Studies have shown that iconicity can provide a benefit to non-signers during the learning of single signs, but other aspects of signed messages that might also be beneficial have received less attention. In particular, do other features of signed languages help support comprehension of a message during the process of language learning? The following exploratory study investigates the comprehension of sentences in two signed and two spoken languages by non-signers and by American Sign Language (ASL) learners. The design allows for the examination of message comprehension, with a comparison of unknown spoken and signed languages. Details of the stimulus sentences are provided in order to contextualize features of the signing that might be providing benefits for comprehension. Included in this analysis are aspects of the sentences that are iconic and spatially deictic – some of which resemble common gestural forms of communication. The results indicate that iconicity and referential points in signed language likely assist with comprehension of sentences, even for non-signers and for a signed language that the ASL signers have not studied.
BausCCarreirasMEmmoreyK (2013) When does iconicity in sign language matter?Language and Cognitive Processes28: 261–71.
2.
CaselliNPyersJE (2017) The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate sign of acquisition language. Psychological Science28: 979–87.
3.
Chen PichlerD (2009) Sign production by first-time hearing signers: A closer look at handshape accuracy. Cadernos de Saúde2: 37–50. Special volume on sign languages.
4.
Chen PichlerDKoulidobrovaEPalmerJL (2019) Modality-(in)dependent second language learning. Senri Ethnological Studies101: 165–86.
5.
ChoiSLantolfJP (2008) Representation and embodiment of meaning in L2 communication: Motion events in the speech and gesture of advanced L2 Korean and L2 English speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition30: 191–224.
6.
ClarkHHGerrigRJ (1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language66: 764–805.
7.
CormierKSchembriAWollB (2013) Pronouns and pointing in sign languages. Lingua137: 230–47.
8.
DingemanseMPerlmanMPernissP (2020) Construals of iconicity: Experimental approaches to form–meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition12: 1–14.
9.
EarisHCormierK (2013) Point of view in British Sign Language and spoken English narrative discourse: The example of ‘The Tortoise and the Hare’. Language and Cognition5: 313–43.
10.
Engberg-PedersenE (2003) From pointing to reference and predication: Signs, eyegaze, and head and body orientation in Danish Sign Language. In: KitaS (ed.) Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press, pp. 269–92.
11.
FenlonJCooperriderKKeaneJBrentariDGoldin-MeadowS (2019) Comparing sign language and gesture: Insights from pointing. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics4: 2.
12.
GullbergM (1998) Gesture as a communication strategy in second language discourse: A study of learners of French and Swedish. Lund: Lund University Press.
13.
GullbergM (2006) Handling discourse: Gestures, reference tracking, and communication strategies in early L2. Language Learning56: 155–96.
14.
GullbergM (2009) Reconstructing verb meaning in a second language. How English speakers of L2 Dutch talk and gesture about placement. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics7: 221–44.
15.
GullbergMHolmqvistK (1999) Keeping an eye on gestures: Visual perception of gestures in face-to-face communication. Pragmatics and Cognition7: 35–63.
16.
GullbergMMcCaffertySG (2008) Introduction to gesture and SLA: Toward an integrated approach. Studies in Second Language Acquisition30: 133–46.
17.
HallCJ (2002) The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the parasitic model of vocabulary development. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching40: 69–87.
18.
ImaiMKitaS (2014) The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and language evolution. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences369: 2013.0298.
19.
ImaiMKitaSNagumoMOkadaH (2008) Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition109: 54–65.
20.
JankeVMarshallC (2017) Using the hands to represent objects in space: Gesture as a substrate for signed language acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology8: 2007.
21.
LaingC (2019) A role for onomatopoeia in early language: Evidence from phonological development. Language and Cognition11: 173–87.
22.
LiddellSMetzgerM (1998) Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics30: 657–97.
23.
MasraiA (2020) Can L2 phonological vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension be developed through extensive movie viewing? The case of Arab EFL learners. International Journal of Listening34: 54–69.
24.
McBurneyS (2002) Pronominal reference in signed and spoken language: Are grammatical categories modality-dependent? In: MeierRCormierKQuinto-PozosD (eds) Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 329–69.
25.
McCaffertySG (2004) Space for cognition: Gesture and second language learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics14: 148–65.
MorettLM (2015) Lending a hand to signed language acquisition: enactment and iconicity enhance sign recall in hearing adult American Sign Language learners. Journal of Cognitive Psychology27: 251–76.
28.
NegueruelaELantolfJP (2008) The dialectics of gesture in the construction of meaning in second language oral narratives. In: McCaffertySGStamG (eds) Gesture: Second language acquisition and classroom research. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis, pp. 88–106.
29.
NielsenAKDingemanseM (2020) Iconicity in word learning and beyond: A critical review. Language and Speech64: 52–72.
30.
OrtegaG (2017) Iconicity and sign lexical acquisition: A review. Frontiers in Psychology8: 1280.
31.
OrtegaGMorganG (2015) Phonological development in hearing learners of a sign language: The influence of phonological parameters, sign complexity, and iconicity. Language Learning65: 660–88.
32.
OrtegaGSchiefnerAÖzyürekA (2019) Hearing non-signers use their gestures to predict iconic form–meaning mappings at first exposure to signs. Cognition191: 103996.
33.
OrtegaGSümerBÖzyürekA (2017) Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children. Developmental Psychology2017: 89–99.
34.
OrtegaGÖzyürekAPeetersD (2020) Iconic gestures serve as manual cognates in hearing second language learners of a sign language: An ERP study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition46: 403–15.
35.
PernissPViglioccoG (2014) The bridge of iconicity: from a world of experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences369: 2013.0300.
36.
PernissPThompsonRViglioccoG (2010) Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology1: 227.
37.
Quinto-PozosDParrillF (2015) Signers and co-speech gesturers adopt similar strategies for portraying viewpoint in narratives. TOPICS in Cognitive Science7: 12–35.
38.
Quinto-PozosDCormierKRamseyC (2009) Constructed action of highly animate referents: Evidence from American, British and Mexican Sign Languages. In:Paper presented at the 35th Annual Meetingof the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Special Session on Non-Speech Modalities), Berkeley, CA, 14–16February.
39.
SchembriA (2003) Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed languages. In: EmmoreyK (ed.) Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3–34.
40.
SehyrZSEmmoreyK (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 Cognition11: 208–34.
41.
SekineKKitaS (2015) Development of multimodal discourse comprehension: Cohesive use of space by gestures. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience30: 1245–58.
42.
ShermanJNicoladisE (2004) Gestures by advanced Spanish–English second-language learners. Gesture4: 143–56.
43.
StecKHuiskesMRedekerG (2017). Multimodal quotation: Role shift in spoken narratives. Journal of Pragmatics104: 1–17.
44.
SteinbachM (2021) Role shift. In: QuerJPfauRHerrmannA (eds) The Routledge handbook of theoretical and experimental sign language research. Abingdon: Routledge.
45.
ThompsonLAMassaroDW (1986) Evaluation and integration of speech and pointing gestures during referential understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology42: 144–68.
46.
ThompsonRLVinsonDPWollBViglioccoG (2012) The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science23: 1443–48.
47.
WangYTreffers-DallerJ (2017) Explaining listening comprehension among L2 learners of English: The contribution of general language proficiency, vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive awareness. System65: 139–50.
48.
WeisbergJCaseySSehyrZSEmmoreyK (2020) Second language acquisition of American Sign Language influences co-speech gesture production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition23: 473–82.
49.
WilcoxSWilcoxP (1997) Learning to see. Teaching American Sign Language as a second language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
50.
ZeshanUPandaS (2019) Two languages at hand: Code-switching in bilingual deaf signers. In: ZeshanUWebsterJ (eds) Sign multilingualism: Volume 7. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
51.
ZhangSZhangX (2020) The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading/listening comprehension: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 31March2020. DOI: 10.1177/1362168820913998.
