Editing Iconicity (section)

==Sign languages==
Iconicity is often argued to play a large role in the production and perception of [[gesture]]. In sign languages iconicity was often argued to be largely confined to sign formation (comparable to [[onomatopoeia]]). Some proponents believe that iconicity does not play an actual role in perception and production of signs once they have undergone phonological reduction and become part of the conventionalized vocabulary.<ref>Frishburg (1975).</ref> More recently, the possible role of iconicity is being evaluated again. Current research on sign language phonology acknowledges that certain aspects are semantically motivated. Further, the ability to modify sign meaning through phonological changes to signs is gaining attention. The ability to work creatively with sign language in this way has been associated with accomplished, or native signers.

Iconicity is expressed in the grammatical structure of [[sign languages]] called classifiers. These are used to give descriptive information about a subject or verb. In [[American Sign language]] (ASL) a grammatical marker denoting “intensity” is characterized by a movement pattern with two parts: an initial pause, followed by a quick completion. When this pattern is added to the adjective GOOD, the resulting meaning is VERY-GOOD.<ref>Wilcox (2004)</ref> The ASL marker for "intensity" is iconic in that the intended meaning (building of pressure, a sudden release) is matched by the articulatory form (a pause, a quick completion).

Like in vocal languages, developmental trends in ASL shy away from iconicity in favor of arbitrariness. These changes "contribute toward symmetry, fluidity, locational displacement and assimilation".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Frishberg |first=Nancy |title=Arbitrariness and Iconicity: Historical Change in American Sign Language |journal=Language |date=September 1975 |volume=51 |issue=3 |pages=696–719 |doi=10.2307/412894 |jstor=412894 }}</ref> For example, the sign WE used to contain the sign for each individual being described by the WE. So the signer would sign ME + YOU<small>1</small> + YOU<small>2</small> + YOU <small>n</small> + ME. Now the sign has turned into a smooth symbolic sign where the signer makes two touches on the chest, one on each side, with a sweep of the wrist in between.

On the whole, some researchers stress that iconicity plays an important role in sign languages, while others downplay its role. The reason for this also lies in the fact that it was, for a long time, assumed that it is a major property of natural languages that there is no relation between the surface form of a word and its potential referents (thus, there is no relationship between how the word ''computer'' is pronounced and what a computer, for example, looks like, see also [[arbitrariness]]).<ref>This idea is often traced back to [[Ferdinand de Saussure]].</ref> The idea that iconicity should not play a role in natural languages was, for example, stressed by [[Charles Hockett]].<ref>Hocket proposed 13 features which a natural language should have to count as a natural language. See feature number 8 in: Hockett, Charles (1960): The Origin of Speech. in Scientific American, 203, pp. 89–97.</ref> Thus, many linguists concerned with sign languages tried to downplay the role of iconicity in sign languages. It was, however, later acknowledged that iconicity also plays a role in many spoken languages (see, for example [[Japanese sound symbolism]]). Today it is often recognized that sign languages exhibit a greater degree of iconicity compared to spoken languages due to the visual natural of sign languages.<ref>For the history of research on iconicity in sign languages see, for example: Vermeerbergen, Myriam (2006): Past and current trends in sign language research. In: Language & Communication, 26(2). 168-192.</ref> However, the structure of sign languages also puts limits to the degree of iconicity: From a truly iconic language one would expect that a concept like SMILING would be expressed by mimicking a smile (i.e., by performing a smiling face). All known sign languages, however, do not express the concept of SMILING by a smiling face, but by a manual sign.<ref>Bross, Fabian (2020). The clausal syntax of German Sign Language. A cartographic approach. Berlin: Language Science Press. Page 25.</ref>