What is iconicity?
The view from sign languages
Iconicity has been defined in three majors ways in the sign language literature. Some authors describe iconicity
as a similarity mapping between a signifier (the mental representation of the form side of a linguistic sign) and its referent,
while others state that iconicity is to be understood as a similarity mapping between a signifier and its meaning. Other scholars
have defined iconicity as a similarity mapping between a signifier and some other mental representation. The goal of this paper is
to give an overview of the consequences entailed by defining iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and its referent, a
signifier and its meaning, or a signifier and some mental concept. These consequences will be discussed from different theoretical
perspectives. It will be argued that definitions viewing iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and some associated mental
concept work best, while definitions based on reference and meaning run into several theoretical problems or are, at least, rather
theory-specific.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Iconic signs
- 3.The reference definition and its problems
- 3.1Problem 1: Fictional creatures
- 3.2Problem 2: Generic sentences, negative existentials, and other non-referring constructions
- 3.3Problem 3: Compounds
- 3.4Problem 4: Metonymy
- 4.The meaning definition and its problem(s)
- 4.1Meanings are not concepts
- 4.2On metonymic relations
- 4.3Sign language acquisition data
- 4.4The alternative view: Meanings are concepts
- 5.The mental representation definition
- 6.Conclusions
- Notes
-
References