Tools for Language: Patterned Iconicity in Sign Language Nouns and Verbs

Abstract

When naming certain hand-held, man-made tools, American Sign Language (ASL) signers exhibit either of two iconic strategies: a handling strategy, where the hands show holding or grasping an imagined object in action, or an instrument strategy, where the hands represent the shape or a dimension of the object in a typical action. The same strategies are also observed in the gestures of hearing nonsigners identifying pictures of the same set of tools. In this paper, we compare spontaneously created gestures from hearing nonsigning participants to commonly used lexical signs in ASL. Signers and gesturers were asked to respond to pictures of tools and to video vignettes of actions involving the same tools. Nonsigning gesturers overwhelmingly prefer the handling strategy for both the Picture and Video conditions. Nevertheless, they use more instrument forms when identifying tools in pictures, and more handling forms when identifying actions with tools. We found that ASL signers generally favor the instrument strategy when naming tools, but when describing tools being used by an actor, they are significantly more likely to use more handling forms. The finding that both gesturers and signers are more likely to alternate strategies when the stimuli are pictures or video suggests a common cognitive basis for differentiating objects from actions. Furthermore, the presence of a systematic handling/instrument iconic pattern in a sign language demonstrates that a conventionalized sign language exploits the distinction for grammatical purpose, to distinguish nouns and verbs related to tool use.

Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children.

“…Whereas sign languages differ from each other in the preferred type of depictions they use for objects (e.g., ASL and ABSL: perceptual-based signs; NZSL: action-based signs) (Padden et al, 2013), hearing people from different cultures have a clear tendency to produce action-based gestures when depicting objects that have affordances for manipulation (Masson-Carro, Goudbeek, & Krahmer, 2015;Padden et al, 2015;van Nispen, van de Sandt-Koenderman, Mol, & Krahmer, 2014). Thus, it is possible that during sign vocabulary development signing children initially prefer sign variants that resemble the type of representations also preferred in gestures (i.e., action-based depictions).…”

“…As such, sign languages are unique in the large number of motivated structures within a conventionalised linguistics system. At the lexical level, our main focus here, signs exploit a range of iconic depicting strategies to represent the same referent by showing actions associated with an object and how it is manipulated (i.e., handling), outlining its shape (i.e., tracing), or using a body part to represent its dimensions (i.e., instrument) (Padden et al, 2013(Padden et al, , 2015.…”

“…In addition to iconicity in speech, spoken languages are usually accompanied by the so-called iconic gestures which are manual depictions of the objects and events described in co-occurring speech (e.g., a curved handshape moving towards the mouth accompanying the verb drink) (McNeill, 1992). The sign languages of the deaf communities stand out for their prevalence of a large number of linguistic labels whose forms are motivated by the features of their referents (Cuxac, 1999;Emmorey, 2014;Klima & Bellugi, 1979;Padden, Hwang, Lepic, & Seegers, 2015;Perniss et al, 2010;Pietrandrea, 2002;Taub, 2001). Furthermore, a myriad of empirical studies employing linguistic, ethnographic, behavioural and neurological methods has produced strong evidence showing that iconicity is a common feature of spoken and signed languages (Dingemanse et al, 2015;Vigliocco et al, 2014).…”

Of the body and the hands: patterned iconicity for semantic categories

“…Here we seek to sharpen our earlier observations (Padden et al, 2015) by examining in detail the ways in which gesturers and signers use iconic patterning to distinguish between entities having different properties of instrumentality, animacy, and humanness. As in our earlier work, we view these iconic strategies as being grounded in the body, as both the seat of sense and proprioceptive knowledge, and a readily available and portable medium of cultured interaction and communicative expression.…”

“…(Goodglass & Kaplan, 1963;Supalla, 1982;Brentari, Coppola, Mazzoni, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012;Müller, Bressem, & Ladewig, 2013). Padden, Hwang, Lepic, and Seegers (2015) and others (Goldin-Meadow, So, Özyürek, & Mylander, 2008;Brentari, Renzo, Keane, & Volterra, 2015;Strickland, Geraci, Chemla, Schlenker, Kelepir, & Pfau, 2015) use the different responses of non-signing gesturers compared to signers as indicative of emergent properties of spontaneous gesture and sign languages. The comparison across groups provides an opportunity to examine possible pathways for grammaticization and conventionalization from emergent to established sign language lexicons and grammars.…”