Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T22:54:21.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contrasting the semantic typology biases of Deaf and hearing nonsigners in their conceptualization of time and space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2023

María Noel Macedo Open the ORCID record for María Noel Macedo [Opens in a new window] ,
Matías Yerro Open the ORCID record for Matías Yerro [Opens in a new window] ,
Jorge Vivas Open the ORCID record for Jorge Vivas [Opens in a new window] ,
Mauricio Castillo Open the ORCID record for Mauricio Castillo [Opens in a new window] ,
Maximiliano Meliande ,
Adriana de León ,
Alejandro Fojo  and
Roberto Aguirre Open the ORCID record for Roberto Aguirre [Opens in a new window]
María Noel Macedo*
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación Básica en Psicología, Montevideo, Uruguay
Matías Yerro
Affiliation:
Instituto de Psicología Básica, Aplicada y Tecnología (IPSIBAT CONICET-UNMDP), Argentina
Jorge Vivas
Affiliation:
Instituto de Psicología Básica, Aplicada y Tecnología (IPSIBAT CONICET-UNMDP), Argentina
Mauricio Castillo
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación Básica en Psicología, Montevideo, Uruguay
Maximiliano Meliande
Affiliation:
Carrera de Tecnólogo en Traducción e Interpretación LSU-Español, Montevideo, Uruguay
Adriana de León
Affiliation:
Carrera de Tecnólogo en Traducción e Interpretación LSU-Español, Montevideo, Uruguay
Alejandro Fojo
Affiliation:
Carrera de Tecnólogo en Traducción e Interpretación LSU-Español, Montevideo, Uruguay
Roberto Aguirre
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación Básica en Psicología, Montevideo, Uruguay
*
Corresponding author: Maria Noel Macedo; Email: macedomarianoel@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The mental lexicon offers a window into the configuration of conceptual domains such as space and time, which has been labeled as concrete the former and abstract the latter in the current embodiment approach to cognition. Space has a phonological and semantic value in sign languages, but not in spoken languages. Additionally, the representation of time by spatial means is robust in oral and sign languages. This research asks if Deaf signers and hearing nonsigners have the same conceptual organization of those domains. In their respective languages, sixty-two participants made a repeated free word association task. These results showed that the studied populations have a little overlap in the associates evocated for each clue. The analysis of the preferences of the semantic relations of the pairs clue-associate showed a greater tendency of the Deaf signers to establish thematic relations. In contrast, the hearing participants indicated a bias toward taxonomic relations. The results suggest that the abstractness or concreteness of concepts may be modulated by factors associated with linguistic modalities. However, in this compared free association norms factors related to the language deprivation of Deaf, the asymmetries in the cross-modal language contact and cross-modal borrowing were not exhaustively controlled.

Keywords

iconicitylanguage modalitysemantic memorysemantic typologyspacetime
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 6 , November 2023 , pp. 1090 - 1123
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, D., & Reilly, J. (2002). The MacArthur communicative development inventory: Normative data for American sign language. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(2), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/7.2.83 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayala, D. (Ed.), Asociación Uruguaya de Sordos/Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo de la Persona Sorda. (2007). Diccionario Bilingüe de Lengua de Señas Uruguaya/Español. Montevideo : Mastergraf (Imp.).Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In Neisser, U. (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development (pp. 101–140). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belloso, M. S. (2009). Sordos: Aislados a la fuerza. http://www.elpais.com.uy/Suple/QuePasa/09/05/30/quepasa_419907.asp Google Scholar
Bender, A., & Beller, S. (2014). Mapping spatial frames of reference onto time: A review of theoretical accounts and empirical findings. Cognition, 132(3), 342–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonvillian, J. D., Orlansky, M. D., & Folven, R. J. (1990). Early sign language acquisition: Implications for theories of language acquisition. In Volterra, V. and Erting, C. J. (Eds), From gesture to language in hearing and deaf children (pp. 219–232). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (1997). Network analysis of 2-mode data. Social Networks, 19(3), 243–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies, 6.Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2014). Words as social tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts (Vol. 2). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A. M., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Cimatti, F., Scorolli, C., & Tummolini, L. (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 263. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghi, A. M., & Caramelli, N. (2003). Situation bounded conceptual organization in children: From action to spatial relations. Cognitive Development, 18(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00161-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A. M., & Cimatti, F. (2009). Words as tools and the problem of abstract word meanings. In N. A. Taatgen & H. vanRijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 31, p. 31). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Cabana, Á., Zugarramurdi, C., & De Deyne, S. (2020). The “Small world of words” free association norms for Rioplatense Spanish. In Mejía, J. M. M., Martin, P.V., & Velásquez, R. A. V. (Eds.), Actas III Congreso Internacional de Lingüística Computacional y de Corpus-CILCC 2020 and V Workshop en Procesamiento Automatizado de Textos y Corpus-WoPATeC 2020. Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, October 21–23th 2  020: Libro de resúmenes (pp. 191–192). Universidad de Antioquia.Google Scholar
Callizo-Romero, C., Tutnjević, S., Pandza, M., Ouellet, M., Kranjec, A., Ilić, S., Gu, Y., Göksun, T., Chahboun, S., Casasanto, D., & Santiago, J. (2020). Temporal focus and time spatialization across cultures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(6), 1247–1258. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01760-5 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capirci, O., Bonsignori, C., & Di Renzo, A. (2022). Signed languages: A triangular semiotic dimension. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 802911. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802911 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carreiras, M., Gutiérrez-Sigut, E., Baquero, S., & Corina, D. (2008). Lexical processing in Spanish Sign language (LSE). Journal of Memory and Language, 58(1), 100–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, N., Pyers, J., & Lieberman, A. M. (2021). Deaf children of hearing parents have age-level vocabulary growth when exposed to American Sign Language by 6 months of age. The Journal of Pediatrics, 232, 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.01.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, N. K., Hall, W. C., & Henner, J. (2020). American Sign Language interpreters in public schools: An illusion of inclusion that perpetuates language deprivation. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 24(11), 1323–1329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-020-02975-7 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen Pichler, D. (2012). Acquisition. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Bencie, W. (Eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook (pp. 647–686). Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). The strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125(3), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cuxac, C. (1999, March). French sign language: proposition of a structural explanation by iconicity. In I. Wachsmuth, & M. Fröhlich (Eds.), International Gesture Workshop (pp. 165–184). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Cuxac, C., & Sallandre, M. A. (2007). Iconicity and arbitrariness in French sign Language: Highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. In Pizzuto, E., Pietrandrea, P., & Simone, R. (Eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, concepts and methodologies (pp. 1–33). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Deyne, S., Kenett, Y. N., Anaki, D., Faust, M., & Navarro, D. (2017). Large-scale network representations of semantics in the mental lexicon. In Jones, M. N. (Ed.), Big data in cognitive science (pp. 174–202). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
De Deyne, S., Navarro, D. J., Collell, G., & Perfors, A. (2021). Visual and affective multimodal models of word meaning in language and mind. Cognitive Science, 45(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12922 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Deyne, S., Navarro, D. J., Perfors, A., Brysbaert, M., & Storms, G. (2019). The “Small World of Words” English word association norms for over 12,000 cue words. Behavioral Research, 51, 987–1006. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1115-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dong, Y., & Li, P. (2015). The cognitive science of bilingualism. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition,110, 412–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubossarsky, H., De Deyne, S., & Hills, T. T. (2017). Quantifying the structure of free association networks across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 53(8), 1560–1570. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000347 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmorey, K. (2001). Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K. (Ed.). (2003). Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K. (2014). Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1651), 20130301. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0301 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). Thematic thinking: The apprehension and consequences of thematic relations. In Federmeier, K. D. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 54, pp. 249–294). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V. (2012). Cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Sciences, 3(2), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1163 Google ScholarPubMed
García Coni, A., Comesaña, A., Piccolo, B., & Vivas, J. R. (2020). Relaciones conceptuales: Comparación entre Niños, Adultos Jóvenes y Adultos Mayores. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología, 13(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.33881/2027-1786.rip.13106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Coni, A., Ison, M., Vivas, J. (2019). Conceptual flexibility in schoolchildren: Switching between taxonomic and thematic relations. Cognitive Development, 52, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2019.100827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-Mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive science, 7(2), 155–170.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American psychologist, 52(1), 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistics relativity (No. 17). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1997). From space to time. Lincom.Google Scholar
Hickmann, M. (2000).Linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism: Some new directions. Linguistics, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.38.2.409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochgesang, J., Crasborn, O. A., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2018). Building the ASL signbank. Lemmatization principles for ASL. In Bono, M., Efthimiou, E., Fotinea, S-E., Hanke, T., Hochgesang, J., Kristoffersen, J., Mesch, J., & Osugi, Y. (Eds.), 8th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Involving the Language Community (pp. 69–74). ELDA. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/194539 Google Scholar
Hohenberger, A., & Leuninger, H. (2012). Psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Bencie, W. (Eds.), Sign language: An international handbook (pp. 711–738). Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32(3), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289588 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. C. (1999). On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign language & linguistics, 2(2), 115–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karadöller, D. Z., Sümer, B., Ünal, E., Özyürek, A. (2022). Late sign language exposure does not modulate the relation between spatial language and spatial memory in deaf children and adults. Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01281-7 Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(2), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212981 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kousta, S. T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021446 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristoffersen, J. H., & Troelsgård, T. (2010). Making a dictionary without words: Lemmatization problems in a sign language dictionary. In Granger, S. & Paquot, M. (Eds.), eLexicography in the 21st century: New challenges, new applications (pp. 165–172). University of College Capital.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(80)80017-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leeson, L., Van den Bogaerde, B., Rathmann, C., & Haug, T. (2016). Sign languages and the common European framework of reference for languages. Common reference level descriptors. Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
Leuninger, H., Hohenberger, A., & Waleschkowski, E. (2007). Sign language: typology vs. modality. In Carson Schütze, T. & Ferreira, V. S. (Eds.), The state of the art in speech error research: Proceedings of the LSA Institute Workshop (Vol. 53, pp. 317–345). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lindquist, K. (2023). The role of language in emotion: Existing evidence and future directions. Current Opinions in Psychology (in press).Google Scholar
Adam, R. (2012). Language contact and borrowing. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Bencie, W (Eds.), Sign language: An international handbook (pp. 841–861). Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutzenberger, H. (2018). Manual and nonmanual features of name signs in Kata Kolok and sign language of the Netherlands. Sign Language Studies, 18(4), 546–569. https://doi.org/10.2307/26637448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manhardt, F., Ozyurek, A., Sumer, B., Mulder, K., Karadöller, D. Z., & Brouwer, S. (2020). Iconicity in spatial language guides visual attention: A comparison between signers’ and speakers’ eye gaze during message preparation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(9), 1735–1753. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000843.Google ScholarPubMed
Mann, W., & Marshall, C. (2012). Investigating deaf children’s vocabulary knowledge in British Sign 1399 Language. Language Learning, 62(4), 1024–1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00670.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschark, M., Convertino, C., McEvoy, C., & Masteller, A. (2004). Organization and use of the mental lexicon by deaf and hearing individuals. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(1), 51–61. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26234642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayberry, R. I., Chen, J. K., Witcher, P., & Klein, D. (2011). Age of acquisition effects on the functional organization of language in the adult brain. Brain & Language, 119(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.05.007 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKee, R. L. & Wallingford, S. (2011). ‘So, well, whatever’: Discourse functions of palm-up in New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 14(2), 213–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeil, D. (1979). The conceptual basis of language. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic features production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192726 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meier, R. P., Mauk, C. E., Cheek, A., & Moreland, C. J. (2008). The form of children’s early signs: Iconic or motoric determinants? Language Learning and Development, 4(1), 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, R. P., & Newport, E. L. (1990). Out of the hands of babes: On a possible sign advantage in language acquisition. Language, 66(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, P. L., & Meier, C. R. (2008). Dialogic reading’s potential to improve children’s emergent literacy skills and behavior. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(4), 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myklebust, H., & Brutton, M. (1953). A study of visual perception in deaf children. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, Supplementum, 105, 1–126.Google ScholarPubMed
Núñez, R., & Cooperrider, K. (2013). The tangle of space and time in human cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.008 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ong, W. J., & John, H. (1982). Orality and literacy. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, G., & Morgan, G. (2015). Phonological development in hearing learners of a sign language: The influence of phonological parameters, sign complexity, and iconicity. Language Learning, 65(3), 660–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, G., Sümer, B., & Özyürek, A. (2017). Type of iconicity matters in the vocabulary development of signing children. Developmental Psychology, 53(1), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000161 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padden, C. A., Meir, I., Hwang, S. O., Lepic, R., Seegers, S., & Sampson, T. (2013). Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture, 13(3), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.3.03pad CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parks, E., & Williams, H. (2013). The Uruguayan deaf community. Journal of Language Survey Reports, 21, 1–7.Google Scholar
Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy-psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peluso, L. (2020). La escritura y los sordos. Entre representar, registrar/grabar, describir y computar. UdelaR.Google Scholar
Pereiro, C. C., & Soneira, A. F. (2004). The expression of time in Spanish Sign Language (LSE). Sign Language & Linguistics, 7(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.7.1.06cab CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perniss, P. (2018). Why we should study multimodal language. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01109 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.0022 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perniss, P., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). The bridge of iconicity: From a world of experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1651), 20130300. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaza Pust, P. (2012). Morphology. 5. Word class and word formation. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Bencie, W. (Eds.), Sign language: An international handbook (pp. 949–979). Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaza-Pust, C. & Weinmeister, K. (2008). Bilingual acquisition of German Sign Language and written German: Developmental asynchronies and language contact. Sign Languages: Spinning and Unraveling the Past, Present and Future, TISLR9, Florianopolis, Brazil, December 2006, pp. 497–529.Google Scholar
Ponari, M., Norbury, C. F., Rotaru, A., Lenci, A., & Vigliocco, G. (2018). Learning abstract words and concepts: Insights from developmental language disorder. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170140. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0140 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar (Vol. 2). John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Cuadrado, S., Ojedo, F., Vicente-Conesa, F., Romero-Rivas, C., Sampedro, M. A., & Santiago, J. (2022). Sign iconicity helps learning new words for abstract concepts in a foreign language. Second Language Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221093841 Google Scholar
Schembri, A. (2003). Rethinking “classifiers” in signed languages. In Emmorey, K. (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 3–34). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Sehyr, Z. S., & Emmorey, K. (2019). The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: Evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cognition, 11(2), 208–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheng, L., & McGregor, K. K. (2010). Lexical-semantic organization in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 53(1), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0160 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegler, R. S., & Shipley, C. (1995). Variation, selection, and cognitive change. In Simon, T. & Halford, G. (Eds.), Developing cognitive competence: New approaches to process modeling (pp. 31–76). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Siew, C. S. Q., Wulff, D. U., Beckage, N., & Kenett, Y. (2018). Cognitive network science: A review of research on cognition through the lens of network representations, processes, and dynamics. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/eu9tr CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinte, A. (2013). Expression of time in French Belgina Sign Language (LSFB). In Herrmann, A., Steinbach, M., & Zeshan, U. (Eds.), Sign language research, uses and practices (pp. 205–236). De Gruyer Mouton. Isahara Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, J., & Snijders-Oomen, N. (1959). Non-verbal intelligence tests for deaf and hearing subjects (A manual). Groningen.Google Scholar
Sumer, B., Grabitz, C., & Küntay, A. (2017). Early produced signs are iconic: Evidence from Turkish Sign Language. In Gunzelmann, G., Howes, A., Tenbrink, T., & Davelaar, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2017) (pp. 3273–3278). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tecnicatura Universitaria en Interpretación de Lengua de Señas Uruguaya. (2018). Diccionario monolingüe LSU-LSU. Léxico TRELSU. http://tuiLSU.edu.uy/treLSU/.UdelaR Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Vivas, J., Lizarralde, F., Huapaya, C., Vivas, L., & Comesaña, A. (2014). Organización reticular de la memoria semántica. Natural Finder y Definition Finder, dos métodos informatizados para recuperar conocimiento. Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, 19(40), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2014v19n40p235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivas, J., Vivas, L., Comesaña, A., García Coni, A., & Vorano, A. (2017). Spanish semantic feature production norms for 400 concrete concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 49(3), 1095–1106. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0777-2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vivas, L., & García Coni, A. (2013). Relaciones conceptuales: definición del constructo, bases neuroanatómicas y formas de evaluación. Actualidades en psicología, 27(114), 1–18. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0258-64442013000100002&lng=pt&tlng=es CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivas, L., Montefinese, M., Bolognesi, M., & Vivas, J. (2020). Core features: measures and characterization for different languages. Cognitive Processing, 21(4), 651–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-020-00969-5 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(5), 719–736. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, P. P. (2000). Metaphor in American Sign Language. Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S., & Martínez, R. (2020). The conceptualization of space: Places in signed language discourse. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01406 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilcox, S., & Occhino, C. (2016). Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(3), 371–404. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woll, B., Meurant, L., & Sinte, A. (2013). Sign language and spoken language development in young children: Measuring vocabulary by means of the CDI. In Herrmann, A., Steinbach, M., & Zeshan, U. (Eds.), Sign language research, uses and practices (pp. 15–34). De Gruyter Mouton. Ishara Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, L. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zapico, M., & Vivas, J. (2014). La sinonimia como caso particular de distancia semántica. Encontros Bibli: revista eletrônica de biblioteconomia e ciência da informação, 19(40), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2014v19n40p253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwiebel, A., & Mertens, D. M. (1985). A comparison of intellectual structure in deaf and hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 130(1), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0896 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwitserlood, I. (2012). Classifiers. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Bencie, W (Eds.), Sign language: An international handbook (pp. 158–185). Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar