Iconicity in word learning and beyond: A critical review

Abstract

Interest in iconicity (the resemblance-based mapping between aspects of form and meaning) is in the midst of a resurgence, and a prominent focus in the field has been the possible role of iconicity in language learning. Here we critically review theory and empirical findings in this domain. We distinguish local learning enhancement (where the iconicity of certain lexical items influences the learning of those items) and general learning enhancement (where the iconicity of certain lexical items influences the later learning of non-iconic items or systems). We find that evidence for local learning enhancement is quite strong, though not as clear cut as it is often described and based on a limited sample of languages. Despite common claims about broader facilitatory effects of iconicity on learning, we find that current evidence for general learning enhancement is lacking. We suggest a number of productive avenues for future research and specify what types of evidence would be required to show a role for iconicity in general learning enhancement. We also review evidence for functions of iconicity beyond word learning: iconicity enhances comprehension by providing complementary representations, supports communication about sensory imagery, and expresses affective meanings. Even if learning benefits may be modest or cross-linguistically varied, on balance, iconicity emerges as a vital aspect of language.

A role for onomatopoeia in early language: evidence from phonological development

“…This hypothesis generalises over all iconic forms, including onomatopoeia, and recent empirical evidence supports this (e.g. Perry, Perlman, & Lupyan, 2015; see Nielsen & Dingemanse, 2018). However, while the extant research presents a convincing argument towards the sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis in general, its perspective is limited; for a sufficient account we must consider the real-world learning and use of onomatopoeia if these forms are applicable to Imai and Kita's (2014) framework.…”

Not just form, not just meaning: Words with consistent form-meaning mappings are learned earlier

“…The study of different aspects of the relation between word form and meaning has seen a huge increase over the last decades (see Dingemanse et al, 2015; Nielsen & Dingemanse, 2020; Sidhu & Pexman, 2018a, for reviews about this line of work). Contrary to the long-held position that natural languages need to be arbitrary to be effective communication tools (Hockett, 1960), numerous studies have shown the widespread presence of systematic relations between word form and meaning at the sub-morphemic level, painting a more similar picture to the original position held by de Saussure (1916) that, while being a cardinal organising principle of natural languages, arbitrariness is not absolute and form-meaning systematicity is present beyond morphology.…”

Mapping Word to World in ASL: Evidence from a Human Simulation Paradigm

“…One cue we consider is iconicity, or the degree to which a word resembles its referent. For example, onomatopoeic words (e.g., choo choo, oink) provide referential transparency because they sound like what they reference; children typically acquire these words early (Frank, Braginsky, Yurovsky & Marchman, 2016; Laing, 2019; Motamedi et al., 2020; Nielsen & Dingemanse, 2020; Perry et al., 2015). While all languages contain some degree of iconicity, the visual nature of sign languages allows for more information to be communicated through iconic means (Perniss, Thompson & Vigliocco, 2010).…”

“…Indeed, recent evidence from sign language acquisition work suggests that deaf children acquire signs with particular iconic properties early (Caselli & Pyers, 2017; 2020; Ortega et al., 2017; Thompson et al., 2012). Additionally, theorists seem to agree that iconicity promotes the acquisition of iconic word forms (a so‐called “local learning effect;” Nielsen & Dingemanse, 2020). Within the visual modality, a proposed mechanism for this comes from one study on British Sign Language demonstrating that deaf parents tend to modify iconic signs in ways that highlight the shared features between the sign and its referent (Perniss, Lu, Morgan & Vigliocco, 2018).…”