title: Iconicity as structure mapping.
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.
authors.affiliation: Laboratory for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University, 6495 Alvarado Road, San Diego, CA 92120, USA kemmorey@mail.sdsu.edu.
authors.forename: Karen
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Emmorey
mesh_terms: D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D007804:Language Development; D019365:Metaphor; D008960:Models, Psychological; D012660:Semantics; D012813:Sign Language; D013561:Symbolism
keywords: analogue-building model; anaphora; iconicity; metaphor; sign language; structure mapping
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2005 Jan;112(1):193-216
references.pmid: 15631593
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Jul;36(4):1017-27
references.pmid: 20565217
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Nov;36(6):1573-81
references.pmid: 20919784
references.citation: J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2002 Spring;7(2):83-106
references.pmid: 15451878
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Aug;12(4):696-702
references.pmid: 16447384
references.citation: J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2008 Spring;13(2):225-40
references.pmid: 17827446
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2010 Jan;21(1):21-5
references.pmid: 20424017
references.citation: Lang Cogn Process. 2013 Mar 1;28(3):261-271
references.pmid: 23543899
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:617-45
references.pmid: 17705682
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2012 Dec;23(12):1443-8
references.pmid: 23150275
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2007 Jan;35(1):39-49
references.pmid: 17533878
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2010 Dec 31;1:227
references.pmid: 21833282
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Mar;35(2):550-7
references.pmid: 19271866
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2008 Nov;11(6):841-6
references.pmid: 19046152
references.citation: J Speech Hear Disord. 1984 Aug;49(3):287-92
references.pmid: 6748624
references.citation: Language (Baltim). 2005 Jun;81(2):301-344
references.pmid: 22223926
references.citation: Child Dev. 1991 Aug;62(4):736-52
references.pmid: 1718666
references.citation: Nat Lang Linguist Theory. 2011 May;29(2):503-543
references.pmid: 22223927
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Aug;22(4):577-609; discussion 610-60
references.pmid: 11301525
references.citation: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2004 Jun;4(2):133-6
references.pmid: 15460920