PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 1, 2008Cognitive Linguistics587 citationsOpen Access

Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries

View Full Paper
MHMartín Haspelmath

Key Points

  • The paper questions the role of iconicity in understanding grammatical asymmetries and proposes frequency of use as a vital factor.
  • Critical analysis of three types of iconicity: quantity, complexity, and cohesion.
  • Review of historical accounts by leading linguists like Jakobson, Haiman, and Givón.
  • Initial comparison of corpus data to analyze frequency effects.
  • Evidence suggests that frequency of use accounts for effects previously attributed to iconicity.
  • Initial corpus data supports the hypothesis that frequency leads to observed grammatical patterns.
  • Zipfian effects show a link between frequency, shortness, and fusion in linguistic structures.

Abstract

This paper argues that three widely accepted motivating factors subsumed under the broad heading of iconicity, namely iconicity of quantity, iconicity of complexity and iconicity of cohesion, in fact have no role in explaining grammatical asymmetries and should be discarded. The iconicity accounts of the relevant phenomena have been proposed by authorities like Jakobson, Haiman and Givón, but I argue that these linguists did not sufficiently consider alternative usage-based explanations in terms of frequency of use. A closer look shows that the well-known Zipfian effects of frequency of use (leading to shortness and fusion) can be made responsible for all of the alleged iconicity effects, and initial corpus data for a range of phenomena confirm the correctness of the approach.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Martín Haspelmath (2008) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d990d91ad561c673684a64https://doi.org/10.1515/cog.2008.001
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper