ICONICITY AND RESEMBLANCE DEFINED

In this chapter, we begin to look closely at iconicity in language: After establishing a definition of iconicity, we examine examples of iconicity in signed and spoken languages in some detail. Once we have gotten a sense of how iconicity manifests itself in language, we briefly review how linguists have treated iconicity. This discussion focuses on iconicity in signed languages and traces a development of sophistication in sign linguists' theories. The next chapter presents a cognitive model of iconicity in signed and spoken languages, and the following chapter (Chapter Five) gives a survey of types of iconic items in both modalities.

Let us start by considering the results of Pizzuto, Boyes-Braem, and Volterra (1996). This study tested the ability of naïve subjects to guess the meanings of signs from Italian Sign Language (LIS). Because one simple definition of iconicity is “form-meaning resemblance,” we might expect that we could use “guessability” (also called transparency) as a measure of a sign's iconicity. Yet Pizzuto et al. found strong culture-based variation: Some signs' meanings were easily guessed by non-Italian nonsigners; some were more transparent to non-Italian Deaf signers; and yet others were more easy for Italian nonsigners to guess. That is, some transparency seemed to be universal, some seemed linked to the experience of Deafness and signing, and some seemed to have a basis in Italian culture.

In interpreting these results, we can see the need for a definition of iconicity that takes culture and conceptualization into account.