Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2019: Selected papers from the 24th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Canberra, 1–5 July 2019
Edited by Bethwyn Evans, Maria Kristina Gallego and Luisa Miceli
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 367] 2024
► pp. 194–215

Chapter 8
Iconicity principles from an evolutionary perspective

 | University of Turin
Much discussion has been devoted to the role of iconic coding, especially with regards to its relevance for explaining morphological change over other synchronic factors such as economy, frequency, and the like. In this chapter, I will reverse the perspective and focus on diachrony as a source of the rise of iconic coding. This is not meant to deny the relevance of the synchronic perspective, but the stress on diachrony may help us understand that a number of phenomena can be structurally accounted for, i.e., these phenomena are the way they are, because of their origin from earlier structural environments.
Keywords: morphology, iconicity, markedness, naturalness, language change, grammaticalization, evolutionary biology, epigenetics, Baldwin effect
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Iconicity, naturalness and markedness reduction
  • 3.Diachronic sources of Iconic Coding
    • 3.1Grammaticalisation as a source of Iconic Coding
    • 3.2System adequacy as a source of Iconic Coding
    • 3.3Maximal differentiation as a source of Iconic Coding
    • 3.4Borrowing as a source of Iconic Coding
  • 4.The epigenetic origin of iconicity
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 November 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.367.08gae
References (55)
References
Andersen, Henning. 2010. From morphologization to demorphologization. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), The Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 117–146. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Morphological universals and diachrony. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 1–17. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Synchronic versus diachronic explanation and the nature of the language faculty. Annual Review of Linguistics 2. 11–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angster, Marco & Livio Gaeta. 2018. Wie kurz sind die Kurzverben? Morphologische Merkmale in Gressoney und Issime [How short are short-form verbs? Morphological features in Gressoney and Issime]. Germanistische Linguistik 239–240. 211–237.Google Scholar
. 2021. Contact phenomena in the verbal complex: The Walser connection in the Alpine area. Language Typology and Universals (STUF) 74(1). 73–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bærentzen, Per. 2011. Einige neue Regularitäten im Gebrauch der Pronominalformen deren und derer [Some new regularities in the use of pronominals deren and derer]. In Marek Konopka, Jacqueline Kubczak, Christian Mair, Frantisek Sticha & Ulrich H. Waßner (eds.), Grammatik & Korpora 2009: Dritte internationale Konferenz Mannheim 22.-24.09.2009, vol. 1, 199–211. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett. 2005. The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme base morphology: A general theory of inflection and word formation. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Crispo, Erika. 2007. The Baldwin effect and genetic assimilation: Revisiting two mechanisms of evolutionary change mediated by phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 61(11). 2469–2479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2014. Competing motivations and diachrony: What evidence for what motivations? In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej L. Malchukov & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 282–298. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depew, David J. 2003. Baldwin and his many effects. In Bruce H. Weber & David J. Depew (eds.), Evolution and learning: The Baldwin Effect reconsidered, 3–31. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2005. Word-formation in natural morphology. In Pavol Ŝtekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds.), Handbook of word-formation, 267–284. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Gary Libben & Katharina Korecky-Kröll. 2014. Conflicting vs. convergent vs. interdependent motivations in morphology. In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej L. Malchukov & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 181–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elsner, Daniela. 2015. Adverbial morphology in German: Formations with -weise/-erweise. In Karen Pittner, Daniela Elsner & Fabian Barteld (eds.), Adverbs: Functional and diachronic aspects, 101–132. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, Livio. 2002. Umlaut extension in German modals as natural change. Diachronica 19(1). 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. How to live naturally and not be bothered by economy. Folia Linguistica 40(1–2). 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Affix ordering and conversion: Looking for the place of zero. Lingue e Linguaggio 12(2). 145–170.Google Scholar
. 2014. On decategorization and its relevance in German. In Raffaele Simone & Francesca Masini (eds.), Word classes: Nature, typology and representations, 227–241. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. Irregularität und Systemangemessenheit [Irregularity and system adequacy]. In Andreas Bittner & Klaus-Michael Köpcke (eds.), Prozesse der Regularität und Irregularität in Phonologie und Morphologie [Processes of regularity and irregularity in phonology and morphology], 29–46. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Co-opting exaptation in a theory of language change. In Muriel Norde & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), Exaptation in language change, 57–92. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019a. Natural morphology. In Jenny Audring & Francesca Masini (eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory, 244–264. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2019b. Anti-relevant, contra-iconic but system-adequate: On unexpected inflectional changes. In Michela Cennamo & Claudia Fabrizio (eds.), Historical linguistics 2015: International Conference on Historical Linguistics 22, Naples 27–31 July 2015, 171–184. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. 2019c. Categorial shift and morphological differentiation. Language Sciences 73. 190–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Remotivating inflectional classes: An unexpected effect of grammaticalization. In Bridget Drinka (ed.), Historical Linguistics 2017: International Conference on Historical Linguistics 23, San Antonio 30.7.-4.8.2017, 207–229. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Gaeta, Livio, Marco Bellante, Raffaele Cioffi & Marco Angster. 2019. Conservazione e innovazione nelle varietà walser: i progetti DiWaC e ArchiWals [Retention and innovation in Walser varieties: the DiWaC and ArchiWals projects]. In Roberto Rosselli Del Turco (ed.), Dall’indoeuropeo al germanico: problemi di linguistica storica [From Indo-European to Germanic: Historical linguistics problems], 141–193. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio & Davide Ricca. 2015. Productivity. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe, vol. 2, 841–858. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15. 85–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Jan Terje Faarlund. 2006. Trapped morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42. 289–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42. 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej L. Malchukov, & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations, 197–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form-frequency correspondences and predictability. Journal of Linguistics 57(3). 605–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2016. Morphological change. In Andrew Hippisley & Gregory Stump (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology, 743–765. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2006. The amphichronic program vs. evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32(2). 217–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, Harold. 1995. The Creation of morphological zeroes. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1994, 31–71. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Philip. 2013. The unpredictable species: What makes humans unique. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 1991. Die deutsche Determinansphrase aus historischer Sicht [The German determinant phrase from a historical perspective]. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur [Contributions to the history of German language and literature]113. 195–211.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2011. How do exceptions arise? On different paths to morphological irregularity. In Horst J. Simon & Heike Wiese (eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, 139–162. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1891. Principles of the history of language. Translated by Herbert A. Strong. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Russ, Charles V. J. 2002. Die Mundart von Bosco Gurin [The dialect of Bosco Gurin]. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. Types of loans: Matter and pattern. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 15–29. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepaniak, Renata. 2009. Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen [Grammaticalisation in German]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. In Theo Vennemann & Terence H. Wilbur (eds.), Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change: Four essays by Hugo Schuchardt, Theo Vennemann, Terence H. Wilbur, 183–204. Frankfurt/Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1990. Language change as language improvement. In Vincenzo Orioles (ed.), Modelli esplicativi della diacronia linguistica. Atti del Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia, Pavia, 15–17 settembre 1988, 11–35 [Explicative models of diachronic linguistics. Società Italiana di Glottologia, Pavia, 15–17 September 1988]. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2009. A typology of verbal borrowings. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit [Inflectional morphology and naturalness]. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar