Signs selected from lists used in studies with mentally retarded and autistic children and previously rated for visual iconicity were presented tactilely to 13 blind persons. Visual and tactile ratings were found to be very similar across blind and sighted groups. Statements of relationship between signs and their meanings were also found to be very similar for blind and sighted groups, suggesting that signs easily learned through the visual channel will be the most easily learned through the tactile channel. Teaching strategies were suggested by blind participants for use with deaf-blind children. Sign rankings for iconicity and relationships between signs and their meanings are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BellugiU., & KlimaE. S. (1976). Two faces of sign: Iconic and abstract.Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 280, 57–87.
2.
BrownR. (1977, May 30–June 3). Why are signed languages easier to learn than spoken languages? Paper presented during the National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, Chicago.
3.
FristoeM., & LloydL. (1977). Manual communication for the retarded and others with severe communication impairment: A resource list.Mental Retardation, 15(5), 18–21.
4.
FristoeM., & LloydL. (1980). Planning an initial expressive sign lexicon for persons with severe communication impairment.Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 45, 170–180.
5.
GriffithP., & RobinsonJ. H. (1980). The influence of iconicity and phonological similarity on sign learning in mentally retarded subjects.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 291–299.
6.
GriffithP., & RobinsonJ. H. (1981). A comparative and normative study of the iconicity of signs rated by three groups.American Annals of the Deaf, 126, 440–449.
7.
GriffithP., PanagosJ., & RobinsonJ. H. (1981). A three-dimensional approach to iconicity.Perceptual Motor Skills, 52, 665–666.
8.
GriffithP., RobinsonJ. H., & PanagosJ. (1981). Perception of iconicity in American Sign Language by three groups of observers.Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 46, 388–397.
9.
GriffithP., RobinsonJ. H., & PanagosJ. (1983). Tactile iconicity: Signs rated for used with deaf-blind children.Journal of the Association for Severely Handicapped, 8, 26–38.
10.
HollandA. (1975). Language therapy for children: Some thoughts on context and content.Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 40, 514–523.
11.
JensemaC. (1981). Report of communication method usage by teachers of deaf-blind children—Part II.American Annals of the Deaf, 126, 392–394.
12.
KonstantareasM. M., OxmanJ., & WebsterC. D. (1978). Iconicity: Effects on the acquisition of sign language by autistic and other severely dysfunctional children. In SipleP. (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 213–235). New York: Academic Press.
13.
LaheyM., & BloomL. (1977). Planning a first lexicon: Which words to teach first.Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 42, 340–349.
14.
LloydL., & FristoeM. (1978, March 8). Transparency of manual signs used with individuals having severe communication impairment. Paper presented at the 11th Gatlinburg Conference on Research in Mental Retardation, Gatlinburg, TN.
15.
MandelM. (1977, May 30–June 3). Iconicity of signs and their leamability by non-readers. Paper presented during the National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, Chicago.
16.
NelsonK. (1974). Concept, word, and sentence: Interrelations in acquisition and development.Psychological Review, 81, 267–285.
17.
RobinsonJ. H., & GriffithP. (1979). On the scientific status of iconicity.Sign Language Studies, 25, 297–315.
18.
StokoeW. C., CasterlineD., & CronebergC. (1965). A dictionary of Americn Sign Language on linguistic principles.Washington, DC: Gallaudet.
19.
WescottR. (1971). Linguistic iconism.Language, 47, 416–428.
