Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (2024) ► pp.124–150

Gradience in iconicity

Evidence from total reduplicative constructions in Nigerian Pidgin

ORCID logo | Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
ORCID logo | Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
While it has largely been taken for granted by most linguists that the relationship between linguistic signifier and signified is arbitrary in nature, a growing number of studies suggest otherwise. In this article, we demonstrate that iconicity in total reduplicative constructions in Nigerian Pidgin is graded in nature, and that the degree of iconicity of any given reduplicative is largely correlated with the word class to which its simplex form belongs, with reduplicated ideophones and adverbials exhibiting the highest degree of iconicity, reduplicated pronouns the lowest degree of iconicity, and reduplicated adjectives, nouns, numerals and verbs intermediate degrees of iconicity.
Our results shed light, not only on which word classes are more prototypically involved in reduplication than others in the world’s languages, but also on typical pathways that reduplicatives follow in processes of grammaticalization, whereby their isomorphic form-meaning relationship appears increasingly attenuated, albeit due to varying language-internal factors that are specific to individual languages.
Keywords: iconicity, arbitrariness, total reduplication, de-iconization, Nigerian Pidgin, Naija
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Iconicity
  • 3.Total reduplication and related phenomena
    • 3.1Frozen reduplication
    • 3.2Stylistic repetition
  • 4.Total reduplication in Nigerian Pidgin
  • 5.Deviations from prototypically isomorphic iconicity related to total reduplication in Nigerian Pidgin
    • 5.1Reduplication of pronouns
    • 5.2Reduplication of verbs
    • 5.3Other isolated cases of non-iconic reduplication
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • The abbreviations used in the glosses for the examples in this work include the following
  • References
Published online: 26 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00150.odi
References (40)
References
Akinmade, T. A., & Salami, O. (Eds.). (2021). Current trends in Nigerian Pidgin English. A sociolinguistic perspective. Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter, Mouton.Google Scholar
Bakker, P. (2008). Pidgins versus Creoles and Pidgincreoles. In S. Kouwenberg & J. V. Singler (Eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creole studies (pp. 130–157). West-Sussex: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2012). The Grammar of words. An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deuber, D. (2005). Nigerian Pidgin in Lagos. Language contact, variation and change in an African urban setting. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Egbokhare, F. (2021). The accidental lingua franca: The paradox of the ascendancy of Nigerian Pidgin in Nigeria. In A. T. Akande & O. Salami (Eds.), Current trends in Nigerian Pidgin English. A sociolinguistic perspective (pp. 67–114). Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter, Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elugbe, B., & Omamor, A. (1991). Nigerian Pidgin: Background and prospects. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational books Plc.Google Scholar
Faraclas, N. (1996). Nigerian Pidgin. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2004). Nigerian Pidgin English: Morphology and syntax. In B. Kortmann & E. W. Schneider (Eds.), A handbook of varieties of English 21 (pp. 828–853). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2021). Naija: A language of the future. In A. T. Akande & O. Salami (Eds.), Current trends in Nigerian Pidgin English. A sociolinguistic perspective (pp. 9–38). Boston & Berlin: De Gruyter, Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flaksman, M. (2015). Old and modern English onomatopoeia: Two different systems? Papers from the IV University conference ‘Current trends in linguistics’ (pp. 97–98).Google Scholar
(2017). Iconic treadmill hypothesis: The reasons behind continuous onomatopoeic coinage. In M. Bauer, A. Zirker, O. Fisher & C. Ljungberg (Eds.), Dimensions of iconicity (pp. 15–38). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Pathways of de-iconization: How borrowing, semantic evolution and regular sound change obscure iconicity. In, P. Perniss, O. Fischer & C. Ljungberg (Eds.), Operationalizing iconicity (pp. 75–104). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gil, D. (2005). From repetition to reduplication in Riau Indonesia. In B. Hurch (Ed.), Studies on reduplication (pp. 31–64). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2007). Creole complexity and associational semantics. In L. Lim, S. Matthews & U. Ansaldo (Eds.), Deconstructing creoles (pp. 67–108). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1985). Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 187–219). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1995). On language internal iconicity. In M. E. Landsberg (Ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes: The human dimension (pp. 57–63). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56 (3), 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hammarström, H., Forkel, R., Haspelmath, M., & Bank, S. (2022). Glottolog 4.6. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at [URL], Accessed on 23-09-2022). DOI logo
Kouwenberg, S., & LaCharité, D. (2001). Iconic interpretations of reduplication: Issues in the study of reduplication in Caribbean Creole languages. European Journal of English Studies, 5 (1), 59–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). The meaning s of “more of the same”. Iconicity in reduplication and the evidence for substrate influence in the genesis of Caribbean Creole languages. In S. Kouwenberg (Ed.), Twice as meaningful. Reduplication in pidgins, creoles and other contact languages (pp. 7–18). London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
(2005). Less is more: Evidence from diminutive reduplication in Caribbean Creole languages. In B. Hurch (Ed.), Studies on reduplication (pp. 533–545). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2011). The typology of the Caribbean Creole reduplication. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 26 (1), 194–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Arbitrariness and iconicity in total reduplication. Evidence from Caribbean Creoles. Studies in Language, 39 (4), 971–991. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2007). Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 139–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mensah, E. O. (2011). Lexicalization in Nigerian Pidgin. Studies in linguistics, 37 (2), 209–240.Google Scholar
Occhino, C., Anible, B., Wilkinson, E., & Morford, J. (2017). Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder: How language experience affects perceived iconicity. Gesture, 16 (1), 99–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odiegwu, N. C. (Forthcoming). Radial representations of the semantics of reduplicative constructions in Nigerian Pidgin (Naija). Cognitive Semantics.
Osisanwo, A. (2012). A morphological analysis of Nigerian Pidgin: The examples of selected advertisement jingles. The Journal of the Linguistics Association of Nigeria, 15 1, 41–54.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Pierce, 1–6. C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.Google Scholar
Rozhanskiy, I. (2015). Two semantic patterns of reduplication. Iconicity revisited. Studies in language, 39 (4), 992–1018. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, T. (2007). Re: duplication. Iconic vs counter-iconic principles (and their areal correlates). In P. Ramat & E. Roma (Eds.), Studies in language companion series 88 (pp. 317–350). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, T., & Levkovych, N. (2018). Function vs Form – On ways of telling repetition and reduplication apart. In R. Finkbeiner & U. Freywald (Eds.), Exact repetition in grammar and discourse (pp 29–66). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G. (2018). Category change from a constructional perspective. Introduction. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp 3–8). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Langendonck, W. (2007). Iconicity. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 394–418). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Voeltz, E. F. K., & Kilian–Hatz, C. (Eds.). (2001). Ideophones. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wa Thiong ´O, N. (1986). Decolonizing the mind: The politics of language in African literature. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. (2004). Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed language. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (2), 119–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar