Motivation / Iconicity in language form Flashcards
3 most basic sign types in semiotics?
index (raised eyebrow for surprise, road sign pointing to direction), icon (a drawn figure, street sign Spielstraße with figures playing), symbol (language, national flags, €)
non-human sign systems ?
whale songs (not decoded yet)
bees dance for food source (only works horizontally)
Metonymy is based one which sign?
Indexicality - close relation / pointing to sth: I’m looking forward to seeing the Turners (close relation of artist with his creations points to paintings)
describe Indexicality in language (+ examples)
DEIXIS
Deictic expressions as pointing in language: towards: here, there, now, then, today, tomorrow, this. That, and pers.pronouns: I, you, we
also makes time and location displacement possible: we can point towards time and places outside our immediate perception: tomorrow, yesterday
(But: hearer needs some information from speaker who is pointing, otherwise “Meet me here same place tomorrow” will make no sense)
Deictic orientation:
if an object has no inherent front and back, then speaker will use themselves as reference point: the bike behind that tree (tree has no front of back, but is closer to speaker); if standing on the other side: the bike in front of the tree (now bike is closer)
But: if an object does have front and back: will use the back or front of the car as reference to point at the bike
ANTHROPOCENTRIC WORLD VIEW
= human-first view can be found in language structures
e.g. Human subject: I know the poem by heart. Not: The poem is known by heart by me.
e.g. third pers. Singular has he / she forms for only human references, not general “it”
e.g. Interrogative or Relative pronouns for humans: who, whose, whom; vs. which
e.g. And special possessive form: the man’s coat; not: the house’s roof
name principles of indexicality in language
Deixis
Anthropocentric world view
name principles of iconicity in language
Sequential order
Distance
quantity
Where is there symbolicity in language?
vocabulary: most of word stock is arbitrary (no form / sound / meaning relation)
new words often coined based on existing ones -> thus motivated and less symbolic: hard ware -> in opposition coined: soft ware
Iconicity: sequential order in language
- Linear form expresses / implies temporal sequence: change in order would create non-sense:
See it, say it, sorted. - linear form implies temporal sequence:
She got married and had a baby. Implies “and then baby”
She had a baby and got married. Implies “and then married” - Binary expressions: Now and then, now or never, sooner or later, Cause and effect, hit and run → only this order makes sense
- Within one sentence: Bill painted the green door. Vs Bill painted the door green.
Adjectives usually stand in front Noun to describe it; slot after is reserved to show resultative action → iconically stands last - SVO represents human perception of how events unfold: one entity begins, does sth., affects another entity
Iconity: principle of distance
= Things which belong together tend to be put together linguistically, Things that do not belong together are put at a distance
- Iconic agreement in regards to distance of referent and verb: A noisy group was hanging around the bar
vs: A group of noisy youngsters were hanging around the bar (“group” too far; youngster closer thus verb agrees with it)
-Subordinate clauses:
I made her leave → speaker has most direct impact, distance between verbs is the least here
I wanted her to leave → less personal impact
I hoped that she would leave → no impact at all, verbs very far
- Object vs to-phrase:
Romeo sent his girlfriend a valentines card → close, iconically expresses that she received it
Romeo sent a valentines card to his girlfriend → distance, unclear if she received it
Iconic principle of quantity in language
= More form equals more meaning; less form is less meaning
Phonetically: Thats a loooooong story → iconically expresses “very long”
Plural: child might say: look a tree, and another tree, and another tree; Similar is Reduplication: a repetition strategy in other languages as plural formation: cow-cow in Zulu = cows ; Wilwil in TokPisin = bicycle
Politeness: more words = more polite
No smoking
Don’t smoke, will you?
Would you mind not smoking here, please.
Customers are requested to refrain from smoking if they can.
Wordiness as a means to attach importance:
I obtained the privilege of his acquaintance = Please to meet him.
In my opinion, it is a not unjustified assumption that… = I think
Less meaning requires less form:
Charles said that he was short on money and so did his girlfriend. → typical phrase
Charles said that he was short on money and his girlfriend said that she was short on money too
→ repeating of the same information feels redundant
Waugh - Iconicity article, core ideas:
wants to argue for iconicity to be recognised and arbitrariness to be seen less fundamental in linguistics
- wants to show there is not only iconicity in the relatively established areas: word order, morphemes
- but also in the lexicon!
-> in morphemes, sub-morphemes, phonesthemes, word-affinity relations
- However: iconicity in lexicon is “limited” by polysemy, and the difference between iconicity and polysemy is a continuum -> difficult to categorise
(Actually it would make sense to say limited by homonymy, because there the difference in sound/meaning is very obvious, but Waugh sees polysemy and homonymy as a continuum, therefore I guess she is saying polysemy)
What is a diagram (Pierce)
Type of iconicity that is not visual similarity, but relational similarity of its parts (e.g. tube map, I think)
Which kind of iconicity is Waugh interested in?
diagrammatic / relational iconicity within parts. Basically: systematic repeated occurrences of sound and meaning in certain sets of words: = isomorphism = “one form - one meaning” principle
In practical terms: speakers expect two different words to mean different things; if a familiar word occurs in an unfamiliar context, we expect them to mean something related
e.g:
-ette morpheme is isomorphic: it reoccurs in several words, indicating a shared meaning; also: water, watery, waterfall → all share “water” form and the meanings are related to that; -y morpheme represents adjective-ness
Iconicity in submorphemes?
recurrent morphemes within a specific group of semantically related words:
E.g. Kinship terms Brother, mother, father share submorpheme “ther”
E.g. th-r in three, thirteen, thirty, third or tw in two, twelve, twenty, twin, twice
E.g. voiced “th” only occurs in words of demonstrative or “relative” meaning the, this, that, they, their, thee, thou, thy, thine, then, there, thus, than, though.
- Or wh in wh-words: what, why, when, where, which, whether, how (with a vowel inserted), and who
Iconicity in phones-themes?
Phonesthemes: repeated sounds carrying meaning into semantically similar words:
“Fl” expresses a certain movement: “flap, flare, flee, flick, flicker, fling, flip, flutter…”
“Sn” in nose related words: snore, snot, sniff, snout
“Ump” dump, hump, lump, stump, bump
“Gr” words: something unpleasant: grim, gritty, gruesome, grumpy
A complaint: grumble, groan, grunt, grieve
Undesirable rubbing: grind, grate
BUT: is limited by homonymy:
“in” morpheme exists twice: “in”come / “in”put (means into) -> is NOT the same as “in” meaning “NOT” -> “incompatible / inability”
Or: grammatical -s as plural morpheme in cats is not the same as a noun -s: pragmatics (they carry different meanings)
And of course, there are words which start with “Fl, Sn or Gr” but do not belong into the phones-theme group (e.g. flask, snow, grin)
