Iconic mappings between words and their meanings are far more prevalent than once estimated and seem to support children’s acquisition of new words, spoken or signed. We asked whether iconicity’s prevalence in sign language overshadows two other factors known to support the acquisition of spoken vocabulary: neighborhood density (the number of lexical items phonologically similar to the target) and lexical frequency. Using mixed-effects logistic regressions, we reanalyzed 58 parental reports of native-signing deaf children’s productive acquisition of 332 signs in American Sign Language (ASL; Anderson & Reilly, 2002) and found that iconicity, neighborhood density, and lexical frequency independently facilitated vocabulary acquisition. Despite differences in iconicity and phonological structure between signed and spoken language, signing children, like children learning a spoken language, track statistical information about lexical items and their phonological properties and leverage this information to expand their vocabulary.
AndersonD.ReillyJ. (2002). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Normative data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 83–106.
2.
BausC.CarreirasM.EmmoreyK. (2013). When does iconicity in sign language matter?Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 261–271.
3.
BausC.Gutiérrez-SigutE.QuerJ.CarreirasM. (2008). Lexical access in Catalan Signed Language (LSC) production. Cognition, 108, 856–865.
4.
BrentariD. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
BrownR. (1978). Why are signed languages easier to learn than spoken languages? Part two. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 32(3), 25–44.
6.
CarlsonM. T.SondereggerM.BaneM. (2014). How children explore the phonological network in child-directed speech: A survival analysis of children’s first word productions. Journal of Memory and Language, 75, 159–180.
7.
CarreirasM.Gutiérrez-SigutE.BaqueroS.CorinaD. (2008). Lexical processing in Spanish Sign Language (LSE). Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 100–122.
8.
CaselliN. K.Cohen-GoldbergA. M. (2014). Lexical access in sign language: A computational model. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 428. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00428
9.
CaselliN. K.Sevcikova SehyrZ.Cohen-GoldbergA. M.EmmoreyK. (2016). ASL-LEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.3758/s13428-016-0742-0
10.
CoadyJ. A.AslinR. N. (2003). Phonological neighbourhoods in the developing lexicon. Journal of Child Language, 30, 441–469.
11.
DeLoacheJ. S.KolstadV.AndersonK. N. (1991). Physical similarity and young children’s understanding of scale models. Child Development, 62, 111–126.
12.
EmmoreyK. (2014). Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, Article 20130301. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0301
13.
FensonL.DaleP. S.ReznickJ. S.ThalD.BatesE.HartungJ. P.. . . ReillyJ. S. (1993). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: User’s guide and technical manual. San Diego, CA: Singular.
14.
GentnerD.NamyL. L. (2006). Analogical processes in language learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 297–301.
15.
GentnerD.RattermannM. J. (1991). Language and the career of similarity. In GelmanS. A.ByrnesJ. P. (Eds.), Perspectives on thought and language: Interrelations in development (pp. 225–277). London, England: Cambridge University Press.
16.
GoodmanJ. C.DaleP. S.LiP. (2008). Does frequency count? Parental input and the acquisition of vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 35, 515–531.
LieberthA. K.GambleM. E. B. (1991). The role of iconicity in sign language learning by hearing adults. Journal of Communication Disorders, 24, 89–99.
19.
MagidR. W.PyersJ. E. (2017). “I use it when I see it”: The role of development and experience in Deaf and hearing children’s understanding of iconic gesture. Cognition, 162, 73–86. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.015
20.
MarentetteP.NicoladisE. (2011). Preschoolers’ interpretations of gesture: Label or action associate?Cognition, 121, 386–399.
21.
MayberryR. I.FischerS. D. (1989). Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The bottleneck of non-native sign language processing. Memory & Cognition, 17, 740–754.
22.
MayberryR. I.WitcherP. (2005, November). Age of acquisition effects on lexical access in ASL: Evidence for the psychological reality of phonological processing in sign language. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
23.
MeierR. P. (1982). Icons, analogues, and morphemes: The acquisition of verb agreement in American Sign Language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, San Diego.
24.
MeierR. P.MaukC. E.CheekA.MorelandC. J. (2008). The form of children’s early signs: Iconic or motoric determinants?Language Learning and Development, 4, 63–98.
25.
MonaghanP.ShillcockR. C.ChristiansenM. H.KirbyS. (2014). How arbitrary is language?Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, Article 20130299. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0299
26.
OrlanskyM. D.BonvillianJ. D. (1984). The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 287–292.
27.
OrtegaG.SümerB.ÖzyürekA. (2016). Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children. Developmental Psychology, 53, 89–99.
28.
PernissP.ThompsonR. L.ViglioccoG. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, Article 227. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
29.
PerryL. K.PerlmanM.LupyanG. (2015). Iconicity in English and Spanish and its relation to lexical category and age of acquisition. PLoS ONE, 10(9), Article e0137147. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137147
30.
SaffranJ. R.AslinR. N.NewportE. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.
31.
SiedleckiT.Jr.BonvillianJ. D. (1998). Homonymy in the lexicons of young children acquiring American Sign Language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 47–68.
32.
SosaA. V.Stoel-GammonC. (2012). Lexical and phonological effects in early word production. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 596–608.
33.
SpencerP.HarrisM. (2005). Patterns and effects of language input to deaf infants and toddlers from deaf and hearing mothers. In MarscharkM.SpencerP. (Eds.), Sign language development (pp. 77–101). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
34.
StorkelH. L. (2004). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 201–221.
35.
StorkelH. L. (2009). Developmental differences in the effects of phonological, lexical and semantic variables on word learning by infants. Journal of Child Language, 36, 291–321.
36.
StorkelH. L.LeeS. (2011). The independent effects of phonotactic probability and neighbourhood density on lexical acquisition by preschool children. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 191–211.
37.
TaubS. F. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
38.
ThiessenE. D. (2007). The effect of distributional information on children’s use of phonemic contrasts. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 16–34.
39.
ThompsonR. L.VinsonD. P.WollB.ViglioccoG. (2012). The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science, 23, 1443–1448.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
