Table 1.
Summary of studies investigating the role of iconicity in sign L1 and L2 acquisition.
| Study | Number participants | Methodology | Effect of iconicity |
|---|---|---|---|
| L1 acquisition | |||
| Orlansky and Bonvillian, 1984 | 13 | Parental reports on children’s productive/receptive vocabulary | Null |
| Meier et al., 2008 | 4 | Assesment of children’s exaggeration of iconic features of signs | Null |
| Ortega et al. (2014, 2017) | 48 (20 children, 28 adults) | Production of action or perceptual sign in a spatial description | Preference for action signs |
| Anderson and Reilly, 2002 | 69 (34 for longitudinal data) | MacArthur Bates CDI (ASL) | Iconicity was not manipulated |
| Woolfe et al., 2010 | 29 | MacArthur Bates CDI (BSL) | Iconicity was not manipulated |
| Rinaldi et al., 2014 | 8 | Picture naming task (sign) | Iconicity was not manipulated |
| Thompson et al., 2013 | 31 | MacArthur Bates CDI (BSL) | Positive |
| L2 acquisition | |||
| Lieberth and Gamble, 1991 | 50 | Sign recall (in English) | Positive |
| Campbell et al., 1992 | 53 | Forced-choice and naming task | Positive |
| Baus et al., 2012 | 30 (15 non-signers, 15 proficient signers) | English-ASL translation | Positive |
| Morett, 2015 | 26 | Sign learning (production of signs) | Positive |
| Ortega and Morgan, 2015a | 30 | Sign repetition (imitation of signs) | Negative |
| Ortega and Morgan, 2015a | 9 (longitudinal) | Sign repetition (imitation of signs) | Negative |