This longitudinal study examined how sign duration in Israeli Sign Language infant-directed input is shaped by linguistic and developmental factors. Two Deaf mothers were video-recorded interacting naturally with their hearing children between 10 and 36 months of age. Sign duration decreased with child age, reflecting a shift from pedagogically enriched to more compact input. Iconic signs were elongated relative to non-iconic signs, particularly at younger ages, suggesting a perceptual scaffolding function. Lexical category was the strongest predictor: object and attribute signs were consistently produced with longer durations than action or function signs. Lexical frequency had no significant effect on sign duration. Qualitative observations identified prosodic strategies—such as final holds and enlarged movement—to enhance visual salience during early input. These findings underscore how Deaf caregivers adapt their signing to the child’s developmental level, using prosodic modulation informed by iconic and lexical features. Sign duration thus emerges as a dynamic and communicatively motivated feature of infant-directed signing, supporting early language acquisition in the visual-manual modality.
AbnerN.FlahertyM.StanglK.CoppolaM.BrentariD.Goldin-MeadowS. (2019). The noun-verb distinction in established and emergent sign systems. Language, 95(2), 230–267.
2.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS.ChristensenR. H. B.SingmannH.DaiB.GrothendieckG.GreenP.BolkerM. B. (2015). Package ‘lme4’. Convergence, 12(1), 2.
3.
BaxterP.JackS. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
4.
BolingerD. (1985). The inherent iconism of intonation. In HaimanJ. (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 97–108). John Benjamins.
5.
CaselliN. K.PyersJ. E. (2017). The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate acquisition of sign language. Psychological Science, 28(7), 979–987.
6.
CaselliN. K.PyersJ. E. (2020). Degree and not type of iconicity affects sign language vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(1), 127–139.
7.
CrasbornO. (2001). Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands [Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University].
8.
DingemanseM.BlasiD. E.LupyanG.ChristiansenM. H.MonaghanP. (2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 603–615.
9.
ELAN (Version 5.3). (2018). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan
10.
EmmoreyK. (2014). Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1651), 20130301. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0301
11.
ErtingC. J.PreziosoC.O’Grady HynesM. (1990). The interactional context of mother-infant communication. In VolterraV.ErtingC. J. (Eds.), From gesture to language in hearing and deaf children (pp. 97–106). Springer.
12.
FernaldA.TaeschnerT.DunnJ.PapousekM.de Boysson-BardiesB.FukuiI. (1989). A cross-language study of prosodic modifications in mothers’ and fathers’ speech to preverbal infants. Journal of Child Language, 16(3), 477–501.
13.
FerraraC.LuJ. C.Goldin-MeadowS. (2025). Playing with language in the manual modality: Which motions do signers gradiently modify?. Cognitive Science, 49(4), e70051.
14.
FieldsteelZ.BottomsA.LiebermanA. M. (2020). Nouns and verbs in parent input in American Sign Language during interaction among deaf dyads. Language Learning and Development, 16(4), 351–363.
15.
FitchA.ArunachalamS.LiebermanA. M. (2021). Mapping word to world in ASL: Evidence from a human simulation paradigm. Cognitive Science, 45(12), e13061.
16.
FuksO. (2020). Developmental path in input modifications and the use of iconicity in early hearing infant–deaf mother interactions. American Annals of the Deaf, 165(4), 418–435.
17.
FuksO. (2022). Infants’ use of iconicity in the early periods of sign/spoken word-learning. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 28(1), 21–31.
18.
FuksO. (2023). Iconicity perception under the lens of iconicity rating and transparency tasks in Israeli Sign Language (ISL). Sign Language Studies, 24(1), 46–92.
19.
FurrowD.NelsonK.BenedictH. (1979). Mothers’ speech to children and syntactic development: Some simple relationships. Journal of Child Language, 6, 423–442.
20.
GappmayrP.LiebermanA. M.PyersJ.CaselliN. K. (2022). Do parents modify child-directed signing to emphasize iconicity?Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 920729. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920729
21.
GivonT. (1984). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
22.
HaimanJ. (1985). Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge University Press.
23.
HarrisM.ClibbensJ.ChasinJ.TibbittsR. (1989). The social context of early sign language development. First Language, 9, 81–97.
24.
HartB.RisleyT. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Brookes.
25.
HolowkaS.Brosseau-LapréF.PetittoL. A. (2002). Semantic and conceptual knowledge underlying bilingual babies’ first signs and words. Language Learning, 52(2), 205–262.
26.
HolzrichterA. S.MeierR. P. (2000). Child-directed signing in American Sign Language. In ChamberlainC.MorfordJ. P.MayberryR. I. (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye (pp. 25–40). Erlbaum.
27.
IversonJ. M.CapirciO.CaselliM. C. (1994). From communication to language in two modalities. Cognitive Development, 9(1), 23–43.
28.
JebbA. T.ParrigonS.WooS. E. (2017). Exploratory data analysis as a foundation of inductive research. Human Resource Management Review, 27(2), 265–276.
29.
KarzonR. G. (1985). Discrimination of polysyllabic sequences by one-to-four-month-old infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39(2), 326–342.
30.
KempeV.SchaefflerS.ThoresenJ. C. (2010). Prosodic disambiguation in child-directed speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(2), 204–225.
KlimaE. S.BellugiU. (1979). The signs of language. Harvard University Press.
33.
MaW.GolinkoffR. M.HoustonD. M.Hirsh-PasekK. (2011). Word learning in infant-and adult-directed speech. Language Learning and Development, 7(3), 185–201.
34.
MaitalS. L.DromiE.SagiA.BornsteinM. H. (2000). The Hebrew Communicative Development Inventory: Language specific properties and cross-linguistic generalizations. Journal of Child Language, 27(1), 43–67.
35.
MasatakaN. (1992). Motherese in a signed language. Infant Behavior and Development, 15, 453–460.
MeierR. P.MaukC. E.CheekA.MorelandC. J. (2008). The form of children’s early signs: Iconic or motoric determinants?. Language Learning and Development, 4(1), 63–98.
38.
MohayH.MiltonL.HindmarshG.GanleyK. (1998). Deaf mothers as language models for hearing families with deaf children. In WeiselA. (Ed.), Issues unresolved: New perspectives on language and deafness (pp. 76–87). Gallaudet University Press.
39.
MorganH. E.SandlerW.StampR.NovogrodskyR. (2022, June). ISL-LEX v. 1: An online lexical resource of Israeli Sign Language. In sign-lang@ LREC 2022 (pp. 148–153). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
40.
MotamediY.MurgianoM.PernissP.WonnacottE.MarshallC.Goldin-MeadowS.ViglioccoG. (2021). Linking language to sensory experience: Onomatopoeia in early language development. Developmental Science, 24(3), e13066.
41.
NovogrodskyR.MeirN. (2020). Age, frequency, and iconicity in early sign language acquisition: Evidence from the Israeli Sign Language MacArthur–Bates Communicative Developmental Inventory. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41(4), 817–845.
42.
OcchinoC.AnibleB.WilkinsonE.MorfordJ. P. (2017). Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder: How language experience affects perceived iconicity. Gesture, 16(1), 100–126.
43.
OrtegaG. (2017). Iconicity and sign lexical acquisition: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1280.
44.
PeirceC. S. (1931–1966). The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce (Vol. 8). Harvard University Press.
45.
PerlmanM.FusaroliR.FeinD.NaiglesL. (2017). The use of iconic words in early child-parent interactions. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 913–918). Cognitive Science Society.
46.
PernissP.LuJ. C.MorganG.ViglioccoG. (2018). Mapping language to the world: The role of iconicity in the sign language input. Developmental Science, 21(2), e12551. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12551
47.
PernissP.ThompsonR. L.ViglioccoG. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227.
48.
PernissP.ViglioccoG. (2014). The bridge of iconicity: From a world of experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369(1651), 20130300. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0300
49.
PerryL. K.PerlmanM.LupyanG. (2015). Iconicity in English and Spanish and its relation to lexical category and age of acquisition. PLoS One, 10(9), e0137147.
50.
PerryL. K.PerlmanM.WinterB.MassaroD. W.LupyanG. (2018). Iconicity in the speech of children and adults. Developmental Science, 21(3), e12572.
51.
PetittoL. A.KaterelosM.LevyB. G.GaunaK.TétreaultK.FerraroV. (2001). Bilingual signed and spoken language acquisition from birth: Implications for the mechanisms underlying early bilingual language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 28(2), 453–496.
52.
PietrandreaP. (2002). Iconicity and arbitrariness in Italian sign language. Sign Language Studies, 2(3), 296–321.
53.
PietrandreaP.RussoT. (2007). Diagrammatic and imagic hypoicons in signed and verbal language. In PizzutoE.PietrandreaP.SimoneR. (Eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies. De Gruyter.
54.
PizerG.ShawK. M.MeierR. P. (2008, November1–2). Joint attention and child-directed signing in American Sign Language. In Supplement to the Proceedings of the 32nd Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
55.
SandlerW.Lillo-MartinD. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press.
56.
SehyrZ. S.EmmoreyK. (2019). The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: Evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cognition, 11(2), 208–234.
57.
ShintelH.NusbaumH. C.OkrentA. (2006). Analog acoustic expression in speech communication. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 167–177.
58.
SinghL.NestorS.ParikhC.YullA. (2009). Influences of infant-directed speech on early word recognition. Infancy, 14(6), 654–666.
59.
SnowC. E. (1977). Mothers’ speech research: From input to interaction. In SnowC. E.FergusonC. A. (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition (pp. 31–49). Cambridge University Press.
60.
StebbinsR. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Sage.
61.
SupallaT.NewportE. (1978). How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In SipleP. (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 91–132). Academic Press.
62.
TaubS. F. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.
63.
ThompsonR. L.VinsonD. P.WollB.ViglioccoG. (2012). The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1443–1448.
64.
TkachmanO.SandlerW. (2013). The noun–verb distinction in two young sign languages. Gesture, 13(3), 253–286.
65.
TolarT. D.LederbergA. R.GokhaleS.TomaselloM. (2008). The development of the ability to recognize the meaning of iconic signs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(2), 225–240.
66.
Van den BogaerdeB. (2000). Input and interaction in deaf families (Vol. 35). LOT.
67.
WaughL. R. (1994). Degrees of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(1), 55–70.
68.
WilcoxS. (2004a). Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed language. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 119–148.
69.
WilcoxS. (2004b). Gesture and language: Cross-linguistic and historical data from signed languages. Gesture, 4(1), 43–73.
70.
WilcoxS.OcchinoC. (2016). Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(3), 371–404.
71.
WinterB.PerlmanM.PerryL. K.LupyanG. (2017). Which words are most iconic? Iconicity in English sensory words. Interaction Studies, 18(3), 443–464.
72.
WittenburgP.BrugmanH.RusselA.KlassmannA.SloetjesH. (2006, May24–26). ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. In 5th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2006), Genoa, Italy (pp. 1556–1559).
73.
YinR. K. (2012). Case study methods. In CooperH.CamicP. M.LongD. L.PanterA. T.RindskopfD.SherK. J. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 141–155). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-009
