From Sign to Signing v 3 Iconicity in Language and Literature Iconicity in La

7/27/2019 From Sign to Signing v 3 Iconicity in Language and Literature Iconicity in La

1/455


2/455

From Sign to Signing


3/455


4/455

From Sign to SigningIconicity in language andliterature 3

Edited by

Wolfgang G. MllerFriedrich-Schiller-Universitt Jena

Olga FischerUniversity of Amsterdam

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANYAMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA


5/455

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of AmericanNational Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for PrintedLibrary Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Symposium on Iconicity in Language and Literature (3rd: 2001: Jena, Germany)From sign to signing: iconicity in language and literature 3 / edited by Wolfgang G. Mller, Olga

Fischerp. cm.

... a selection of papers that were originally given at the Third Symposium on Iconicity in Languageand Literature organized by the University of Jena in co-operation with the University of Amsterdam

and the University of Zurich and held at Jena, 29-31 March, 2001--Preface.Includes bibliographical references and index.1. Iconicity (Linguistics)--Congresses. 2. Philology--Congresses. 3. Sign language--Congresses.

4. Semiotics--Congresses. I. Mller, Wolfgang G. II. Fisher, Olga. III. Friedrich-Schiller-UniversittJena. IV. Title.

P99.4.I26 S96 2002302.2--dc21 2002028004ISBN 90 272 2593 1 (Eur.) / 1 58811 288 8 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2003 John Benjamins B.V.No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other

means, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co. P.O.Box 36224 1020 ME Amsterdam The NetherlandsJohn Benjamins North America P.O.Box 27519 Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 USA


6/455

Table of contents

Preface andacknowled gments ix

List of contributors xiIntroduction: From Signing back to Signs 1

Olga Fischer and Wolfgang G. Mller

P IAuditory and visual signs and signing

The influence of sign language iconicity on semanticconceptualization 23

Klaudia Grote and Erika Linz

What You See Is What You Get: Iconicity andmetaphor in the visuallanguage of written andsignedpoetry: A cognitive poetic approach 41

William J. Herlofsky

Spatial iconicity in two English verb classes 63Axel Hbler

What imitates birdcalls?: Two experiments on birdcalls and their

linguistic representations 77Keiko Masuda

P IIVisual iconicity and iconic mapping

Perspective in experimental shapedpoetry: A semiotic approach 105John J. White

Where reading peters out: Iconic images in the entropic text 129

Julian Moyle


7/455

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

Iconic representation of space andtime in Vladimir Sorokins novelThe Queue (Ochered) 153

Andreas OhmeVision andPrayer: Dylan Thomas andthe Power of X 167

Matthias Bauer

Diagrams in narrative: Visual strategies in contemporary fiction 183Christina Ljungberg

P IIIStructural iconicity

The iconicity of Afrikaans reduplication 203C. Jac Conradie

Diagrammatic iconicity in the lexicon: Base andd erivation in thehistory of German verbal word-formation 225

Volker Harm

Creative syntax: Iconic principles within the symbolic 243Beate Hampe and Doris Schnefeld

Aspects of grammatical iconicity in English 263Gnter Rohdenburg

Beatrice: or The geometry of love 287Wilhelm Ptters

How metaphor andiconicity are entwinedin poetry: A case in Haiku 317Masako K. Hiraga

P IV

Intermedial iconicity

Intermedial iconicity in fiction: Tema con variazioni 339Werner Wolf

Iconicity andliterary translation 361Elzbieta Tabakowska

P VNew applications of sign theory


8/455

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

Iconizing literature 379Jrgen Dines Johansen

From signal to symbol: Towards a systems typology of linguisticsigns 411

Piotr Sadowski

Author index 425

Subject index 433


9/455


10/455

Preface and acknowledgments

The studies collected in this volume represent a selection of papers that wereoriginally given at the ThirdSymposium on Iconicity in Language and Literature,organizedby the University of Jena in co-operation with the University ofAmsterdam andthe University of Zurich andheldat Jena, 2931 March, 2001.The essays included here exemplify a wide range of new approaches and newresearch material in iconicity studies both in language and literature. They showthat iconicity remains an important andfruitful topic for interdisciplinary workopening up new fields for further research.

The organizers of the conference gratefully acknowledge the support ofinstitutional sponsors such as the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Univer-sity of Jena andthe Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen of the University ofAmsterdam. The University of Jena generously offeredits facilities to theconference andgave logistic help. The symposium profited greatly from thecompetent andenthusiastic assistance given by Dr. Eva-Maria Orth andJensMittelbach. Jens Mittelbachs expertise on the computer also considerably lightenedthe burden of the organizers and editors. We are most grateful to Jens MittelbachandMarlene von Frommannshausen for their technical assistence with the index.

Very special thanks go to Max Nnny of the University of Zurich, whohelpedto organize the symposium andwhose expertise andknowled ge of the fieldwas invaluable to the editors in their selection of the contributions for the presentvolume. Max Nnny is the spiritus rectorof literary iconicity studies and it is hisenthusiasm andcharisma which first startedthis series of symposia on iconicity.

We wouldalso, once again, like to thank Kees Vaes of John Benjamins Ltd.for his advice and concern as regards the volume and for helping us to see itthrough the press.

A final wordof thanks must of course go to the active participants whose

enthusiasm, detailedcase studies andinnovative approaches contributedtomaking the symposium andwe hope this volume too a success.


11/455

x PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are indebted to the following for permission to reproduce copyrightmaterial: in the essay by John White the illustration of Francesco Canguillo,

Milano dimostrazione 1915 is reproduced by permission of DACS (the Designand Artists Copyright Society Ltd.); the texts from Peter Readings works inJulian Moyles essay are reproduced by permission of Bloodaxe Books Ltd.

W. G. M. and O. F.


12/455

List of contributors

Matthias Bauer

Institut fr Anglistik/AmerikanistikUniversitt des SaarlandesPF 151150D-66041 [email protected]

C. Jac Conradie

Department of AfrikaansRandAfrikaans University

P. O. Box 291392109 MelvilleSouth [email protected]

Olga Fischer

Engels SeminariumUniversiteit van AmsterdamSpuistraat 2101012 VT Amsterdam

The [email protected]

Klaudia Grote

Universitt zu KlnKulturwissenschaftlichesForschungskolleg Medien und kulturelleKommunikation SFB/FK 427Bernhard-Feilchenfeld-Strae 11D-50969 Kln

[email protected]

Beate Hampe

Institut fr Anglistik/AmerikanistikFriedrich-Schiller-Universitt JenaErnst-Abbe-Platz 8D-07743 [email protected]

Volker Harm

Deutsches WrterbuchAkademie der Wissenschaften zu

GttingenHerzberger Landstrae 2D-37085 [email protected]

William J. Herlofsky

Faculty of Foreign LanguagesNagoya Gakuin University1350 Kamishinano

Seto-shiAichi-ken48012 [email protected]

Masako K. Hiraga

School of SociologyRikkyo University3341 Nishi-IkebukuroToshima-ku

Tokyo1718501 [email protected]


13/455

xii LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Axel Hbler

Institut fr Anglistik/AmerikanistikFriedrich-Schiller-Universitt JenaErnst-Abbe-Platz 8D-07743 [email protected]

Jrgen Dines Johansen

Department of Literature andSemioticsOdense University55 Campusvej5230 Odense

[email protected]

Erika Linz

Universitt zu KlnKulturwissenschaftlichesForschungskolleg Medien und kulturelleKommunikation SFB/FK 427Bernhard-Feilchenfeld-Strae 11D-50969 Kln

[email protected]

Christina Ljungberg

Englisches SeminarUniversitt ZrichPlattenstrasse 47CH-8032 [email protected]

Keiko MasudaDepartment of LinguisticsUniversity of CambridgeSidgwick AvenueCambridgeCB3 9DAUnitedKingd [email protected]

Julian Hillyer Moyle

13 Churchill RoadRugbyWarwickshireCV22 6BTUnitedKingd om

[email protected]

Wolfgang G. Mller

Institut fr Anglistik/AmerikanistikFriedrich-Schiller-Universitt JenaErnst-Abbe-Platz 8D-07743 Jena

[email protected]

Andreas Ohme

Institut fr SlawistikFriedrich-Schiller-Universitt JenaErnst-Abbe-Platz 8D-07743 [email protected]

Wilhelm Ptters

Institut fr Romanische PhilologieUniversitt WrzburgAm HublandD-97074 [email protected]

Gnter Rohdenburg

Institut fr Anglistik/Sprachwissenschaft

Universitt PaderbornWarburger Strae 100D-33098 [email protected]

Piotr Sadowski

American College Dublin2 Merrion SquareDublin 2

[email protected]


14/455

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS xiii

Doris Schnefeld

Englisches SeminarRuhr-Universitt-BochumUniversittsstrae 150D-44780 [email protected]

Elzbieta Tabakowska

Institute of EnglishJagiellonian UniversityAl. Mickiewicza 9/1131120 [email protected]

John White

Department of GermanKings CollegeStrandLondon WC2R 2LSUnitedKingd om

[email protected]

Werner Wolf

Institut fr AnglistikKarl-Franzens-Universitt GrazHeinrichstrasse 36A-8010 Graz

[email protected]


15/455


16/455

Introduction

From Signing back to Signs

Olga Fischer Wolfgang G. Mller

University of Amsterdam University of Jena

Iconicity is one of the few fields of research in which the disciplines of linguis-tics and literary studies both of which have regrettably drifted apart as aconsequence of specialization can fruitfully co-operate. We see iconicity (beit of an imagic or a diagrammatic kind)1 operating in everyday as well as literarylanguage. Andit is through the interdisciplinary nature of the iconicity symposia,

through approaching iconic phenomena from both a linguistic andliterary pointof view, that we may develop a keener perception of the pervasive presence oficonicity in all forms of language. This will provide us with a better understand-ing of how language is structuredand at the same time give us a deeper insightinto the tools andmethod s usedby poets andwriters, leading to a fuller appreci-ation of the literary text itself.

In this thirdvolume in the series, we find a number of new departures. Oneof these is the interest in gestures, andmore specifically, in signing: thegestural mode of signed languages. The other is the concern with intermedial

iconicity, which we shall discuss in connection with the contributions found inPart IV. The interest of scholars of signedlanguages in iconicity is fairly recent.Before the 1960s andup to the 70s, signedlanguages were generally regardedasrather primitive languages devoidof prepositions, conjunctions andabstractwords (Eisenson andBoase 1950, quotedin Battison 2001: 6); languages thatwere boundto the concrete andrather limitedwith respect to abstractions,humor andsubtleties such as figures of speech which enrich expression (DavisandSilverman 1970, in Battison 2001: 6). Signed languages only came to be seenas interesting in their own right after the Chomskyan revolution, that is, whentransformational-generative linguists, with their mentalistic approach to language,focused on the machinery producing language rather than on the product itself.


17/455

2 OLGA FISCHER AND WOLFGANG G. MLLER

This took the attention away from the still exclusive focus on aural andoralmodes of communication andopenedup possibilities for another channel, the

visual one used by signers. Indeed, new research into signed languages, whichwas greatly inspiredby the seminal work of W. C. Stokoe (1960), showedthatsignedlanguages turned out to be organizedandacquired like other languages(Newport andSupalla 2001: 107). That is, just like spoken languages, theypossess a phonological system (phonemes in sign language are the smallestnon-meaningful, visual elements), morphology andsyntax; they have anaphors(cf. Wilbur 2001: 236) andeven null arguments (cf. S. D. Fischer 2001: 204); andagreement in person andnumber may be signedonto the verb in connection withboth objects andsubjects (cf. Newport andSupalla 2001: 107110) etc. In other

words, the underlying abstract linguistic system is the same in both spoken andsignedlanguages, only the tools with which the signs are made, necessarily,differ. This difference in tools offers opportunities as well as restrictions. It isnot surprising, therefore, that linear order, tone and emphasis play an importantrole in spoken languages, while space, motion andlocation come to the fore insignedlanguages. Similarly, simultaneous activities can be quite easily expressedin sign language while in spoken language different means have to be resortedto (see also below).

It is noteworthy, however, that with the new interest in signedlanguages in

the seventies, there was a move away from their iconic nature. The reason forthis was, first of all, that the gestural mode of communication had marked offthe language as primitive in the earlier days. Secondly, the new Chomskyanlinguistics hadelevated the arbitrariness of the sign almost to a first principle.Thus, iconicity hadno place within this new research paradigm. It is only veryrecently that iconicity re-acquireda confident position in sign language research.2

There are a number of reasons why many more signs in signedlanguageshave iconic origins andwhy the structure of signedlanguages appears to[have] a higher degree of iconicity (S. D. Fischer 2001: 206). The first reason isclear and may be expressed, as Fischer has done (ibid. p.206), succinctly:because it can! Objects can be picturedmuch more easily andtransparently bygestures than by sounds. It also explains why cross-linguistically, signedlanguages are typologically much more alike than spoken languages. For asimilar reason it is not surprising that a higher degree of iconic types has beenfoundin written language, where the spoken mode of language has been madevisible. Contributions to the first two iconicity volumes by Matthias Bauer(1999), Andreas Fischer (1999), Max Nnny (1999, 2001), Robbie Goh (2001)

andChristina Ljungberg (2001) have illustratediconic usages that cannot occurin spoken varieties of language.


18/455

INTRODUCTION 3

There may be another, equally important reason, however, why signedlanguages may have preservedtheir iconicity more clearly.3 S.D Fischer

(2001: 106) remarks that signedlanguages may not grammaticalize so rapidly asspoken languages because most sign language users do not have parents whouse the same language andthat therefore sign language must be recreolizedinevery generation. It is true that, in structure, signedlanguages share featureswith creoles andcreolizedlanguage, which are also more transparent (i.e. moreiconic, especially diagrammatically) than spoken languages with a longer history.However, this does not mean that signed languages do not grammaticalize at all.As statedabove, they do have full grammatical structure, andso they do havesigns which have become conventionalizedso that their earlier iconic origin or

motivation is no longer immediately visible. Indeed, Klima and Bellugi (1979)have establishedthat most iconic signs are not transparent to hearing participants,but they are often translucent, i.e. once the meaning of the sign is known, thesign can be understood as motivated. Moreover, the degree of transparency doesnot only depend on perceptual features but also on cultural features. Thus,Pizzuto andV olterra (2001) have shown, by means of some very interestingexperiments, that signs usedin Italian sign language were more easily understoodby Italian than by non-Italian hearers, because these signs resembledculturally-specific Italian gestures. As in all cases of iconicity, the perception of the

similarity between sign and referent depends on the interpreter and the contextthat he is part of.

We welcome the attention paidto gestures and signedlanguage in thisvolume because the research into gestural signs andthe structure of signedlanguages can cast new light on the structure of spoken languages (in both oralandwritten form), andmore particularly, it may tell us more about the iconicfoundations of spoken languages andthe way iconicity has evolvedin them.There are a number of studies in this volume that are directly or indirectlyrelatedto sign language or sign language research (gatheredtogether in Part II).It must be noted, however, that the five broad sections distinguished in this bookare meant as a loose categorization; most of the contributions cannot be limitedto the section in which they have been placed. For this reason, we will notalways follow these sections closely in this introductory chapter; rather, we willindicate how the various topics discussed in each study refer to and are linkedwith topics discussed in others.

The most direct investigation into the role played by iconicity in signedlanguage is provided by Klaudia Grote and Erika Linz. Their contribution pays

special attention to the fact, already remarked on above, that the interpretation ofa sign depends very heavily on its context, especially as concerns the extent to


19/455


which its occurrence is perceivedas conventional. In their study, Grote and Linzfirst remindus that only certain qualities of a referent can be iconically repre-

sentedin a sign, i.e. the similarity between a sign andits referent is neithercomplete nor objective,4 andthe recognition of its iconicity is always filtered bythe interpretation of the perceiver. Quite understandably, therefore, the moreconventional the immediate context of the sign is, the less likely it is that aconventionalizedsign will be interpretediconically . The main aim of their articleis to explore the influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualiza-tion. They test whether the iconic quality of a signedword helps to establish thesemantic concept more quickly, andwhether it influences which quality of theconcept stands out more or is more prototypical. This, in turn, may provide

information about the semantic structuring of the lexicon. The experimentspresentedin their study involve confronting both signers and non-signers as wellas bilinguals with fully lexicalized(conventionalized ) signs (visual or oral ones)as well as with certain qualities connectedor unconnectedwith the referent ofthe sign. It turnedout that signers andbilinguals were faster in judging iconicsign picture relations than the non-signers, who reactedto all qualities connectedwith the sign in the same way. This was in fact the outcome that the researchershadexpectedbecause for the non-signers there was no iconic visual connectionbetween the sign andone of the visual qualities, their sign representing a sound

rather than a visual word. This suggests that the iconicity of the sign persists insign language even when the sign has become lexicalized. The experiments thusshow that the semantic organization of the mental lexicon of signers andbilinguals is influenced by the iconicity of the sign. These results additionallysuggest that language may influence conceptualization, i.e. that it is not justconceptualization that steers linguistic expression. In other words, the outcomesuggests a moderate version of linguistic relativity (p. 36).

A rather different experiment was conducted by William Herlofsky, whoshows how research in sign language, in this case the signing of metaphor inJapanese sign language, may be beneficial in helping to develop a comprehensivetheory of metaphor andiconicity . Working within a cognitive theory of languagewhere form, meaning, metaphor andiconicity are all equally relevant and fullyintegratedinto the framework of the theory, Herlofsky illustrates how therelationship between real-worldspace andmental space (which he investigatedearlier [Herlofsky 2001] from an evolutionary point of view) may be made morevisible by considering the use made of signing spaces in signed poetry. He firstshows that the iconicity of visual language can best be approachedthrough the

analysis of metaphor. Metaphor provides the foundation for our conceptualizationof many basic abstract ideas, as the author illustrates by referring to the work of


20/455

INTRODUCTION 5

Lakoff andJohnson, who show how complex metaphors arise through primary,cross-domain associations acquired in early childhood (this is called conceptual

blending). After a brief discussion of the types of iconicity that occur in signlanguage to express concrete objects (these make use of structural correspondenc-es in both form andpath between our conception of objects in the real worldandthe form and movement of the articulators in the signing space, usedto signthese concepts), Herlofsky moves on to the signing of abstract concepts, where it ismuch more difficult to create signs that resemble their object. He shows thathere the same type of metaphorical blending takes place as is the case in regular,i.e. non-signedlanguage. By illustrating how this blending actually occurs visiblyin the signing space in the performance of signedpoetry , Herlofsky gives us a

better idea of how metaphoric blending may take place in regular language.At this point we will discuss a contribution by Masako Hiraga (even though

we have placedit in Part III because it is also concernedwith structural iconic-ity) since it likewise deals with the notoriously difficult problem of metaphorandiconicity and since it refers to Herlofskys study andd raws on the sameexample, a Japanese haiku, which is also available in sign language. In Hiragasstudy the vagueness of the Peircean notion of metaphor is counterbalanced by amore precise definition derived from cognitive theory. Elaborating and refiningTurners and Fauconniers model of blending, Hiraga explains the dynamic

interplay of metaphor andiconicity from two angles: (1) iconicity manifested asimage-schema in metaphor, (2) metaphor giving an iconic interpretation to form.The example she uses to illustrate her theoretical model is a haiku by BashoMatsuo whose bipartite metaphorical structure is perfectly suitedto substantiateher argument. The essay also demonstrates that in the revision of the poem, kanji(Chinese logographs) effectively strengthen the link between form andmeaning.The studies by Herlofsky and Hiraga, which deal with the same problem from alinguistic point of view on the one handand a literary one on the other, exempli-

fy particularly well the advantages of the interdisciplinary approach taken in thisandthe previous volumes on iconicity.To return to the topic of Part I, Axel Hblers contribution to this section

does not actually make use of sign language proper but of gestures used byspeakers of spoken language. He is interestedin the connection between gesturesandlinguistic signs, andhe shows how the loss of the one may leadto changein the other, thus giving an indication of how originally iconic gestures mayemerge in a different form linguistically. By offering a glimpse of how suchgestures may have been translatedinto spoken language, we may acquire a

clearer idea about what links there are between spoken andsignedlanguages andabout the structure ultimately underlying both. Hblerfirst develops the idea that


21/455


there is an iconic relation between the verbal and the gestural mode in theexpression of so-called redundant phrasal verbs (i.e. expressions in which the

particle does not alter the propositional content of the verb, as in swallow downfor swallow) and in the expression of pure spatial verbs (such as to up).Thus, the accompanying gestures not only resemble but highlight a certain aspectof the spatial meaning inherent in the verb and/or the adverbial particle. In otherwords, a phrasal verb like lift up accompanied by an upward movement of thehand highlights a part of the event itself. Similar gestures could be used in ametaphorical spatial way in verbs such as yell out. Hbler suggests further thatthis cross-modal form of iconicity is the result of the link that exists betweenthese verbs and gestures on the operational level; i.e. the spatial concepts,

whether expressed verbally or gesturally, are linked to the same part of the brain.These observations are then used to explain a rather interesting historical-linguistic development: the rise of most of these redundant and pure phrasalverbs in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are linked to the great effortscourtly society took in subjecting the body to a rigorous control (p. 74). Toomuch gesturing became frowned upon. Hblers (still tentative) suggestion is thatthe resulting reduction in gestures, was compensated for verbally by means of anadditional but semantically redundant particle.

Keiko Masudas investigation into birdcalls has a link with the above studies

because it likewise involves the more direct mimicking of a real-world object,but this time by oral rather than visual means: she investigates in how far thesounds produced by birds are actually reflected in the linguistic signs that we useto refer to those sounds. The experiments show how close the phonetic word ofa particular language, in this case English, is to the actual sound made, but theinvestigation also indicates what phonetic or phonological constraints of thelanguage in question are in force, or indeed relaxed. It is well-known that evenin onomatopoeia, which is considered to be one of the most direct forms ofimagic iconicity (i.e. a type of icon that comes close to the real thing),5 theconventional phonological system of language plays a role, and it is to beexpected that the choices made to represent birdcalls are somehow constrainedby the phonological framework of the language in question.6 Iconicity, then, isa creative device that to some extent does and does not follow the conventionsof language (cf. Lecercle 1990, Fnagy 2001: 2ff.). Sound combinations that donot occur in the phonemic inventory of English such as ts, pf, ps, may still cropup in onomatopoeic expressions, as in tse tse, phft, phsst (the last two areexamples from comic books given in Crystal 1995: 250). However, the more con-

ventional the onomatopoeic words become, the more likely it is that they followthe normal phonological rules. In other words, exclamations or interjections in


22/455

INTRODUCTION 7

comic books may disregard these rules more easily than verbs which are nextformedfrom those exclamations, simply because verbs are more rule-governed

than interjections.Similarly, the description of birds sounds may stretch the system of thelanguage more than the actual names given to birds on the basis of these soundsbecause again these names as nouns fulfilling a regular part in the lexicon andgrammar will tendto conform to the regular pattern. Still, they remaindistinctly iconic, and therefore preserve some of the exceptional behaviour.Marian Klamer has shown in a number of studies (e.g. 2001, 2002) that expres-sives in a language (viz. lexicalization[s] of vividsense impressions, whichinclude names, and morphemes with negative connotations or referring to

undesirable states [2001: 166]) are usually distinguished formally from non-expressives. This formal distinction could involve some direct or imagic iconic-ity, but in establishedor conventional lexicalizations, according to Klamer, it isthe diagrammatic iconicity that has been best preserved: the formal complexityof these expressives resembles their semantic complexity, i.e. the markedphonetic form is iconic of the markedsemantic content.

By means of an acoustic analysis of the actual sounds of birds, Masudashows in her experiments which parts of the sounds are used in the linguisticrealization of it. She finds that the front cavity resonance (in which both the

secondandthirdformants in the spectogram play a role) is most crucial in theimitation of a call, i.e. the selection of the vowels for a linguistic representationseems determined by the frequency of the front cavity resonance. As far asconsonant selection is concerned, it appears that especially plosives are selected,which are very well suitedto express both the abrupt onset and the extremelyshort duration of most calls. There is also evidence that further acoustic factorsmay influence both the place and voicing of the plosive. In addition, Masudaconducts some experiments the other way around, i.e. from the perceptual pointof view, by confronting human subjects with other linguistic, but deviant, signs,which likewise imitate the birdcall. These latter experiments show conclusivelythat indeed the front cavity resonance pattern is crucial for the type of vowelused. As far as the use of deviant initial and final consonants is concerned, thematter was less clear. It seems that in the selection of consonants, other factors,apart from pure perception, play a role as well. It is quite possible that thelanguage-specific phonological system is involvedhere. Although this was notpart of the present study, it would be interesting to find out by an investigationof the same birdcalls in other languages in how far the signs used there differ

from the ones foundin English, and thus in how far the phonological system ofthe language itself determines the shape of the linguistic sign.


23/455


In the next section (part II), there are a number of studies that all concen-trate on visual iconicity, a type, as we have mentionedabove, that is more

common in literary texts, andof course in signedlanguages, as we have justseen. The study by John J. White is innovative in several respects. With itsexploration of instances of perspective in shapedpoetry on the page as a two-dimensional surface and its semiotic effects, it opens up a new field toiconicity research. Albeit rootedin the Peircean tradition, it is post-Peircean inthat it utilizes theoretical approaches derived from the visual arts (E. H. Gom-brich, Umberto Eco, Nelson Goodman), approaches which are concerned with therole playedby perceptual conventions andcultural codes in processes of iconicsignification. The central part of his essay deals with Italian Futurists experi-

ments with typographical iconicity. Starting with minimalist Futurist examples ofshapedpoems by Bruno Sanzin, which iconize perspective in a rather simple,albeit instructive way, he passes on to more sophisticatedexamples such asFrancesco Cangiullos free-wordcollage poem Milan-Demonstration (1915),which is shown to evince both visual andacoustic depth. In the papers lastsection, White moves from avant-garde poetry of the early twentieth century toone of the most significant new forms of shapedpoetry at the endof the century,Eduardo Kacs holopoems. These poems manifest forms ofsignification thathave emancipated from the static renderings of perspective in earlier avant-garde

poetry using the protean effects of perspective in a holograph.An equally complex form of visual iconicity is exploredby Julian Moyle,

namely the iconic use of the corrupt andblurredand partly illegible typing ofpoems in Peter Readings Last Poems. His essay attempts to enrich the iconicimage by showing that it may express much more than just a one-to-onerelationship between wordand thing. Moyle rejects a simplistic interpretation ofReadings poem, which wouldund erstandits fragmented andillegible typograph-ical form as iconically reflecting the idea of a text under erosion. By relating thepoem to other poems in the volume the untitled final two pages (presentinga text even more corrupt than Erosive) and[Untitled ] (which looks like anuncorruptedversion of Erosive) andto the wider context of Readingswork, Moyle calls in question its conception as a totalising Entropicon(p. 142). Referring to Michel Serres complex model of entropy, which includesnegentropy, i.e. negative entropy, he proposes an interpretation of the contem-porary British poet, which sheds light both on individual poems and his wholevision as an artist.

A much less intricate instance of iconicity or so it seems at least at first

sight is the topic of Andreas Ohmes analysis of Vladimir Sorokins TheQueue (1985), a generically unclassifiable text, which represents the incessant


24/455

INTRODUCTION 9

polylogue of people in an endless queue an everyday Soviet experience waiting to buy consumer goods. While the texts dialogue is radically desemanti-

cized, its iconicity is foregrounded, the typography miming the length of thequeue, the similarity andeven identity of the replies andthe roll-calls as well asthe monotony andrepetitiveness of the whole process. A similar technique is tobe found, at least in the English translation of the text, in the use of blanks andblank pages to iconize pauses andphases of sleep, andin the representation ofsexual encounters which is typographically reduced to moaning sounds followedby dots. What may on the whole seem to be a rather straightforward satirictreatment of an unpleasant part of Soviet reality is shown to be an extremelyeffective subversion of the ideology and practice of Soviet Realism. The very

iconicity of the text challenges andsubverts the authority of the ideologizeddoctrine of art.

The subject of Matthias Bauers essay also concerns a deceptively simpleiconic representation, i.e. Dylan Thomas poem Vision andPrayer, which, withthe rhomboidandtriangular arrangement of its lines, seems to refer explicitly tothe classical tradition of shaped poetry. But Bauer shows that there is nostraightforwardrelationship between the poems topic as expressedin the title andits pictorial form. He makes it plausible that the poems pattern is basedon the form of the letter X, an elementary geometrical form which, as he argues,

evokes shapes profoundly significant in mystical religious thought such as thedouble pyramid, the legs of a stork, the cross, a kiss, and the figure of a nakedman with the arms andlegs spanning the globe in what is a combination of theletters X andO. In the poems mystical geometry the X (andd erivative formssuch as triangle, diamond, double pyramid, and cross) emerges as an icon of thepoets aiming for the creative word. The iconic use of mystical geometry is hereorientedto forms or shapes without numerological implications as expounded inPtters essay on Dantes geometry of love in this volume (see further below).

The iconic significance of visual elements in postmodernist fiction is thetopic of Christina Ljungbergs study, which succeeds in exemplifying theheuristic value of Peircean thought even with regardto recent experimentalliterature. Ljungberg is concernedwith diagrammatic iconicity, focussing on theinteraction between visual artifacts such as photographs andmaps and theverbal level of expression. In texts such as Ondaatjes prose poem The CollectedWorks of Billy the Kid andAtwood s The Blind Assassin, photographs are usednot only to reflect the structure of the narrative itself andintra-textual relation-ships (e.g. relationships within a group or those of characters to their surround-

ings), but they are also employedas devices for self-reflexive comment onrepresentation in general, andon the art of writing in particular. Maps are shown


25/455


to be usedby a postcolonial writer such as Merlene Nourbese Philip (Looking forLivingstone: An Odyssey in Silence) as visual correlates of their fragmented

cultures. In self-reflexive fiction such as Paul Austers City of Glass, mapsiconize the problem of representation.Moving on from visual iconicity, which is closer to the imagic type, we

now turn to Part III andto more diagrammatic forms of iconicity. These play animportant role in the way natural languages are structured. But here too theiconic patterns range from the more concrete to the more abstract. Jac Conradiescontribution to this section concerns repetition, a very common device inlanguage, which is often used in a concrete iconic way. Indeed, it is likely thatall conventional repetitive patterns in language were originally iconic. Conradie

considers the device of reduplication in Afrikaans, where it is a much morefrequent phenomenon than in Dutch, which is the base language from whichAfrikaans is derived. It is very likely that the higher number of reduplicativeforms in Afrikaans is due to Malay influence, one of the languages that play arole in the creolization of Afrikaans. It is well-known that reduplication is acommon feature in Malay (for instance the plural is formedby repeating thestem), as it is in many languages derived from a pidgin (cf. Tabakowska, thisvolume, andKouwenber g andLaCharit 2001).

Reduplication is a versatile and multifarious device in that it can be used in

many functions. The same is true for repetition as a literary device. In literature,it is commonly usedto express similarity, continuity, regularity, monotony,emphasis (Nnny 1986: 205). Because the reduplication in Afrikaans is fairlyrecent,7 it is still more clearly iconic, i.e. there has been little grammaticalization.Not surprisingly therefore, the functional categories distinguished for Afrikaansby Conradie, closely resemble the categories found to be relevant for literarylanguage, where the repetition is not usually conventional. The most concretefunction of reduplication in Afrikaans is indeed the suggestion of repeated

action. The mechanism is especially encounteredin the names of games, which,as Conradie states, may be regarded as essentially repetitive (p. 207). It is alsousedto suggest repeatede fforts, which comes close to another concrete functionof reduplication, i.e. intensification (similar to Nnnys emphasis). Anotherfunction Conradie illustrates, again close to the pure notion of repetitiveness, isits use to suggest intermittent activities, which in turn is relatedto the idea ofinterruption or discontinuity. Discontinuity, of course, can only exist in asituation in which continuity is foregrounded, so again we have a link herewith one of Nnnys functions of repetition in literary language, anda link with

the notions of continuation or extension, which Conradie has also establishedfor Afrikaans. What makes the categorization of the functions of reduplication in


26/455

INTRODUCTION 11

Afrikaans so convincing is the fact that all functions clearly hang together, aswell as the fact that they are usedcreatively in precisely the same way as in

literary language. As with all types of iconicity, the key to repetition is similari-ty. In reduplication, the repeated form is literally similar to the first form, whichprobably accounts for its simple but strong iconic quality, andfor its naturalpresence in both everyday language and literary language.

The other contributions placedin this section show structural iconicity of amore abstract type. When the iconic relation is more abstract, it is more di fficultto observe it directly. At the same time, however, it is also more frequentlypresent in language. It is a well-known fact that iconicity increases with anincrease in structure. Thus, compounds and derivations are more iconic than

simple stems, andsyntactic structures are more iconic than words. Volker Harmshows that there may be another iconic tendency in the lexicon which not somuch concerns a diagrammatic relationship between morphemes within wordsandthe way they share morphemes with other words, but which concerns anincrease in isomorphism between the meaning andform of a whole (simple orcomplex) word. He investigates a development in the history of German wherebyin a class of verbs derivationally related to one another (e.g. hren, erhren,verhren, gehren), which were once all more or less synonymous (andthereforenon-isomorphic between their form andtheir meaning), the one-to-many relations

between form andmeaning change slowly into a one-to-one (i.e. isomorphic)relation, so that each individual verbal form ends up with only one of themeanings that they previously shared. What makes this isomorphic tendency evenmore interesting from an iconic point of view, is the fact that the central, mostprototypical meaning gets attachedto the most central sign or form, i.e. theunprefixed stem, while the more peripheral meanings fall to the prefixed forms.Thus we see an (iconic) equivalence between a morphologically markedformanda semantically markedmeaning. This is rather similar to the type of iconicity

that Klamer (2002) discovered in two unrelated languages between phonological-ly markedforms (of the phonaesthetic type, such as flimmer, flicker) andtheirsemantically markedmeanings.

The study by Beate Hampe andDoris Schnefeldd eals with structureslarger than the word. What Hampe andSchnefeldinvestigate is verb phraseswhich are combinedwith arguments that they do not normally subcategorize for.These new argument frames, however, can be understood by virtue of similarframes usedwith other, more general verbs. The reason why they can beunderstood is that the verbs now sharing the same pattern begin to share

a number of conceptual properties. This type of iconicity works a little bit likemetaphor in that the verbal concept, normally expressedby these rather general


27/455


andfrequently occurring verbs, is now expressedmore concretely andvivid ly byanother verb using the same subcategorization frame as the oldverb, a frame that

it did not possess before. In all cases the new verbal construction highlights anumber of expressive qualities that the general verb did not possess. Thus, thegeneral verb put is associatedwith the following argument frame:

NPsubject/agent put NPobject/patient into NPobject/locative

as in, She put the child into his high chair. Next, this same frame comes to beusedwith the verb wrestle, even though wrestle normally occurs only in thefollowing frame:

NPsubject/agent

wrestle with NPobject/recipient

When a language user produces an utterance such as, She wrestled a screamingDudley into his high chair, he is using the frame creatively, fixing the pattern ofput onto that of wrestle, thereby not only changing the subcategorization frameof wrestle, but also giving it a new meaning, i.e. to put somebody/somethinginto a place with great difficulty. This new construction can only be understoodby reference to the old one. In other words, it is the diagrammatic iconic linkbetween the oldand the new, that gives the new construction its meaning. Itworks like metaphor, but the basis of comparison is structural andnot conceptu-al. What is transferredfrom tenor to vehicle is what Hampe and Schnefeldcall a schematic icon (p. 244), andnot a particular conceptual quality. In bothcases, however, we have the same result, i.e. the expression of the familiar bythe unfamiliar, making the utterance new andfresh. In both cases, too, it is thecontext that helps to make the correct interpretation. So this study is anotherillustration of the fact that the recognition of iconicity very much depends onclues provided by the context, as was also emphasizedby Grote andLinz.Language users may creatively manipulate the argument or complementation

patterns in which verbs appear provided that enough clues are present to interpretthe manipulatedcomplementation structure correctly. It is important to note toothat the iconic diagram in this study is different from metaphor in that it ismotivatedintra-linguistically , it is a form of endophoric iconicity (cf. Nth2001). Metaphor is motivatedby qualities of the external world(exophoric) andis therefore more likely to occur cross-linguistically (more universal). In otherwords, the use of the same metaphor in different languages depends on culturalphenomena, whereas the use of the same iconic schemes or diagrams depends onthe grammatical system of a particular language.

Another study that is interestedin the kindof (diagrammatic) iconicprinciples that play a role in grammatical structuring is the contribution by


28/455

INTRODUCTION 13

Gnter Rohdenburg. Rohdenburg especially addresses the question of whatdetermines grammatical form in cases of variation. One of the most salient

aspects of iconicity in this respect is isochrony, i.e. the phenomenon that theorder of linguistic elements referring to events in the real world mimics the real-world order (cf. Tai 1985). This indeed constitutes Rohdenburgs first principleof linear order. The other two major principles which he distinguishes are thequantity principle and the distance principle (the distance principle is similarto Givns [1985] proximity principle andalso incorporates Bybees [1985]relevance principle).8 In his essay for this volume Rohdenburg is concernedonly with the latter two, but it is interesting to note in connection with the firstprinciple that, although the temporal order of events is indeed frequently

mimickedin language, it is difficult, if not impossible to represent the simultane-ity of events iconically in this way (cf. Haiman 1985). We have briefly notedabove that this is not the case in signedlanguages where the iconic expressionof simultaneity plays a most important role. Clearly the possibilities for iconicforms are constrainedby the different modes of communication (gestural/visualvs. oral/aural). Nevertheless it is clear that in spite of the problem of representingsimultaneity iconically in terms of order, spoken languages still make use oficonic means to convey the occurrence of simultaneous events. Jansen andLentz(2001), for instance, have shown that simultaneity can be iconically suggestedby

intertwining the two simultaneous events, or by embedding one in the other. Inthis way the linear distance between the sub-event and the main event is reduced(andso the proximity principle is calledupon). Another possibility is using theprinciple of quantity. Discussing two simultaneous events, Jansen andLentzshow that the one that is of minor importance, is given minor linguistic form minor in the sense that explicit verbal andnominal markers are lacking while semantically too the form is less specific than the form which representsthe major event.

The principle of quantity, as Rohdenburg briefly notes, is also at work inrepetition and reduplication, as is indeed shown in detail in Conradies contribu-tion to this volume. In his own investigation, Rohdenburg shows how both theprinciple of quantity and of distance play a role in the determination of a numberof grammatical variants in Present-day English. He looks at the role of quantityin the expression of verbs which may function as auxiliaries as well as full verbs,and finds that only auxiliaries can be shortenedandphonetically reduced.Similarly contractedforms with not occur only with auxiliaries, andd ialectevidence shows that uninflected forms ofdo orbe (so forms with less quantity)

are far more frequent in the case of auxiliaries.The quantity principle also plays a role in areas of greater syntactic


29/455


complexity. For instance, in cases of variation, such as between the comparativeform with -erandthe periphrastic form with more, the longer form is often used

in syntactically more complex constructions. In such cases, extra quantity isused, as it were, to indicate the markedness of the total structure. In this samecase of variation, the distance principle is also at work in that in adjective-nounphrases where adjective and noun belong together conceptually, the use ofmoreis foundto be more frequent. Using -er in such cases wouldcreate distancebetween adjective and noun; so we find more high-minded rather than higher-minded. Other examples where the choice of inflexion is influenced by thedistance principle concerns the variation in voicing present in the plural forma-tion of words like hoof (hoofs vs. hooves) and in the adjectival derivation of

phrases like loud-mouthed, where the choice is between [t] and[d ]. In eachcase reduced quantity is iconic of reduced referential meaning.

A literary example of structural iconicity which assumes the form ofmathematical or geometrical analogies with profoundpoetological implicationsis treatedby Wilhelm Ptters in a large-scale exploration of the intertextualrelation between Dantes two main poetical works, Vita Nova and DivinaCommedia. The connection between these texts is shown to consist in a specificform of iconicity which relates different levels of textual organization bymathematical strategies andgeometrical designs. Central to the texts mathemati-cal designs is Beatrice, whose name is interpreted as a motivated sign. The essaydemonstrates an extraordinary knowledge and use of mathematics in Dantesconstruction of his poetic universe. Beatrice is given a numerical identity, andthe numbers relating to her inform the chronological structure of the romance inVita Nova andthe geometrical conception of the Commedia. The mathematicaldesign is revealed to be a key to the hidden meaning of the two works. Thestudy is amply provided with figures, clarifying the intricate design. It closeswith a scheme which summarizes the whole mathematical conception of Dantes

poetic cosmos, whose spiritual corner-stones are love of Beatrice, love of God,andlove of philosophy. Ptters elucidation of the mystical and poetologicalsignificance of numerological andgeometrical correspondences in Dante can berelatedto Matthias Bauers contribution in this volume which examines themystical use of geometry in Dylan Thomas poem Vision andPrayer.

Hiragas paper on metaphor andiconicity , which we discussed above, isplacedin this section because her approach to metaphor focuses on the interplayof structure andmeaning in the form of an analogical mapping andbecause heranalysis of a Japanese haiku examines all the texts formal resources (lexicon,

syntax, orthography, form of letters, soundpatterns etc.), which together enrichthe poems meaning.


30/455

INTRODUCTION 15

An entirely new departure in iconicity research is to be found in the studiescontained in part IV which deal with the interdependence and interaction between

diff

erent art media on the level of form, a phenomenon called intermedialiconicity. This type of iconicity emerges (1) when a work of art is transferredfrom one medium to another one and in this process retains formal featuresinherent in the source medium, and (2) when a work of art adopts or imitatesformal features characteristic of another medium. The latter type of intermedialiconicity is systematically exploredin Werner Wolfs contribution, which isdevoted to the phenomenon that form in literature can mime other arts andmedia. It discusses three types of intermedial iconicity in which literary formimitates other media, without ever actually incorporating these media in the text:

(1) pictorialization of fiction, illustratedby Thomas Hardys Under the Green-wood Tree, a novel which is subtitled A Rural Painting in the Dutch School, (2)filmicization of fiction, exemplified by the last chapter of DavidLod gesChanging Places, and(3) musicalization of fiction, representedby NancyHustons The Goldberg Variations. This paper, which opens new perspectives forfurther research, also addresses the problem of reception, i.e. the question of howthe reader may be induced to identify intermedial references. It is, however, notas radically reader-response oriented as Johansens contribution to this volume,which is focussedon the construction of iconicity in the readers mindd uring the

process of reception.Although Elzbieta Tabakowskas study seems to have a narrower scope than

Wolfs, it examines a highly fruitful topic, namely the problem of how topreserve or recreate iconicity in translation. This also involves interactionbetween one linguistic medium and another. In her theoretical approach Taba-kowska proceeds from the axiom that similarity is basic to iconicity, but that innatural language use, in the processes of lexicalization andgrammaticalization,the earlier transparency may disappear, causing the iconic features to change into

conventional or symbolic ones. It is interesting to explore the boundaries betweenthese expressive andconventional stages, and Tabakowska shows that a know-ledge of iconic practices which are conventional in one language but may still beexpressive in another is important in translation. Only if iconic devices areindeed expressively used, i.e. used in order to achieve a particular communica-tive purpose (p. 366), shouldthey also be translated in such a way that thespecial purpose comes out in the other language. Obviously, one cannot alwaysuse the same devices in the other language because the same device may be partof that other languages conventional system. In other words, the choice made by

the translator needs to be new and expressive for that language in order to beeffective. Tabakowska shows how this can be done in practice by comparing a


31/455


Polish poem by Wisawa Szymborska andan English translation of it, and byshowing how even in a more conventional prose text, ad hoc forms of iconicity

may be spotted, which therefore deserve to be preserved in the translation.Especially in the latter case, Tabakowska makes clear how difficult it is to makea decision about whether the iconicity is intentional or incidental. Although it istrue that the intentionality of it could be checkedagainst the backgroundof theuse of language in the rest of the book, or in the language in question as a whole(as for instance Shapiro [1998] has done concerning the use of particular soundsin the sonnets of Shakespeare), ultimately the decision of whether something isintentional or not depends on the knowledge of the translator of the two langua-ges involved, as well as on his/her imagination, intuition and acumen.

The volume closes with two theoretically-orientedcontributions (Part V),one looking at iconicity in terms of reader-response theory, and one relating it tosystems theory. Jrgen Dines Johansens contribution is rather exceptional in thisvolume andin iconicity research in general in that its approach is entirelyreader-oriented. (To some extent reader response is also considered in the essaysof White andW olf.) It shifts attention from iconic signs as constituents of thetext to the readers iconization of the text in the process of reception. The studyin fact views the literary text as a set of instructions for different ways of iconi-zation. On the one handbeing innovative, post-Peircean in fact, in the application

of reader-response aesthetics to iconicity, Johansens essay is on the other handfirmly grounded in Peircean semiotics. In accordance with Peirces categories ofimage, diagram, and metaphor, it deals with imaginative, diagrammatic, andallegorical iconization occurring in the reading process. Each of these categoriesis amply illustratedby examples from literary texts. The Peircean axiom of theinterdependence of the iconic, indexical, and symbolic dimensions of signs,which has been neglectedin recent research, informs the whole discussion. (Thistrendalso emerges in the linguistic contribution by Grote andLinz in the presentvolume). Johansen notes that even though there is a constant interplay of thethree modes of iconization in literature, texts may receive their iconic profile bythe predominance of one mode.

Piotr Sadowskis study intends to provide a classification of linguistic signsthat diverges from Peirces, using the framework of the so-called systems theoryof information. As in Peirce and in other semiotic theories, a distinction is madebetween information as purely physical facts, andpara-information, the inter-pretation or processing of these facts by animate beings, which turns the purelyphysical signals into (meaningful) signs. An important part of the theory is

that systems interact with one another by exchanging information andener gy,andin this way the systems undergo change. In the course of this interaction,


32/455

INTRODUCTION 17

language as a system of communication continually evolves. Sadowski considersthe different signs that exist in language in terms of information: emotive,

indexical, iconic and arbitrary signs. It is clear that emotive signs represent themost simple type of para-information in that the interpretation that makes thememotive signs does not so much take place by means of association, but bymeans of instinct, and this is almost direct, subject to physiological conditionsonly, andnot to cultural ones. When such emotive signs are displacedin time orspace, they become indexical, and involve para-information of a somewhathigher order. Here the associations performed are not instinctive but acquiredbehaviour. The next step in the order of signs, are signs which are no longerphysically co-present with their signals, but which resemble them only in their

structure: iconic signs. The imitations of sounds are probably the earliest iconicsigns, as well as the use of gestures. The association here works by means ofanalogy andis acquiredthrough observation and experience. In all these cases,then, the association retains a physical connection between signal andsign, butone that becomes less and less direct. In their development towards arbitrariness,signs have become so conventionalizedthat this direct link is lost. Such signs, inother words, have to be acquired purely by learning. From an evolutionary pointof view, this development was highly effective in that it enabledspeed ofcommunication andcultural group cohesion; it liberatedhumans from the

constraints laid down by nature. Sadowski adds one further sign in this develop-ment, a sign which is no longer promptedby the perception of the signal (as theothers are), but which derives from the para-informational level of the sign; hecalls this meta-informationally derived sign, a symbol (i.e. a symbol in theusual poetic sense, not in the Peircean sense). The meta-informational levelserves to distinguish between literal and metaphorical meaning, betweendenotation andconnotation, between truth and fiction. Meta-information isa specifically human development, and a later stage in the evolution of language.Sadowski applies the notion of meta-information especially to literary language,but the distinction would be equally useful for an understanding of the develop-ment that takes place in grammaticalization processes (the development ofgrammatical systems), which according to Sweetser (1990), proceeds from thesocio-physical domain through the epistemic domain into the speech-act domain,i.e. from para-informational to meta-informational.

While the last two contributions are essentially theoretical in their approach,the analytical studies containedin this thirdvolume are also often basedon newtheoretical departures. This is particularly evident in the investigations into

gestural iconicity, sign language, sign poetry, intermedial iconicity and theiconicity of metaphor. We believe that this new collection will add a further


33/455


stimulus to research into the iconic nature of language as usedin spoken andsignedlanguages andin literature.

Notes

1. For an elaborate description of the various types of iconicity that can be distinguished, see theintroduction to the first volume in this series, edited by Nnny and Fischer (1999).

2. Its position is not too assuredyet, witness the chapter on sign languages in the recent Handbookof Linguistics (Sandler and Lillo-Martin 2001), in which the helpful effect of iconicity on the

process of language acquisition is calledinto doubt, andin which many characteristics of signedlanguages that couldquite easily be relatedto their stronger iconic character, are not linkedto

iconicity as yet; e.g. the type of verb agreement discussed on p. 544, the morphology of verbsof motion andlocation discussedon p. 545, the noun classifiers on p. 546, etc.

3. Starting from the reasonable assumption that at the very beginning all language, both spokenandsigned , was more strongly iconic, and that languages have lost many iconic featuresthrough conventionalization in the course of their evolution, cf. Bolinger andSears 1981: 129,Fnagy 2001: 668 ff.

4. See also the reference to Nth in note 5.

5. Nth (2001:19), referring to Peirce, shows, that no icon is ever purely iconic, because ahundred percent fully iconic sign can only be the object itself. So all icons, however direct, areonly hypoicons. On the scale of iconicity however, from hypoicon to pure icon, onomatopoeiais close to the pure one.

6. Newman (2001: 251) indeed writes: Ideophones are somewhat different from prosaic words,but they are not outre-systme, i.e. they usually stretch the system of some language a bit, butthey do not totally disregard it.

7. That it is recent, is also clear from its form. Most reduplicated forms discussed by Conradieconcern full repetition rather than the repetition of just one syllable or part of the stem, whichis the more common form once reduplication has been grammaticalized, cf. the examples inKouwenberg andLaCharit (2001).

8. This principle states that elements that belong together semantically tendto be placed togethersyntactically. The proximity principle usually applies on the basis of content or meaning andthen considers form, as is the case with most types of iconicity, but Fischer (1994) has shownthat it may also work the other way around, from form to content, i.e. giving a new semanticcontent to a phrase, whose parts were placedtogether syntactically for non-semantic reasons(e.g. because of syntactic changes elsewhere in the grammar).

References

Battison, R. M. 2000. American Sign Language linguistics 19701980: Memoir of arenaissance. In K. Emmorey andH. Lane (eds), 516.

Bolinger, D. andD. A. Sears. 1981 (3rded .). Aspects of Language. New York: Harcourt,Brace, Jovanovich.


34/455

INTRODUCTION 19

Bybee, J.L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form.Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Crystal, D. 1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Davis, H. andS. R. Silverman. 1970. Hearing and Deafness. New York: Holt, RinehartandW inston.

Eisenson, J. andP . Boase. 1950. Basic Speech. New York: MacMillan.Emmorey, K. andH. Lane (eds) 2000. The Signs of Language Revisited. An Anthology to

Honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Fischer, A. 1999. Graphological iconicity in print advertising. In M. Nnny and O.

Fischer (eds), 251283.Fischer, O. 1994. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word

order. Neophilologus 78: 137- 164.Fischer, O andM. Nnny (eds). 2001. The Motivated Sign. Iconicity in Language andLiterature 2. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Fischer, S. D. 2000. More than just handwaving: The mutual contributions of signlanguage andlinguistics. In K. Emmorey andH. Lane (eds), 195213.

Fnagy, I. 2001. Languages within Language. An Evolutive Approach. Amsterdam:Benjamins.

Givn, T. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism, andnon-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Iconicityin Syntax, J. Haiman (ed.), 187220. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Goh, R. 2001. Iconicity in advertising signs. Motive and method in miming the Body.

In O. Fischer andM. Nnny (eds), 189210.Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic andeconomic motivation, Language 59: 781819.Herlofsky, W. 2001. Icons, anaphors, andthe evolution of language. In O. Fischer and

M. Nnny (eds), 5566.Jansen, F. andL. Lentz. 2001. Present participles as iconic expressions. In O. Fischer

andM. Nnny (eds), 277288.Klamer, M. 2001. Expressives andiconicity in the lexicon. In Ideophones, F.K.E.

Voeltz and C. Kilian-Hatz (eds), 165181. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Klamer, M. 2002. Semantically motivatedlexical patterns: A study of Dutch and

Kambera expressives, Language 78: 258286.Klima, E. andU. Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard

University Press.Kouwenberg, S. andC. LaCharit. 2001. The iconic interpretations of reduplication:

Issues in the study of reduplication in Caribbean Creole languages. In Iconicity, O.Fischer andM. Nnny (eds), Special Number of the European Journal of EnglishStudies (EJES) 5: 5980.

Lecercle, J. J. 1990. The Violence of Language. London: Routledge.Ljungberg, C. 2001. Iconic dimensions in Margaret Atwoods poetry and prose. In O.

Fischer andM. Nnny (eds), 351366.

Nnny, M. 1986. Iconicity in literature. Word & Image 2, 3: 199208.


35/455


Nnny, M. 1999. Alphabetic letters as icons in literary texts. In M. Nnny andO.Fischer (eds), 173198.

Nnny, M. 2001. Iconic functions of long andshort lines. In O. Fischer andM. Nnny(eds), 157188.

Nnny, M. andO. Fischer (eds). 1999. Form Miming Meaning: Iconicity in Language andLiterature. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Newman, P. 2001. Are ideophones really as weird and extra-systematic as linguists makethem to be?. In F. K. H. Voeltz andC. Kilian-Hatz (eds), pp. 251258.

Newport, E. L. andT . Supalla. 2000. Sign language research at the millennium. In K.Emmorey andH. Lane (eds), 103114.

Nth, W. 2001. Semiotic foundations of iconicity in language and literature. In O.Fischer andM. Nnny (eds), 1728.

Pizzuto, E. andV. Volterra. 2000. Iconicity andtransparency in sign languages: A cross-linguistic cross-cultural view. In K. Emmorey andH. Lane (eds), 261286.Sandler, W. and D. Lillo-Martin. 2001. Natural sign languages. In The Handbook of

Linguistics, M. Aronoff and J. Rees-Miller (eds), pp. 533561. London: Blackwell.Shapiro, M. 1998. Sounds and meaning in Shakespeares sonnets. In M. Shapiro, The

Sense of Form in Literature and Language. New York: St Martins Press, 6696.Stokoe, W. C. 1960. Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication

Systems of the American Deaf. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo.Wilbur, R. B. 2000. Phonological andprosod ic layering of nonmanuals in American Sign

Language. In K. Emmorey andH. Lane (eds), 215244.


36/455

P

IAuditory and visual signs and signing


37/455


38/455

The influence of sign language iconicity

on semantic conceptualization

Klaudia Grote Erika Linz

University of Cologne University of Cologne

1. Introduction

The medium of visual-gestural communication which sign languages employ hascharacteristics which are very different from the auditive-vocal modality ofspeech. Whereas spoken words are formedfrom vowel andconsonant sounds,

signedlanguages are articulatedwith the hands, upper body andface. Simulta-neous combinations of specific configurations of the handwith non-manualexpressions of the body andface are usedto create signs.1 These differences inmodality have an impact on the articulation process, i.e. spoken words arearticulatedone after another in a linear sequence2 andstay always in a temporalrelation to each other, whereas signs are not only expressedin a sequential order(as in spoken languages) but simultaneously in space as well. Space is directlyusedto linguistically express properties of a referent like shape, location, motion,manner, direction, features or qualities by movement of the hands through syn-

tactic space (see e.g. Schick 1990; Collins-Ahlgren 1990; Liddell 1990; Supalla1986, 1990; Engberg-Pedersen 1993).3 Sign languages offer a very interestingfield for the study of iconicity because the visually basedlinguistic system showsa much greater disposition to iconic signs than the auditory system (cf. Arm-strong et al. 1995: 192). Due to the predominance of visual over auditory per-ception in the interaction with external objects, there are many more possibilitiesto depict visual similarities than there are to produce acoustic ones in the processof sign-creation. It is easier to create a visual correspondence between anexternal referent andlinguistic properties of visual-gestural signs than an acousticcorrespondence between a referent and vocal signs. As a direct consequence, all


39/455

24 KLAUDIA GROTE AND ERIKA LINZ

sign languages possess many more signs of high imagic-iconicity (cf. Fischer andNnny 1999: xxif.) in comparison to the limitednumber of onomatopoeic words

foundin spoken languages. But in the history of sign language research the highdegree of iconic signs has scarcely been attributed to the visual-gestural modali-ty. In fact, it has long been denied that sign languages are fully natural languag-es. Before Stokoe (1960) discredited this attitude, it was widely believed thatsign languages were a kindof pantomime, purely iconic with no formal linguisticstructure. According to the classical hierarchical sign-typology, iconic signs wereconsideredto be primitive andnot able to fulfill the linguistic functions ofarbitrary words. In the 1980s new research began to appear on the topic oficonicity in spoken languages. It is now widely accepted that iconicity works on

all levels of language andtherefore cannot serve as counter-evidence against thelanguage status of sign languages.

Nonetheless the relationship andthe interplay between the apparent imagiciconicity of many signs in all sign languages andtheir status as linguistic signsremains for the most part unexplained. Particularly, modern semiotic theory hasnot been fully taken into account in sign language research, although it ispossible to finally overcome the long-lasting prejudice of sign languages asprimitive communication systems. Thus, before presenting two empirical studieswhich explore the influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptual-

ization, two theoretical aspects concerning the relation between iconic andsymbolic characteristics of linguistic signs will be discussed on the basis ofPeircean andSaussurean semiotics.

2. Iconization and symbolization of signs

The first point to be emphasized regards the referential underspecification oficonic signs. Peirce defines icons as likenesses, i.e. An icon is a sign fit to beusedas such because it possesses the quality signified (EP 2: 307; see alsop. 5f., CP 2.276). In contrast, symbols are defined as conventional signs (CP2.295; EP 2: 9). According to Peirce, an icon is extremely indeterminate in itssignificance (Ransdell 1986: 62) because it signifies qualities only. Since therelation of likeness can only refer to single qualities, never to distinct concepts,it is impossible to identify the object which an icon stands for without additionalinformation. This leads Peirce in his later writings to the conclusion that an iconcan only be a fragment of a completer sign (EP 2: 306). Icons therefore can

only be interpretedprecisely when supplementedby indexical and symbolicspecifications. The Peircean view correlates with the thesis, as expressedby


40/455

SIGN LANGUAGE ICONICITY AND CONCEPTUALIZATION 25

Fischer andNnny , that iconicity is not self-explanatory but that the perceptionof iconic features in language and literature depends on an interpreter who is

capable of connecting meaning with its formal expression.4

With respect to signlanguages, the thesis has been confirmed by various international studies. It hasbeen shown that non-signers interpret at most five to ten percent of even highlyiconic signs adequately (cf. Bellugi andFischer 1972; Bellugi andKlima 1976;Klima andBellugi 1979; Hoemann 1975). Moreover Pizzuto andV olterra (2000)found that the ability to guess the meanings of signs depends on (1) the compe-tence in identifying iconic-transparent features of signs, (2) experience with asign language system, and(3) cultural-specific factors. In all cases the perceivediconicity is not an objective likeness between a referent anda linguistic form but

a mentally constructed correspondence between two cognitive products.5The second point to discuss concerns the widespread misunderstanding of

iconicity andarbitrariness as contradictory characteristics of signs. On the onehand, this misleading view results from a restricted understanding of theSaussurean notion of arbitrariness. Larbitraire dusigne does not refer to thecommon idea that the signifiant is independent of the signifi andthat therelationship between sign form andsign meaning is a conventionalized one.Rather, both the signifier andthe signified are arbitrary in the sense that they donot exist independently from the sign creation process (SECI: 232f., 253255f.;

SCIII/KH: 138142f.; see also Fehrmann andLinz 2002; Jger 1978; 1986).Saussure himself applies the concept of arbitrariness not to the signifier alone butalso to the sign as an inseparable whole. As Engler (1995: 40) explains, Saussurerefers with this notion to the arbitrariness of sign nexus which implies a reciprocaldetermination of the signifier and the signified, both of which were indistinct untilthe relationship was set up. Thus though in contrast to the common equationof arbitrary andunmotivatedsigns (cf. Engler 1995: 44) the Saussurean notionin its original version does not contradict motivated sign formation.

On the other hand, the Peircean subdivision of signs into icons, indices andsymbols is, up until now, often misinterpretedas an exclusive classification, sothat a sign is thought to be either iconic or symbolic. Mainly in his later workPeirce himself emphasizes that symbols may be in part iconic andin partindexical (cf. EP 2: 10, 274f., 320; CP 2.302, 5.119; see also Elgin 1996; Nth2001). Symbol and icon do not designate mutually exclusive classes and likewiseiconicity and symbolism do not refer to disjunctive properties of a sign, butrather are functionally guided and context-dependent characterizations of signs.As Ransdell (1986: 57) points out:

Thus when we identify some sign as being iconic, for example, this onlymeans that the iconicity of that sign happens to be of peculiar importance to


41/455


us for some reason or other implicit in the situation andpurpose of thatanalysis, but there is no implication to the effect that it is therefore non-symbolic or non-indexical.

Appliedto the example of sign language it follows that the potential iconicdimension of signs does not interfere with their linguistic function. An iconicsign can work both as an imagic-icon anda linguistic sign. Whether it actsprimarily as an icon or as a symbol is determined by its actual use. The onset ofeither one of these sign transcription processes (cf. Jger 2002) is to someextent dependent on the linguistic context. We call the process in which thefocus of attention shifts from the symbolic meaning of the linguistic sign to theiconic meaning of the linguistic properties of the sign iconization of a symbol.

The reverse process, when the iconicity of the sign is blankedout andtherecipient sees through the material form of the sign directly onto the semanticmeaning (cf. Frishberg 1975; Klima andBellugi 1979), we call symbolizationof an icon.6 We claim that in discourse the interpretation of linguistic signs even those which are highly iconic is predominately guided by the systematicstructures, i.e. by the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations of a languagesystem. This symbolization process of icons has already been described by Peircewith respect to vocal language: If the sounds were originally in part iconic, inpart indexical, those characters have long lost their importance. The words onlystandfor the objects they do, andsignify the qualities they do, because they willdetermine, in the mind of the auditor, corresponding signs (CP 2.92). Thus,iconic signs behave mainly as symbols after being integratedinto the languagesystem. Nevertheless the linguistically governedsymbolization of an iconic signdoes not generally exclude its renewed use as an icon. In fact, the iconicdimension of a sign can be regeneratedwhen the sign is unhingedfrom thegeneral linguistic system. In this case the semantic aspects recede into thebackgroundandthe focus of attention draws mainly on the material form of the

sign. Such a re-iconization process of linguistic signs can often be foundinaesthetical or advertising contexts as well as in disturbed communication.However, in the reverse process of linguistically driven symbolization of iconicsigns the question of whether the iconic aspect of the sign still retains an e ffecton conceptual structures remains unsettled. More precisely, is the influence ofimagic iconicity limitedto a motivational aspect in the process of sign creationor does the iconic dimension maintain an impact on the semantics of the signafter being lexicalized? If we holdwith Pelc (1986: 12) that iconicity andthesymbolicity are degree-properties of signs, i.e. relative and not classificational

in character, the question is raisedwhether the iconic dimension becomescompletely inert in cases of regular linguistic use or whether both semiotic


42/455


functions, the iconic andthe symbolic, can operate to a certain extent simulta-neously in the act of language use.

3. Empirical investigation

Based on these theoretical considerations, two experiments were developed toexplore the potential cognitive effect of sign language iconicity on semanticconceptualization processes. In particular, the empirical studies presented here areaimedat investigating whether the iconicity of a sign affects the structure of thesemantic network of deaf and hearing signers in the way that certain characteris-

tics, which are highlightedby the iconic aspect of a sign, play a central role inthe corresponding semantic concept.7 In other words, when a sign in GermanSign Language (DGS) like house provides an image of a prototypical house inthe way that the articulators (the hands) sign the trace of the shape of a housewith a pointedroof, does the roof then play a special role in the semanticconcept of the house?

Study 1: Verification task with signs/words and pictures

In the first study we examined whether deaf and hearing signers of German SignLanguage (DGS)8 andhearing speakers of German Spoken Language (DLS)showedd ifferent response times in a verification task where they hadto judgethe presence or absence of a semantic relation between a sign/wordand a picture.The experiment was basedon the presumption, that the characteristics or aspectsof a referent which are accentuatedby the iconic feature of the sign play acentral role in the corresponding semantic network. Thus, the hypothesis testedin the verification task was that the Response Times (RTs) of the deaf andbilingual participants for the pictures which correspondto the iconic features ofthe signs are shorter than the response times for the pictures which do notcorrespondto the iconic features. Since the translatedequivalents of the signs inspoken language were all non-iconic, the response times of the hearing partici-pants were expectednot to differ for both types of pictures.

ProcedureFor deaf and bilingual subjects the sign-video and the picture were displayed oneat a time on a computer monitor (Figure 1). Timing andrecord ing responses

were under program control. In order to prevent visual masking, the sign-videowas centeredat the top of the monitor, the picture at the bottom.


43/455


A sign was considered to begin when the hand(s) entered signing space and

Figure 1.Test-procedure sign-picture

to endwhen the hand(s) began to move out of the sign configuration andbackdown to resting position.

The words were presented via two loudspeakers which were attached to the

Figure 2.Test-procedure word-picture

computer (Figure 2). In addition to the acoustic presentation a visual marker(icon of a loudspeaker) appeared on the screen at the same position where the videowas presented for the deaf subjects. At the bottom of the screen the picture appeared.

The deaf, hearing and bilingual subjects were seated directly in front of themonitor at a distance of about 60 cm with the two index fingers resting on tworesponse buttons. Response times were measuredfrom the onset of the targetitem. The subjects were informedthat they would see several pairs of items. Theinter-stimulus interval between the first andthe second item was 1000 ms. Thesigns andspoken words were grouped in three series of 40 + 40 + 40 trials (120trials), with 2 rest periods. Each pair of items (sign-picture vs. word-picture) wasfollowed by a blank screen for 2 seconds before the next pair appeared. Theright-handedsubject was instructedto press the right button if there was asemantic relation between the two presenteditems andthe left button if there


44/455


was none. Left-handed subjects used the response buttons the other way around.Equal numbers of relatedandnon-related items were assignedto the test list

randomly. The subject was toldto perform the task as accurately andquickly aspossible. The subject couldrespondanytime from the start of the secondtestitem, but fast responses did not alter the timing of stimulus presentation. Eachsubject was instructedby a standardizedexplanation (signed andwritten vs.spoken andwritten) andwas given 10 practice trials.

MaterialsThe experimental material consistedof 120 pairs composedof 10 repeatedlypresentedsigns/word s and60 semantically relatedand60 unrelated pictures. The

sign/wordrepresenteda specific semantic concept, for example Adler (eagle)(Figure 3). In this stimulus set, the semantically relateditems were Schnabel(beak), Flgel (wing) and Kralle (claw). Not semantically relatedwereBagger (digger), Kette (necklace) and Koffer (suitcase). One of the relatedpictures correspondedto the iconic aspect of the presentedsign (iconic sign-picture correspondence), the other pictures did not correspond (no correspon-dence). Referring to the example, the corresponding picture was the picture withthe crookedbeak (markedblack in Figure 3), which is typical for eagles. In theword condition no picture corresponded to any of the words because none of

them were iconic. In order to control the outcomes in the sign condition, i.e. tomake sure that faster response times for iconic items were causedby a generalimportance of the iconic feature for both the sign andthe wordconcept, wedivided the spoken words into two groups: 1. translated words of the iconicsigns, 2. translatedword s of non-iconic signs.

The German Sign for eagle highlights the beak of an eagle by (1) theshape of the articulator (bended index-finger), (2) location of the hand (in thearea of the signers nose), and(3) the movement of the hand (tracing the shape

of the beak). To confirm our hypothesis that the iconic features of a sign havean impact on the relatedsemantic concept, the deaf participants andthe bilingualparticipants hadto react fastest to the black-markedbeak-picture.

The selectedword s of German Spoken Language (DLS) were requiredtocorrespondto the signs of German Sign Language (DGS), thus to be easilytranslatable. It was essential that signs and words were well-known to deaf andhearing subjects respectively. Subjective frequency of occurrence of signs andwords was estimated by eight native DGS-signers and eight native DLS-speakerswi

Documents

From Sign to Signing v 3 Iconicity in Language and Literature Iconicity in La