Cover not available
Part of
Iconicity in Cognition and across Semiotic Systems
Edited by Sara Lenninger, Olga Fischer, Christina Ljungberg and Elżbieta Tabakowska
[Iconicity in Language and Literature 18] 2022
► pp. 79–102

Iconicity of symmetries in language and in literature

ORCID logo | Catholic University of São Paulo
The paper discusses mirror symmetry, translational symmetry, and antisymmetry as the main types of symmetry of relevance to the study of language and literature. Based on the distinction between self-referential and alloreferential iconicity, it examines to what extent patterns of symmetry are iconic signs. Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, 16th century title pages of incunabula, George Herbert’s picture poem Easter Wings, palindrome words, and lines from Gertrude Stein’s poetry are studied with respect to the iconicity of their forms of symmetry. The paper distinguishes between symmetries in the surface structure and in the deep structure and describes symmetries in the deep structure of language and literature as mental diagrams.
Article outline
  • 1.Types of symmetry exemplified by letter types
    • 1.1Mirror symmetry, vertical and horizontal
    • 1.2Rotational symmetry
    • 1.3Translational symmetry
    • 1.4Antisymmetry
    • 1.5Iconicity of the forms of symmetry in Alice’s Wonderland
  • 2.The iconicity of alloreferential and self-referential symmetries in language
    • 2.1Alloreferential iconicity
    • 2.2Self-referential iconicity
    • 2.3George Herbert’s alloreferentially symmetric Wings
  • 3.The self-referential iconicity of the title pages of incunabula
  • 4.The iconicity of palindromic words
  • 5.Token-type iconicity and symmetry
  • 6.Gertrude Stein’s translational symmetries
  • 7.A final remark on symmetry and iconicity in spoken language
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.18.05not
References (36)
References
Apollonius Pergaeus. 1537. Opera, Joannes Baptista Memus (ed). Venetia. Permalink: [URL]
Brekle, H. 1981. “No U-Turn”. Zur Integration eines speziellen Typs ikonischer Elemente in schriftlichen Wortbildungen. In Zeichenkonstitution: Akten des 2. Semiotischen Kolloquiums Regensburg 1978, vol. 1, A. Lange-Seidl (ed), 172–79. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Lewis. 1872. Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There. London: Macmillan. Digital edition of the 1st edition. Retrieved from [URL]
Halliday, M., and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Herbert, G. 1674. The Temple: Sacred Poems and Private Ejaculations […]. London: W. Godbid. Retrieved from [URL]
1977. The Williams Manuscript of George Herbert’s Poems: A Facsimile Reproduction. Delmar, NY: Scholars’ Reprints.Google Scholar
Ivanov, V. V. 1974. On antisymmetrical and asymmetrical relations in natural languages and other semiotic systems. Linguistics 119: 35–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jablan, S. V. 2002. Symmetry, Ornament and Modularity. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1970a (1979). The modular design of Chinese regulated verse. In: R. Jakobson. Selected Writings, vol. 5. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 215–223.Google Scholar
1970b (1981). On the verbal art of William Blake. In R. Jakobson. Selected Writings, vol. 3. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 322–344.Google Scholar
Kolers, P. A. 1969. Clues to a letter’s recognition. Journal of Typographic Research 3: 145–168.Google Scholar
Lecercle, J.-J. 1990. The Violence of Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leyton, M. 1992. Symmetry, Causality, Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. 1995. Die Kunst der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Mandelbrot, Benoit B. 1967. How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension. Science, new series 156 (3775): 636–638. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A. 1957. Arbitraire linguistique et double articulation. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 15: 105–116.Google Scholar
Nöth, W. 2001. Semiotic foundations of iconicity in language and literature. In The Motivated Sign, O. Fischer and M. Nänny (eds), 17–28. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Self-reference in the media: The semiotic framework. In Self-Reference in the Media, W. Nöth and N. Bishara (eds), 3–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pak, I., Lee The, P. and Cheah, Y. 2018. Hidden sentiment behind letter repetition in online reviews. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering 10.3–2: 115–120.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1931–58. Collected Papers, vols. 1–6, C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss (eds), vols. 7–8, A. W. Burks (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (quoted as CP, followed by volume and paragraph number).Google Scholar
(1963–1966) 1979. The Charles S. Peirce Papers, 30 reels, 3rd microfilm edition. Cambridge, MA: The Houghton Library, Harvard University, Microreproduction Service (quoted as MS).Google Scholar
1992. The Essential Peirce, vol. 1, N. Houser and C. Kloesel (ed). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press (quoted as EP 1).Google Scholar
1998. The Essential Peirce, vol. 2, Peirce Edition Project (ed). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press (quoted as EP 2).Google Scholar
Pelkey, J. 2017. The Semiotics of X: Chiasmus, Cognition, and Extreme Body Memory. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. and Metzler, J. 1971. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171: 701–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shubnikov, A. V. and Koptsik, V. A. 1992. Symmetry in Science and Art. New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
Skandera, P. and Burleigh, P. 2011. A Manual of English Phonetics and Phonology, 2nd ed. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Starrfelt, R., Lindegaard, M. and Bundesen, M. 2015. Confusing confusability: On the problems of using psychophysical measures of letter confusability in neuropsychological research. Cognitive Neuropsychology. Available at: < DOI logo>.Google Scholar
Stein, G. 1922. Geography and Play. Boston, MA: Four Seas.Google Scholar
1935. 1957. Portraits and repetitions. In Lectures in America, 165–208. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
1998. Writings 1903–32, C. R. Stimpson and H. Chessman (eds). New York, NY: Library of America.Google Scholar
Steinberg, S. H. 1974. Five Hundred Years of Printing. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Wetzel, L. (2006) 2018. Types and tokens. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. N. Zalta (ed). Available at: <[URL]>.
Weyl, H. 1952. Symmetry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whalen, R. 2009. Enter tagger: Encoding (reading) The Digital Temple. Digital Studies / le champ numérique 1.1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wills, J. 1996. Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar