Abstract
Linguistic and psycholinguistic evidence is presented to support the use of structure-mapping theory as a framework for understanding effects of iconicity on sign language grammar and processing. The existence of structured mappings between phonological form and semantic mental representations has been shown to explain the nature of metaphor and pronominal anaphora in sign languages. With respect to processing, it is argued that psycholinguistic effects of iconicity may only be observed when the task specifically taps into such structured mappings. In addition, language acquisition effects may only be observed when the relevant cognitive abilities are in place (e.g. the ability to make structural comparisons) and when the relevant conceptual knowledge has been acquired (i.e. information key to processing the iconic mapping). Finally, it is suggested that iconicity is better understood as a structured mapping between two mental representations than as a link between linguistic form and human experience.
Highlights
Iconicity is referred to as the perceived resemblance between a linguistic symbol and its referent [1]
Thompson et al [30] proposed that ‘iconicity may help strengthen the link between linguistic form and human experience, and thereby aid learnability’ ( p. 1443)
It is suggested here that iconicity is better viewed as a structured mapping between two mental representations, rather than as a link between linguistic form and experience
Summary
Iconicity is referred to as the perceived (or potentially perceived) resemblance between a linguistic symbol (a sign or a word) and its referent [1]. Nouwen [15] argues that no grammatical mechanisms exist that can make available the discourse referent that denotes a complement set, i.e. the students who did not come to class in example (1) This constraint holds in ASL when a single default locus is used, i.e. a plural pronoun produced by tracing a small circular area in front of the signer; in this case, the ASL equivalent of (1b) is judged as unacceptable. The iconic properties of spatial loci and the structured mapping between those loci and their semantic representations are what account for the difference between spoken and signed languages Based on these findings and additional cases of iconic effects on anaphor interpretation, Schlenker et al [13] propose a ‘“formal semantics with iconicity” in which some geometric properties of signs must be preserved by the interpretation function’ We turn to a cognitive model of comparison processing that explicitly posits structured mappings between domains, and we examine whether this model can explain psycholinguistic and grammatical effects of iconicity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
