Skip Navigation


Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Advance Access originally published online on July 20, 2009
The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2009 14(4):436-448; doi:10.1093/deafed/enp021
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
14/4/436    most recent
enp021v2
enp021v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ormel, E.
Right arrow Articles by Verhoeven, L.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ormel, E.
Right arrow Articles by Verhoeven, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

The Role of Sign Phonology and Iconicity During Sign Processing: The Case of Deaf Children

Ellen Ormel

Radboud University Nijmegen; Viataal, Nijmegen

Daan Hermans

Viataal, Nijmegen

Harry Knoors

Radboud University Nijmegen; Viataal, St. Michielsgestel

Ludo Verhoeven

Radboud University Nijmegen


  Abstract

To investigate the influence of sign phonology and iconicity during sign processing in deaf children, the roles of these sign features were examined using an experimental sign–picture verification paradigm. Participants had to make decisions about sign–picture pairs, manipulated according to phonological sign features (i.e., hand shape, movement, and location) and iconic sign features (i.e., transparent depiction of meaning or not). We found that phonologically related sign pairs resulted in relatively longer response latencies and more errors whereas iconic sign pairs resulted in relatively shorter response latencies and fewer errors. The results showed that competing lexical sign candidates (neighbor signs) were activated during sign processing by deaf children. In addition, deaf children exploit the iconicity of signs during sign recognition.

Correspondence should be sent to Ellen Ormel, Department of Special Education, Radboud University Nijmegen, Afdeling Taalwetenschap, Ellen Ormel, Erasmusplein 1, 6525 HT, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (e-mail: E.Ormel{at}let.ru.nl).

Received February 11, 2008; revised June 9, 2009; accepted June 14, 2009


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.