<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,EmojiFont,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji",NotoColorEmoji,"Segoe UI Symbol","Android Emoji",EmojiSymbols">
<p>1.</p>
<p>Jeff mentions starting from expressive or affective functions. This is indeed a very useful if daunting approach, pioneered by Samarin in a 1970 study on Inventory and choice in expressive language. He covers intensifiers, swear words, affective and emotionally
heightened discourse, phonetic play, prosody, <span style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,EmojiFont,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji",NotoColorEmoji,"Segoe UI Symbol","Android Emoji",EmojiSymbols; font-size:16px">
echo-words, ideophones, </span>magical speech and much more. He also touches on typological differences and alludes to possible ethnographical correlates. Some of the same themes were taken up by Jakobson & Waugh in The Sound Shape of Language (1979). It hasn't
seen a wide following since, though there has been <span style="font-size:12pt">some important </span><span style="font-size:12pt">work in this vein </span><span style="font-size:12pt">since (e.g. Klamer 2002).</span><span style="font-size:12pt"></span></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Unlike Jeff I don't really think of this as an alternative (let alone superior) approach; isn't it just the other side of the coin? Much like onomasiology and semasiology, these are complementary perspectives that should mutually inform each other. Samarin took both
perspectives, incidentally: in the same wide-ranging <span style="font-size:12pt">piece he does note that "</span><span style="font-size:12pt">Elsewhere in the world ... </span><span style="font-size:12pt">we find similar classes of words. What is striking
about </span><span style="font-size:12pt">them, as with African ideophonic words, is that (1) they display a great </span><span style="font-size:12pt">deal of play with sounds, that (2) they are predominantly reduplicative, </span><span style="font-size:12pt">that
(3) their phonology is in some respects different from that of all other </span><span style="font-size:12pt">words, and finally, that (4) they have very specific meanings sometimes </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">difficult to define" (Samarin 1970:160). </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">So even when you start from the perspective of cataloguing expressive and affective functions and studying how they are linguistically realised, you keep stumbling upon languages that bundle a recurring bunch of these functions
into an open lexical classes of marked words depictive of sensory imagery. </span>In my recent <a href="https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/10.5334/gjgl.444/" class="OWAAutoLink">Glossa review</a> I've tabulated some of the reported magnitudes of ideophone
inventories in unrelated languages. Published counts for Basque, Gbeya, Japanese, Korean, Turkish and Zulu all range into the thousands of items. L<span style="font-size: 12pt;">inguists working on </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">these languages point to </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">the
fundamental cross-linguistic kinship between these lexical </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">classes, drawing attention to similarities in phonology, semantics, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">morphosyntax, </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">semiotics,
expressiveness, and multimodal features. </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In short, this is a part of the typological possibility space that is not marginal or sparsely inhabited. I think it's useful to map out the larger space but also to pencil down
a name for ease of reference. Hence 'ideophones'.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"></span></p>
<div><br>
</div>
<p></p>
<div>2.</div>
<div>A word about Martin's earlier restrictive definition of a class of "<span>obligatorily duplicated forms that can be used as adverbial". The biggest problem with it is that reduplication is not a necessary or sufficient property of ideophone systems. <span style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, EmojiFont, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", NotoColorEmoji, "Segoe UI Symbol", "Android Emoji", EmojiSymbols; font-size: 16px;">It
is hard if not impossible to find a language in which all documented ideophones are reduplicated (Dingemanse 2015). Although published counts are rare, most </span>ideophone inventorise seem to have substantial numbers of items that are not obligatorily duplicated:
In Siwu, the proportion of reduplicated base forms <span style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, EmojiFont, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", NotoColorEmoji, "Segoe UI Symbol", "Android Emoji", EmojiSymbols; font-size: 16px;">
is 59%; in Japanese, it </span>is 35-40% at most (Akita 2009); in Somali, maybe only 7% (Dhoorre & Tosco 1998). </span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span>Perhaps this is not a problem and one could work with this kind of definition, accepting loss of coverage for gain in precision. You'd certainly get somewhere. I'm wondering whether this would be judged acceptable for other major word classes. What
if our comparative definition of 'adjective' specified a formal feature that made it exclude up to 60% of lexical items considered adjectival in a bunch of well-described languages? </span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span>It would be possible to improve on this kind of definition by thinking of reduplication as only one of the multiple ways in which ideophones stand out from other words (I've used "marked" as a shorthand for this, well aware of Martin's justified
critique of overuses of the term). <span style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, EmojiFont, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", NotoColorEmoji, "Segoe UI Symbol", "Android Emoji", EmojiSymbols; font-size: 16px;">Progress could be made by spelling
out other ways in which ideophones stand out: </span>deviant phonotactics, skewed feature distributions (monovocality, reduced/simplified tonal patterns), and a wider range of allowed syllable structures. People like Kimi Akita, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano,
Nahyun Kwon and others have been working towards this. I wonder what the best way would be to for a definition to capture and quantify this conjunction of known formal features correlating with ideophones. One fruitful approach might be a Corbett-style canonical
typology, in the manner recently done for phonaesthemes by Kwon and Round (2014).</span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div>3.</div>
<div>Refs cited:</div>
<div>
<p style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, EmojiFont, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", NotoColorEmoji, "Segoe UI Symbol", "Android Emoji", EmojiSymbols; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"></span></p>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>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.) </div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Dingemanse, Mark. 2015. Ideophones and reduplication: Depiction, description, and the interpretation of repeated talk in discourse. Studies in Language 39(4). 946–970. (doi:10.1075/sl.39.4.05din,
<a href="https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2042952_6/component/file_2250312/content" class="OWAAutoLink">
PDF</a>)</span><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">
<div>Dingemanse, Mark. 2018. Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1). 1–30. (doi:10.5334/gjgl.444)</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Dhoorre, Cabdulqaadir Salaad & Tosco, Mauro. 1998. 111 Somali Ideophones. Journal of African Cultural Studies 11(2). 125–156.</span><br>
</div>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">
<div><br>
</div>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Jakobson, Roman & Waugh, Linda R. 1979. The Sound Shape of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.</span><br>
</div>
<p></p>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif, EmojiFont, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", NotoColorEmoji, "Segoe UI Symbol", "Android Emoji", EmojiSymbols; font-size: 16px;">
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Klamer, Marian. 2002. Semantically Motivated Lexical Patterns: A Study of Dutch and Kambera Expressives. Language 78(2). 258–86.</span><br>
</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<span>Kwon, Nahyun & Round, Erich R. 2014. Phonaesthemes in morphological theory. Morphology 25(1). 1–27. (doi:10.1007/s11525-014-9250-z)</span>
<div><br>
</div>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Samarin, William J. 1970. Inventory and choice in expressive language. Word 26. 153–169.</span><br>
</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,EmojiFont,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji",NotoColorEmoji,"Segoe UI Symbol","Android Emoji",EmojiSymbols">
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<hr style="display:inline-block; width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Heath Jeffrey <schweinehaxen@hotmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 20, 2019 11:37 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Dingemanse, Mark; lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Lingtyp] Re: A "Swadesh List" of Ideophone semantic categories</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
An alternative superior to fuzzy "comparative concepts" is to start with well-defined functions rather than form classes. Consider the following phenomena, some of which have been lumped together as ideophones:</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
a) onomatopoieas (thud, thwap, cock-a-doodle-doo);</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
b) lexicalized forms denoting striking visual and other nonauditory sensory patterns, whether verbs or other stem-types (twinkle, glimmer, zigzag, cross-hatch; stench, putrid)</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
c) intensifiers for verbs or adjectives, e.g. brand new and stop in one's tracks, along with special (truncated or otherwise modified) forms of adjectives and verbs with similar effect;</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
d) extreme quantifiers, e.g. zero (zilch), a meager amount ([not even] a plug nickel), and 'all' (the whole enchilada)</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
e) loaded epithets, slurs</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
f) diminutives (and other hypocoristics), augmentatives</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
g) greetings</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
h) emphatic positive and negative polarity (yes I can, not on your life!, over my dead body)</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
All of these are "expressive" or "affective"<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt"> in one way or another, but they are fundamentally distinct semantically and they do not usually coalesce into a single form
class. Instead of starting by equating form classes in different languages as "ideophones" and then comparing their lexical inventories, how about starting with a comprehensive set of potentially "expressive" or "emphatic" functions and examining how they
are realized in various languages? </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0); font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt">For one thing, this would reveal that some languages/cultures are much more oriented toward expressivity overall or in specific contexts than others. For example, there
are remarkable cross-linguistic differences in the extent to which diminutives and other hypocoristics are developed. Western European languages (English, Dutch, Basque), some Arabic varieties, and west coast Amerindian languages are high on the list, Australian
Aboriginal languages dead last. Likewise with greetings and other forms of conversation-starting "phatic communion" which are highly variable (West Africans are champions, Arabs pretty good, western Europeans mediocre, Australian Aboriginals again dead last).
These are anthropologically profound issues that are rarely addressed by typologists.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>