Iconicity in sign languages

Eline Demey · Mieke Van Herreweghe · Myriam Vermeerbergen

74 citations0/0 files storedIconicity in language and literature

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Hearing Impairment and Communication Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation Hand Gesture Recognition Systems

Abstract

Sign languages are visual-gestural communication systems with a great potential for iconic structures and indeed, in sign languages iconicity is pervasive, both on the lexical and the grammical levels. However, in early sign language research the role of iconicity was downplayed in order to stress the similarities in structure between sign languages and spoken languages. For some authors, on the other hand, iconicity has been a reason for claiming that sign languages are organised in a fundamentally different way from spoken languages. Looking at sign languages from a phonological perspective, important questions remain unanswered in both these approaches. In this paper we try to provide answers to two questions. First, does iconicity play a part in the linguistic structure of sign languages and are sign language users aware of it? Second, what is the status of the sublexical elements in sign languages, and more specifically, should they be considered as phonemes or as morphemes? In the first section of the paper we shall explore the various forms of iconicity in sign languages, using the framework of Taub’s Analogue Building Model (2001). In the second and third sections we shall confront two approaches of sign language phonology, Cuxac’s sign language differential view with a focus on iconicity as the fundamental organising principle (1996, 2000) and the more spoken language compatible concepts of phonetic and semantic implementation by Van der Kooij (2002). These two accounts are the point of departure for the fourth section in which we shall put forward a proposal of an iconic superstructure which addresses iconicity in both the spoken and signed modalities and which offers an answer to both above-mentioned questions.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 74 citations exist upstream.

References

1975Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language 1997Language from the body iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language 1985Natural syntax : iconicity and erosion 1999On Defining Lexeme in a Signed Language 2002Phonological Categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The Role of Phonetic Implementation and Iconicity 2005Past and current trends in sign language research 2007Simultaneity in French Sign Language Discourse

Cited by

2021Disentangling Pantomime From Early Sign in a New Sign Language: Window Into Language Evolution Research 2026The evolution of linguistic iconicity and the cross-modal cognitive suite

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.