Metaphoric Iconicity in Signed and Spoken Languages

Metaphoric Iconicity in Signed and Spoken Languages Defu Yap (yapd@uchicago.edu) Laura Staum Casasanto (lcasasanto@uchicago.edu) Daniel Casasanto (casasanto@uchicago.edu) Department of Psychology, University of Chicago 5848 S. University Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 USA Abstract Metaphoric iconicity in gestures Since Saussure, the idea that the forms of words are arbitrarily related to their meanings has been widely accepted. Yet, implicit metaphorical mappings may provide opportunities for iconicity throughout the lexicon. We hypothesized that vertical spatial metaphors for emotional valence are manifested in language through space in signed languages and through the spatialized dimension of pitch in spoken languages. In Experiment 1, we analyzed the directions of the hand motions constituting words in three signed languages, and related them to the valence of their English translation equivalents. The vertical direction of signs predicted their valences. On average, signs with upward movements were the most positive in valence, and signs with downward movements the most negative. Signs with non-vertical movements were intermediate in valence. Experiment 2 extended this type of analysis to a tonal language, Mandarin Chinese. The pitch contours of Chinese words predicted the valence of their English translation equivalents. These results demonstrate a previously unrecognized source of non-arbitrariness in language, revealing that implicit space-valence metaphors are encoded in the forms of words in both signed and spoken languages. Keywords: Metaphoric iconicity; Conceptual metaphor; Valence Introduction Since Saussure (1959), the idea that words’ forms are arbitrarily related to their meanings has been widely accepted. According to Saussure, the meaning of “tree” is unmotivated by the letters a-r-b-r-e in French, since in principle it can be represented by any other letters in other languages, such as t-r-e-e in English. The documented exceptions to arbitrariness tend to fall into a narrow range of categories, such as ideophones (e.g., Bang! and tinkle sound like their referents; Nuckolls, 2004), phonaesthemes (e.g., words having to do with noses like snout and sniffle tend to start with the sound /sn/; Bergen, 2004), the bouba-kiki phenomenon (Maurer et al., 2006) and iconic signs in signed languages (e.g., the sign for two in American Sign Language is two extended fingers). These kinds of iconic relationships rely on concrete qualities of the referent being echoed in the form of the word, so only certain meanings are eligible to participate in them. Beyond these special exceptions, are form-meaning relationships in languages truly arbitrary? If not, what are the sources of non-arbitrariness in language? Are there constraints that influence form-meaning relationships systematically throughout our lexicons? Iconic form-meaning relationships are common in the gestures we produce when we speak (McNeill, 1992). Iconic gestures depict some concrete aspect of the referents of the words they accompany (e.g., raising the hand to indicate that a rocket went higher). In a special class of iconics called metaphoric gestures (McNeill, 1992), concrete objects or relationships are depicted with the hands in order to represent some aspect of an abstract idea (e.g., raising the hand to indicate that a students’ grades went “higher”; Cienki, 1998; Sweetser, 1998). In metaphoric gestures, abstract ideas that we can never see or touch can nevertheless be represented with the hands via conceptual metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). People often talk about abstract, non-spatial entities using spatial words (e.g., a long time, a high price, or a close friendship). Beyond talking in linguistic metaphors, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that people also think in mental metaphors (Casasanto & Bottini, 2013, for review): implicit associations between non-linguistic representations in abstract target domains and relatively concrete source domains like space, force, and motion (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Although target domains like time are nearly impossible to depict gesturally, per se, their source domains can often be depicted: A long time can be indicated by a long-distance sweep of the hand; a distant time can be represented by gesturing toward a far-away point in space (see Cienki & Muller, 2008, for numerous examples of metaphorical gestures). Metaphoric iconicity in languages Although the evidence for metaphoric iconicity in gestures is strong, this type of iconicity is generally assumed not to extend to language. Even signed languages, which share a modality with hand gestures and therefore have the potential to express spatial iconicity, have been characterized as exhibiting largely arbitrary form-meaning mappings, in part for historical reasons having to do with establishing American Sign Language (ASL) as a full-fledged language, and not a simple system of pantomimes (Klima & Bellugi, 1979). Taub (2001) noted that signed languages’ potential for iconicity is expanded by their ability to depict aspects of metaphoric source domains in sign, as in gesture. She and others have shown metaphoric iconicity in a number of ASL signs (see also Emmorey, 2001). In a multiple-choice test, non-signers were able to match the meanings of some metaphoric signs in ASL to their English glosses (O’Brien,