Myth: Sign Language is Iconic

Icons are symbols which share a physical resemblance to objects they represent. Because of the similarities between object and icon, the symbols usually are interpreted with little difficulty.

For example, the two icons pictured at the left need no explanation for most people.

On occasion, some learning is required to interpret an icon correctly.

In this case, the traveller familiar with the international driving code knows that this road sign means "Bear to the right."

According to a frequent description, sign language is iconic or picture-like. Because icons are in most instances visible symbols, it is understandable that observers may relate shape and symbol when they study sign language. A close and careful look will clarify whether or not iconicity is a significant factor in sign language, and just what role iconicity plays in any language. As a first step, let's consider the relationship between a word and the concept it represents. The word dog neither looks, smells, sounds, feels, nor tastes like the object to which it refers. Nor does the word table; nor the word human. A listing of many thousands of English words given this "look-smell-sound-feel-taste-test" would lead us to the same conclusion. The relationship between words (whether spoken or written) and the concepts they represent is generally arbitrary. Since arbitrary symbols share no physical characteristics with the things that they symbolize, we can say that arbitrariness is the opposite of iconicity.

If words of spoken languages were iconic, we would expect different languages to use the same or similar words for the same concepts. In fact, each of the world's several thousand languages has different words. Among the exceptions are words found in historically related languages (such as Spanish, Italian, Portuguese) and words borrowed from other languages. An example is the word sputnik which was borrowed into English from Russian. The concept represented in English by the word house, is represented by casa in Spanish, maison in French, dom in Russian, and baiit in Hebrew. These words are not related to each other, nor are they like the concept they represent, although the icon (picture) may be clear to all the speakers of these languages.

This same concept is represented in ASL by the sign HOUSE.* When HOUSE is made by itself, it appears to be iconic; the image of a roof and two walls are outlined by both hands. Numerous other signs tend to be iconic, such as EAT, MILK, SIT, CAT.

Some readers may discern an iconic element in these signs.

There are several points to keep in mind when considering the question of iconicity of signs.

First, as we mentioned earlier, signs for the same concepts are different in different sign languages. Foreign deaf people who already know one sign language must learn ASL before they can converse fluently with deaf Americans.

Second, if signs were really iconic, hearing people would be able to understand deaf people's signing with only limited instruction. As the experience of students of sign language shows, learning to communicate in ASL requires as much time, effort, and motivation as is necessary for becoming fluent in a spoken foreign language.

Third, signs which appear iconic when they are made in isolation are often unrecognizable by a non-signer when they occur in a sign conversation. This results not only from the fast rate of signing, but also from the modification of signs which takes place when signs are made in sign sentences. For instance, in a conversation the sign HOUSE looks more like a bridge opening up than you might assume from the illustration given above.

This should be a familiar experience to anyone who has studied a foreign language in school or college. To a beginner the person speaking French seems to be running all the words together so that only an occasional word of the conversation is grasped. The beginner simply cannot recognize the boundaries between individual words. Nor can he discern the subtle sound changes which result when words occur in extended discourse. With more exposure to the language, the learner begins to understand. This "running together" of words for the French student is similar to the experience of sign language beginners who cannot recognize signs in an extended sign language conversation, because all the signs seem to be connected.

Fourth, iconicity does not appear to play a role in the acquisition of ASL by children. At the time a young child learns the sign MILK, a milk carton or bottle is probably his or her only experience of its source. The child may not learn until years later that the milk is obtained from cows by milking them. Thus the iconic element of the sign MILK is completely lost on the child.

Adults learning a sign language find it easier to learn signs which contain an iconic element. This is an interesting fact which suggests intriguing research possibilities, but it does not show how signs function for fluent signers. Along the same lines, it has been found that learners of foreign spoken languages also find it easier to learn new vocabulary if they can invent mnemonic devices - techniques for helping the memory. For example, an American student learning French may remember the word livre (book) by associating it in his mind with the English word liver. It is sufficiently similar in form to help evoke the correct French word, even though the two words livre and liver are not related in meaning. To a Frenchman, however, this kind of association obviously does not exist, unless he is studying English and he needs a "trick" to help him remember the word liver.

Fifth, signers often offer "explanations" for signs. A typical explanation may run like this: "the sign BOY is made by grabbing the edge of an imaginary cap because boys wear caps, or they used to wear caps." If each sign had a single such explanation the argument for iconicity might appear somewhat more favorable. But, even a brief look will show that some signs have several explanations. Take for example, the sign AMERICA,which has four widely-used etymologies or "histories." One explanation indicates that the sign is derived from the stripes of the American flag; a second that it represents a rail fence; a third that it represents a log cabin; and a fourth that it comes from the union of the states into a federation. Clearly these explanations are in conflict with each other; they cannot all be true etymologies.

Etymologies of this type often are totally unrelated to the real history of the sign. They may function more like mnemonic devices for the learner and in this respect they can be helpful.

What must be remembered about iconicity in signs and explanations about individual signs is this: neither play any substantial role in ASL communication among native users of the language. Given the generally visible expression of icons and the visible nature of sign languages, however, it is easy to see how such a misconception may arise.

There is another facet of this question of iconicity which is worthy of note - it involves the auditory icon. Iconicity is not a phenomenon exclusive to signed languages. It occurs also in all spoken languages. In these cases the icon is identifiable by its auditory similarity to the concept it conveys - the words sound like what they mean. Consider the English words moo, bow-wow, and ding-dong. Called "onomatopoetic," words of this type occur in different languages. Although they imitate some natural sounds, they are not the same in these different languages. An American dog's barking is represented by bow-wow or woof-woof, a French dog's by woah-woah, and a Chinese dog's by wang-wang. An American bell goes ding-dong, while a German bell goes bim-bam. It is evident that although onomatopoetic words are partially iconic, they also have a degree of arbitrariness.

If asked to draw a house, Americans would generally produce an outline like the first structure illustrated. Persons from other cultures would not. The forms of their houses may dictate a different icon.