The perceived mapping between form and meaning in ASL depends on the person's linguistic knowledge and task
Iconicity is defined as the resemblance between a form and a given meaning, while transparency is defined as the ability to infer a given meaning based on the form.
In this study, we examined how knowledge of American Sign Language (ASL) influences the perceived iconicity of 991 ASL signs. We looked at the relationship between iconicity (form-meaning resemblance), transparency (correctly guessed signs), ‘perceived transparency’ (transparency ratings of the guesses), and how diverse the meanings of the participants' guesses were (e.g., did they all guess the same meaning?). We conducted two experiments; in the first experiment we asked deaf ASL signers and hearing non-signers to rate how 'iconic' they thought each sign was in relation to its meaning. The hearing non-signers were told the meaning of the signs, so that both groups would know what each sign meant. These iconicity judgements, or ratings, give us a measure of how a person is able to perceive the connection between the sign form and its meaning (think about onomatopoeia in English: 'bang', 'slurp', 'chirp', 'miaow').
In the second experiment, we selected a smaller subset of 430 ASL signs and asked another group of hearing non-signers to guess the meaning of the signs. They were then asked to subsequently rate how obvious (transparent) their guesses would be to other people. This tells us about how much a person, who doesn't know any ASL, can guess the meaning of the signs purely based on what the signs look like, and, if they did not guess the correct meaning, what the nature of their guesses was. For example, for a sign-naive perceiver, the ASL sign COOKIE may conjure up images of a "spider" moving around on a surface while others might say "open (a jar)" because of the twisting movement of the wrist. In the first instance, the person focused on the shape of the hand (clawed handshape) contacting the palm, and in the second instance, the person focused on the twisting hand movement. What determines how people extract the meaning of gestures? And for those who are actually trying to learn ASL signs (like me!!), how does the ability to extract meanings, which may or may not be irrelevant, impact their learning process - does it help or hinder sign retention?
Our study demonstrated that linguistic knowledge mediates perceived iconicity differently from experience with gesture.
In the second experiment, we selected a smaller subset of 430 ASL signs and asked another group of hearing non-signers to guess the meaning of the signs. They were then asked to subsequently rate how obvious (transparent) their guesses would be to other people. This tells us about how much a person, who doesn't know any ASL, can guess the meaning of the signs purely based on what the signs look like, and, if they did not guess the correct meaning, what the nature of their guesses was. For example, for a sign-naive perceiver, the ASL sign COOKIE may conjure up images of a "spider" moving around on a surface while others might say "open (a jar)" because of the twisting movement of the wrist. In the first instance, the person focused on the shape of the hand (clawed handshape) contacting the palm, and in the second instance, the person focused on the twisting hand movement. What determines how people extract the meaning of gestures? And for those who are actually trying to learn ASL signs (like me!!), how does the ability to extract meanings, which may or may not be irrelevant, impact their learning process - does it help or hinder sign retention?
Our study demonstrated that linguistic knowledge mediates perceived iconicity differently from experience with gesture.
ASL sign COOKIE
Sevcikova Sehyr, Z., and 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 & Cognition.
RSS Feed
