Article published in:
Ideophones: Between Grammar and Poetry
Edited by Katherine Lahti, Rusty Barrett and Anthony K. Webster
[Pragmatics and Society 5:3] 2014
► pp. 445–454

Ideophones, rhemes, interpretants

| Georgetown University
This commentary considers the depictive quality of ideophones within the context of a general semiotic. I seek to expand the limited uptake of iconicity in linguistic theory from a resemblance between sign and object along Peirce’s second trichotomy (icon, index, symbol) to discuss iconicity from the often overlooked perspective of Peirce’s third trichotomy (rheme, dicent, argument). I examine ideophones as semiotic rhemes that affect iconic interpretants and suggest this shift in understanding iconicity unites lexical iconicity with depictive processes in interaction more generally, and beyond this with other rhematic linguistic signs. These parallels are illustrated by two examples of the expressive use of pitch, and throughout the discussion by reference to how the work of the authors of the present Special Issue help free a theory of iconicity from the bonds of it being considered a fixed, lexical relationship, to rather theorize iconicity as a poetic achievement designed for an interpreter’s active reception.
Keywords: poetics, sound symbolism, iconicity, Peirce, semiotics, depiction, ideophones
Published online: 14 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.5.3.08sic
References

References

Bateson, Gregory
1979 Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences). New York: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Becker, Alton L.
1991 “Language and Languaging.” Language and Communication 11 (1–2): 33–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Emile
1971 Problems in General Linguistics. Coral Gables, Fla.: University of 
Miami Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark
2011 The Meaning and Use of Ideophones in Siwu. Nijmegen: Radboud University Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Gal, Susan and Judith T. Irvine
1995 “The Boundaries of Language and Disciplines: How Ideologies Construct Difference.” Social Research 62 (4): 967–1001.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1965 “The Quest for the Essence of Language.” Diogenes 13: 21–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1960 “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kockelman, Paul
2010 Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural Constructions and Social Kinds. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., Asifa Majid, and N.J. Enfield
2007 “The Language of Perception.” In Field Manual Volume 10, ed. by Asifa Majid, 10–21. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders
1955 [1902] “Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs.” In Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. by Justus Buchler, 98–115. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1966 [1915] Course in General Linguistics, ed. by Charles Bally, and 
Albert Sechehaye in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi, Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity
1998 Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shayan, Shakila, Özge Öztürk, and Mark A. Sicoli
2011 “The Thickness of Pitch: Crossmodal Iconicity in Three Unrelated Languages; Farsi, Turkish and Zapotec.” Senses and Society 6 (1): 96–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sicoli, Mark A.
2012 Review of Kockelman 2010. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 22 (3): 269–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Shifting Voices with Participant Roles: Voice Qualities and Speech Registers in Mesoamerica.” Language in Society 39 (4): 521–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Tono: A Linguistic Ethnography of Tone and Voice in a Zapotec Region. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Ph.D. Dissertation.Google Scholar
Sicoli, Mark A., Asifa Majid and Stephen C. Levinson
2009 “The Language of Sound: II.” In Field Manual Volume 12, ed. by Asifa Majid, 14–19. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Sicoli, Mark A., Tanya Stivers, N.J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson
2014 “Marked Initial Pitch in Questions Signals Marked Communicative Function.” Language and Speech. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tedlock, Dennis
1999 “Ideophone.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9 (1-2): 118–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Voloshinov, Valentin N.
1986 [1929] Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans. by L. Matejka and I.R. Titunik. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Bermúdez, Natalia
2020. Ideophone Humor: The Enregisterment of a Stereotype and Its Inversion. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 30:2 ► pp. 258 ff. Crossref logo
Choksi, Nishaant
2020. Expressives and the multimodal depiction of social types in Mundari. Language in Society 49:3 ► pp. 379 ff. Crossref logo
Vasantkumar, Chris
2019. Towards a commodity theory of token money: on ‘Gold standard thinking in a fiat currency world’. Journal of Cultural Economy 12:4 ► pp. 317 ff. Crossref logo
Webster, Anthony K.
2017. “So it's got three meanings dil dil:” Seductive ideophony and the sounds of Navajo poetry. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 62:2 ► pp. 173 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 january 2021. 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.