Cover not available

Article published In: Sign Language & Linguistics: Online-First Articles

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

Action bias in describing object locations by signing children

ORCiD logo with link | University of Amsterdam
 | Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Amsterdam.

Published online: 13 June 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.24008.sum
Abstract
This study investigates the role of action bias in the acquisition of classifier constructions by deaf children acquiring Turkish Sign Language (TİD). While classifier handshapes are morphologically complex and iconic, deaf children (aged 7–9) were found to prefer handling classifiers (reflecting the actions performed by agents) more than signing adults, even in contexts requiring entity classifiers (reflecting the visual properties of their referents). The findings reveal that children’s frequent use of action-based lexical signs for nouns influenced their classifier preferences, suggesting a cognitive bias toward motoric representations. Furthermore, our results suggest the use of handling classifiers in intransitive contexts — even by adult signers — thus indicating a new type of variability in classifier use, which has not been reported for other sign languages before. These results provide new insights into how iconicity and lexical context shape the developmental trajectory of classifier constructions in sign language acquisition.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Iconicity in sign languages
    • 1.2Role of iconicity in acquiring lexical signs
    • 1.3Role of iconicity in acquiring classifier constructions
  • 2.The present study
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Material
    • 2.3Data coding
  • 3.Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (61)
References
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Benjamin Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Argument changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistics Theory 22(4). 1–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Alessio Di Renzo, Jonathan Keane & Virginia Volterra. 2015. Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. Topics in Cognitive Science 7(1). 95–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Marie Coppola, Ashley Jung & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 2013. Acquiring word class distinctions in American Sign Language: Evidence from handshape. Language Learning and Development 9(2). 130–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Capirci, Olga, Chiara Bonsignori & Alessio Di Renzo. 2022. Signed languages: A triangular semiotic dimension. Frontiers in Psychology 121: 802911. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caselli, Naomi & Jennie Pyers. 2017. The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate acquisition of sign language. Psychological Science 281. 979–987. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. 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
Cuxac, Christian. 2003. Une langue moins marquée comme analyseur langagier: l’exemple de la LSF. Nouvelle Revue de l’AIS 231. 19–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Beuzeville, Louise. 2006. Visual and linguistic representation in the acquisition of depicting verbs: a study of native signing deaf children of Auslan. Sydney: University of Sydney PhD dissertation.
de Lint, Vanja. 2010. Argument structure in classifier constructions in ASL: an experimental approach. Utrecht: University of Utrecht Master’s thesis.
Emmorey, Karen. 2014. Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B, Biological Sciences 3691. 20130301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(ed.). 2003. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 2003. How composite is a fall? Adult’s and children’s descriptions of different types of falls in Danish Sign Language. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 311–332. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hou, Lynn. 2018. Iconic patterns in San Juan Quiahije Chatino Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 18(4). 570–611. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hwang, So-one, Nozomi Tomita, Hope Morgan, Rabia Ergin, Deniz İlkbaşaran, Sharon Seegers, Ryan Lepic & Carol Padden. 2017. Of the body and the hands: Patterned iconicity for semantic categories. Language and Cognition 9(4). 573–602. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeger, Florian. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or Not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 434–446. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
İlkbaşaran, Deniz. 2013. Communicative practices of deaf people in Turkey and the sociolinguistics of Turkish Sign Language. In Engin Arık (ed.), Current directions in Turkish Sign Language research, 19–53. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kantor, Rebecca. 1980. The acquisition of classifiers in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 281. 198–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy. 1990. Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 149–175. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Anna Klezovich & George Moroz. 2018. IPSL: A database of iconicity patterns in sign languages. Creation and use. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Christopher Cieri, Thierry Declerck, Sara Goggi, Koiti Hasida, Hitoshi Isahara, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Helene Mazo, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis & Takenobu Tokunaga (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Vanja de Lint, Connie De Vos, Marloes Oomen, Roland Pfau, Lianne Vink & Enoch O. Aboh. 2019. Argument structure of classifier predicates: Canonical and non-canonical mappings in four sign languages. Open Linguistics 5(1). 332–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Roland Pfau & Enoch O. Aboh. 2020. Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(2). 539–579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Makaroğlu, Bahtiyar & Hasan Dikyuva. 2017. The contemporary Turkish Sign Language dictionary. Ankara: The Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policy. [URL]
Meier, Richard, Claude Mauk, Adrianne Cheek & Christopher 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
Miles, Mike. 2000. Signing in the Seraglio: mutes, dwarfs and jestures at the Ottoman Court 1500–1700. Disability & Society 151. 115–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa & Richard Meier. 1985. Acquisition of American Sign Language. In Dan Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, 881–938. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa & Ted Supalla. 1980. The structuring of language: clues from the acquisition of signed and spoken language. In Ursula Bellugi & Michael Studdert-Kennedy (eds.), Signed and spoken language: biological constraints on linguistic form, 81–114. Weinheim: Verlag Chemie.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nyst, Viktoria. 2007. A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
. 2016. Size and shape depictions in the manual modality: A taxonomy of iconic devices in Adamorobe Sign Language. Semiotica 2101. 75–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nyst, Viktoria., Marta Morgado, Timothy Mac Hadjah, Marco Nyarko, Mariana Martins, Lisa Van Der Mark, Evans Burichani, Tano Angoua, Moustapha Magassouba, Dieydi Sylla, Kidane Admasu & Anique Schüller. 2022. 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
Orlansky, Michael & John Bonvillian. 1984. The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders 491. 287–292.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo, Beyza Sümer & Aslı Özyürek. 2017. Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children. Developmental Psychology 53(1). 89–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic & Sharon Seegers. 2015. Tools for language: Patterned iconicity in sign language nouns and verbs. Topics in Cognitive Science 71. 81–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic, Sharon Seegers & Tory Sampson. 2013. Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13(3). 287–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela. 2007. Space and iconicity in German Sign Language (DGS). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics PhD dissertation.
Perniss, Pamela & Aslı Özyürek. 2008. Representations of action, motion and location in sign space: A comparison of German (DGS) and Turkish (TİD) sign language narratives. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: selected papers from TISLR 8, 353–376. Seedorf: Signum Press.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. 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 of Biology 3691.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pettenati, Paola, Kazuki Sekine, Elena Congestrì & Virginia Volterra. 2012. A comparative study on representational gestures in Italian and Japanese children. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 361. 149–164. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Powell, Michael. 2009. The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from [URL]
Sallandre, Marie-Anne. 2006. Iconicity and space in French Sign Language. In Maya Hickmann & Stephane Robert (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 239–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Simultaneity in French Sign Language discourse. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function, 103–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schick, Brenda. 1990. The effects of morphosyntactic structures on the acquisition of classifier predicates in ASL. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: theoretical issues, 358–374. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I., Nini Hoiting, Marlon Kuntze, Reyna Lindert, Amy Weinberg, Jennie Pyers, Michelle Anthony, Yael Biederman & Helen Thumann. 2003. A cognitive/functional perspective on the acquisition of “classifiers”. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in signed languages, 271–296. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanini, Silvia, Arianna Bello, Maria Christina Caselli, Jana Iverson & Virginia Volterra. 2009. Co-speech gestures in a naming task: Developmental data. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(2). 168–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
Sümer, Beyza. 2015. Acquisition of spatial language by signing and speaking children: a comparison of Turkish Sign Language (TID) and Turkish. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD dissertation.
Sümer, Beyza, Clara Grabitz & Aylin Küntay. 2017. Early produced signs are iconic: Evidence from Turkish Sign Language. In Glenn Gunzelmann, Andrew Howes, Thora Tenbrink & Eddy Davelaar (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 3273–3278. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sümer, Beyza & Aslı Özyürek. 2020. No effects of modality in development of locative expressions of space in signing and speaking children. Journal of Child Language 47(6). 1101–1131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tang, Gladys, Felix Sze & Scholastica Lam. 2007. Acquisition of simultaneous constructions by deaf children of Hong Kong Sign Language. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function, 283–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Robin, David Vinson, Bencie Woll & Gabriealla 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
Tomasuolo, Elena, Chiara Bonsignori, Pascal Rinaldi & Virginia Volterra. 2020. The representation of action in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Cognitive Linguistics 31(1). 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann & Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. Proceedings of LREC 2006. Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. [URL]
Yu, Chen, Linda Smith & Alfredo Pereira. 2008. Grounding word learning in multimodal sensorimotor interaction. In Brenda Love, Ken McRae & Vladimir Sloutsky (eds.), Proceeding of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1017–1022. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: University of Utrecht PhD dissertation.
. 2012. Classifiers. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: an international handbook, 158–186. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue