Cover not available
Part of
Different Slants on Grammaticalization
Edited by Sylvie Hancil and Vittorio Tantucci
[Studies in Language Companion Series 232] 2023
► pp. 237–262

Chapter 9
On the grammaticalization of ideophones

| Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages | University of Cape Town
| University of Cologne
Ideophones, like English bang or thud, are interactive expressions used as vivid depictions of sensory imagery of states, events, objects, or qualities (cf. Dingemanse 2011, 2012, 2018; Dingemanse & Akita 2017; Andrason 2020, 2021). They are claimed to represent a universal class of linguistic forms – that is, any given language can be expected to have a set of them. That set may be highly limited, as is the case in many European languages, but it may as well be almost as large as that of lexical categories like nouns and verbs. There are thousands of ideophones in the spoken usage of languages like Korean, Japanese and Basque, which have 4500 or more of them (see Dingemanse 2018; Haiman 2018). Ideophones exhibit an ambivalent structural behavior. On the one hand, they have been described as grammatical forms that are syntactically unattached and prosodically set off from surrounding text material. On the other hand, they have also been described as morphosyntactically integrated adverbials, adjectivals, verbals, or nominals in a number of languages. Building on some earlier work (especially Dwyer & Moshi 2003), the goal of the present paper is to look at ideophones from the perspective of grammaticalization theory with a view to accounting for this ambivalent behavior. It is argued in the paper that we are dealing here with a process that differs from ‘canonical’ grammaticalization in that the end-product of the process is a lexical rather than a grammatical form.
Keywords: context extension, decategorialization, desemanticization, discourse construction, erosion, grammaticalization, ideophone, Siwu, Xhosa
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1On ideophones
    • 1.2Definition
    • 1.3Grammatical features
  • 2.Ideophones as interactives
    • 2.1Interactives
    • 2.2Problems
  • 3.Grammaticalization
    • 3.1Diagnostics
    • 3.2Ideophones in Siwu
    • 3.3Ideophones in Xhosa
      • 3.3.1The quotative construction
      • 3.3.2The modifier construction
    • 3.4Discussion
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 13 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.232.09and
References (43)
References
Andrason, Alexander. 2020. Ideophones as linguistic “rebels” – The extra-systematicity of ideophones in Xhosa. Part 1. Asian and African Studies 29(2): 119–165.Google Scholar
. 2021. Ideophones as linguistic “rebels” – The extra-systematicity of ideophones in Xhosa. Part 2. Asian and African Studies 30(1): 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrason, Alexander & Dlali, Mawande. 2020. The (crucial yet neglected) category of interjections in Xhosa. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 73(2): 159–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrason, Alexander, Phiri, Admire & Fehn, Anne-Maria. M. forthcoming. Onomatopoeias in Tjwao. Canadian Journal of Linguistics.
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. [Research Surveys in Linguistics]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 2016. Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review 123(3): 324–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Depicting in communication. In Human Language: From Genes to Behavior, Peter Hagoort (ed.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian (ed.). 1981. Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, Vol. 2: Conversational Routine [Janua Linguarum. Series Maior, 96]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Diffloth, Gérard. 1972. Notes on expressive meaning. Papers of the Chicago Linguistic Society 8: 440–447.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2011. The Meaning and Use of Ideophones in Siwu. PhD dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10): 654–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Ideophones and gesture in everyday speech. Gesture 13(2): 143–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017a. Expressiveness and system integration: On the typology of ideophones, with special reference to Siwu. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 70(2): 363–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. On the margins of language: Ideophones, interjections and dependencies in linguistic theory. In Dependencies in Language, Nicholas J. Enfield (ed.), 195–202. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
. 2018. Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. ‘Ideophone’ as a comparative concept. In Ideophones, Mimetics, and Expressives [Iconicity in Language and Literature 16], Kimi Akita & Prashant Pardeshi (eds.), 13–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Ideophones. In The Oxford Handbook of Word Classes, Eva van Lier (ed.). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark & Akita, Kimi. 2017. An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: On the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones, with special reference to Japanese. Journal of Linguistics 53(3): 501–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doke, Clement Martyn. 1935. Bantu Linguistic Terminology. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dwyer, David & Moshi, Lioba. 2003. Primary and grammaticalized ideophones. In Linguistic Typology and Representation of African Languages, John M. Mugane (ed.), 173–185. Trenton NJ: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan & Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1976. The structure and use of politeness formulas. Language in Society 5: 137–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981. The structure and use of politeness formulas. (Reprint of Ferguson 1976). In Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, Vol. 2: Conversational Routine [Janua Linguarum. Series Maior 96], Florian Coulmas (ed.), 21–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 2018. Ideophones and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 2023. The Grammar of Interactives. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction [Studies in the Evolution of Language 9]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19: 1], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2017. Basque ideophones from a typological perspective. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 62(2): 196–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A. 2015. Cognitive linguistics in the year 2015. Cognitive Semantics 1: 131–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jendraschek, Gerd. 2012. A Grammar of Iatmul. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Regensburg.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1999. The meaning of ouch and oops: Explorations in the theory of meaning as use, transcribed by Elizabeth Coppock. Howison Lecture in Philosophy, delivered at the University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro. 1997. Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics 35: 379–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koo, Hyun Jung & Rhee, Seongha. 2018a. Ideophones and attenuatives in Korean. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting, Societas Linguistica Europaea, Tallinn University, Estonia, 29 August–1 September 1.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko & Rhee, Seongha. 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinard, Maruszka Eve Marie. 2015. Distinguishing onomatopoeias from interjections. Journal of Pragmatics 76: 150–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd. 2021. Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2004. Die prototypische Interjektion: Ein Definitionsvorschlag. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 26(1–2): 11–46.Google Scholar
Stange-Hundsdörfer, Ulrike. 2016. Emotive Interjections in British English. A Corpus-Based Study on Variation in Acquisition, Function and Usage [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 75]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics and Philosophy. Ithaca CA: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voeltz, F. K. Erhard & Kilian-Hatz, Christa (eds). 2001. Ideophones [Typological Studies in Language 44]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar