012 Complement set anaphora and structural iconicity in ASL. Snippets 25, 15-17.
13. Schlenker P, Lamberton J, Santoro M. 2013 Iconic variables. Linguist. Phil. 36, 91-149. (doi: 10. 1007/s10988-013-9129-1).
14. Schlenker P, Lamberton J. 2012 Formal indices and iconicity in ASL. In Logic, language and meaning: 18th Amsterdam colloquium (eds M Aloni, V KimmelmanF Roelofsen, GW Sassoon, K Schulz, M Westera), pp. 1-11. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.
15. Nouwen RWF. 2003 Plural pronominal anaphora in context: dynamic aspects of quantification. LOT Dissertation Series 84, University of Utrecht.
16. Falkenhainer B, Forbus KD, Gentner D. 1989 The structure-mapping engine: algorithm and examples. Artif. Intell. 41, 1-63. (doi: 10. 1016/0004-3702(89)90077-5).
17. Barsalou LW. 1999 Perceptual symbol systems. Brain Behav. Sci. 22, 577-660.
18. Barsalou LW. 2008 Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 617-645. (doi: 10. 1146/annurev. psych.59. 103006. 093639).
19. Markman AB, Gentner D. 1993 Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 25, 431-467.
20. Markman AB, Gentner D. 1997 The effects of alignability on memory. Psychol. Sci. 8, 363-367. (doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 1997. tb00426. x).
21. Thompson RL, Vinson DP, Vigliocco G. 2009 The link between form andmeaning in American Sign Language: lexical processing effects. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 35, 550-557. (doi: 10. 1037/a0014547).
22. Bosworth R, Emmorey K. 2010 Effects of iconicity and semantic relatedness on lexical access in American Sign Language. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36, 1573-1581. (doi: 10. 1037/a0020934).
23. Thompson RL, Vinson DP, Vigliocco G. 2010 The link between form and meaning in British Sign Language: effect of iconicity for phonological decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36, 1017-1027. (doi: 10. 1037/a0019339).
24. Thompson RL, Skinner R, Vinson D, Fox N, Vigliocco G. 2010 When meaning permeates form: iconicity effects in British Sign Language. In Paper presented at theoretical issues in Sign Language Research 10. 30 September-2 October 2010, West Lafayette, IN, USA. Purdue University, IN. See http://www. purdue. edu/tislr10/pdfs/Thompson-Iconicity. pdf.
25. Aronoff M, Meir I, Sandler W. 2005 The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81, 301-344. (doi: 10. 1353/lan. 2005. 0043).
26. Baus C, Carreiras M, Emmorey K. 2013 When does iconicity in sign language matter? Lang. Cogn. Process. 28, 261-271. (doi: 10. 1080/01690965. 2011. 620374).
27. Campbell R, Martin P, White T. 1992 Forced choice recognition of sign in novice learners of British Sign Language. Appl. Linguist. 13, 185-201. (doi: 10. 1093/applin/13. 2. 185).
28. Folven RJ, Bonvillian JD. 1991 The transition from nonreferential to referential language in children acquiring American Sign Language. Dev. Psychol. 27, 806-816. (doi: 10. 1037/0012-1649. 27. 5. 806).
29. Orlansky MD, Bonvillian JD. 1984 The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 49, 287-292.
30. Thompson RL, Vinson DP, Woll B, Vigliocco G. 2012 The road to language learning is iconic: evidence from British Sign Language. Psychol. Sci. 23, 1443-1448. (doi: 10. 1177/0956797612459763).
31. Walker P, Bremmer JG, Mason U, Spring J, Mattock K, Slater A, Johnson SP. 2010 Preverbal infants' sensitivity to synaesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psych. Sci. 21, 21-25. (doi: 10. 1177/0956797609354734).
32. Mondloch CJ, Maurer D. 2004 Do small white balls squeak? Pitch-object correspondences in young children. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 4, 133-136. (doi: 10. 3758/CABN. 4. 2. 133).
33. Anderson D, Reilly J. 2002 The MacArthur communicative development inventory: normative data from American Sign Language. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 7, 83-106. (doi: 10. 1093/deafed/7. 2. 83).
34. Deloache JS. 1991 Symbolic functioning in very young children: understanding of pictures and models. Cogn. Dev. 62, 736-752.
35. Namy LL. 2008 Recognition of iconicity doesn't come for free. Dev. Sci. 11, 841-846. (doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-7687. 2008. 00732. x).
36. Magid R, Pyers J. 2014 Iconicity lends a hand in language learning only after children know it's there.
37. Tolar TD, Lederberg AR, Gokhale S, Tomasello M. 2008 The development of the ability to recognize the meaning of iconic signs. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 13, 225-240. (doi: 10. 1093/deafed/enm045).
38. Napoli DJ, Sanders N, Wright R. 2014 A drive toward articulatory ease for spoken and sign languages. Language 36, 424-456. (doi: 10. 1353/lan. 2014. 0026).
39. Sandler W, Aronoff M, Meir I, Padden C. 2011 The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 29, 503-543. (doi: 10. 1007/s11049-011-9128-2).
40. Meir RP, Mauk CE, Cheek A, Moreland CJ. 2008 The form of children's early signs: iconic or motoric determinants? Lang. Learn. Dev. 4, 63-98. (doi: 10. 1080/15475440701377618).
41. Frishberg N. 1975 Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51, 696-719. (doi: 10. 2307/412894).
42. Bowdle BF, Gentner D. 2005 The career of metaphor. Psychol. Rev. 112, 193-216. (doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 112. 1. 193).
43. Day SB, Gentner D. 2007 Nonintentional analogical inference in text comprehension. Mem. Cognit. 35, 39-49. (doi: 10. 3758/BF03195940).
44. Perrott DA, Gentner D, Bodenhausen GV. 2005 Resistance is futile: the unwitting insertion of analogical inferences in memory. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12, 696-702. (doi: 10. 3758/BF03196760).