Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 41:4 (2017) ► pp.813–842

Iconicity in the lexicon

The semantic categories of lexical reduplication

| University of Graz

This paper presents a study on the form-meaning relationship within a subpart of the lexicon, namely lexical reduplication. It compares the semantic classification of lexical reduplication in diverse languages, focusing on three quantitative studies on the distributions of semantic categories in three typologically and genetically unrelated languages, Bikol, Tibetan and Arabic. On this basis, it is argued that the common view that lexical reduplications are a “semantically arbitrary class” and as such irrelevant for studies on reduplication is not justified. It is in contrast claimed that the mapping of certain meanings on this specific phonological pattern is highly iconic, and that these word forms can be classified as a specific subgroup of expressives. This group even shows remarkable parallels with the prototypical meanings of morphological reduplication. An explanation for this – certainly controversially discussed – observation could be provided by the cognitive semiotic concept of “cross-modal iconicity” (Ahlner & Zlatev 2010).

Keywords: expressives, iconicity, lexicon, semantics, reduplication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The object of investigation
    • 1.2Illustrating examples
    • 1.3Different views on lexical reduplication
  • 2.Semantic categories of lexical reduplications
  • 3.Quantitative analyses
    • 3.1Lexical reduplication in Bikol
    • 3.2Lexical reduplication in Tibetan
    • 3.3Lexical reduplication in Arabic
    • 3.4Summary of the three studies
  • 4.A first approach towards an explanation of the semantic parallels of lexical and productive reduplication
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.16024.mat
References
Abbi, Anvita
1992 Reduplication in South Asian languages. An areal, typological and historical study. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Limited.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner
2005 Intensity and diminution triggered by reduplicating morphology: Janus-faced iconicity. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on reduplication, 547–568. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ahlner, Felix & Jordan Zlatev
2010 Cross-modal iconicity: A cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism. Sign Systems Studies 38(1). 298–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akita, Kimi
2009 A grammar of sound-symbolic words in Japanese: Theoretical approaches to iconic and lexical properties of Japanese mimetics. Kobe: Kobe University PhD dissertation. [URL] (13 September 2016).
Auracher, Jan
2015 Synaesthetic sound iconicity: phonosemantic associations between acoustic features of phonemes and emotional behavior. In Masako K. Hiraga, William J. Herlofsky, Kazuko Shinohara & Kimi Akita (eds.), Iconicity. East meets West, 93–108. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K.
2004 The psychological reality of phonaestemes. Language 801. 290–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Brent
1992 Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blasi, Damián, Søren Wichman, Harald Hammarström, Peter F. Stadler & Morten H. Christiansen
2016 Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciene 2016 (PNAS). DOI logo.Google Scholar
Botha, Rudolf P.
1988 Form and meaning in word formation: A study of Afrikaans reduplication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Maria & Ingo Plag
2003 How transparent is creole morphology? A study of early Sranan word-formation. In Geert Booij & Yap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2002, 81–104. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994  The evolution of grammar . Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clynes, Adrian
1995 Topics in the phonology and morphology of Balinese [based on the dialect of Singaraja, North Bali]. Canberra, ACT: Australian National University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
1996 Interactions of semantics and phonology: Evidence from an Austronesian language. In Shobhana L. Chellian & Willem J. De Reuse (eds.), Papers from the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 33–50. Arizona State University.Google Scholar
1998 The emergence of the marked: interactions of phonology and semantics in Balinese. University of Brunei Darussalam. Ms.Google Scholar
Diffloth, Gérard
1979 Expressive phonology and prosaic phonology in Mon-Khmer. In Theraphan L. Thongkum, Vichin Panupong, Pranee Kullavanijaya & M. R. Kalaya Tingsabadh (eds.), Studies in Tai and Mon-Khmer phonetics and phonology. In Honour of Eugénie J. A. Henderson, 49–59. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U.
2000 Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In Ursula Doleschal & Anna M. Thornton (eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology (Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 12), 1–10. München: Lincom Europe.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Natalia Gagarina & Marianne Kilani-Schoch
2005 Reduplication in child language. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on reduplication, 455–474. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark
2009 Ideophones in unexpected places. In Peter K. Austin, Olivier Bond, Monik Charette, David Nathan & Peter Sells (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory, 83–97. London: School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).Google Scholar
2011 The meaning and use of Ideophones. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute Nijmegen, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2012 Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10). 654–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Damian E. Blasi, Gary Lupayan, Morten H. Christiansen & Padraic Monaghan
2015 Arbitrariness, iconicity and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(10). 603–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, Laura J. & Barbara Stiebels
2012 Iconicity. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 379–426. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
El Zarka, Dina
2005 On the borderline of reduplication: Gemination and other consonant doubling in Arabic morphology. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on reduplication, 369–394. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Verbale Pluralität in ägyptisch-arabischen vierkonsonantigen Verben. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik/Journal of Arabic Linguistics/Journal de Linguistique Arabe 501. 51–73.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga
2011 Cognitive iconic grounding of reduplication in language. In Pascal Michelucci, Olga Fischer & Christina Ljungberg (eds.), Semblance and signification, 55–82. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin Gómez, Gale
2009 Reduplication, ideophones, and onomatopoetic repetition in Yanomami. Grazer Linguistische Studien 711. 21–38.Google Scholar
2014 Reduplication in the Yanomae language of Northern Brazil. In Gale Goodwin Gómez & Hein van der Voort (eds.), Reduplication in indigenous languages of South America (Brill’s Studies in the Indigenous Languages of the Americas 7), 161–183. Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1997 Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, Sheldon P. & Salich Y. Albert
1977 Mokilese-English dictionary. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Hess, Thomas
1966 Snohomish chameleon morphology. International Journal of American Linguistics 321. 350–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala
1994 Introduction: sound symbolic processes. In Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala (eds.), Sound symbolism, 1–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurch, Bernhard & Veronika Mattes
2005 Über die Entstehung von partieller Reduplikation. In Gertraud Fenk-Oczlon & Christian Winkler (eds.), Sprache und Natürlichkeit. Gedenkband für Willi Mayerthaler, 137–156. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon
2014 Non-concatenative derivation: Reduplication. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics), 169–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiyomi, Setsuko
1995 A new approach to reduplication: A semantic study of noun and verb reduplication in Malayo-Polynesian languages. Linguistics 27(6). 1145–1167.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian
2001 Expressives and iconicity in the lexicon. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), Ideophones, 165–181. Amsterdam & Philadephia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Semantically motivated patterns: A study of Dutch and Kambera expressives. Language 78 (2). 258–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kocher, Frieda
1921 Reduplikationsbildungen im Französischen und Italienischen. Aarau: Sauerländer & Co.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, Silvia & Darlene LaCharité
2001 The iconic interpretation of reduplication: Issues in the study of reduplication in Caribbean Creole languages. European Journal of English Studies 5(1). 59–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kröll, Heinz
1991 Beitrag zu den Reduplikationen im Portugiesischen (II). Lusorama 151. 25–44.Google Scholar
Lisboa, Marcos de
1754 Vocabulario de la lengua Bicol. Manila.Google Scholar
Maas, Utz
2005 Syntactic reduplication in Arabic. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on reduplication, 395–429. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattes, Veronika
2014 Types of reduplication. A case study of Bikol. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi
1977 Studien zur theoretischen und zur französischen Morphologie, Reduplikation, Echowörter, morphologische Natürlichkeit, Haplologie, Produktivität, Regeltelescoping, paradigmatischer Ausgleich. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Malcolm W.
2001 Bikol. In Jane Garry & Carl Rubino (eds.), Encyclopedia of the world’s languages: past and present, 90–95. New York & Dublin: H.W. Wilson Press.Google Scholar
2004 Bikol Dictionary. diksionáriong bíkol. Vol. I and II1. Perth: Indonesian/Malay Texts and Resources.Google Scholar
Mintz, Malcolm W. & José Del Rosario Britannico
1985  Bikol-English dictionary . diksionariong bikol-inglés. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A.
1978 Reduplicative constructions. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 31, 297–334. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Niepokuj, Mary
1997 The development of verbal reduplication in Indo-European (Journal of Indoeuropean Studies Monograph 24). Washington: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Nöth, Winfried
2015 Three paradigms of iconicity research in language and literature. In Masako K. Hiraga, William J. Herlofsky, Kazuko Shinohara & Kimi Akita (eds.), Iconicity. East meets West, 13–34. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Novotna, Jana
2000 Reduplication in Swahili. Afrikanische Arbeitspapiere 641. 57–73.Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella, Vigliocco
2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1(227). 1–15.Google Scholar
Procházka, Stephan
1995 Semantische Funktionen der reduplizierten Wurzeln im Arabischen. Archiv Orientalni 631. 39–70.Google Scholar
Pott, August Friedrich
1862 Doppelung als eines der wichtigsten Bildungsmittel der Sprache. Lemgo & Detmold: Meyer. [URL].
Rangjung Yeshe Publications
1996–2000 The Rangjung Yeshe Tibetan-English Dharma dictionary. Ranjung Yeshe translations and publications in cooperation with the Karma Kagyu Buddhist Network (RYTP-KKBN). [URL].
Regier, Terry
1998 Reduplication and the arbitrariness of the sign. In Morton A. Gernsbacher & Sharon J. Derry (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 887–892. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R.
1991 Reduplication in Amele. In Tom Dutton (ed.), Papers in Papuan Linguistics No. 1 (Pacific Linguistics Series A-73), 115–146. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Rubino, Carl R.
2001 Iconic morphology and word formation in Ilocano. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), Ideophones, 303–320. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Reduplication: Form, function and distribution. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on reduplication, 11–29. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saperstein, Andrew D.
1997 A word-and-paradigm approach to reduplication. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Schindler, Wolfgang
1991 Reduplizierende Wortbildung im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 44(5). 597–613.Google Scholar
Schütz, Albert S.
1985 The Fijian language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Schwaiger, Thomas
2015 Reduplication. In Peter Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe (HSK 40.1), 467–484. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2017. The structure of reduplicants: a typological investigation of iconicity and preferred form in reduplication. University of Graz: Doctoral dissertation.
Singh, Rajendra
2005 Reduplication in Modern Hindi and the theory of reduplication. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on reduplication, 263–281. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skoda, Françoise
1982 Le redoublement expressif: un universal linguistique. Analyse du procédé en grec ancien et en d’autres langues (Société d’Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France 15). Paris: SELAF.Google Scholar
Sonesson, Göran
2008 Prolegomena to a general theory of iconicity. Considerations on language, gesture, and pictures. In Willem Klaas & Ludovic De Cuypere (eds.), Naturalness and iconicity in language, 47–72. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas
2007a Das ist doch keine Reduplikation! In Andreas Ammann & Aina Urdze (eds.), Wiederholung, Parallelismus, Reduplikation. Strategien der multiplen Strukturanwendung, 47–80. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
2007b Re: Reduplication: Iconic vs. counter-iconic principles (and their areal correlates). In Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds.), Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas. Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective, 317–350. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Natalyia Levkovych & Barbara Dewein
2009 Reduplicative stem formation: a comparative look at Maltese and Chamorro. Ilsienna 11. 87–133.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze
2011 Total Reduplication. The areal linguistics of a potential universal. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tamura, Suzuko
2000 The Ainu language (ICHEL Linguistic Studies 12). Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko
2005 A constructional approach to mimetic verbs. In Mirjam Fried & Hans C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots, 137–154. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Mimetic verbs and meaning. In Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Hans Christian Luschützky & Wolfgang U. Dressler (eds.), Morphology and meaning. Selected papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012, 303–314. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vollmann, Ralf
2009 Reduplication in Tibetan. Grazer Linguistische Studien 711. 115–134.Google Scholar
Voeltz, F. K. Erhard & Christa Kilian-Hatz
(eds.) 2001 Ideophones. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voort, Hein van der
2003 Reduplication of person markers in Kwaza. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 351. 65–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Usuki, Takeshi & Kimi Akita
2015 What’s in a mimetic?: On the dynamicity of its iconic stems. In Masako K. Hiraga, William J. Herlofsky, Kazuko, Shinohara & Kimi Akita (eds.), Iconicity. East meets West, 109–123. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Westermann, Diedrich Hermann
1937 Laut und Sinn in einigen westafrikanischen Sudan-Sprachen. Archiv für vergleichende Phonetik 11. 154–72 & 193–211.Google Scholar
Weidhaas, Thomas & Hans-Jörg Schmid
2015 Diminutive verbs in German: semantic analysis and theoretical implications. Morphology 251. 183–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard
1990 Über die Interaktion von Morphologie und Phonologie: Reduplikation im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 43(5). 603–624.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

BERENT, IRIS, OUTI BAT-EL, DIANE BRENTARI, QATHERINE ANDAN & VERED VAKNIN-NUSBAUM
2021. Amodal phonology. Journal of Linguistics 57:3 ► pp. 499 ff. DOI logo
Dingemanse, Mark
2019. Chapter 1. ‘Ideophone’ as a comparative concept. In Ideophones, Mimetics and Expressives [Iconicity in Language and Literature, 16], ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Guitang, Guillaume
2022. Frozen reduplication in Gizey: insights into analogical reduplication, phonological and morphological doubling in Masa. Morphology 32:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Kawahara, Shigeto & Jeff Moore
2021. How to express evolution in English Pokémon names. Linguistics 59:3 ► pp. 577 ff. DOI logo
Tkacheva, Liubov, Maria Flaksman, Andrey Nasledov, Yulia Sedelkina & Yulia Lavitskaya
2021. Iconicity and Second Language Visual Perception: A Psycholinguistic Study of English Imitative Words at Different De-iconization Stages. Mathematics 9:12 ► pp. 1331 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Xiaoxi
2022. Sound symbolism in Chinese children’s literature. Cognitive Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo

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