Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-5wl6q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T10:17:51.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Iconicity in American Sign Language–English translation recognition

Part of: Iconicity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

BENJAMIN ANIBLE Open the ORCID record for BENJAMIN ANIBLE [Opens in a new window]
BENJAMIN ANIBLE*
Affiliation:
Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
*
*Address for correspondence: Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, 5063 Bergen, NORWAY. E-mail: benjamin.anible@hvl.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reaction times for a translation recognition study are reported where novice to expert English–ASL bilinguals rejected English translation distractors for ASL signs that were related to the correct translations through phonology, semantics, or both form and meaning (diagrammatic iconicity). Imageability ratings of concepts impacted performance in all conditions; when imageability was high, participants showed interference for phonologically related distractors, and when imageability was low participants showed interference for semantically related distractors, regardless of proficiency. For diagrammatically related distractors high imageability caused interference in experts, but low imageability caused interference in novices. These patterns suggest that imageability and diagrammaticity interact with proficiency – experts process diagrammatic related distractors phonologically, but novices process them semantically. This implies that motivated signs are dependent on the entrenchment of language systematicity; rather than decreasing their impact on language processing as proficiency grows, they build on the original benefit conferred by iconic mappings.

Keywords

bilingualismsigned languageiconicitytranslation recognitionusage-basedcognitive linguistics
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 12 , Issue 1: Special Issue on Iconicity , March 2020 , pp. 138 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2020 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Anible, B. & Anible, G. L. (2015). Dissertation protocols DOI release: translation recognition, translation production, picture naming. Retrieved from <https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19645>.Google Scholar
Anible, B., Twitchell, P. A., Waters, G. S., Dussias, P. E., Piñar, P. & Morford, J. P. (2015). Sensitivity to verb bias in American Sign Language–English bilinguals. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 20(3), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H. & Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research 3(2), 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59(1), 617–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2013). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (Version R package version 1. 0–5). Retrieved from <http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4>.Google Scholar
Baus, C., Carreiras, M. & Emmorey, K. (2013). When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language and Cognitive Processes 28(3), 261–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosworth, R. G. & 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.Google ScholarPubMed
Caselli, N. K. & Pyers, J. E. (2017). The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate acquisition of sign language. Psychological Science 28(7), 979–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, N. K., Sehyr, Z. S., Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. & Emmorey, K. (2017). ASL-LEX: a lexical database of American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods 49(2), 784–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christoffels, I. K., Firk, C. & Schiller, N. O. (2007). Bilingual language control: an event-related brain potential study. Brain Research 1147, 192–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A 33(4), 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A. & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26(5), 1283–1296.Google ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., Santesteban, M. & Caño, A. (2005). On the facilitatory effects of cognate words in bilingual speech production. Brain and Language 94(1), 94–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Groot, A. M. B. & Poot, R. (1997). Word translation at three levels of proficiency in a second language: the ubiquitous involvement of conceptual memory. Language Learning 47(2), 215–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H. & Monaghan, P. (2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(10), 603–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dong, Y., Gui, S. & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Shared and separate meanings in the bilingual mental lexicon. Bilingualism 8(3), 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K. (2014). Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651), doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, L. B. (2000). Are morphological effects distinguishable from the effects of shared meaning and shared form? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26(6), 1431–1444.Google ScholarPubMed
Fox, J. (2003). Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8(15), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frishberg, N. & Gough, B. (2000). Morphology in American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 3(1), 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grote, K. & Linz, E. (2003). The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. In Müller, W. G. & Jena, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität (eds), From sign to signing: iconicity in language and literature 3 (pp. 23–40). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3), 515–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, P., Paludnevičienė, R., Supalla, T. & Bavelier, D. (2008). American Sign Language—Sentence Reproduction Test: development and implications. In de Quadros, R. (ed.), Sign language: spinning and unraveling the past, present and future (pp. 160–172). Petrópolis: Arara Azul.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, U. & Corina, D. (2002). Phonological similarity in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes 17(6), 593–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, P. T. & Bergman, M. W. (1985). Lexical knowledge in word recognition: word length and word frequency in naming and lexical decision tasks. Journal of Memory and Language 24(1), 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janke, V. & Marshall, C. R. (2017). Using the hands to represent objects in space: gesture as a substrate for signed language acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology 8, doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jescheniak, J. D. & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20(4), 824–843.Google Scholar
Kieras, D. (1978). Beyond pictures and words: alternative information-processing models for imagery effect in verbal memory. Psychological Bulletin 85(3), 532–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, G., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R. & Piper, J. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In Aitken, A., Bailey, R. & Hamilton-Smith, N. (eds), The computer and literary studies (pp. 153–165). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Krause, F. & Lindemann, O. (2014). Expyriment: a Python library for cognitive and neuroscientific experiments. Behavior Research Methods 46(2), 416–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F. & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language 33(2), 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. (2013). lmerTest: tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (Version R package version 2. 0–3). Retrieved from <http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest>.Google Scholar
Laxén, J. & Lavaur, J.-M. (2010). The role of semantics in translation recognition: effects of number of translations, dominance of translations and semantic relatedness of multiple translations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 13(2), 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepic, R. (2015). Motivation in morphology: lexical patterns in ASL and English (Dissertation). University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA. Online <https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5c38w519>.Google Scholar
Lepic, R., Börstell, C., Belsitzman, G. & Sandler, W. (2016). Taking meaning in hand: iconic motivations in two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics 19(1), 37–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepic, R. & Occhino, C. (2018). A construction morphology approach to sign language analysis. In Booij, G. (ed.), The construction of words (Studies in Morphology, vol. 4., pp. 141–172). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, K., de Sa, V. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). The role of correlated properties in accessing conceptual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 126, 99–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misra, M., Guo, T., Bobb, S. C. & Kroll, J. F. (2012). When bilinguals choose a single word to speak: electrophysiological evidence for inhibition of the native language. Journal of Memory and Language 67(1), 224–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monaghan, P., Christiansen, M. H. & Fitneva, S. A. (2011). The arbitrariness of the sign: learning advantages from the structure of the vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 140(3), 325–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monaghan, P., Shillcock, R. C., Christiansen, M. H. & Kirby, S. (2014). How arbitrary is language? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651), doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0299CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Occhino, C. (2016). A cognitive approach to phonology: evidence from signed languages (Dissertation). University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. Online <https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ling_etds/46>.Google Scholar
Occhino, C., Anible, B., Wilkinson, E. & Morford, J. P. (2017). Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder: how language experience affects perceived iconicity. Gesture 16(1), 100–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormel, E., Knoors, H., Hermans, D. & 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(4), 485–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortega, G. & Morgan, G. (2015). The effect of iconicity in the mental lexicon of hearing non-signers and proficient signers: evidence of cross-modal priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(5), 574–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, G., Schiefner, A. & Özyürek, A. (2019). Hearing non-signers use their gestures to predict iconic form–meaning mappings at first exposure to signs. Cognition 191, doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L. & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1(227), doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perniss, P. & Vigliocco, G. (2014). The bridge of iconicity: from a world of experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651), doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poarch, G. J., Van Hell, J. G. & Kroll, J. F. (2015). Accessing word meaning in beginning second language learners: Lexical or conceptual mediation? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18(03), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qasem, M. & Foote, R. (2010). Crosslanguage lexical activation: a test of the revised hierarchical and morphological decomposition models in Arabic–English bilinguals. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(1), 111–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2015). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from <http://www.R-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Rofes, A., Zakariás, L., Ceder, K., Lind, M., Johansson, M. B., de Aguiar, V. … Howard, D. (2018). Imageability ratings across languages. Behavior Research Methods 50(3), 1187–1197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwanenflugel, P. J. & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9(1), 82–102.Google Scholar
Sevcikova Sehyr, Z. & Emmorey, K. (2019). The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cognition 11(2), 208–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderman, G. & Kroll, J. F. (2006). First language activation during second language lexical processing: an investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(3), 387–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talamas, A., Kroll, J. F. & Dufour, R. (1999). From form to meaning: stages in the acquisition of second-language vocabulary. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(1), 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taub, S. (2001). Language from the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennant, R. A. & Brown, M. G. (2010). American Sign Language handshape dictionary (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
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: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35, 550–557.Google ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P. & Vigliocco, G. (2010). The link between form and meaning in British Sign Language: effects of iconicity for phonological decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 36(4), 1017–1027.Google ScholarPubMed
Tokowicz, N. & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(5), 727–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, F. (1999). Diagrammatic iconicity in word-formation. In Nänny, M. & Fischer, O. (eds), Form miming meaning (pp. 307-324). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J. G. & De Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1(3), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinson, D. P., Cormier, K., Denmark, T., Schembri, A. & Vigliocco, G. (2008). The British Sign Language (BSL) norms for age of acquisition, familiarity, and iconicity. Behavior Research Methods 40(4), 1079–1087.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wickham, H. (2009). Ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, P. (2000). Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. (2004). Conceptual spaces and embodied actions: cognitive iconicity and signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2), 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. (2019). Statistics for linguists: an introduction using R. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Y. J. & Thierry, G. (2010). Chinese–English bilinguals reading English hear Chinese. Journal of Neuroscience 30(22), 7646–7651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwaan, R. A. & Madden, C. J. (2005). Embodied sentence comprehension. In Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A. (eds), Grounding cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language and thinking (pp. 224–245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar