The iconicity toolbox: empirical approaches to measuring iconicity

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.

Playful iconicity: structural markedness underlies the relation between funniness and iconicity

“…For the iconicity ratings, people were asked to rate words on a scale that runs from -5 (anti-iconic or "words that sound like the opposite of what they mean") via 0 (arbitrary or "words that do not sound like what they mean or the opposite") to 5 (iconic or "words that sound like what they mean"). As Figure 1, panel B shows, the negative end of the scale was underused; subsequent analysis suggests that it was also used less consistently (Motamedi et al, 2019). The positive end of the scale successfully picked out words that show iconicity, defined (for spoken languages) as perceptual resemblances between aspects of word sound and meaning (Svantesson, 2017).…”

“…With many sets of lexical ratings within easy reach, it is important to understand their affordances and limitations (Motamedi, Little, Nielsen, & Sulik, 2019). In sufficiently large datasets, almost any combination of lexical ratings will show some correlation.…”

“…For instance, cross-linguistic collections of iconicity ratings can be used to better understand modality-specific affordances for iconicity (Perlman, Little, Thompson, & Thompson, 2018); and ratings of affective meaning can be investigated for their relation to phonetic and sublexical measures of affect (Aryani, Conrad, Schmidtke, & Jacobs, 2018). With many sets of lexical ratings within easy reach, it is important to understand their affordances and limitations (Motamedi, Little, Nielsen, & Sulik, 2019). In sufficiently large datasets, almost any combination of lexical ratings will show some correlation.…”

A data-driven approach to the semantics of iconicity in American Sign Language and English

“…However, the amount of sign iconicity may vary depending on how iconicity is operationalized, and there is some debate about how iconicity can best be objectively measured (see Motamedi, Little, Nielsen, & Sulik, 2019, for discussion). The ability to identify an iconic relationship between form and meaning depends on one’s linguistic and cultural experience (e.g., Occhino, Anible, Wilkinson, & Morford, 2017), and the perception of iconicity might be mediated by experience with linguistic patterns within the lexicon itself (Occhino, Anible, & Morford, 2020).…”

The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape

“…The difficulty in studying iconicity within an experimental context may be due in part to the multi-faceted nature of iconicity, making it a difficult parameter to operationalize (Motamedi, Little, Nielsen, & Sulik, 2019). While many theoretical papers in the European semiological tradition have examined, in depth, the nature of iconicity (Cuxac, 1996; Pietrandrea, 2002; Pizzuto & Volterra, 2000; Russo, 2004), within experimental paradigms investigating signed languages, iconicity is most frequently defined as a resemblance relationship between the form and the meaning of a linguistic unit (e.g., Bosworth & Emmorey, 2010; Ormel, Knoors, Hermans, & Verhoeven, 2009; Thompson, Vinson, & Vigliocco, 2009, 2010; Vinson, Cormier, Denmark, Schembri, & Vigliocco, 2008).…”