Cover not available
Part of
Dimensions of Iconicity
Edited by Angelika Zirker, Matthias Bauer, Olga Fischer and Christina Ljungberg
[Iconicity in Language and Literature 15] 2017
► pp. 321–330

Iconicity, ambiguity, interpretability

| Jagiellonian University of Kraków
The paper argues that diagrammatic iconicity can be used in discourse as a means to elicit “covert” meanings of expressions, by evoking associations with other expressions that differ in meaning but are built according to the same structural schemas. The more strongly entrenched the expression thus evoked (proverbs being a case in point), the higher the probability that the association will be recognized and the “covert” meaning brought to the fore. It is claimed that interpretability of expressions that involve diagrammatically iconic associations is a matter of degree and that it can be measured along scales based on pragmatic parameters of the contexts of discourse.
Article outline
  • 1.Preliminaries
  • 2.Intended ambiguity and intended diagrammatic iconicity
  • 3.Case study
    • 3.1The original: Homo homini lupus
    • 3.2Travesties
    • 3.3Mini-corpus: Three titles taken from Gazeta Wyborcza
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.15.18tab
References (11)
References
Bauer, M. & Brockmann, S. 2017. The iconicity of literary analysis: The case of logical form. In Dimensions of Iconicity [Iconicity in Language and Literature 15], A. Zirker, M. Bauer, O. Fischer & C. Ljungberg (eds), 331–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
brasileirao.blox.pl. 2011. Krótko o Argentynie… Katon Mniejszy jest mi wzorem. 〈[URL]〉 (23 September 2016).
Jin, Y. A definition of interpretability of fuzzy systems. 〈[URL]〉 (23 September 2016).
Kennedy, C. 2006. Interpretability. University of Chicago. 〈[URL]〉 (23 September 2016).
Łuszczuk, W. 2008. Normatywny i interpretacyjny paradygmat w badaniach Pedagogicznych. In Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Humanitas (Normative and Interpretative Paradigms in Pedagogcal Research) 3: 13–26. Sosnowiec: Oficyna Wydawnicza “Humanitas”.Google Scholar
militaryfactory.com. U.S. DoD terminology: interpretability. 〈[URL]〉 (23 September 2016).
Nänny, M. & Fischer, O. 1999. Introduction: Iconicity as a creative force in language use. In Form Miming Meaning [Iconicity in Language & Literature 1], M. Nänny & O. Fischer (eds), xv–xxxiii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudzka, B. 2000. Z rozważań nad kategorią przypadka, transl. E. Tabakowska. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
Schulz, B. 1936. The Mythologization of Reality, trans. by John M. Bates 〈[URL]〉 (12 February 2015).Google Scholar
Szerszunowicz, J. 2014. Konotacje kulturowych skrzydlatych słów w przekładzie. Studia Wschodnioslowiańskie 14: 261–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabakowska, E. 2012. What’s in a title? In What’s in a Text? Inquiries into the Textual Cornucopia, A. Głaz, H. Kowalewski & A. Weremczuk (eds), 20–30. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lenninger, Sara
2019. The metaphor and the iconic attitude. Cognitive Semiotics 12:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 july 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.