Article published In: Ideophones: Between Grammar and Poetry
Edited by Katherine Lahti, Rusty Barrett and Anthony K. Webster
[Pragmatics and Society 5:3] 2014
► pp. 445–454
Ideophones, rhemes, interpretants
Published online: 14 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.5.3.08sic
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.5.3.08sic
This commentary considers the depictive quality of ideophones within the context of a general semiotic. I seek to expand the
limited uptake of iconicity in linguistic theory from a resemblance between sign and object along Peirce’s second trichotomy
(icon, index, symbol) to discuss iconicity from the often overlooked perspective of Peirce’s third trichotomy (rheme, dicent,
argument). I examine ideophones as semiotic rhemes that affect iconic interpretants and suggest this shift in understanding
iconicity unites lexical iconicity with depictive processes in interaction more generally, and beyond this with other rhematic
linguistic signs. These parallels are illustrated by two examples of the expressive use of pitch, and throughout the discussion by
reference to how the work of the authors of the present Special Issue help free a theory of iconicity from the bonds of it being
considered a fixed, lexical relationship, to rather theorize iconicity as a poetic achievement designed for an interpreter’s
active reception.
Keywords: poetics, sound symbolism, iconicity, Peirce, semiotics, depiction, ideophones
References (20)
Bateson, Gregory. 1979. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences). New York: Hampton Press.
Benveniste, Emile. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Coral Gables, Fla.: University of
Miami Press.
Dingemanse, Mark. 2011. The Meaning and Use of Ideophones in Siwu. Nijmegen: Radboud University Ph.D. dissertation.
Gal, Susan and Judith T. Irvine. 1995. “The Boundaries of Language and Disciplines: How Ideologies Construct Difference.” Social Research 62 (4): 967–1001.
. 1960. “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kockelman, Paul. 2010. Language, Culture, and Mind: Natural Constructions and Social Kinds. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C., Asifa Majid, and N.J. Enfield. 2007. “The Language of Perception.” In Field Manual Volume 10, ed. by Asifa Majid, 10–21. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1955 [1902]. “Logic as Semiotic: The Theory of Signs.” In Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. by Justus Buchler, 98–115. New York: Dover.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1966 [1915]. Course in General Linguistics, ed. by Charles Bally, and
Albert Sechehaye in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schieffelin, Bambi, Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity. 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shayan, Shakila, Özge Öztürk, and Mark A. Sicoli. 2011. “The Thickness of Pitch: Crossmodal Iconicity in Three Unrelated Languages; Farsi, Turkish and Zapotec.” Senses and Society 6 (1): 96–105.
. 2010. “Shifting Voices with Participant Roles: Voice Qualities and Speech Registers in Mesoamerica.” Language in Society 39 (4): 521–553.
. 2007. Tono: A Linguistic Ethnography of Tone and Voice in a Zapotec Region. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Ph.D. Dissertation.
Sicoli, Mark A., Asifa Majid and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. “The Language of Sound: II.” In Field Manual Volume 12, ed. by Asifa Majid, 14–19. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Cited by (7)
Cited by seven other publications
Babel, Anna M.
Körtvélyessy, Lívia
Hodge, Gabrielle & Lindsay Ferrara
Bermúdez, Natalia
Choksi, Nishaant
Vasantkumar, Chris
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. 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.
