Cover not available

Article published In: Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 27:1 (2024) ► pp.73–102

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

What is iconicity?

The view from sign languages

ORCiD logo with link | University of Stuttgart
Published online: 14 March 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.22003.bro
Abstract
Iconicity has been defined in three majors ways in the sign language literature. Some authors describe iconicity as a similarity mapping between a signifier (the mental representation of the form side of a linguistic sign) and its referent, while others state that iconicity is to be understood as a similarity mapping between a signifier and its meaning. Other scholars have defined iconicity as a similarity mapping between a signifier and some other mental representation. The goal of this paper is to give an overview of the consequences entailed by defining iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and its referent, a signifier and its meaning, or a signifier and some mental concept. These consequences will be discussed from different theoretical perspectives. It will be argued that definitions viewing iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and some associated mental concept work best, while definitions based on reference and meaning run into several theoretical problems or are, at least, rather theory-specific.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Iconic signs
  • 3.The reference definition and its problems
    • 3.1Problem 1: Fictional creatures
    • 3.2Problem 2: Generic sentences, negative existentials, and other non-referring constructions
    • 3.3Problem 3: Compounds
    • 3.4Problem 4: Metonymy
  • 4.The meaning definition and its problem(s)
    • 4.1Meanings are not concepts
    • 4.2On metonymic relations
    • 4.3Sign language acquisition data
    • 4.4The alternative view: Meanings are concepts
  • 5.The mental representation definition
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (70)
References
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59(1). 617–645. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baus, Cristina, Manuel Carreiras & Karen Emmorey. 2013. When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language and Cognitive Processes 28(3). 261–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, Ruth, Paula Martin & Theresa White. 1992. Forced choice recognition of sign in novice learners of British Sign Language. Applied Linguistics 13(2). 185–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caselli, Naomi K. & Jennie E. Pyers. 2020. Degree and not type of iconicity affects sign language vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 46(1). 127–139.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Damián E. Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H. Christiansen & Padraic Monaghan. 2015. Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(10). 603–615. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dudschig, Carolin, Claudia Maienborn & Barbara Kaup. 2016. Is there a difference between stripy journeys and stripy ladybirds? The N400 response to semantic and world-knowledge violations during sentence processing. Brain and Cognition 1031. 38–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2014. Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2009. How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 1001. 25–50.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grote, Erika & Klaudia Linz. 2003. The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. In Wolfgang G. Müller & Olga Fischer (eds.), From sign to signing, 23–40. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagoort, Peter & Jos van Berkum. 2007. Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362(1481). 801–811. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagoort, Peter, Lea Hald, Marcel Bastiaansen & Karl Magnus Petersson. 2004. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 304(5669). 438–441. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2019. Conceptual semantics. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics – theories, 86–113. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard. 1999. Stage levels, states, and the semantics of the copula. In Ewald Lang & Ljudmila Geist (eds.), Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen als Syntax/Semantik-Schnittstellen, 65–94. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. 2004. The linguistic sign. In Carol Sanders (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Saussure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul A. 1980. Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991a. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1991b. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive application. Vol. 21. Standford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lepic, Ryan. 2015. Motivation in morphology: Lexical patterns in ASL and English. San Diego: University of California dissertation.
Lepic, Ryan & Corrine Occhino. 2018. A construction morphology approach to sign language analysis. In Geert Booij (ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology, 141–172. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieberth, Ann K. & Mary Ellen Bellile Gamble. 1991. The role of iconicity in sign language learning by hearing adults. Journal of Communication Disorders 24(2). 89–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Löbner, Sebastian. 2013. Understanding semantics. London & New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2017. Konzeptuelle Semantik. In Sven Staffeldt & Jörg Hagemann (eds.), Semantiktheorien: Lexikalische Analysen im Vergleich, 151–188. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Massaro, Dominic W. & Marcus Perlman. 2017. Quantifying iconicity’s contribution during language acquisition: Implications for vocabulary learning. Frontiers in Communication 21. 4. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meier, Richard P., Claude E. Mauk, Adrianne Cheek & Christopher J. Moreland. 2008. The form of children’s early signs: Iconic or motoric determinants? Language Learning and Development 4(1). 63–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2012. Word classes and word formation. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 77–111. Berlin & Boston: DeGruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit & Ariel Cohen. 2018. Metaphor in sign languages. Frontiers in Psychology 91. 1025. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit & Oksana Tkachman. 2018. Iconicity. In Mark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https: Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa L. & Richard P. Meier. 1985. The acquisition of American Sign Language. In Dan Isaac Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, 881–938. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Novogrodsky, Rama & Natalia Meir. 2020. Age, frequency, and iconicity in early sign language acquisition: Evidence from the Israeli Sign Language MacArthur-Bates Communicative Developmental Inventory. Applied Psycholinguistics 41(4). 817–845. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nyst, Victoria, Marta Morgado, Timothy Mac Hadjah, Marco Nyarko, Mariana Martins, Lisa van der Mark, Evans Burichani, Tano Angoua, Moustapha Magassouba & Dieydi Sylla. 2021. Object and handling handshapes in 11 sign languages: Towards a typology of the iconic use of the hands. Linguistic Typology 26(3). 573–604. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible & Jill P. Morford. 2020. The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape. Language and Cognition 12(1). 114–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible, Erin Wilkinson & Jill P. Morford. 2017. Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder: How language experience affects perceived iconicity. Gesture 16(1). 100–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogden, Charles Kay & Ivor Armstrong Richards. 1923. The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of thought and of the science of symbolism. Nature 1111. 566. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orlansky, Michael D. & John D. Bonvillian. 1984. The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 49(3). 287–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo. 2017. Iconicity and sign lexical acquisition: A review. Frontiers in Psychology 81. 1280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo, Beyza Sumer & Asli Ozyurek. 2014. Type of iconicity matters: Bias for action-based signs in sign language acquisition. In 36th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2014), 1114–1119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östling, Robert, Carl Börstell & Servane Courtaux. 2018. Visual iconicity across sign languages: Large-scale automated video analysis of iconic articulators and locations. Frontiers in Psychology 91. 725. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Jenny C. Lu, Gary Morgan & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2018. Mapping language to the world: The role of iconicity in the sign language input. Developmental Science 21(2). e12551. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Robin Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 11. 227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2014. The bridge of iconicity: From a world of experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651). 20130300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland. 2010. Handwaving and headshaking? On the linguistic structure of sign languages. In Les llengües de signes com a llengües minoritàries: perspectives lingüıstiques, socials i polıtiques (Actes del seminari del CUMIPB- CEL 2008), 59–84. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paola. 2002. Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2(3). 296–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina, Bridget Oliveri & Andrew J. Smart. 2009. Semantics vs. world knowledge in prefrontal cortex. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(9). 1313–1334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Zoltán Kövecses. 1999. Metonymy in language and thought. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), Metonymy in language and thought, 17–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, Günther. 2021. Iconicity. In Xu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 268–296. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 2021. Fictional reference as simulation. In Emar Maier & Andreas Stokke (eds.), The language of fiction, 17–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Gareth, Jirka Lewandowski & Bruno Galantucci. 2015. How communication changes when we cannot mime the world: Experimental evidence for the effect of iconicity on combinatoriality. Cognition 1411. 52–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1912. Adjectifs indo-européens du type caecus ‘aveugle’. In Festschrift Vilhelm Thomsen zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 25. Januar 1912, dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern, 202–206. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne: Payot.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Course in general linguistics. Trans. by Wade Baskin. Columbia: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sehyr, Zed Sevcikova & Karen Emmorey. 2019. The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: Evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cognition 11(2). 208–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2017. Lexical semantics. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 246–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thibault, Paul J. 2013. Re-reading Saussure: The dynamics of signs in social life. London & New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Arthur Lewis & Youngah Do. 2019. Defining iconicity: an articulation-based methodology for explaining the phonological structure of ideophones. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Robin L. 2011. Iconicity in language processing and acquisition: What signed languages reveal. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(9). 603–616. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Robin L., David P. Vinson & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2009. The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35(2). 550.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Robin L., David P. Vinson, Bencie Woll & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2012. The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science 23(12). 1443–1448. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tolar, Tammy D., Amy R. Lederberg, Sonali Gokhale & Michael Tomasello. 2008. The development of the ability to recognize the meaning of iconic signs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 13(2). 225–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Urmson, James Opie. 1976. Fiction. American Philosophical Quarterly 13(2). 153–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, Tessa & Michael Walsh Dickey. 2021. The use of linguistic and world knowledge in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 15(4). e12411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, Tessa & Kerry McConnell. 2007. Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14(4). 770–775. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, Tessa, Evelyn Milburn, Nikole D. Patson & Michael Walsh Dickey. 2015. Comprehending the impossible: What role do selectional restriction violations play? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(8). 932–939. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed language. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 119–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Rocío Martínez. 2021. Signed languages and cognitive linguistics. In Xu Wen & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 251–274. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2003. Aspects of Türk Isaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). Sign Language & Linguistics 6(1). 43–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Jia, Chenglong, Qianqian Lin, Keyi Yang, Randi Gao, Jiayi Chen, Sijia Ruan, Jingmei Wang & Jinliang Qin
2025. From Form to Meaning: The Effects of Chinese Characters’ Iconicity on Children’s Perceptual and Semantic Processing Across 3.5 to 6.5 Years. Early Education and Development 36:7 ► pp. 1586 ff. DOI logo
Lepp, Lisa B.
2025. Lexical Acquisition of Sign Language of the Netherlands by Deaf Refugee Children: A Study of Phonological Complexity. In Advances in Second and Foreign Language Acquisition, ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Okrouhlíková, Lenka
2025. The emergence of Czech Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue