Cover not available
Part of
Iconicity: East meets West
Edited by Masako K. Hiraga, William J. Herlofsky, Kazuko Shinohara and Kimi Akita
[Iconicity in Language and Literature 14] 2015
► pp. 13–34

Three paradigms of iconicity research in language and literature

The paper discusses the characteristics of icons in the framework of C. S. Peirce’s sign classification and distinguishes three approaches to the study of verbal iconicity. The first investigates how the form of spoken or written language is similar to the meaning it represents. Studies within this paradigm are concerned with sound symbolism and include research in the three subtypes of iconicity distinguished by Peirce: images, diagrams, and metaphors. The second paradigm enquires into how verbal forms echo verbal forms in self-reflexive ways that make words icons of words. Among its topics are rhyme, meter, parallelism, repetition as well as syntactic and semantic recurrence. The third is based on Peirce’s later insight that iconicity is also at the root of verbal symbols and indices, insofar as these signs evoke mental images that represent icons of their signification.
Published online: 12 February 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.14.01not
References (33)
Eco, U. 1972. Introduction to a semiotics of iconic signs. Versus 2: 1–15.Google Scholar
Epstein, E.L. 1975. The self-reflexive artefact: The function of Mimesis in an approach to a theory of value for literature. In Style and Structure in Literature, R. Fowler (ed.), 40–78. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1968. Languages of Art. Indianapolis IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hiraga, M.K. 2005. Metaphor and Iconicity. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hookway, C. 2002. ‘…sort of composite photograph’: Pragmatism, ideas, and schematism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 38 (1–2): 29–45.Google Scholar
. 2007. Peirce on icons and cognition. In Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Architectures for Smart Applications, S. Polovina, U. Priss & R. Hill (eds), 59–68. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1933[1973]. Qu’est-ce que la poésie? In Questions de poétique, R. Jakobson, 113–26. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Kent, B. 1997. The interconnectedness of Peirce’s diagrammatic thought. In Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, N. Houser, D. Roberts & J. Evra (eds), 445–459. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Kruse, F. 2007. Is music a pure icon? Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 43(4): 626–635.Google Scholar
Morris, C.W. (1938) 1970. Foundations of the Theory of Signs [Foundations of the Unity of Science: Towards an International Encyclopedia of Unified Science I.2]. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. 1946[1971]. Signs, Language, and Behavior . In Writings on the General Theory of Signs, C.W. Morris, 73–398. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Nänny, M. & Fischer, O. (eds). 1999. Form Miming Meaning [Iconicity in Language and Literature 1]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nöth, W. 1997. The semantic space of opposites: Cognitive and localist foundations. In The Locus of Meaning: Papers in Honor of Yoshihiko Ikegami, K.I. Yamanaka & T. Ohori (eds), 63–82. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
. 2001. Semiotic foundations of iconicity in language and literature. In The Motivated Sign [Iconicity in Language and Literature 2], O. Fischer & M. Nänny (eds), 17–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Warum Bilder Zeichen sind: Bild- und Zeichenwissenschaft. In Bild-Zeichen: Perspektiven einer Wissenschaft vom Bild, S. Majetschak (ed.), 49–61. München: Fink.Google Scholar
. 2010. The criterion of habit in Peirce’s definitions of the symbol. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 46(1): 82–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Representation and reference according to Peirce. International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems 1(2): 28–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Self-reference in the media. In Self-Reference in the Media, W. Nöth & N. Bishara (eds), 3–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Charles S. Peirce’s theory of information: A theory of the growth of symbols and of knowledge. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 19(1–2): 99–123.Google Scholar
. 2014. The growth of signs. Σημειωτική: Sign Systems Studies 42(2–3): 173–192.Google Scholar
Ong, W.J. 1982. Orality and Literacy. London: Methuen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C.S. 1931–58. Collected Papers, Vols. 1–6, C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (eds), Vols. 7–8, A.W. Burks (ed.). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press (quoted as CP).Google Scholar
. (1963–1966) 1979. The Charles S. Peirce Papers, 30 reels, 3rd edn. Cambridge MA: Houghton Library, Harvard University, Microreproduction Service (quoted as MS).Google Scholar
. 1982ff. Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press (quoted as W, plus volume number).Google Scholar
. 1998. The Essential Peirce, Vol. 2, Peirce Edition Project (ed.). Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press (quoted as EP 2).Google Scholar
. 1998. Logic, considered as semeiotic: An overview of Charles Peirce’s philosophical logic, constructed from Manuscript L75, version 1, J. Ransdell (ed.). <[URL]> (May 2010) (quoted as L 75).
Rambelli, F. & Reinders, E. 2012. Buddhism and Iconoclasm in East Asia. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de. 1916[1959]. Course in General Linguistics, C. Bally & A. Sechehaye (eds), transl. W. Baskin. New York NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Shapiro, M. 1983. The Sense of Grammar: Language of Semeiotic. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Stjernfelt, F. 2007. Diagrammatology: An Investigation on the Borderlines of Phenomenology, Ontology, and Semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Natural Propositions: The Actuality of Peirce’s Doctrine of Dicisigns. Boston MA: Docent Press.Google Scholar
Tiles, J.E. 1988. Iconic thought and the scientific imagination. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 24 (2): 161–178.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations, transl. G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Neubern, Maurício S. & Carlos Eduardo S. Reis
2024. Ericksonian Hypnosis as a Possible Form of Inquiry: A Peircean Phenomenological Approach. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science DOI logo
Tabakowska, Elżbieta
2022. Chapter 2. Diagrammatic iconicity and rendering time in a narrative text. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Melnikova, Irina
2021. Iconicity (of Reading). Lolita. Semiotika 16 ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Melnikova, Irina
2022. Immersion between Semiotic Theories. Semiotika 17 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Neubern, Maurício S.
2021. Aspectos Alegóricos dos Contos de História na Hipnose de Erickson. Semeiosis - transdisciplinary journal of semiotics 9:2 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Neubern, Maurício S.
2021. Aspectos Alegóricos dos Contos de História na Hipnose de Erickson. Semeiosis - transdisciplinary journal of semiotics 9:2 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Ponzio, Julia
2018. Continua and clustering processes. Chinese Semiotic Studies 14:1 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Nöth, Winfried
2016. Análise de discurso com Peirce: interpretar, raciocinar e o discurso como argumento. Intexto ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
Nöth, Winfried
2019. On the transmodality of signs and their interpretants: Evidence from Peirce’s MS 599, Reason’s Rules . Semiotica 2019:228 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.