REVIEW

published: 02 August 2017

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280

Iconicity and Sign Lexical

Acquisition: A Review
Gerardo Ortega 1,2*
1
Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 2 Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics,
Nijmegen, Netherlands

The study of iconicity, defined as the direct relationship between a linguistic form and its
referent, has gained momentum in recent years across a wide range of disciplines. In the
spoken modality, there is abundant evidence showing that iconicity is a key factor that
facilitates language acquisition. However, when we look at sign languages, which excel
in the prevalence of iconic structures, there is a more mixed picture, with some studies
showing a positive effect and others showing a null or negative effect. In an attempt
to reconcile the existing evidence the present review presents a critical overview of the
literature on the acquisition of a sign language as first (L1) and second (L2) language
and points at some factor that may be the source of disagreement. Regarding sign
L1 acquisition, the contradicting findings may relate to iconicity being defined in a very
broad sense when a more fine-grained operationalisation might reveal an effect in sign
learning. Regarding sign L2 acquisition, evidence shows that there is a clear dissociation
in the effect of iconicity in that it facilitates conceptual-semantic aspects of sign learning
but hinders the acquisition of the exact phonological form of signs. It will be argued
that when we consider the gradient nature of iconicity and that signs consist of a
Edited by:
phonological form attached to a meaning we can discern how iconicity impacts sign
Jerker Rönnberg, learning in positive and negative ways.
Linköping University, Sweden
Keywords: iconicity, sign language, L1 acquisition, L2 acquisition, degree of iconicity, form-meaning
Reviewed by:
Yanchao Bi,
Beijing Normal University, China
Olga Capirci, INTRODUCTION
Institute of Cognitive Sciences
and Technologies (CNR), Italy The view that languages consist solely of linguistic labels with arbitrary relations to their referents
*Correspondence: is no longer held. Iconic words, whose linguistic forms emulate perceptual, sensori-motor
Gerardo Ortega characteristics of a referent (Perniss et al., 2010), are highly prevalent in many languages of the
[email protected] world. Research on non-Western languages has convincingly demonstrated that iconicity is not
limited to onomatopoeias like woof-woof, miaow, or moooh, but rather stretches to a large number
Specialty section: of linguistic forms such as ideophones, phonaesthemes, and mimetic verbs (Assaneo et al., 2011;
This article was submitted to Dingemanse, 2012). Further, recognition that human communication is multimodal in nature (i.e.,
Language Sciences,
it uses hands, eye-gaze, and other bodily cues) has given further evidence that iconicity is critical
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
during face-to-face interaction (Vigliocco et al., 2014), particularly when we consider the gestures
produced by speakers (McNeill, 1992; Kendon, 2004). The relevance of iconicity becomes more
Received: 18 May 2016
palpable when we look at the sign languages used by the deaf communities where a large proportion
Accepted: 13 July 2017
Published: 02 August 2017
of their linguistic structures are motivated by the form of their referent (Klima and Bellugi, 1979;
Cuxac, 1999a,b; Taub, 2001; Pietrandrea, 2002; Cuxac and Sallandre, 2007; Pizzuto et al., 2007).
Citation:
Ortega G (2017) Iconicity and Sign
Overall, the Saussurian view that the relationship between words and the concept they represent
Lexical Acquisition: A Review. is exclusively arbitrary has fallen out of favor and currently it is widely recognized that iconicity is
Front. Psychol. 8:1280. an equally important design feature of language (Perniss et al., 2010; Perniss and Vigliocco, 2014;
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280 Dingemanse et al., 2015).

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

One of the current aims of the multimodal study of language is but hinders the acquisition of the exact phonological form of
to explain the impact of iconic structures in language processing signs.
and language acquisition. Regarding the latter, it has been argued This review is divided as follows. The first section describes
that iconic forms assists in solving the problem of referentiality how sign languages incorporate iconicity while being constrained
because they fit more faithfully to the perceptual features of the by a conventionalised linguistic system. The next section gives a
referent allowing language learners to isolate a referent from a general description of the main components of word learning,
crowded scene and link it to a linguistic label (Imai and Kita, and importantly, explains how learners allocate resources to
2014; Perniss and Vigliocco, 2014). The facilitating effect of acquire the formal and semantic aspects of a new linguistic label.
iconicity in word learning has been widely demonstrated in many Crucially, this section will highlight that certain paradigms assess
spoken languages with populations of different ages (e.g., Imai only one aspect of word learning (i.e., form or meaning) and as
et al., 2008; Herold et al., 2011; Kantartzis et al., 2011; Revill et al., such caution should be made regarding claims on iconicity and
2014; Lockwood et al., 2016). When looking at the gestures that sign learning. The review then moves on to describe empirical
accompany speech, it has been widely documented that iconic studies showing positive and negative effects in sign acquisition
manual forms have a positive effect in word learning across a in L1 and L2 learners. It will then be suggested that the acquisition
range of age groups (Tellier, 2008; Kelly et al., 2009; Macedonia of other signed structures (e.g., morphological markers and
and von Kriegstein, 2012; de Nooijer et al., 2014; Macedonia and classifier constructions) may also be susceptible to the effect of
Klimesch, 2014). Together these studies support the view that iconicity in sign learning. The article concludes by summarizing
iconicity – both in speech and gesture – has a positive effect in the literature reviewed and will propose mechanisms explaining
word learning not only in infants but also in adult learners across the effect of iconicity in sign learning.
different cultural groups. Before delving into the studies on iconicity and sign learning,
A more complex picture emerges when we look at sign it is important to explain how iconicity is expressed in the
languages. Traditional accounts suggest that iconicity does not manual-visual modality and the linguistic nature of signed
facilitate vocabulary development in deaf children acquiring a systems.
sign language from birth because they lack the world knowledge
and cognitive maturity to make form-referent associations
(Orlansky and Bonvillian, 1984; Newport and Meier, 1985; Meier SIGN ICONICITY AND LINGUISTIC
et al., 2008). These claims received further support from studies CONSTRAINTS
showing that it is not until after the age of three that toddlers
are capable of making form-meaning associations (Namy, 2008; One of the most important linguistic discoveries of the 20th
Tolar et al., 2008). More recently, however, the role of iconicity century is that the manual languages used by the Deaf
has been revisited with studies showing that the first signs communities are fully fledged languages with the same expressive
acquired by deaf children are iconic (Thompson et al., 2013) power as spoken languages (Stokoe, 1960). Sign languages are
and that type of iconicity is relevant in sign development (Tolar not universal and their grammatical structures are independent
et al., 2008; Ortega et al., 2014, 2017). Further, some studies from the grammars of the surrounding speaking community.
investigating the acquisition of a sign language as a second For instance, American Sign Language (ASL) and British Sign
language report a positive effect in hearing non-signers (Lieberth Language (BSL) are unrelated sign languages unintelligible
and Gamble, 1991; Campbell et al., 1992; Baus et al., 2012; Morett, between them and follow a different grammar from spoken
2015). However, there is also contradicting evidence reporting English. Importantly, sign languages have been found to have
that iconicity may in fact hinder some aspects of sign learning the same organizational principles as spoken languages; i.e.,
(Ortega and Morgan, 2015a,b). Given the growing interest phonology, morphology, lexicon, semantics (Sandler and Lillo-
in iconicity and linguistic development in both modalities of Martin, 2006). Sign languages have the property of phonology,
language (oral-aural and manual-visual), it is paramount to assess that is, sub-lexical units combine to create a meaningful sign.
the opposing findings in the sign literature and establish points of The minimal features that constitute a sign are the configuration
convergence and divergence. of the hand (handshape), its coordinates with respect to a plane
The present review article will focus on two domains of sign (orientation), its position in signing space (location), and the
learning at the lexical level. First, it will describe empirical studies trajectory or internal hand transitions occurring during the
exploring the role of iconicity in learners of a sign language as execution of a sign (movement) (Stokoe, 1960; Brentari, 1999;
first language (L1); i.e., by deaf children learning sign from their van der Kooij, 2002). These sub-lexical units are critical to define
parents. It will be explained that the contradictory findings may a sign and modification of any of its components results in a
be attributed to iconicity being operationalised as a blanket term different sign. In the same way that replacing a phoneme of a
when a more fine-grained definition may show an effect in sign- word can change its meaning (e.g., /mat/ vs. /bat/), modification
acquiring children, in particular, if we focus on signs with the of one of the sign components results in a different sign (see
most direct mappings (i.e., absolute iconicity, Dingemanse et al., Figure 1 for an example of a minimal pair in British Sign
2015). The second part will focus on hearing adults learning Language). The phonological repertoire of each sign language has
a sign language as a second language (L2). This section will a finite number of elements and they may vary significantly cross-
explain that there is a clear dissociation in the effect of iconicity linguistically. Acquisition of these sub-lexical units is paramount
in that it facilitates conceptual-semantic aspects of sign learning because they play a key role during lexical access and sign

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

FIGURE 1 | Minimal pairs in British Sign Language (BSL). Both signs share the same location [torso] and movement [left-right] but INSURANCE is articulated with

the handshape and morning with the handshape .

processing (Conlin et al., 2000; Dye and Shih, 2006; Baus et al., and represents the fuselage of an airplane. The sign PLANE
2008; Carreiras et al., 2008; Gutiérrez et al., 2012). in ASL and Korean Sign Language (KSL) also represent the
The first scholars investigating sign languages set out to fuselage of a plane but differ in the handshape to represent it
describe their structural organization and used spoken languages (Figure 2). This goes to show that even when sign languages
as template of the structures that should be present in signs. resort to similar strategies to represent a referent iconically,
In an effort to convince the world that sign languages were they have linguistic conventions not necessarily shared across
real conventionalised systems, linguists ascribed to the categories languages.
and analyses used in spoken languages and downplayed in The second important characteristic is that iconicity is
different degrees those features that did not fit into any linguistic not a categorical property of signs but rather lies within a
category of speech. Influenced by the Saussurian view that continuum with some signs being easier to link with their
arbitrariness is the holy grail of real languages (de Saussure, referent than others. Klima and Bellugi (1979) proposed four
1916), a large number of scholars neglected the relevance of levels of sign iconicity, each representing different degrees of
iconicity as a prominent characteristic of sign languages. Despite access to their meaning to non-signers. Transparent signs are
this dominant view, another wave of academics highlighted the the most evident and easy to link to a referent even when
importance of iconicity (Cuxac, 1999a,b; Cuxac and Sallandre,
presented in isolation (e.g., the sign CAMERA). Translucent
2007; Pizzuto et al., 2007). Cuxac (1999b), one of the most
signs are those whose meaning might not be immediately
prominent advocates of iconicity in sign languages, proposes
clear but people may still be able to pick some of the aspects
that it shapes sign language discourse at every level and as a
represented by the sign (e.g., TO-LIMP). Obscure signs also have
result signs can represent physical aspects of a referent, its spatial
a link with their referent but the ordinary observer may be
location on a three-dimensional space, motion patterns, and
able to understand the connection only after the connection
temporal reference (similar claims have been made by others, e.g.,
is explained (e.g., HOLLAND represents the traditional Dutch
Mandel, 1977; Klima and Bellugi, 1979; Taub, 2001; Pietrandrea,
bonnet). Finally, opaque signs are those without an evident
2002; Cuxac and Sallandre, 2007). Iconic and arbitrary signs
connection with their referent (e.g., WHAT) (Figure 3). More
are observable in the vocabularies of all sign languages, but
recently, Emmorey (2014) has put forward the notion of
it is undeniable that signs that are iconically motivated are
Iconicity as Structure mapping which suggests that a sign (i.e.,
ubiquitous in the vocabularies of all signed lexicons. It has been
phonological form) may overlap in varying degrees with a
argued that at least a third of all lexical signs are iconic (Boyes-
conceptual representation, and that the effect of iconicity will be
Braem, 1986) and that between 50 and 60% of signs’ structure
observed only in the most iconic forms (e.g., signs representing
can be directly linked to the physical features of their referents
handling depictions).
(Pietrandrea, 2002).
The graded nature of iconicity has important implications
Sign iconicity has two important characteristics. First, despite
for sign acquisition in that the form-meaning link of some
being visually motivated by the visual-spatial characteristics of
signs may be evident to most individuals but some others
a referent, signed structures are constrained by phonotactic,
are more difficult to access. Additionally, the capacity to
language-specific principles. For instance, the BSL sign PLANE
access the iconic properties of signs depends not only on
consists of the handshape moving across signing space, their intrinsic properties but also on the cultural background

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

FIGURE 2 | Lexical signs PLANE in BSL (A), American Sign Language (B), and Korean Sign Language (C). The three languages represent iconically the fuselage of
a plane but they use distinct phonological handshapes.

FIGURE 3 | British Sign Language (BSL) signs showing different degrees of meaning transparency. Transparent signs are the easiest to relate to their referent (e.g.,
A: CAMERA), followed by translucent (e.g., B: TO-LIMP), then obscure signs (e.g., C: HOLLAND), and the most difficult to associate with its concept are opaque
signs (e.g., D: WHAT).

and age group of the perceiver. When asked to guess the get a good understanding of how iconicity may influence sign
meaning of iconic signs in Italian Sign Language (LIS) acquisition in L1 and L2 learners.
hearing non-signers belonging to the same culture (i.e.,
Italian non-signers) perform better than hearing individuals
from a different culture because some iconic signs refer WHAT’S IN A WORD?
to aspects that can only be understood by people sharing
the same background (Grosso, 1993; Pizzuto and Volterra, A significant amount of psycholinguistic research has been
2000). Similarly, hearing non-signing children (6 years of devoted to the understanding of language production, and
age) produce different iconicity ratings for some iconic signs more precisely, what are the constituents of a word. This
than deaf signers and hearing non-signers because they lack work has led to several proposals aiming to describe the
the conceptual knowledge depicted in a sign (e.g., the ASL lexical components involved from planning to execution of a
sign DOCTOR recreates the action of checking the pulse on linguistic utterance, the information each one encodes, and
the wrist, a practice possibly unfamiliar to many children) the number of stages engaged in the process. Despite some
(Griffith et al., 1981). Therefore, iconicity should not be differences, the most influential models suggest that lexical
considered a blanket term that applies equally to all signs. access recruits sequentially two components. One level encodes
Comprehension of iconicity goes beyond resemblance between semantic information about a concept whereas the other encodes
a linguistic form and a referent because it is heavily reliant its phonological/orthographic form (Dell and O’Seaghdha, 1992;
on a number of factors grounded in human experience (e.g., Caramazza, 1997; Levelt et al., 1999)1 . That is, lexical items consist
age, linguistic experience, cultural background). The notion of a semantic representation and this is linked to its phonological
of degree of iconicity and how it may influence acquisition representation. Research has shown that these two levels are not
echoes research in spoken languages showing that some exclusive to speech because separate semantic and phonological
iconic words are more strongly related to their referent than representations have also been attested for sign languages (Baus
others and as a result they are learnable with different ease et al., 2008; Baus and Costa, 2015). Despite being expressed
(Dingemanse et al., 2016).
1
After having explained how sign structures map in different There is an unsolved debate whether there is an intermediate level between
degrees to their referent while being constrained by linguistic semantic and phonological representations which encodes syntactic information
about a word (Levelt, 1989; Levelt et al., 1999). I will ascribe to those authors
conventions, the following sections gives a brief description of arguing against it (Caramazza, 1997) and will not delve into the discussion as it
the components involved in word (and sign) learning so as to falls out of the main aim of this review.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

through different channels (aural-oral vs. manual-visual), speech ICONICITY AND SIGN LEARNING
and sign consist of two separate but interdependent levels
(semantics and phonology) which constitute our knowledge of Sign L1 Learning
a word. Historical views on symbolic development argued that the
During lexical learning, these two components do not come acquisition of arbitrary labels stems from children’s capacity to
together as a package but rather are the result of a process which master iconic symbols first (Piaget, 1962). Under this account,
requires developing phonological and semantic representations children develop the ability to make non-iconic association
(Nation, 2001). The cognitive resources to attend to the semantics between a symbol and its referent because they use iconic
of a new lexical item compete with resources to attend its mappings as initial stepping stone. This position fell out of favor
phonological form (and vice versa), and one frequently overrides after a large body of evidence showed that it is around their third
the other (VanPatten, 1990, 1996; VanPatten and Cadierno, 1993; birthday that children show evidence of understanding direct
Barcroft, 2004, 2015). In order to evaluate the factors involved symbol-referent mappings (Namy, 2004, 2008; Tolar et al., 2008;
in word (and sign) learning, it is critical to understand that Suanda et al., 2013). At 3 years of age, children already master
semantic-phonological representations are the result of a two- a large vocabulary so this led to the conclusion that iconicity
stage process that is often dissociated (Barcroft, 2004, 2015). is not instrumental for lexical development. Similar claims
Many studies use the blanket term ‘word learning’ without were made in the sign language literature: most investigations
explicitly stating that their manipulations measure just one aspect exploring sign lexical development before the age of three show
of lexical development. For instance, studies using phoneme that iconicity does not assist sign acquisition (however, see
monitoring show that newly learnt non-words become fully Thompson et al., 2013).
integrated in the mental lexicon and compete for lexical selection Within this age window, Orlansky and Bonvillian (1984)
with pre-existing words (e.g., Tamminen and Gaskell, 2008; examined longitudinal sign production of 13 children of deaf
Dumay and Gaskell, 2015) but actually, these words are just parents during the initial stages of their linguistic development
novel phonological structures deprived of meaning. Similarly, (0;10-0;18 months of age). Caregivers kept a diary in which
forced-choice paradigms require participants to choose from two they included every new sign attempted by their child, the age
options the translation equivalent of newly learnt words in an when it was produced, and the accuracy of articulation. All
L2 (e.g., Nygaard et al., 2009). However, this task is informative signs were then classified into iconic (they clearly resembled
about the semantic aspect of word learning but does not provide its referent), metonymic (the sign represents a minor feature
any evidence of how the phonological form of the word is of the referent), and arbitrary (there was no similarity between
acquired. sign and referent). After comparing the proportion of signs
The distinction between evaluating the form or the meaning produced across participants it was found that there was an equal
of a novel word has important implications in sign acquisition proportion of signs in the three categories implying that all types
research, especially, to understand whether the observed effects of signs are learnt at the same rate. Newport and Meier (1985)
of iconicity relate to the phonological or semantic aspects of proposed that children exposed to a sign language from birth
sign learning. Signs consist of a (manual) phonological structure lack the world knowledge that could help them interpret the
linked to semantic representations so it is possible to assume that connection between sign and referent (e.g., the sign MILK in ASL
sign learners are also likely to channel their attentional resources refers to the action of milking a cow which is knowledge that an
to one of these constituents, in a similar way as has been shown in infant has not yet acquired).
spoken words (VanPatten, 1990, 1996; VanPatten and Cadierno, Also looking at lexical development by deaf toddlers
1993; Barcroft, 2004, 2015). As will be argued in the following (0;08-12;05), Meier et al. (2008) analyzed the signs produced by
sections, iconicity seems to facilitate the semantic aspects of sign four deaf children acquiring ASL from birth and investigated
learning, and not their phonological structure. whether they produced signs in citation form or whether
It has been explained thus far, first, that iconic structures they exaggerated signs’ iconic properties. The authors argued
in sign languages are built upon conventionalised linguistic that if deaf children understand the iconicity of a sign they
principles; and second, that sign/word learning consists of the would exaggerate its features during naturalistic interactions.
acquisition of a linguistic form attached to a meaning. With For example, the iconic sign ICE-CREAM could have an
this literature as foreground, this review turns to the empirical adult-like form (i.e., a closed fist moving toward the mouth
evidence and assess whether or how iconicity influences lexical with circular movements) or it could introduce a stronger
development. Regarding sign L1 acquisition, it will be explained iconic element (e.g., sticking the tongue out to lick one’s
that the opposing evidence may be due to the fact that studies hand). The signs produced by children were rated by the
frequently interpret iconicity as a categorical property and not researchers to determine whether iconicity was enhanced,
as a graded feature that can be accessed in different degrees reduced, or it remained neutral. The study reports that signs
by different populations. Regarding sign L2 learners, it will were predominantly produced neutrally with very weak hints of
be explained that certain experimental paradigms evaluate the having an exaggerated gestural element suggesting that iconicity
phonological or semantic aspects of sign learning. By teasing is inaccessible to children and thus cannot aid acquisition. Two
these two components apart it will be possible to get a better questions that spring to mind, however, are whether exaggeration
understanding of the positive or negative effect of iconicity in sign of signs’ iconic features could be used as proxy for children’s
learning by hearing adults. access to iconicity; and whether production (form) without

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

comprehension (meaning) reveals the influence of iconicity in reported earlier (Anderson and Reilly, 2002) and correlated a set
sign learning. of signs with iconicity ratings, neighborhood density, and lexical
Some have argued that the striking parallels in lexical frequency. They replicated the findings in BSL in that iconicity
development between deaf and hearing children also speaks facilitates sign language acquisition, but they also report that the
against the role of iconicity in sign language development. other two variables also contribute to lexical development. They
Anderson and Reilly (2002) created the first MacArthur Bates conclude that iconicity is a factor that facilitates sign acquisition
Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) for ASL. The but in addition, deaf children monitor signs’ phonological
CDI is a checklist of words adapted to many spoken and properties and frequency of occurrence and leverage them to
signed languages in which parents document the productive and acquire signs. These recent studies challenge established views
receptive skills of their children (i.e., whether they can produce on iconicity and posit that while factors like phonological
and/or understand certain words/signs). The authors collected complexity, familiarity, frequency, and neighborhood density
longitudinal data from 34 deaf children (0;10-0;36) and compared also play a role (Thompson et al., 2013; Caselli and Pyers,
patterns with that of hearing children learning English. They 2017), iconicity is a key feature that assists learning in deaf
found that the sequence and developmental trajectories of most children.
linguistic structures in ASL go hand in hand with English. The More recently, and looking at children older than 3-years
CDI has also been adapted to BSL (Woolfe et al., 2010), and of age, Ortega et al. (2014, 2017) argue that type of iconicity
even though this study does not make a direct comparison matters in the acquisition of a sign language. They looked at
between the lexical development of deaf and hearing children, lexical development in Turkish Sign Language (Turk Isaret Dili,
it shows the typical learning trajectory of the CDI in which TİD) in signs that have two possible iconic variants for the
receptive skills precede productive ability. A different study same concept: one describing an action associated with the
measuring directly sign acquisition gives further evidence that referent (e.g., the action sign BED represents a person lying on
deaf children follow the same developmental path as hearing a pillow) and the other one depicts its perceptual features (e.g.,
children. It has been shown that deaf children acquiring Italian the perceptual sign BED represents a mattress and headboard).
Sign Language understand and produce the same sign equivalents Two groups of children (mean ages: 5;02 and 7;02, respectively),
of the words produced by age-matched hearing children (Rinaldi two groups of parents and a separate group of adults took
et al., 2014). Both groups of children share the same environment, part in a picture description task in which they had to explain
they talk about the same objects and actions with their the spatial configuration between two objects to an interlocutor
caregivers, and thus children learn words and signs based on (e.g., PILLOW-UNDER-BED). Children and adults described
their everyday occurrence and not because iconicity boosts the picture to an adult, and critically, parents described the
acquisition. Together, these studies argue that if deaf and hearing pictures to their own children. After analyzing the proportion
children follow almost overlapping developmental trajectories, of action and perceptual signs produced in all descriptions, it
the same underlying cognitive mechanism is responsible for was found that children produce mostly action variants (80%)
lexical acquisition – regardless of linguistic modality – and while adults interacting with other adults produced mainly
iconicity is not a key player. perceptual variants (approximately 20% of action variants).
Criticisms of these studies are twofold: First, they do not take Interestingly, parents interacting with their children produced
into consideration parental input or signs’ degree of iconicity. roughly the same proportion of action and perceptual variants,
These two points are critical given recent evidence showing that but significantly more action signs than adults interacting with
they may play key roles in sign language learning. Regarding other adults. The authors argue that children favor action signs
caregivers’ input, Perniss et al. (2017) found that when deaf because they can be easily mapped with their motor schemas; and
adults interact with an (imaginary) child addressee they tend to that parents also use them more because they accommodate to
modify iconic signs (enlargement, lengthening and repetition) their children’s linguistic output.
more often than arbitrary signs, in particular with absent To sum up, early research on the acquisition of a sign
referents (with referent present, pointing dominates parental language as L1 suggested that iconicity does not facilitate lexical
communicative strategies). Regarding signs’ degree of iconicity, development because children lack enough conceptual schemas
recent studies show that iconicity has a positive correlation to make associations between a linguistic form and its referent.
between age of acquisition and degree of iconicity, even at However, the null effect of iconicity may relate to critically small
an age when iconicity is not readily available to deaf children samples, inconsistencies in parental reports, and crucially, to
(younger than 3 years). Thompson et al. (2013) used parental the way in which researchers measured access to iconicity by
reports of the MacArthur Bates BSL CDI to investigate the deaf children (e.g., exaggerating signs’ iconic instantiation; Meier
type of signs acquired by deaf children at the earliest stages of et al., 2008). Understanding the iconic motivation of signs varies
development. The authors collected reports from 31 deaf children significantly depending on age, linguistic experience, and cultural
between the ages of 0;08-2;06 years of age and compared the background (Klima and Bellugi, 1979; Griffith et al., 1981; Pizzuto
signs to previously collected iconicity ratings (Vinson et al., and Volterra, 2000) so establishing the degree of iconicity of
2008). It was found that for younger and older infants, the a sign requires of an objective independent measure such as
first signs produced and comprehended were iconic, even when iconicity ratings by deaf participants (e.g., Thompson et al., 2013)
phonological complexity was factored out. In a more recent study or clear operationalisations of sub-types of iconicity. As such, the
on ASL, Caselli and Pyers (2017) analyzed the ASL-CDI data notion of degree and type of iconicity is critical to determine

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

whether it plays or not a role in sign L1 acquisition. It is possible task, participants were shown the English word on a computer
that weak iconicity does not necessarily play a role in early sign screen and they had to produce the sign equivalent while reaction
L1 acquisition, but more direct mappings between form and times were recorded by press release. In a backward translation,
meaning may show an effect (e.g., the sign TO-DRINK may be participants were shown individual signs and had to produce
easier to learn because it has direct correspondences with its the English translation while reaction times were recorded from
referent). voice onset (i.e., from the moment they produced the first
phoneme of their spoken translation). The results show that in
Sign L2 Learning both the forward and backward tasks, non-signers were faster
Lieberth and Gamble (1991) carried out one of the first at translating iconic than arbitrary pairs. Hearing proficient
empirical attempts to understand whether iconicity influenced signers, in contrast, showed no effect of iconicity in the forward
sign acquisition by hearing adults. In their experiment, they translation task, while in the backward translations iconic signs
asked hearing non-signers to see a series of ASL signs along with were translated more slowly than arbitrary ones. The authors
their spoken and written English equivalents. Signs consisted of conclude that iconicity allows non-signers to match a linguistic
a balanced number of iconic and arbitrary signs as determined form with its referent more easily and thus aids memorisation at
by the iconicity ratings from a different study (Griffith et al., the early stages of sign language learning. The effect of iconicity
1981). Participants were shown the same set of signs 10 min is evident in both directions of the translation which further
and 2 weeks after the first presentation, and were asked to write strengthens the claim that iconicity taps in the conceptual system
down their meaning in English. The English translations of both that links an English word and its novel signed equivalent.
iconic and arbitrary signs were recalled with the same degree of Iconicity shows a negative effect in hearing proficient signers
accuracy after a short delay (10 min). However, after a 1-week because iconic signs appear to have more possible meanings, and
delay, iconic signs were recalled significantly better than arbitrary as such a denser neighborhood leads to higher lexical competition
ones. This study is one of the first to recognize that iconicity gives during translation. A negative effect of iconicity due to lexical
access to a ‘functional, receptive core vocabulary’ to sign naïve density has also been reported in a priming study with hearing
hearing adults and thus is an important factor that facilitates L2 proficient signers but only for those iconic signs that depict
vocabulary learning. perceptual features of a referent (e.g., signs depicting the outline
Campbell et al. (1992) presented consecutively two lists of BSL of a window or the shape of a pair of wings) (Ortega and Morgan,
signs with varying degrees of iconicity to hearing non-signers and 2015c). While iconicity seems to help hearing non-signers at the
intermediate signers. The task required participants to determine earliest stages of sign learning, other linguistic processes such as
whether the signs in the second list were being shown for the lexical competition and sign frequency may come into effect in
first time or whether they had been presented in the first list. hearing signers with an established manual lexicon.
Both groups of participants recalled iconic signs more accurately More recently, and having as foreground theories of embodied
than arbitrary ones regardless of their prior linguistic experience cognition (Barsalou, 2008), Morett (2015) investigated the role
with BSL. The authors then calculated the number of instances of iconicity in L2 learning. In a sign learning study, hearing
in which participants could and could not name a sign and non-signers were taught iconic, arbitrary and metaphoric signs
found that ease of naming strongly correlated with iconicity; i.e., (i.e., those depicting a concrete object but whose meaning relate
the more iconic the sign, the more likely it was to be named. to an abstraction of the representation, for example, two pointing
The study concludes that linguistic experience with a manual fingers approaching each other’s tips for the sign GOAL). Signs
language is not a strong predictor for sign recognition but rather were presented visually along their English translation in four
degree of iconicity. The authors argue that iconic signs can be different conditions. In the enactment condition, participants
dually coded by means of a verbal and a visual representation were required to imitate the sign after presentation of the stimuli.
(Paivio, 1986) and as such they can be more easily recalled and In the visualization condition, they were asked to create a
named. They claim that iconic signs have configural coherence in mental image of the referent. In the hand motion condition,
that the elements that constitute them have a ‘natural’ structure they produced a meaningless movement previously shown by
and their relative organization with one another creates a unified the researcher. Finally, in the viewing condition, they saw the
whole. sign twice. During the testing phase, which took place 5 min,
The benefits of iconicity were further attested in a translation one and 4 weeks after training, participants were presented with
task. Baus et al. (2012) recruited a group of hearing non-signers an English word and they had to produce the sign equivalent.
and taught them a set of iconic and arbitrary signs. After the Responses were coded as incorrect if participants did not recall
learning phase, participants took part in a translation recognition the sign or if at least one of signs’ sub-lexical components (i.e.,
task in which they were simultaneously presented with a sign and handshape, location, movement and orientation) was ‘notably
an English word. They were then required to determine whether deviant’ from the target. The results show that signs were recalled
sign-word pairs were translations of each other by pressing yes/no more accurately 5 min after presentation than after 1 and
keys. Non-signers were faster and more accurate at recognizing 5 weeks. Signs learned in the enactment condition were recalled
iconic than arbitrary signs. A different group of L2 hearing significantly better than in any other condition. There was no
proficient signers carried out the same task (without the training difference in recall between iconic, arbitrary and metaphoric
phase) and, surprisingly, they recognized iconic sign pairs more signs. Regarding accuracy in sign production, there was no
slowly than arbitrary signs. In a follow-up forward translation effect of learning condition but there was an effect of time of

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

testing and type of sign. Arbitrary and metaphoric signs were to the English translation of the sign. The results of these two
produced the most accurately after 5 min of training but over studies were interpreted as evidence that iconicity gives access
time accuracy decreased. In contrast, iconic signs were the most to the meaning of a sign and thus learners are less attentive to
accurately produced at all points in time. The author concludes its exact phonological structure. As a consequence, participants
that embodiment, visual imagery, and iconicity play a positive reproduced a sign that retained its iconic motivation, but not its
role in sign L2 learning both in sign recall (i.e., meaning) and exact phonological structure (Figure 4). The authors also raise the
production (i.e., form). She claims that visualization aids learning possibility that learners’ iconic gestures may be interfering in sign
if non-signers’ mental image is compatible with sign iconicity. She articulation because they share similar forms and meaning but
also argues that learners devote more attention to the phonology no sub-lexical structure (this has also been reported in learners
of iconic signs which results in higher articulation accuracy. of ASL; Chen Pichler, 2009, 2011). Arbitrary signs, in contrast,
The commonality between these studies is that they all find could not be tracked to a referent so participants paid more
a facilitating effect of iconicity in sign L2 learning (Lieberth attention to the formal properties of the sign. This interpretation
and Gamble, 1991; Campbell et al., 1992; Baus et al., 2012; is compatible with research showing that when deaf signers
Morett, 2015). It must be noted, however, that with one exception are asked to make phonological judgements about signs (e.g.,
(Morett, 2015) these studies evaluate the effect of iconicity in only whether they consist of curved or straight fingers) they are slower
one dimension of sign learning; namely the aspect that relates to at responding to iconic than arbitrary signs (Thompson et al.,
its meaning. Reaction times by button press, forced-choices, and 2010). Iconic signs give more automatic access to the meaning,
cued recall in participants’ first language are informative on how so it is cognitively taxing to make form-based judgements.
conceptual knowledge is more easily retrieved when iconicity In sum, evidence thus far shows that iconicity does not aid all
is involved, but reveal little information about how accurately aspects of sign L2 learning but rather that there is dissociation
participants acquire the phonological structure of signs. More between the conceptual-semantic features of a sign and its
intriguingly are the positive effects in sign production (i.e., form) linguistic structure, with iconicity showing a positive effect on
reported by in Morett’s (2015) study. Potential caveats of its the former, but a negative effect on the latter. On one hand,
experimental design are, first, that signs were not balanced for studies show that iconic signs are recalled and named more
phonological complexity across condition; and second, that sign accurately than arbitrary signs at the initial stages of sign L2
accuracy was measured under a very lax coding scheme (e.g., a learning (Lieberth and Gamble, 1991; Campbell et al., 1992;
sign location would be incorrect if it was articulated at ‘neck level Baus et al., 2012). This positive effect has been interpreted as
instead of stomach level’ (Morett, 2015; p. 260). One must be iconic signs being semantically and imagistically rich sources of
cautious about extending the positive effects of iconicity to all information about the referent that strengthen the conceptual
aspects of sign learning given that most of the aforementioned link with newly learnt signs. On the other hand, studies directly
studies point that it influences only the conceptual-semantic assessing how iconicity affects the acquisition of the formal aspect
domain it taps onto. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence of signs (i.e., their phonological structure) clearly show a negative
suggesting that iconicity hinders the acquisition of formal aspects effect in sign production (with the exception of Morett, 2015).
of signs. Iconicity gives direct access to the meaning of a sign making
Ortega and Morgan (2015a) investigated the development it less relevant to pay attention to its linguistic conventions.
of a manual phonological system in hearing adults learning In executing iconic signs, learners at the earliest stages tend to
BSL as L2. Participants were required to imitate as accurately produce signs that encode their iconic instantiation but without
as possible a set of iconic and arbitrary signs balanced for their linguistic conventions (Ortega and Morgan, 2015a,b). Taken
phonological complexity across conditions. Participants were together these studies suggest that iconicity aids in the acquisition
tested once before they started their BSL course and then after of the semantic-conceptual aspects of sign learning but hinders in
11 weeks of instruction. The results revealed that iconic signs learning its specific linguistic conventions.
were articulated significantly less accurately than arbitrary signs.
Moreover, when iconic signs consisted of more phonological
features (i.e., higher complexity), articulation accuracy decreased DOES ICONICITY HELP?
accordingly. Learners showed improvement with instruction but
the negative effect of iconicity in sign articulation persisted even Linguistic and cognitive sciences continue to amass evidence
after 11 weeks of lessons. that iconicity and arbitrariness are fundamental components of
Ortega and Morgan (2015b) replicated their findings with language with each of them playing critical yet distinct roles
two different groups of hearing non-signers. In their experiment, in many language processes (Perniss et al., 2010; Perniss and
the two groups took part in another sign repetition task with Vigliocco, 2014; Vigliocco et al., 2014; Dingemanse et al., 2015). It
the same set of iconic and arbitrary signs described above. is therefore baffling that sign languages, which excel for their high
One group was presented with BSL signs in isolation while the prevalence of iconic structures, present a complex and sometimes
second group was given the English translation before viewing contradicting picture regarding the role of iconicity in L1 and L2
the sign. The idea was that the English prime could potentially acquisition. The aim of this review article has been to describe
activate conceptual knowledge and somewhat influence sign the empirical evidence accumulated over the last decades to
articulation. Both groups articulated iconic signs less accurately evaluate how sign language scholars have investigated the role
than arbitrary signs regardless of whether they had prior exposure of motivated forms in lexical development (see Table 1). The

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

FIGURE 4 | Participants (A,B) attempting to produce the BSL sign PLANE (C) during a sign repetition task. Participants failed to produce the target handshape yet
they executed a sign that retained its iconic motivation.

following sections aim to reconcile the contradicting evidence in sign L1 acquisition. The notion of Iconicity as Structure
and explain how iconicity operates in L1 and L2 sign lexical Mapping (Emmorey, 2014) posits that a signed phonological
acquisition. representation may overlap in varying degrees with a conceptual
representation. According to this view, effects of iconicity in
language development and processing will be observed when sign
Degree of Iconicity and Sign L1 and referent have high degree of overlap, for example, when
Acquisition signs represent actions (i.e., the hand represents the hand). This
Recent advances on how motivated linguistic forms operate position would predict that deaf children will be biased to acquire
in different non-Western spoken languages can illuminate our signs representing actions because of the high degree of overlap
understanding of how iconicity may have an involvement between sign and referent (e.g., the sign TO-DRINK in many sign
in L1 acquisition. One such advancement is the relationship language has direct correspondences to the action of drinking).
between the gradient nature of iconicity and language acquisition. This prediction is supported by research showing that deaf
Linguists recognize that there are different types and degrees children have a strong preference for predicates over nominals
of word-referent mappings with some forms linking more (Anderson and Reilly, 2002; Woolfe et al., 2010; Rinaldi et al.,
directly to their referent than others (Dingemanse et al., 2015). 2014); as well as action-based signs during production (Ortega
Absolute iconicity, for instance, is understood as a one-to- et al., 2014, 2017) and comprehension tasks (Tolar et al., 2008).
one relationship between some aspects of the referent and The close connection between real actions and action-based signs
a linguistic form; relative iconicity involves forms resembling may aid the problem of referentiality (Perniss and Vigliocco,
different relations between meanings (Dingemanse et al., 2015). 2014) and in turn jump-start vocabulary development (Imai and
Words with absolute iconicity are more easily understood than Kita, 2014). The direct mappings between action and signs could
other types of iconic words because they map more faithfully to also be beneficial at a stage when infants lack a fully developed
the perceptual features of the referent. Akita (2013) puts forward phonological system. In the spoken modality, for instance, infants
a Lexical Iconicity Hierarchy (LIH) in which sound-symbolic favor onomatopoeic forms instead of conventional words because
words vary in their degree of iconicity with each sub-type they give them the opportunity to express ideas about a referent
having distinctive forms and functions in language. The LIH despite their limited phonological repertoire (Laing, 2014). In
posits that iconic words with absolute iconicity are more often sign languages, action and action-based signs converge in many
found across different languages and have specific phonemic formational and semantic aspects so children may take advantage
and morphosyntactic distributions. Crucially, Akita (2009) found of these similarities to communicate while they develop a manual
a clear order of acquisition with the most iconic words being phonology.
mastered first (i.e., absolute iconicity) and the less iconic ones Future research may investigate to what extent this type of
being mastered at later stages. sign iconicity facilitates lexical development and pave the way for
In sign language research, studies have shown that signs other less iconic signs. Of course, iconicity alone cannot explain
rated as highly iconic are the first to be acquired by deaf sign acquisition because parental input (Perniss et al., 2017) and
children (Thompson et al., 2013) but it remains an open question children’s monitoring of signs’ properties are also exploited to
which are these signs and what are the iconic features that scaffold learning (Caselli and Pyers, 2017). In addition, other
children exploit for vocabulary learning. Based on what has been factors that have shown to impact lexical development in speech
observed in spoken languages (Akita, 2009, 2013) and on current may also play a role in sign acquisition, for example parents’
theories of sign iconicity (Emmorey, 2014), it is possible to argue education (Woolfe et al., 2010), socio-economic status (Fernald
that action-based signs (i.e., structures with absolute iconicity) et al., 2013), type of child-parent interaction (Bornstein et al.,
may be responsible for positive effects of iconicity observed 2015), to name just a few. Understanding how these factors

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

TABLE 1 | Summary of studies investigating the role of iconicity in sign L1 and L2 acquisition.

Study Number participants Methodology Effect of iconicity

L1 acquisition
Orlansky and Bonvillian, 1984 13 Parental reports on children’s productive/receptive Null
vocabulary
Meier et al., 2008 4 Assesment of children’s exaggeration of iconic Null
features of signs
Ortega et al. (2014, 2017) 48 (20 children, 28 adults) Production of action or perceptual sign in a spatial Preference for action signs
description
Anderson and Reilly, 2002 69 (34 for longitudinal data) MacArthur Bates CDI (ASL) Iconicity was not manipulated
Woolfe et al., 2010 29 MacArthur Bates CDI (BSL) Iconicity was not manipulated
Rinaldi et al., 2014 8 Picture naming task (sign) Iconicity was not manipulated
Thompson et al., 2013 31 MacArthur Bates CDI (BSL) Positive
L2 acquisition
Lieberth and Gamble, 1991 50 Sign recall (in English) Positive
Campbell et al., 1992 53 Forced-choice and naming task Positive
Baus et al., 2012 30 (15 non-signers, 15 proficient signers) English-ASL translation Positive
Morett, 2015 26 Sign learning (production of signs) Positive
Ortega and Morgan, 2015a 30 Sign repetition (imitation of signs) Negative
Ortega and Morgan, 2015a 9 (longitudinal) Sign repetition (imitation of signs) Negative

interact with certain types of iconicity will give a comprehensive make judgements about words’ phonemes (e.g., which recruits
picture of lexical development in deaf children. deeper phonological processing), they perform better at form-
based than meaning-based tasks (Barcroft, 2004, 2015). Learners’
performance on L2 words will depend on what aspect of word
Iconicity Aids Semantic Aspects of Sign learning they focus on and the task used to assess vocabulary
L2 Acquisition learning.
A caveat in many studies investigating L2 acquisition is In this review article it is argued that the positive and
that lexical learning is often regarded as a monolithic piece negative effects in sign L2 learning relates to some studies
of linguistic information when in fact signs and words evaluating sign meaning and others sign form. On one hand,
consist of phonological and semantic representations. Many experiments showing a positive effect of iconicity implemented
experimental paradigms have used reaction times, forced- tasks that evaluated knowledge about the meaning of signs and
choice tasks, and translations into participants’ first language as not production of their exact phonetic structure (Lieberth and
proxy of vocabulary learning. While these measures are good Gamble, 1991; Campbell et al., 1992; Baus et al., 2012)2 . On
approximation of the emergence of receptive word knowledge the other hand, studies reporting a negative effect of iconicity
they do not reveal entirely the psychological reality of lexical are those exploring the actual phonetic articulation of lexical
development. It is possible that a categorical approach toward signs (Ortega and Morgan, 2015a,b). If we consider that the
sign learning can explicate the opposing findings of iconicity in structure of iconic signs give away part of their meaning, one
sign L2 acquisition. The argument put forward here is that by could argue that learners channel their cognitive resources to
teasing apart sign acquisition in its two constituents (i.e., form the conceptual/semantic aspect of the sign because it is more
and meaning) one may see iconicity’s focus of influence in sign readily available. By default, individuals favor meaning over form
L2 learning. at the initial stages of L2 learning (VanPatten, 1990), so increased
Second Language studies have been pivotal in understanding semantic processing due to iconicity may deplete resources to
how learners acquire the two components of new lexical items. learn a sign’s form. When signs have arbitrary mappings with
There is strong evidence that there is often dissociation between the referent, L2 learners must develop some basic phonological
the formal and conceptual aspects of word learning with meaning representation to recognize them and consequently access their
taking precedence over form (i.e., learners will look for meaning meaning.
before worrying about the form of newly learnt words) (Barcroft, The L2 evidence presented here suggest that iconicity has
2004, 2015). In addition, learners have limited cognitive resources a positive influence in the conceptual/semantic aspects of sign
and depending on the demands of a given task they will focus learning but a negative or null effect in the acquisition of the
only on one aspect of the target word (VanPatten, 1990, 1996; actual linguistic form (similar findings have been reported on the
VanPatten and Cadierno, 1993). For instance, when learners are effect of iconic gestures in L2 lexical acquisition; Kelly et al., 2009;
instructed to carry out ratings of pleasantness on novel L2 words
(e.g., which recruits deeper semantic processing) they perform 2
Note that even though the translation study (Baus et al., 2012) includes sign
better at tasks that evaluate knowledge of word meaning than production, the authors used reaction times as proxy of sign learning but they did
tasks assessing its phonological form. When they are asked to not directly investigate accuracy in sign articulation.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

Kelly and Lee, 2012). Future research should establish the locus followed by classifiers representing the physical properties of
of influence of our experimental design (i.e., form or meaning) each referent. For example, in TİD the description pen on
so as to better understand how direct form mappings affect paper requires introducing the signs PAPER and PEN (i.e.,
sign L2 acquisition. Implementing the form-meaning distinction ground and figure), followed by two classifiers representing their
experimentally brings important methodological hurdles given
shape. The handshape represents the flatness of a sheet of
the lack of a clear notion of phonological complexity, degree
of iconicity, and crucially, a standardized articulation coding paper, the handshape represents the thin elongated form of
scheme (although there have been some recent some advances a pen, and the configuration on represents a thin object
on the latter; Ortega, 2013; Chen Pichler et al., 2016). However, lying on a flat surface (Figure 5). These structures (also called
the existing research and the developing technologies can serve proforms, depicting verbs, productive morphemes, and mimetic
as stepping stone toward unified and improved methodologies depictions) have been at the center of a heated debate over
to investigate how hearing learners acquire the formal and many years. While some researchers regard them as discrete
conceptual/semantic aspects of signs. morphemes comparable to classifiers in speech (e.g., Supalla,
1982; Aronoff et al., 2003; Sandler and Lillo-Martin, 2006) some
others consider them manual forms with evident gestural features
ICONICITY AID SIGN ACQUISITION IN (e.g., Klima and Bellugi, 1979; Liddell, 2003; Schembri, 2003).
OTHER DOMAINS Regardless of these two stances, it is inevitable to see that
classifier constructions depict iconically multiple aspects of a
Iconicity is a pervasive property observable not only at the
spatial scene (e.g., physical attributes of the referents and their
lexical level but also in other linguistic structures such as
spatial distribution). Interestingly, recent research shows that
signs’ phonological constituents (Stokoe, 2001; van der Kooij,
iconicity facilitates acquisition to some extent.
2002), morphological markers (Wilbur, 2003), and classifier
The first studies investigating L1 acquisition reported that
constructions (Emmorey, 2003). Critically, the iconicity encoded
deaf children have great difficulty learning classifier constructions
in these different levels seems to be accessible to non-signers
in different degrees. For instance, the temporality of signed because these are highly complex morphological structures not
verbs (i.e., telicity), which is iconically represented by means of mastered until after late in childhood (around the age of 9 years
repetitive movements (atelic) or abrupt end-points (telic), can be of age) (e.g., Kantor, 1980; Supalla, 1982). However, recent
accurately differentiated by non-signers (Strickland et al., 2015). studies testing a significantly larger number of participants,
Given that this effect is observed in a large number of real and and comparing directly child and adult production, show
artificial sign languages, it may be possible to speculate that the that deaf children as young as 3 years-old, are capable
capacity to link certain features of a sign (e.g., movement) with of producing adult-like classifier constructions (Sümer, 2015;
an abstract concept (e.g., telicity) may facilitate some aspects of Simper-Allen, 2016). Importantly, hearing children learning a
sign learning. spoken language lag behind deaf kids in the production of
Classifiers are another type of sign structures that may the same spatial descriptions because iconicity maps more
also be susceptible to the effect of iconicity in sign learning. directly to a linguistic form, than in speakers who use
Spatial descriptions in sign languages typically introduce the arbitrary terms for abstract concepts (e.g., prepositions or case
lexical items involved in a scene (i.e., ground and figure) markers) (Sümer, 2015). In the context of sign L2 acquisition,

FIGURE 5 | Classifier construction in Turkish Sign Language (Turk Isaret Dili, TİD). The lexical signs PAPER (ground) and PEN (figure) precede the structure
PEN-ON-PAPER which represents iconically the spatial relationship between both objects.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

Marshall and Morgan (2015) report that hearing BSL learners iconicity modulates some aspects of sign acquisition in different
struggle producing the canonical handshape associated to a populations.
referent with very high error rates (around 60%). However, The evidence presented here points to the tremendous need
iconicity has a positive effect in comprehension tasks because for a consensus on the operationalisation of sign iconicity. The
non-signers and hearing learners perform well above chance extensive capacity to express iconic structures in the manual-
in tasks requiring them to match a signed spatial description visual modality places signed languages in a privileged position
with their referent. The authors argue that iconicity does not to answer questions about the human ability to communicate.
help in the acquisition of the linguistic conventions of classifier Investigating the acquisition of motivated sign forms will further
constructions (i.e., the form of the handshape) but it does help in our understanding of sign languages and the finding will resonate
the acquisition of the parameters that are more directly linked to in other disciplines interested in the ontogeny and phylogeny of
real topographic space (i.e., location and orientation). language. Moving away from idyllic preconceptions of language,
Together these studies show that iconicity may facilitate sign and probing the psychological reality of iconic signs in real use
acquisition in other linguistic domains, but more studies are will be a major step forward in language and cognitive sciences.
required to answer these new empirical questions. The ideas
presented in this review could guide future research aiming
to investigate how and where iconicity operates during the AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
acquisition of other signed structures.
GO was the sole contributor of this review article.

CONCLUSION FUNDING
This article has reviewed the literature of the evidence on the This work was supported by a Veni grant (registration number
role of iconicity in the acquisition of a sign language by deaf 275-89-021) by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific
children (L1) and hearing adults (L2). The chief objective was to Research (NWO) awarded to GO.
reconcile the contradicting evidence and point at areas where the
main discrepancies stem from. In a nutshell, these relate to the
operationalisation of iconicity as a monolithic feature of signs and ACKNOWLEDGMENT
to the assumption that sign learning consists on the acquisition
of a categorical lump of knowledge. When we appreciate (i) GO would like to thank Mark Dingemanse, Gwilym Lockwood,
the gradient nature of iconicity and (ii) that signs consist of a and Asli Özyürek, for their useful comments in earlier versions of
phonological form attached to a meaning we can discern how this manuscript.

REFERENCES Baus, C., Carreiras, M., and Emmorey, K. (2012). When does iconicity in sign
language matter? Lang. Cogn. Proc. 28, 261–271. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.
Akita, K. (2009). A Grammar of Sound-Symbolic Words in Japanese: Theoretical 05.012
Approaches to Iconic and Lexical Properties of Mimetics. Ph.D. dissertation, Kobe Baus, C., and Costa, A. (2015). On the temporal dynamics of sign production:
University, Kobe. an ERP study in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Brain Res. 1609, 40–53.
Akita, K. (2013). “The lexical iconicity hierarchy and its grammatical correlates,” doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.03.013
in Iconic Investigations, eds L. Ellestrom, O. Fischer, and C. Ljungberg Baus, C., Gutiérrez-Sigut, E., Quer, J., and Carreiras, M. (2008). Lexical access
(Amsterdam: John Benjamins), 331–350. in Catalan Signed Language (LSC) production. Cognition 108, 856–865.
Anderson, D., and Reilly, J. (2002). The MacArthur communicative development doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.012
inventory: normative data for American sign language. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Cote, L. R., Haynes, O. M., and Suwalsky, J. T. D.
7, 83–106. doi: 10.1093/deafed/7.2.83 (2015). Mother-infant contingent vocalizations in 11 countries. Psychol. Sci. 26,
Aronoff, M., Meir, I., Padden, C., and Sandler, W. (2003). “Classifier constructions 1272–1284. doi: 10.1177/0956797615586796
and morphology in two sign languages,” in Perspectives on Classifier Boyes-Braem, P. (1986). “Two aspects of psycholinguistic research: iconicity and
Constructions in Sign Languages, ed. K. Emmorey (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence temporal structure,” in Proceedings of the Second European Congress on Sign
Erlbaum Associates), 53–84. Language Research; Signs of Life, (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam).
Assaneo, M. F., Nichols, J. I., and Trevisan, M. A. (2011). The anatomy of Brentari, D. (1999). A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge: MIT
onomatopoeia. PLoS ONE 6, 1–27. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028317 Press.
Barcroft, J. (2004). Second language vocabulary acquisition: a lexical input Campbell, R., Martin, P., and White, T. (1992). Forced choice recognition of sign
processing approach. Foreign Lang. Ann. 37, 200–208. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720. in novice learners of British Sign Language. Appl. Psycholinguist. 13, 185–201.
2004.tb02193.x doi: 10.1093/applin/13.2.185
Barcroft, J. (2015). Lexical Input Processing and Vocabulary Learning. Amsterdam: Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access.
John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/lllt.43 Cogn. Neuropsychol. 14, 177–208. doi: 10.1080/026432997381664
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). “Grounding Symbolic Operations in the Brain’s Carreiras, M., Gutiérrez-Sigut, E., Baquero, S., and Corina, D. (2008). Lexical
Modal Systems,” in Embodied Grounding. Social, Cognitive, Affective and processing in Spanish Sign Language (LSE). J. Mem. Lang. 58, 100–122.
Neuroscientific Approaches, eds G. Semin and E. Smith (Cambridge: doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.004
Cambridge University Press), 9–42. doi: 10.1017/CBO97805118058 Caselli, N., and Pyers, J. E. (2017). The road to language learning is not
37.002 entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate sign

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

of acquisition language. Pscyhol. Sci. 28, 979–987. doi: 10.1177/09567976177 Imai, M., and Kita, S. (2014). The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for
00498 language acquisition and language evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol.
Chen Pichler, D. (2009). Sign production by first-time hearing signers: a closer look Sci. 369:20130298. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0298
at handshape accuracy. Cad. Saude 2, 37–50. Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M., and Okada, H. (2008). Sound symbolism facilitates
Chen Pichler, D. (2011). “Sources of handshape error in first-time signers of ASL,” early verb learning. Cognition 109, 54–65. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.015
in Deaf Around the World: The Impact of Language, eds G. Mathur and D. J. Kantartzis, K., Imai, M., and Kita, S. (2011). Japanese sound-symbolism
Napoli (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 96–126. facilitates word learning in english-speaking children. Cogn. Sci. 35, 575–586.
Chen Pichler, D., Dicus, D., Dudley, S., Taylor, S., and Watkins, M. (2016). Refining doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01169.x
coding criteria for phonological accuracy of L2 signing. Paper Presented at the Kantor, R. (1980). The acquisition of classifiers in American sign language. Sign
12th International Conference for Theoretical Issues on Sign Language Research, Lang. Stud. 28, 198–208. doi: 10.1353/sls.1980.0000
Melbourne, VIC. Kelly, S. D., and Lee, A. L. (2012). When actions speak too much louder than words:
Conlin, K. E., Mirus, G. R., Mauk, C., and Meier, R. P. (2000). “The acquisition of Hand gestures disrupt word learning when phonetic demands are high. Lang.
first signs: Place, handshape, and movement,” in Language Acquisition by Eye, Cogn. Process. 27, 793–807. doi: 10.1080/01690965.2011.581125
eds C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford, and R. I. Mayberry (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Kelly, S. D., McDevitt, T., and Esch, M. (2009). Brief training with co-speech
Erlbaum Associates), 51–70. gesture lends a hand to word learning in a foreign language. Lang. Cogn. Process.
Cuxac, C. (1999a). French sign language: proposition of a structural explanation by 24, 313–334. doi: 10.1080/01690960802365567
iconicity. Gesture Based Commun. Hum. Comput. 1739, 165–184. doi: 10.1007/ Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge
3-540-46616-9_16 University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
Cuxac, C. (1999b). “The expression of spatial relations and the spatialization Klima, E., and Bellugi, U. (1979). The Signs of Language. Harvard: Harvard
of semantic relations in French Sign Language,” in Language Diversity and University Press.
Cognitive Representations, eds C. Fuchs and S. Robert (Amsterdam: John Laing, C. E. (2014). A phonological analysis of onomatopoeia in early word
Benjamins Publishing Company), 123–142. production. First Lang. 34, 387–405. doi: 10.1177/0142723714550110
Cuxac, C., and Sallandre, M.-A. (2007). “Iconicity and arbitrariness in French Sign Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A., and Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical
Language: Highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic access in speech production. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 1–38. doi: 10.1017/
iconicity,” in Verbal and Signed Languages, eds E. Pizzuto, P. Pietrandrea, and S0140525X99001776
R. Simone (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 13–33. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: MIT
de Nooijer, J. A., van Gog, T., Paas, F., and Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Words in action: Press.
Using gestures to improve verb learning in primary school children. Gesture 14, Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language.
46–69. doi: 10.1075/gest.14.1.03noo Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
de Saussure, F. (1916). Course in General Linguistics. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Lieberth, A. K., and Gamble, M. E. (1991). The role of iconicity in sign language
Dell, D., and O’Seaghdha, P. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. learning by hearing adults. J. Commun. Disord. 24, 89–99. doi: 10.1016/0021-
Cognition 42, 287–314. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90046-K 9924(91)90013-9
Dingemanse, M. (2012). Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Lockwood, G., Dingemanse, M., and Hagoort, P. (2016). Sound-symbolism boosts
Lang. Linguist. Compass 6, 654–672. doi: 10.1002/lnc3.361 novel word learning. J. Exp. Psychol. 42, 1274–1281. doi: 10.1037/a0028642
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., and Monaghan, P. Macedonia, M., and Klimesch, W. (2014). Long-term effects of gestures on memory
(2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity and systematicity in language. Trends Cogn. Sci. for foreign language words trained in the classroom. Mind Brain Educ. 8, 74–88.
19, 603–615. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 doi: 10.1111/mbe.12047
Dingemanse, M., Schuerman, W., Reinisch, E., Tufvesson, S., and Mitterer, H. Macedonia, M., and von Kriegstein, K. (2012). Gestures enhance foreign language
(2016). What sound symbolism can and cannot do: testing the iconicity of learning. Biolinguistics 6, 393–416. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01467
ideophones from five languages. Language 92, e117–e133. doi: 10.1353/lan. Mandel, M. A. (1977). “Iconic devices in American Sign Language,” in On the
2016.0034 Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language, ed. A. Friedman
Dumay, N., and Gaskell, M. C. (2015). Sleep-associated changes in the mental (New York, NY: Academic Press), 57–107.
representation of spoken words. Psychol. Sci. 18, 35–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- Marshall, C. R., and Morgan, G. (2015). From gesture to sign language:
9280.2007.01845.x conventionalization of classifier constructions by adult hearing learners of
Dye, M., and Shih, S. (2006). “Phonological priming in British sign language,” in British sign language. Top. Cogn. Sci. 7, 61–80. doi: 10.1111/tops.12118
Laboratory Phonology, eds L. Goldstein, D. H. Whalen, and C. T. Best, Vol. 8, McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago,
(Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 243–263. IL: University of Chicago Press.
Emmorey, K. (2014). Iconicity as structure mapping. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Meier, R., Mauk, C. E., Cheek, A., and Moreland, C. J. (2008). The form of children’s
Biol. Sci 369:20130301. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0301 early signs: Iconic or motoric determinants? Lang. Learn. Dev. 4, 63–98.
Emmorey, K. (ed.) (2003). Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign doi: 10.1080/15475440701377618
Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Morett, L. M. (2015). Lending a hand to signed language acquisition: enactment
Fernald, A., Marchman, V., and Weisleder, A. (2013). SES differences in language and iconicity enhance sign recall in hearing adult American Sign Language
processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Dev. Sci. 16, 234–248. learners. J. Cogn. Psychol. 27, 1–26. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2014.999684
doi: 10.1111/desc.12019 Namy, L. (2004). The changing role of iconicity in non-verbal symbol learning:
Griffith, P. L., Robinson, J. H., and Panagos, J. M. (1981). Perception of iconicity a U-shaped trajectory in the acquisition of arbitrary gestures. J. Cogn. Dev. 5,
in American sign language by hearing and deaf subjects. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 37–41. doi: 10.1207/s15327647jcd0501_3
46, 388–397. doi: 10.1044/jshd.4604.388 Namy, L. (2008). Recognition of iconicity doesn’t come for free. Dev. Sci. 11,
Grosso, B. (1993). Iconicity and Arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language: An 841–846. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00732.x
Experimental Study. Padua: University of Padua. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge:
Gutiérrez, E., Müller, O., Baus, C., and Carreiras, M. (2012). Electrophysiological Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524759
evidence for phonological priming in Spanish Sign Language lexical Newport, E. L., and Meier, R. P. (1985). “The acquisition of American Sign
access. Neuropsychologia 50, 1335–1346. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012. Language,” in The Cross-Linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 1, ed.
02.018 D. Slobin (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 881–938.
Herold, D. S., Nygaard, L. C., and Namy, L. L. (2011). Say it like you mean it: Nygaard, L. C., Cook, A. E., and Namy, L. L. (2009). Sound to meaning
mothers’ use of prosody to convey word meaning. Lang. Speech 55, 423–436. correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition 112, 181–186. doi: 10.1016/
doi: 10.1177/0023830911422212 j.cognition.2009.04.001

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280

Ortega Iconicity and Sign Language Acquisition

Orlansky, M. D., and Bonvillian, J. D. (1984). The role of iconicity in early sign Strickland, B., Geraci, C., Chemla, E., Schlenker, P., Kelepir, M., and Pfau, R. (2015).
language acquisition. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 49, 287–292. doi: 10.1044/jshd. Event representations constrain the structure of language: sign language as a
4903.287 window into universally accessible linguistic biases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
Ortega, G. (2013). Acquisition of a Signed Phonological System by Hearing Adults: 112, 5968–5973. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423080112
The Role of Sign Structure and Iconicity. Ph.D. thesis, University College Suanda, S. H., Walton, K. M., Broesch, T., Kolkin, L., and Namy, L. L. (2013). Why
London, London. two-year-olds fail to learn gestures as object labels: evidence from looking time
Ortega, G., and Morgan, G. (2015a). Input processing at first exposure to a sign and forced-choice measures. Lang. Learn. Dev. 9, 50–65. doi: 10.1080/15475441.
language. Second Lang. Res. 19, 443–463. doi: 10.1177/0267658315576822 2012.723189
Ortega, G., and Morgan, G. (2015b). Phonological development in hearing learners Sümer, B. (2015). Acquisition of Spatial Language by Signing and Speaking Children:
of a sign language: the influence of phonological parameters, sign complexity, A Comparison of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) and Turkish. Ph.D. thesis,
and iconicity. Lang. Learn. 65, 660–688. doi: 10.1111/lang.12123 Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen.
Ortega, G., and Morgan, G. (2015c). The effect of iconicity in the mental lexicon of Supalla, T. (1982). Structure and Acquisition of Verbs of Motion in American Sign
hearing non-signers and proficient signers: evidence of cross- modal priming. Language. La Jolla, CA: University of California San Diego.
Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 30, 574–585. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.959533 Tamminen, J., and Gaskell, M. G. (2008). Newly learned spoken words show long-
Ortega, G., Sümer, B., and Özyürek, A. (2014). “Type of iconicity matters: Bias term lexical competition effects. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 61, 361–371. doi: 10.1090/
for action-based signs in sign language acquisition,” in Proceedings of the 36th 17470210701634545
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds P. Bello, M. Guarini, Taub, S. (2001). Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American
M. McShane, and B. Scassellatie (Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society), Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/
1114–1119. CBO9780511509629
Ortega, G., Sümer, B., and Özyürek, A. (2017). Type of iconicity matters in Tellier, M. (2008). The effect of gestures on second language memorisation by
the vocabulary development of signing children. Dev. Psychol. 53, 89–99. young children. Gesture 8, 219–235. doi: 10.1075/gest.8.2.06tel
doi: 10.1037/dev0000161 Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., and Vigliocco, G. (2010). The link between form
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations. A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford: and meaning in British sign language: effects of iconicity for phonological
Oxford University Press. decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 36, 1017–1027. doi: 10.1037/
Perniss, P., Lu, J. C., Morgan, G., and Vigliocco, G. (2017). Mapping language a0019339
to the world: The role of iconicity in the sign language input. Dev. Sci. Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., Woll, B., and Vigliocco, G. (2013). The road to
doi: 10.1111/desc.12551 [Epub ahead of print]. language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychol. Sci.
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L., and Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general 23, 1443–1448. doi: 10.1177/0956797612459763
property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Front. Tolar, T. D., Lederberg, A. R., Gokhale, S., and Tomasello, M. (2008). The
Psychol. 1:227. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227 development of the ability to recognize the meaning of iconic signs. J. Deaf Stud.
Perniss, P., and Vigliocco, G. (2014). The bridge of iconicity?: from a world of Deaf Educ. 13, 225–240. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enm045
experience to the experience of language the bridge of iconicity?: from a world van der Kooij, E. (2002). Phonological Categories in Sign Language of the
of experience to the experience of language. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Netherlands: The Role of Phonetic Implementation and Iconicity. Utrecht: LOT.
Sci. 369:20130300. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0300 VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: an experiment
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York, NY: W. W. in consciousness. Stud. Second Lang. Acquisit. 12, 287–301. doi: 10.1017/
Norton & Company. S0272263100009177
Pietrandrea, P. (2002). Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second
Lang. Stud. 2, 296–321. doi: 10.1353/sls.2002.0012 Language Acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Pizzuto, E., Pietrandrea, P., and Simone, R. (eds) (2007). Verbal and Signed VanPatten, B., and Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language
Languages. Comparing Structures, Constructs, and Methodologies. Berlin: acquisition: a role for instruction. Mod. Lang. J. 77, 45–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
Mouton de Gruyter. 4781.1993.tb01944.x
Pizzuto, E., and Volterra, V. (2000). “Iconicity and transparency in Sign Languages: Vigliocco, G., Perniss, P., and Vinson, D. (2014). Language as a multimodal
A cross-linguistic cross-cultural view,” in The Signs of Language Revisited: An phenomenon: implications for language learning, processing and evolution.
Anthology to Honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, eds K. Emmorey and Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 369:20130292. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.
H. L. Lane (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 229–250. 0292
Revill, K. P., Namy, L. L., Defife, L. C., and Nygaard, L. C. (2014). Cross-linguistic Vinson, D. P., Cormier, K., Denmark, T., Schembri, A., and Vigliocco, G. (2008).
sound symbolism and crossmodal correspondence: evidence from fMRI and The British Sign Language (BSL) norms for age of acquisition, familiarity, and
DTI. Brain Lang. 128, 18–24. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.11.002 iconicity. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 1079–1087. doi: 10.3758/brm.40.4.1079
Rinaldi, P., Caselli, M. C., Di Renzo, A., Gulli, T., and Volterra, V. (2014). Sign Wilbur, R. B. (2003). Representation of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguist. Soc. 39,
vocabulary in deaf toddlers exposed to sign language since birth. J. Deaf Stud. 354–368.
Deaf Educ. 19, 303–318. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enu007 Woolfe, T., Herman, R., Roy, P., and Woll, B. (2010). Early vocabulary
Sandler, W., and Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. development in deaf native signers: a British Sign Language adaptation of the
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO97811391 communicative development inventories. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied
63910 Discip. 51, 322–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02151.x
Schembri, A. C. (2003). “Rethinking “classifiers” in signed languages,” in
Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, ed. K. Emmorey Conflict of Interest Statement: The author declares that the research was
(Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 3–34. conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
Simper-Allen, P. (2016). “Cut and Break” Description in Swedish Sign Language. be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Children and Adults’ Depicting Verb Constructions. Stockholm: Stockholm
University. Copyright © 2017 Ortega. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms
Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
Communication Systems of the American Deaf, Vol. 8. Silver Spring, MD: reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor
Linstok Press. are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance
Stokoe, W. C. (2001). Semantic Phonology. Sign Lang. Stud. 1, 434–441. with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted
doi: 10.1353/sls.2001.0019 which does not comply with these terms.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 August 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1280