Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:20:24.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formulaic Binomials, Morphosymbolism, and Behaghel's Law: The Grammatical Status of Expressive Iconicity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Mark R. V. Southern
Mark R. V. Southern
Affiliation:
University of Texas at AustinDept. of Germanic Studies, EPS 3.102Austin, TX 78712 [m.southern@mail.utexas.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper considers the linguistic status of West Germanic alliterative, formulaic, syntactically tight pairs. These hendiadys binomials are phonetically interwoven, phrasally autonomous units. Echoic reduplication, including hendiadys, is a common way for language to generate iconic forms. Building on recent work on sound-symbolic expressives, iconicity, and the significance of poetic features (compression, phrasal symmetry) for language, this study argues that alliterative binomials are fundamentally affective, with proverb-like sentential characteristics, deriving idiomatic force from their iconically self-signaling structural properties. Like Stabreim, phonetically reinforced and with reciprocally highlighted components, they define a cohesive utterance (saying, phrase, metrical line). In this they share phrase-level contour properties with Behaghel's Law, which shapes the linguistic structure of day-to-day poetics, particularly in fixed idioms. The inquiry examines phrasal syntax, phrase-level iconicity and expressive symbolism, and the poetics of folk-discourse genres, reflecting language's structure.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , Fall 2000 , pp. 251 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax IV: Wortstellung. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Bendz, Gerhard. 1965. Ordpar. (Svenska Humanistiska Förbundets Skrifter, 74.) Stockholm: Norstedt.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1950. Rime, assonance, and morpheme analysis. Word 6.117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campanile, Enrico. 1977. Ricerche di cultura poetica indoeuropea. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1997. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fee, Jane, and Ingram, David. 1982. Reduplication as a strategy of phonological development. Journal of Child Language 9.41–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fujimura, Osamu. 1997. Typology: Prototypes, item orderings and universals. Proceedings of LP '96, ed. by Palek, Bohumil, 91–111. Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
Grammont, Maurice. 1901. Onomatopées et mots expressifs. Trentenaire de la Société pour l'Étude des Langues Romanes, 261–322. Montpellier: Bureau des publications de la Société pour l'Étude des Langues Romances.Google Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna, and Ohala, John J. (eds.). 1994. Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1989. A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7.217–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K., and Salmons, Joseph C.. 1992. The phonology of Proto-Indo-European root structure constraints. Lingua 87.293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971a. Shifters. Selected writings II: Word and language, 130–147. Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971b. Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. Selected writings II: Word and language, 239–259. Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, and Waugh, Linda. 1979. The spell of speech sounds. The sound shape of language, 181–234. Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1933. Symbolic value of the vowel i. Linguistica. Selected papers of O. Jespersen in English, French and German, 283–303. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1984. Balkan expressive and affective phonology—the case of Greek ts/dz. Papers for the Fifth Congress of Southeast European Studies, Belgrade, 09 1984, ed. by Shangriladze, K. and Townsend, E., 227–237. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1985. Proto-Indo-European consonantism: Methodological and further typological concerns. Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Poznań, ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 313–321. Amsterdam:Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1987. On the use of iconic elements in etymological investigation. Some case studies from Greek. Diachronica 4.1–26.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1994. Modern Greek ts:. Beyond sound symbolism. In Hinton, et al. (eds.), 222–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1997. Words and the grammar of context. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Inna. 1968. Repetitive word pairs in Old and early Middle English. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1984. Formulaicity, frame semantics, and pragmatics in German binomial expressions. Language 60.753–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louden, Mark L. 1998. Ablaut, umlaut, and phonetic symbolism. Paper presented at the Fourth Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference,Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 1988. Expressivität und Lautgesetz im Germanischen. (Monographien zur Sprachwissenschaft, 15.) Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1959. Studies in irreversible binomials. Lingua 8.113–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 1990. From phonosymbolism to morphosymbolism. Diachronic problems in phonosymbolism: Edita and inedita, 1979–1988, 157–175. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gerard. 1961. Early Irish metrics. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy.Google Scholar
Oswalt, Robert L. 1994. Inanimate imitatives in English. In Hinton et al. (eds.), 293–306.Google Scholar
Salmons, Joseph C. 1991. Motivating Grassmann's Law. Historische Sprachforschung 104.46–51.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harvest (Harcourt, Brace & World).Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1929. A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology 12.225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth D. 1984. On the major class features and syllable theory. Language sound structure: Studies in phonology, ed. by Aronoff, Mark and Oehrle, Richard, esp. 116–117. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1997. Speech play, verbal art, and language structure. Paper presented at the University of Texas Linguistic Circle, November 1997.Google Scholar
Simms, Douglas. 2000. Ritual speech in Germanic and Italic and the origin of alliterative verse. Master's thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Southern, Mark, (in preparation). Contagious couplings: A study of Yiddish expressive shm- and contact-driven transmission.Google Scholar
Spitzer, Leo. 1952. Confusion schmooshun. JEGP 51.226–233.Google Scholar
Stankiewicz, Edward. 1960. Expressive language. Style in language, ed. by Sebeok, Thomas A., 96–97. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Stern, Clara, and Stern, Wilhelm. 1907. Kindersprache. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1981. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. Perspectives on historical linguistics, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov, 245–271. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1982. Aspects of Indo-European poetics. The Indo-Europeans in the fourth and third millennia, ed. by Polomé, Edgar C., 104–120. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1995. How to kill a dragon. Aspects of Indo-European poetics. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar