1 / 64

Iconicity in language: an integrated approach

39th SLE meeting – Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics – 30 august - 2 september 2006, Bremen. Iconicity in language: an integrated approach. Ludovic De Cuypere, Klaas Willems, Johan van der Auwera. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

zoltin
Télécharger la présentation

Iconicity in language: an integrated approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 39th SLE meeting – Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics – 30 august - 2 september 2006, Bremen Iconicity in language: an integrated approach Ludovic De Cuypere, Klaas Willems, Johan van der Auwera

  2. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

  3. (1) I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. (a) I didn’t have sexual relations with her. (b) Ms. Lewinsky and I didn’t have sex. (c) She and I didn’t have sex. (d) We didn’t have sex. (Anderson 2001)

  4. Definition Iconicity as a semiotic notion refers to a natural resemblance or analogy between the form of a sign (‘the signifier’, be it a letter or sound, a word, a structure of words, or even the absence of a sign) and the object or concept (‘the signified’) it refers to in the world or rather in our perception of the world. (http://home.hum.uva.nl/iconicity/)

  5. Iconicity: Language Structure = Referent (1) Correlation = Coincidence

  6. Iconicity: Language Structure = Referent (1) Correlation = Coincidence (2) Causal correlation = Explanation

  7. Iconicity: Language Structure = Referent (1) Correlation = Coincidence (2) Causal correlation = Explanation Givón (1985: 190) “The question of speaker/hearer consciousness must be kept apart from the question of whether an isomorphic relation between code and coded can be discerned by the linguist.”

  8. Problem • Iconicity only makes sense as an explanatory concept when it determines the form of the language structure • i.e. when the correlation is causal

  9. General aims of our talk • Semiotics: What is iconicity – icon? • Possibilities for iconicity in language • Iconicity and symbolicity/arbitrariness

  10. 1. Semiotics: What is a sign? A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea, which I have sometimes called the ground of the representamen. (CP 2.228)

  11. 1. Semiotics: What is a sign? • Dynamic process • 4 elements: • Representamen = material form • Object = referent • Interpretant = equivalent sign • Ground = relation representamen – object

  12. Ground • 1. “a pure abstraction” • “the blackness of a black stove”

  13. Ground 2. “a basis of comparison” J. CarterR. Reagan president president president

  14. Representamen Object Ground: 3 kinds • 1) Iconic ground: similarity

  15. Representamen Object Ground: 3 kinds • 1) Iconic ground: similarity • 2) Indexical ground: causality/contiguity

  16. Representamen Object Ground: 3 kinds • 1) Iconic ground: similarity • 2) Indexical ground: causality/contiguity • 3) Symbolic ground: conventionality

  17. Representamen Object Ground Icon Index Symbol

  18. Representamen Object • Ground • Icon Index Symbol • Image • Diagram • Metaphor

  19. 1. Image: qualitative similarity

  20. 2. Diagram: relational similarity

  21. 3. Metaphor: analogy • Examples: • Time = Money (iconic ground: valuable) • Brain = Computer

  22. 3. Metaphor: analogy • Examples: Maluma Takete

  23. Representamen Object • Ground • Icon • Image • Diagram • Metaphor Structural Semantic

  24. Iconicity = Iconic ground • Broad category: from perception to analogical reasoning • Fundamental cognitive/perceptual process

  25. Iconicity = Iconic ground • Broad category: from perception to analogical reasoning • Fundamental cognitive/perceptual process Icon = sign based on iconicity • Similarity (iconic ground) • + Similarity must motivate the sign

  26. Epistemological problem: In order to find out whether a sign is an icon we need to examine whether there is an iconic ground (similarity). However, we humans are very good at finding similarities. Hence, an observed similarity does not necessarily imply that the sign is an icon. It is only when the attested similarity motivates the sign, that the latter qualifies as an icon.

  27. Epistemological problem: Hjelmslev (1928): “La limitation de l’arbitraire […] est difficile justement parce qu’il est difficile de savoir dans quelle mesure l’analyse objective recouvre l’analyse subjective et subconsciente.”

  28. Epistemological problem: Proposition: Similarity (objective analysis) = Possibility for iconicity in language

  29. 2. Possibilites for iconicity in language • Features of spoken language: • Spoken sounds • Linearity • (Prosody, pitch, speed, etc.)

  30. 2. Possibilites for iconicity in language • Intrinsic restrictions of the medium: • no inaudable/unpronounceable sounds • no 2D or 3D ‘depictions’ ( sign language)

  31. 1. Spoken sounds • 1.1 = sounds/noises (imagic iconicity) • Onomatopoeia

  32. 1. Spoken sounds • 1.2 = ‘amount’ (diagrammatic iconicity) • open vs. closed vocal = ‘large’ vs ‘small’ • e.g. mini vs. maxi

  33. 1. Spoken sounds • 1.3 = ‘feature’ (metaphoric iconicity) • maluma vs. takete • = ‘bumpy’ vs. ‘spiky’

  34. 2. Linearity 2.1 Formal distance = Conceptual distance (1) I did not have sexual relations with her. We didn’t have sex.

  35. 2. Linearity 2.1 Formal distance = Conceptual distance (2) a. Only John knew Mary. b. John knew only Mary. (3)a. small wooden dolls. b. * wooden small dolls.

  36. 2. Linearity 2.1 Formal distance = Conceptual distance (4) a. John showed Peter the book. b. John showed the book to Peter.

  37. 2. Linearity 2.2 Repetition = ‘more of the same’ Reduplication: (Berbice Dutch Creole; Kouwenberg 1994) boši (‘bundle’) > boši-boši (‘separate bundles’) wengi (‘to walk’) > wengi-wengi (‘to walk up and down’) kali (‘small’) > kali-kali (‘very small’)

  38. 2. Linearity 2.3 Formal complexity = Conceptual complex. Degrees of comparison: high-higher-highest, altus-altior-altissimus Singular – Plural: je finis – nous finissons tu finis – vous finissez

  39. 2. Linearity 2.4 Linearity = Vectoriality (5)a. Stop or I’ll shoot. b. * I’ll shoot or stop.

  40. 2. Linearity 2.4 Linearity = Vectoriality (5)a. Stop or I’ll shoot. b. * I’ll shoot or stop. (6) veni, vidi, vici

  41. 2. Linearity 2.4 Linearity = Vectoriality S before O (95% world’s languages)

  42. Summary: Possibilities • Spoken sound = ‘sound’ • Spoken sound = ‘amount’ • Spoken sound = ‘feature’ (i) • Formal distance = Conceptual distance • Repetition = ‘more of the same’ • Formal complexity = Conceptual compl. • Linearity = Vectoriality (ii)

  43. Iconicity in language • Newmeyer (1992): Functionalist iconicity hypothesis • Three claims: • Iconic principles govern speakers’ choices of structurally available options in discourse • Structural options that reflect discourse-iconic principles become grammaticalised • Grammatical structure is an iconic reflection of conceptual structure

  44. Iconicity in language • Newmeyer (1992): Functionalist iconicity hypothesis • Three claims: • Iconic Language use (synchrony) • Grammaticalisation (diachrony: 1 > 3) • Iconic Grammar (synchrony)

  45. Iconicity in language • Newmeyer (1992): Functionalist iconicity hypothesis • Three claims: • Iconic Language use (synchrony) • “Most contemporary linguists, I suspect, have no problem accepting the idea that aspects of language use [...] might have iconic properties” (Newmeyer 1997: 756).

  46. Iconicity in language (1) Iconic Language use (synchrony) Phonology: poetic language use The moan of doves in immemorial elms And murmuring of innumerable bees (Lord Tennyson)

  47. Iconicity in language (1) Iconic Language use (synchrony) “Choice of stylistic variants” (Newmeyer 1992: 774) I did not have sexual relations with that woman. she and I... we...

  48. Iconicity in language • (3) Iconic Grammar (synchrony) • SVO: The dog bites the cat • 1. Correlation (similarity)  iconic interpretation is possible (vectoriality) • Causal correlation (iconicity)? Yes, when the similarity motivates the use of SVO structure • BUT: is SVO as such an iconic grammatical structure?

  49. Iconicity in language • (3) Iconic Grammar (synchrony) • is SVO as such an iconic grammatical structure? • Similarity points towards a possible motivation for the language change leading towards SVO • grammaticalisation = loss of iconicity (Haiman 1998, 1999) 3.  SVO is a symbolic grammatical structure, with iconic potentiality, i.e. SVO can be used iconically. 4.  SVO not intrinsically iconic!

  50. Iconicity in language Compare Coseriu (1994 [1977-78]: 118): “potentielle ikastische Funktion in der Sprache” “aktuelle ikastische Funktion im Text”

More Related