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, deaf, and hearing-sighted adults, and hearing-sighted children. Findings suggest that developmental language theory can account not only for the similarity in subjects' responses, but also for the particular signs that are most likely to be perceived as iconic. Sign rankings are provided, indicating the signs that should be most salient to deaf-blind children.
BrownR.Why are signed languages easier to learn than spoken language? Keynote address, National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Training, Chicago, May 30, 1977.
2.
LloydL.FristoeM.Transparency of manual signs used with individuals having severe communication impairment. Paper presented at the Eleventh Gatlinburg Conference on Research in Mental Retardation, Gatlinburg, TN, March 8, 1978.
3.
MandelM.Iconicity of signs and their learnability by non-signers. Paper presented at the National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, Chicago, May 30–June 3, 1977.
4.
RobbinsN.Selecting sign systems for multi-handicapped students. Paper presented before the American Speech and Hearing Association, Houston, TX, November 1976.
5.
WilsonP. S.Sign language as a means of communication for the mentally retarded. Paper presented at Eastern Psychological Association. New York, 1974.
6.
CreedonM. P.Language development in nonverbal autistic children using a simultaneous communication system. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. Philadelphia. 1973.
7.
BaronN. D.IsenseeL. M.Effectiveness of manual versus spoken language with an autistic child. Unpublished paper, Brown University, Providence, RI, 1976.
8.
BaronN.IsenseeL. M.Iconicity and learnability. Paper presented at the Second Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Cambridge, MA, September 30–October 1, 1977.
9.
BellugiU.KlimaE. S.Two faces of sign: Iconic and abstract. In HarnardS.HorstD.LancasterJ. (Eds.), Origins and evolution of language and speech. New York: New York Academy of Science, 1976.
10.
BonvillianJ.NelsonK.Development of sign language in autistic children and other language handicapped individuals. In SipleP. (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research. New York: Academic Press, 1978.
11.
FrishbergN.Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 1975, 51(3), 696–719.
12.
FristoeM.LloydL.Manual communication for the retarded and others with severe communication impairment: A resource list. Mental Retardation, 1977, 15(5), 18–21.
13.
FristoeM.LloydL.Planning an initial expressive sign lexicon for persons with severe communication impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1980, 45(2), 170–180.
14.
GoldM.RittenhouseR.Task analysis for teaching eight practical signs to deaf-blind individuals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 1978, 10(2), 34–37.
15.
GriffithP.PanagosJ.RobinsonJ. H.A three-dimensional approach to iconicity, Perceptual Motor Skills, 1981, 52, 665–666.
16.
GriffithP.RobinsonJ. H.The influence of iconicity and phonological similarity on sign learning in mentally retarded subjects. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1980, 85(4), 291–299.
17.
GriffithP.RobinsonJ. H.A comparative and normative study of the iconicity of signs rated by three groups. American Annals of the Deaf, 1981, 126(4), 440–449.
18.
GriffithP.RobinsonJ. H.PanagosJ.Perception of iconicity in American Sign Language by three groups of observers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1981, 46(4), 388–397.
19.
HollandA.Language therapy for children: Some thoughts on context and content. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1975, 40, 514–523.
20.
JensemaC.A review of communication systems used by deaf-blind people—Part I. American Annals of the Deaf, 1979, 124(6), 720–725.
21.
JensemaC.Report of communication method usage by teachers of deaf-blind children—Part II. American Annals of the Deaf, 1981, 126(4), 392–394.
22.
KonstantareasM. M.OxmanJ.WebsterC. D.Iconicity: Effects on the acquisition of sign language by autistic and other severely dysfunctional children. In SipleP. (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research. New York: Academic Press, 1978, 213–235.
23.
LaheyM.BloomL.Planning a first lexicon: Which words to teach first. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1977, 42, 340–349.
24.
NelsonK.Concept, word, and sentence: Interrelations in acquisition and development. Psychological Review, 1974, 81(4), 267–285.
25.
StokoeW. C.CasterlineD.CronebergC.A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet College Press, 1965.
