Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Sep 19;369(1651):20130301.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0301.

Iconicity as structure mapping

Karen Emmorey  1
Affiliations

Iconicity as structure mapping

Karen Emmorey. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. .

Abstract

Linguistic and psycholinguistic evidence is presented to support the use of structure-mapping theory as a framework for understanding effects of iconicity on sign language grammar and processing. The existence of structured mappings between phonological form and semantic mental representations has been shown to explain the nature of metaphor and pronominal anaphora in sign languages. With respect to processing, it is argued that psycholinguistic effects of iconicity may only be observed when the task specifically taps into such structured mappings. In addition, language acquisition effects may only be observed when the relevant cognitive abilities are in place (e.g. the ability to make structural comparisons) and when the relevant conceptual knowledge has been acquired (i.e. information key to processing the iconic mapping). Finally, it is suggested that iconicity is better understood as a structured mapping between two mental representations than as a link between linguistic form and human experience.

Keywords: analogue-building model; anaphora; iconicity; metaphor; sign language; structure mapping.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
An example of analogue-building model process for the sign BIRD in American Sign Language (top) and in Turkish Sign Language (bottom). (Online version in colour.)
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Illustrations of the iconic metaphorical ASL sign (a) THINK-PENETRATE and the iconic sign (b) EAT.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Illustration of the embedded loci in signing space for the examples in (2) in the text (§2b). Adapted from [12].
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Illustrations of the ASL signs from [22].
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Illustration of the ‘handling’ sign (a) MOP and the ‘non-handling’ sign (b) BROOM.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Mandel M. 1977. Iconic devices in American Sign Language. In On the other hand: new perspectives on American Sign Language (ed. Friedman LA.), pp. 57–107. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    1. Perniss P, Thompson T, Vigliocco G. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Front. Psychol. 1, 1–15. (10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Taub SF. 2001. Language from the body: iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Thompson RL. 2011. Iconicity in language processing and acquisition: what signed languages reveal. Lang. Linguist. Compass 5, 603–616. (10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00301.x) - DOI
    1. Gentner D. 1983. Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 7, 155–170.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources