Schedule 75. StuTS

Sign languages are primarily produced with the hands as manual articulators. As suggested in sign language and gestural studies [1,2,3], the nature of the visual-spatial modality affords a high potential for iconic representation [4,5]. The perception of iconicity, however, depends on an individual’s language experience [6,7].

As part of my master’s thesis, this study investigates the perception of iconicity in Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL) lexicon by participants of different linguistic backgrounds: HKSL signers, German Sign Language (DGS) signers and sign naïve L1 Cantonese speakers. 59 HKSL signs from three semantic categories (animal, human and tool) are selected for an iconicity rating task. They were categorised by iconic mapping strategy (e.g., handling for depicting how an object is held) and an additional category for compounds due to their high prevalence in HKSL signs. Participants were asked to rate, on a 7-point scale, the degree of similarity between the sign and the corresponding meaning. By collecting the subjective ratings of these signs, this study examines (1) the extent to which the iconicity ratings depend on the semantic category and mapping strategy of a sign; and (2) how different aspects of language experience impacts one’s perception of iconicity in signs.

While data collection is ongoing for DGS signers, the preliminary data favours the idea that iconicity is influenced by language experience. The ratings are also likely dependent on the signs’ semantic category and mapping strategy with a similar pattern observed across groups. Additionally, it is observed that non-native components, particularly the depiction of Chinese characters would significantly increase the perceived iconicity for non-signers. This investigation provides insights into how signers and non-signers construe the form and meaning of a linguistic sign. In particular, it sheds light on the role of non-native component, which is an understudied aspect, in sign language iconicity.

[1] Hou, L. (2018). Iconic Patterns in San Juan Quiahije Chatino Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 18(4), 570–611. https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2018.0017
[2] Hwang, S.-O., Tomita, N., Morgan, H., Ergin, R., İlkbaşaran, D., Seegers, S., Lepic, R., & Padden, C. (2017). Of the body and the hands: Patterned iconicity for semantic categories. Language and Cognition, 9(4), 573–602. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.28
[3] Padden, C., Hwang, S.-O., Lepic, R., & Seegers, S. (2015). Tools for Language: Patterned Iconicity in Sign Language Nouns and Verbs. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12121
[4] Ortega, G., & Özyürek, A. (2020). Systematic mappings between semantic categories and types of iconic representations in the manual modality: A normed database of silent gesture. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01204-6
[5] Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a General Property of Language: Evidence from Spoken and Signed Languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
[6] Occhino, C., Anible, B., Wilkinson, E., & Morford, J. P. (2017). Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder: How language experience affects perceived iconicity. Gesture, 16(1), 100–126. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ
[7] Sevcikova Sehyr, Z., & Emmorey, K. (2019). The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguis2c knowledge and task: Evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cogni3on, 11(2), 208–234. haps://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.18

Info

Day: 2024-05-10
Start time: 16:40
Duration: 00:30
Room: Fish (33.1.010)
Track: Diverse
Language: en

Links:

• iCalendar

Feedback

Click here to let us know how you liked this event.