Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T11:36:05.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The iconicity toolbox: empirical approaches to measuring iconicity

Part of: Iconicity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2019

YASAMIN MOTAMEDI ,
HANNAH LITTLE ,
ALAN NIELSEN  and
JUSTIN SULIK
YASAMIN MOTAMEDI
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London
HANNAH LITTLE
Affiliation:
University of the West of England
ALAN NIELSEN
Affiliation:
University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
JUSTIN SULIK
Affiliation:
Cognition, Values, Behaviour, Faculty of Philosophy, Ludwig Maximilian University, and Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growing evidence from across the cognitive sciences indicates that iconicity plays an important role in a number of fundamental language processes, spanning learning, comprehension, and online use. One benefit of this recent upsurge in empirical work is the diversification of methods available for measuring iconicity. In this paper, we provide an overview of methods in the form of a ‘toolbox’. We lay out empirical methods for measuring iconicity at a behavioural level, in the perception, production, and comprehension of iconic forms. We also discuss large-scale studies that look at iconicity on a system-wide level, based on objective measures of similarity between signals and meanings. We give a detailed overview of how different measures of iconicity can better address specific hypotheses, providing greater clarity when choosing testing methods.

Keywords

iconicitymethodssystematicity
Type
Special Issue on Iconicity
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 11 , Issue 2: Special Issue on Iconicity , June 2019 , pp. 188 - 207
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2019 

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

Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F. & Christiansen, M. H. (2016). Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. PNAS 113(39), 10818–10823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. [Computer Program]. Version 6.0. 19. Retrieved from <http://www.praat.org/>.Google Scholar
Bosworth, R. & 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Mazzoni, L. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caldwell, C. A. & Smith, K. (2012). Cultural evolution and perpetuation of arbitrary communicative conventions in experimental microsocieties. PloS One 7(8), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043807CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carr, J. W., Smith, K., Cornish, H. & Kirby, S. (2016). The cultural evolution of structured languages in an open-ended, continuous world. Cognitive Science, 41(4), 892–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, N., Sevcikova Sehyr, Z. S., Cohen-Goldberg, A. & Emmorey, K. (2017). ASL-Lex: a lexical database of American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods 49(2), 784–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, P, Fusaroli, R. & Tylén, K. (2016). Environmental constraints shaping constituent order in emerging communication systems: structural iconicity, interactive alignment and conventionalization. Cognition 146, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2008). Iconicity of sequence: a corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3), 465–490.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
Dingemanse, M., Schuerman, W., Reinisch, E., Tufvesson, S. & Mitterer, H. (2016). What sound symbolism can and cannot do: testing the iconicity of ideophones from five languages. Language 92(2), e117–e133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupuis, M., Meier, E. & Cuneo, F. (2018). Detecting computer-generated random responding in questionnaire-based data: a comparison of seven indices. Behavior Research Methods , https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1103-yGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K. (2014). Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 369(1651), https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0301CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fay, N., Garrod, S., Roberts, L. & Swoboda, N. (2010). The interactive evolution of human communication systems. Cognitive Science 34(3), 351–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitneva, S. A., Christiansen, M. H. & Monaghan, P. (2009). From sound to syntax: phonological constraints on children’s lexical categorization of new words. Journal of Child Language 36(5), 967–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51(3), 696–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S., Fay, N., Lee, J., Oberlander, J. & MacLeod, T. (2007). Foundations of representation: Where might graphical symbol systems come from? Cognitive Science 31(6), 961–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie, H., Bowern, C. & LaPalombara, H. (2014). Sound symbolism in the languages of Australia. PLoS One 9(4), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, M., & Kita, S. (2014). The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and language evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 369(1651) https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0298Google ScholarPubMed
Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M. & Okada, H. (2008). Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition 109(1), 54–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakobson, R. (1971). Selected writings, volume II: word and language. Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. & Waugh, L. (1979). Sound shape of language. London: Bloomington.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: its nature and development. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Joo, I. (2018). Spoken language iconicity: an articulatory-based analysis of 66 languages. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chiao Tung University.Google Scholar
Klima, E. & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. Oxford: Liveright.Google Scholar
Kovic, V., Plunkett, K. & Westermann, G. (2010). The shape of words in the brain. Cognition 114(1), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lister, C., Fay, N, Ellison, T. M. & Ohan, J. (2015). Creating a new communication system: gesture has the upper hand. In Noelle, D. C., Dale, R., Warlaumont, A. S., Yoshimi, J., Matlock, T., Jennings, C. D. & Maglio, P. P. (eds.), The 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1386–1392). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Little, H., Eryilmaz, K. & de Boer, B. (2017a). Conventionalisation and discrimination as competing pressures on continuous speech-like signals. Interaction Studies 18(3), 355–378.Google Scholar
Little, H., Eryilmaz, K. & de Boer, B. (2017b). Signal dimensionality and the emergence of combinatorial structure. Cognition 168, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, H. & Sulik, J. (2018). What do iconicity judgements really mean? In Cuskley, C., Flaherty, M., Little, H., McCrohon, L., Ravignani, A. & Verhoef, T. (eds.), The evolution of language: proceedings of the 12th International Conference (EVOLANGXII). doi:10.12775/3991-1.060Google Scholar
Lockwood, G., Dingemanse, M. & Hagoort, P. (2016). Sound-symbolism boosts novel word learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 42(8), 1274–1281.Google ScholarPubMed
Luftig, R. L. & Lloyd, L. L. (1981). Manual sign translucency and referential concreteness in the learning of signs. Sign Language Studies 1030(1), 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H. (1959). Phonetic symbolism in English word-formation. Indogermanische Forschungen 64, 146–168.Google Scholar
Mason, W. & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 44(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maurer, D., Pathman, T. & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: sound–shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science 9(3), 316–322.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
Nielsen, A. & Rendall, D. (2011). The sound of round: evaluating the sound-symbolic role of consonants in the classic Takete-Maluma phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 65(2), 115–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nygaard, L. C., Herold, D. & Namy, L. (2009). The semantics of prosody: acoustic and perceptual evidence of prosodic correlates to word meaning. Cognitive Science 33(1), 127–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Occhino, C., Anible, B., Wilkinson, E. & Morford, J. P. (2017). Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder. Gesture 16(1), 100–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1974). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pelli, D. G., Burns, C. W., Farell, B. & Moore-Page, D. (2006). Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Research 46(28), 4646–4674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perlman, M., Dale, R. & Lupyan, G. (2015). Iconicity can ground the creation of vocal symbols. Royal Society Open Science 2(8), https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150152Google Scholar
Perlman, M. & Lupyan, G. (2018). People can create iconic vocalizations to communicate various meanings to naïve listeners. Scientific Reports 8(1), 2634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perniss, P., Lu, J. C., Morgan, G. & Vigliocco, G. (2017). Mapping language to the world: the role of iconicity in the sign language input. Developmental Science 21, https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12551Google ScholarPubMed
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1, https://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 of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 369(1651) https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0300Google Scholar
Perry, L. K., Perlman, M. & Lupyan, G. (2015). Iconicity in English and Spanish and its relation to lexical category and age of acquisition. PloS One 10(9), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perry, L. K., Perlman, M., Winter, B., Massaro, D. & Lupyan, G. (2017). Iconicity in the speech of children and adults. Developmental Science 21, https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12572Google ScholarPubMed
Pietrandrea, P. (2002). Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2(3), 296–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S. & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia – a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8(12), 3–34.Google Scholar
Sevcikova Sehyr, Z., & Emmorey, K. (in press.). 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.Google Scholar
Styles, S. J. & Gawne, L. (2017). When does maluma/takete fail? Two key failures and a meta-analysis suggest that phonology and phonotactics matter. I-Perception 8(4), https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517724807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulik, J. (2018). Cognitive mechanisms for inferring the meaning of novel signals during symbolisation. PLoS One 13(1), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189540CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tamariz, M., Roberts, S. G., Martínez, J. I. & Santiago, J. (2017). The interactive origin of iconicity. Cognitive Science 42, 334–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taub, S. (2001). Language from the body: iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R., Vinson, D. & 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.Google ScholarPubMed
Urban, M. (2011). Conventional sound symbolism in terms for organs of speech: a cross-linguistic study. Folia Linguistica 45(1), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoef, T., Padden, C. & Kirby, S. (2016). Iconicity, naturalness and systematicity In the emergence of sign language structure. In Roberts, S. G., Cuskley, C., McCrohon, L., Barceló-Coblijn, L., Fehér, O. & Verhoef, T. (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference (EVOLANG11). Online <http://evolang.org/neworleans/papers/47.html>.Google Scholar
Viera, A. J. & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: the Kappa statistic. Family Medicine 37(5), 360–363.Google ScholarPubMed
Vinson, D., 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
Vinson, D., Thompson, R. L., Skinner, R. & Vigliocco, G. (2015). A faster path between meaning and form? Iconicity facilitates sign recognition and production in British Sign Language. Journal of Memory and Language 82, 56–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, S., Holman, E. W. & Brown, C. H. (2013). Sound symbolism in basic vocabulary. Entropy 15(4), 844–858.Google Scholar
Winter, B., Perlman, B., Perry, L. K. & Lupyan, G. (2017). Which words are most iconic? Iconicity in English sensory words. Interaction Studies 18(3), 430–451.Google Scholar