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 (81)
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 (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Punselie, Stella, Bonnie McLean & Mark Dingemanse
2024. The Anatomy of Iconicity: Cumulative Structural Analogies Underlie Objective and Subjective Measures of Iconicity. Open Mind 8 ► pp. 1191 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
Wang, Xiaoxi
2022. Sound symbolism in Chinese children’s literature. Cognitive Linguistics 33:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
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
Kawahara, Shigeto & Jeff Moore
2021. How to express evolution in English Pokémon names. Linguistics 59:3 ► pp. 577 ff. DOI logo
Nielsen, Alan KS & Mark Dingemanse
2021. Iconicity in Word Learning and Beyond: A Critical Review. Language and Speech 64:1 ► pp. 52 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
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 november 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.