Ideophones & reduplication

Plenary lecture presented at the Total Reduplication workshop organised by Daniela Rossi, November 18-19, 2012, Brussels.

The lecture looks at the intersection of ideophones and (total) reduplication. Repetition is one of the most basic operations on talk, often discussed for its iconic meanings. Ideophones are marked words that depict sensory imagery, often identified by their reduplicated forms. Yet not all repetition is iconic and not all ideophones repeat. I show that reduplication in ideophones is productive and regular, yet distinct from grammatical reduplication due to the depictive nature of ideophones. Special attention is given to the role of mode of signification (depiction vs. description) in guiding the interpretation of repeated talk.

Transcript

1. Mark Dingemanse Total Reduplication workshop Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen November 2012, Brussels Ideophones & reduplication
2. August Friedrich Pott, 1862. Doppelung (Reduplication, Gemination). Meyer Verlag. Collected ideophones & reduplication in Gusu, Batanga, Swahili, Twi, and especially Yoruba, “worin die Doppelung eine äußerst mannichfaltige Anwendung findet.”
3. ideophones are “a special class of words which outwardly are suspiciously reduplicative. Most authors however exclude these elements from their further theorising about reduplication.” Stolz, Stroh & Urdze 2011:64
4. ideophones are “a special class of words which outwardly are suspiciously reduplicative. Most authors however exclude these elements from their further theorising about reduplication.” Stolz, Stroh & Urdze 2011:64 the universe of linguistic resources is like one large Schengen area no border controls migrants eager to work migration flow hard to control let’s study actual flows rather than artificial borders
5. ideophones are “a special class of words which outwardly are suspiciously reduplicative. Most authors however exclude these elements from their further theorising about reduplication.” Stolz, Stroh & Urdze 2011:64 the universe of linguistic resources is like one large Schengen area no border controls migrants eager to work migration flow hard to control let’s study actual flows rather than artificial borders
6. repetition (reduplication + iteration) one of the most basic operations on talk often discussed for its iconic meaning ideophones (also mimetics, expressives) marked words that depict sensory imagery often identified by their reduplicated forms
7. riddles not all repetition is iconic not all ideophones involve repetition goals examine how reduplication in ideophones works understand how we interpret repeated talk as a function of mode of signification (description vs. depiction)
8. primary data from fieldwork on Siwu (Kwa, Niger-Congo) spoken by 15,000 people in Ghana Ford & Iddah 1972, Dingemanse 2009, 2011, 2012
9. A corpus of everyday social interaction in Siwu 1 in 12 utterances contains an ideophone
10. 1. 2. 3. kàde kawɛ̃ nɛ, ma- ɛɛ... màfuri-mafùrì land certain TP ma- HES, PL.albino-REDUP ‘there is a land, a- uhm, albinos all over’ [riddle] màbòrèni ku-re nìtɔ-nìtɔ ne, kù-se ↑gelegele-gelegelegelegelegele↑ white.man KU-one self-REDUP TP, AGR-be IDPH.shiny-EXP.REDUP ‘the imported stuff itself is ↑gelegelegelegelegelegelegele↑ [shiny]’ ǹdo lowètè (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑ 1SG-PROG 1sg-pound IDPH.impact IDPH.impact ‘I’m pounding, (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑’ three examples from Siwu (Kwa, Niger-Congo)
11. 1. 2. 3. kàde kawɛ̃ nɛ, ma- ɛɛ... màfuri-mafùrì land certain TP ma- HES, PL.albino-REDUP ‘there is a land, a- uhm, albinos all over’ [riddle] màbòrèni ku-re nìtɔ-nìtɔ ne, kù-se ↑gelegele-gelegelegelegelegele↑ white.man KU-one self-REDUP TP, AGR-be IDPH.shiny-EXP.REDUP ‘the imported stuff itself is ↑gelegelegelegelegelegelegele↑ [shiny]’ ǹdo lowètè (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑ 1SG-PROG 1sg-pound IDPH.impact IDPH.impact ‘I’m pounding, (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑’ three examples màfuri n pl ‘albinos’ gelegele idph ‘shiny’ kpɔ idph ‘sound of physical impact’
12. 2 types of grammatical reduplication in Siwu 1. total reduplication (n, distributive) kàde kawɛ̃ nɛ, ma- ɛɛ... màfuri-mafùrì land certain TP ma- HES, PL.albino-REDUP ‘there is a land, a- uhm, albinos all over’ [riddle] 2. initial partial reduplication (v, pluractional) à-kùtu sã-sãrã i kùdziri àmɛ̀ PL-oranges PLUR-hang LOC tree inside ‘oranges hang in the tree” many more in ideophones...
13. kɛlɛnkɛlɛn it’ll go ‘glittery’
14. sinisini it clings together ‘closely woven’
15. it is saaaaa ‘spicy, fragrant’
16. marked words that depict sensory imagery Dingemanse 2011
17. Dingemanse 2012
18. basic facts about ideophones (‘mimetics’, ‘expressives’) Westermann 1927, Diffloth 1972, Nuckolls 1996, Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz 2001, Dingemanse 2012 common across the Americas, Africa, and Asia rare as a class of words in Standard Average European languages large inventories: far from marginal words thousands recorded in Japanese, Gbaya, Zulu ‘iconic’ forms and imagistic meanings exhibit non-arbitrary links between form and meaning related to onomatopoeia & phonaesthemes wider semantic range; whole words instead of submorphemic patches often, but not always, reduplicated many frozen forms; additive reduplication in actual use
19. marked words that depict sensory imagery Dingemanse 2011
20. marked words that depict sensory imagery Dingemanse 2011 vs. describe Kosslyn 1980 Walton 1973 Clark & Gerrig 1990 Nuckolls 1996 Güldemann 2008 Dingemanse 2011
21. René Magritte, 1929, La trahison des images
22. René Magritte, 1929, La trahison des images ➊ ➋
23. René Magritte, 1929, Les mots et les images, La révolution surréaliste, 12, 32-33
24. René Magritte, 1929, Les mots et les images, La révolution surréaliste, 12, 32-33
25. description depiction
26. description propositional discrete symbols basically arbitrary “decode” to interpret depiction imagistic gradient markings basically iconic “imagine” to interpret Goodman 1968, Kosslyn 1980, Clark & Gerrig 1990, Zwicky & Pullum 1987, Güldemann 2008
27. description vs. depiction Dingemanse 2011:46
29. kɛlɛnkɛlɛn it’ll go ‘glittery’ cf. also quotations, gestures, and demonstrations
30. Dingemanse 2011:288ff.
32. description propositional discrete symbols basically arbitrary “decode” to interpret
33. description propositional discrete symbols basically arbitrary “decode” to interpret depiction imagistic gradient use of material basically iconic “imagine” to interpret
34. description propositional discrete symbols basically arbitrary “decode” to interpret depiction imagistic gradient use of material basically iconic “imagine” to interpret same substance: speech we can ‘do a Magritte’ in spoken language too common in ideophonic languages, but not strictly limited to them cf. what Bolinger 1961 called grading, as in ‘a huuuuuge fish’ (+gesture)
35. what makes one bit of speech a description and another a depiction?
36. foregrounding: the use of linguistic signs “in such a way that this use itself attracts attention” Havránek 1964, Jakobson 1960, Bauman 1975 metacommunicative signal Bateson 1955
37. Fiɛ ia bara ↓kɛ̀lɛ̀ŋkɛ̀lɛ̀ŋkɛ̀lɛ̀ŋkɛ̀lɛ̀ŋkɛ̀lɛ̀ŋkɛ̀lɛ̀ŋkɛ̀lɛ̀ŋkɛ̀lɛ̀ŋkɛ̀lɛ̀ŋ↓ ‘It’ll be kɛ̀lɛ̀ŋkɛ̀lɛ̀ŋ:EM.7’ [kɛ̀lɛ̀ŋkɛ̀lɛ̀ŋ shiny] I matã só ─ ↑sinisinisinisini↑ ‘It clings together ─ sinisini:EM.2’ [sinisini closely woven] Krɔ̃ nɛ, kùwà >gɔǹgbe kù nyɔ< ↑<dɔbɔrɔɔɔɔ:>↑ ‘Now this stuff here, it looks dɔbɔrɔɔ:EM’ [dɔbɔrɔɔ fine-grained] typical features of depiction-in-speech: syntactic freedom expressive morphology intonational independence Kunene 1965; Zwicky & Pullum 1987; Nuckolls 1996; Dingemanse 2011
38. performative foregrounding frames ideophones as depictions Nuckolls 1996, Dingemanse 2011 this dictates (in part) how we are to interpret a given instance of repeated talk descriptive treat as proposition → decode suitable for abstract, grammatical uses depictive treat as image → imagine likely source of meanings often characterised as ‘vividness’, ‘stylistics’, ‘expressive’, ‘affective’, ‘semantic colour’, etc.
39. performative foregrounding frames ideophones as depictions Nuckolls 1996, Dingemanse 2011 this dictates (in part) how we are to interpret a given instance of repeated talk descriptive treat as proposition → decode suitable for abstract, grammatical uses depictive treat as depiction → imagine likely source of meanings often characterised as ‘vividness’, ‘stylistics’, ‘expressive’, ‘affective’, ‘semantic colour’, etc.
40. 1. 2. 3. kàde kawɛ̃ de, ma- ɛɛ... màfuri mafùrì place certain exist ma- HES, PL.albino PL.albino ‘there is a place, a- uhm, albinos all over’ [riddle] màbòrèni ku-re nìtɔ-nìtɔ ne, kù-se ↑gelegele-gelegelegelegelegele↑ white.man KU-one self-REDUP TP, AGR-be IDPH.shiny-EXP.REDUP ‘the imported stuff itself is ↑gelegelegelegelegelegelegele↑ [shiny]’ ǹdo lowètè (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑ 1SG-PROG 1sg-pound IDPH.impact IDPH.impact ‘I’m pounding, (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑’ helps explain • different degrees of freedom (XX vs. Xn+ or X, X+) • different interpretations (abstract distributive in ex. 1 vs. more gradient and iconic meanings in 2, 3) descriptive depictive
41. how is this different from the distinction between repetition and reduplication? Gil 2005:33
42. repetition ≠ depiction cf. vendor cries (Gil 2005) repetition, but not depictive reduplication ≠ description cf. reduplicative processes in ideophones reduplication, but not descriptive
43. a closer look at reduplication in ideophones
44. Reduplicative processes in Semai ideophones Aslian, Malaysia (Diffloth 1976) dyɔ̃:l ‘object floating down river’ minor reduplication (prolongation or continuation) dldyɔ̃:l ‘appearance of object which goes on floating down river’ major reduplication (repetition at intervals of time) dyɔ̃:lyɔ̃:l ‘object floating down river and getting stuck here and there’ infix -ra- (distribution in time or space) drayɔ̃:l ‘several objects floating down river’
45. Reduplicative processes in Korean ideophones Sien 1997 (cf. Martin 1962, McCarthy 1983, Lee 1992) tuŋjil idph ‘floating’ partial prefixal reduplication (attenuation) tu-tuŋjil ‘lightly floating’ total reduplication (prolongation or continuation) tuŋjil-tuŋjil ‘continuously floating’ we can feed one into the other: tutuŋjil-tutuŋjil ‘continuously floating very lightly’
46. reduplication in ideophones not frozen but productive not unruly but regular in form and meaning
47. Ideophones and expressive morphology in Siwu (1) Dingemanse 2011 9 distinct basic word forms (‘ideophonic templates’) 6 show ‘frozen’ reduplication (59% of tokens), 3 don’t (38%)
48. AB syllabic pattern of the ideophone : (unbounded) lengthening + (unbounded) reduplication of pattern Ideophones and expressive morphology in Siwu (2) Dingemanse 2011 Aktionsart constraints
49. Many basic word forms of Siwu ideophones are “Gestalt iconic”: word structure depicts event structure
50. 2. 3. màbòrèni ku-re nìtɔ-nìtɔ ne, kù-se ↑gelegele-gelegelegelegelegele↑ white.man KU-one self-REDUP TP, AGR-be IDPH.shiny-EXP.REDUP ‘the imported stuff itself is ↑gelegelegelegelegelegelegele↑ [shiny]’ ǹdo lowètè (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑ 1SG-PROG 1sg-pound IDPH.impact IDPH.impact ‘I’m pounding, (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑’ subtypes of full reduplication in the depictive mode • Xn+ “expressive reduplication” limited to ideophones depicts ‘grading’ or ‘intensification’ • X, X “performative iteration” not limited to ideophones depicts repeated occurrence depictive
51. free migration through the linguistic Schengen area
52. noun reduplication may form ideophones kùbi n ‘bead’ → kùbi-kubi ‘beady’ ɔ̀ tɔɔ̀ n ‘fire’ → ɔ̀ tɔɔ-tɔɔ̀ ‘hot’ marked forms, sensory meanings... only tone betrays non-ideophonic status ideophones may feed into other classes fututu idph ‘pure white’ → kàfututu n ‘TV’ gbugburu idph ‘stout’ → kàgbugburugbu n ‘dwarf’ directionality can be hard to establish minimini idph ‘round’ ↔ mini v ‘encircle’ ɔ̀ mɛ̃rɛ̃ n ‘sweetness’ ↔ mɛ̃rɛ̃mɛ̃rɛ̃ idph ‘sweet’ Dingemanse 2011:Ch. 6
53. performative iteration may turn into total reduplication (depiction → description) 1. ǹdo lowètè (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑ Palmoil_4_432655 1SG-PROG 1sg-pound IDPH.impact IDPH.impact ‘{so} I’m pounding, (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑’ 2. ìɖe kàku kere tá-màbara kpɔ̀ kpɔ̀ kpɔ̀ -ɔ̀ ? Gunpowder_1450605 S.I-be funeral just PROG-3PL-do pounding-Q isn’t it for a funeral that the kpɔkpɔkpɔ [pounding] is being done? kpɔ̀ kpɔ̀ kpɔ̀ here is a deideophonic noun • appears as the argument of a passive verb • interrogative mood (incompatible with ideophones) • no performative foregrounding (undergoes tonal change) Dingemanse. (accepted). Expressiveness and system integration. STUF.
54. performative iteration may turn into total reduplication (depiction → description) 1. ǹdo lowètè (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑ Palmoil_4_432655 1SG-PROG 1sg-pound IDPH.impact IDPH.impact ‘{so} I’m pounding, (0.2) ↑kpɔ↑ (0.9) ↑kpɔ↑’ 2. ìɖe kàku kere tá-màbara kpɔ̀ kpɔ̀ kpɔ̀ -ɔ̀ ? Gunpowder_1450605 S.I-be funeral just PROG-3PL-do pounding-Q isn’t it for a funeral that the kpɔkpɔkpɔ [pounding] is being done? kpɔ̀ kpɔ̀ kpɔ̀ here is a deideophonic noun • appears as the argument of a passive verb • interrogative mood (incompatible with ideophones) • no performative foregrounding (undergoes tonal change) Dingemanse. (accepted). Expressiveness and system integration. STUF.
55. conclusions
56. description and depiction provide radically different interpretive frames reduplication in ideophones is regular, learnable, and describable (it is ‘linguistic’) reduplication travels freely through the linguistic Schengen area a theory of reduplication can only benefit from looking at repeated talk in all its guises face to face interaction deserves pride of place as a source of data in redup research
57. I thank Daniela Rossi the Mawu people European Research Council Max PIanck Society for the Advancement of Science
58. backup slides
59. sceptical me: I don’t see glittery in kɛlɛŋkɛlɛŋkɛlɛŋkɛlɛŋ sceptical Siwu consultant: I don’t see a Nu descendant un escalier Duchamp 1912, Nu descendant un escalier depiction ≠ natural meaning
60. surely images are easier to interpret than ideophones? 1. perhaps, but images use representational conventions too (we’re just very used to them) 2. perhaps, but images are ‘lifelike’ to various degrees (compare Rembrandt, van Gogh, Picasso, Mondriaan) 3. probably, it is another medium after all (compare the ephemeral 3d depictions of gesture)
61. (Kosslyn 1980:31)