Language and Iconicity

 

Modern scholarship has unquestionably and unquestioningly taken the
alphabet as its central paradigm example of a writing system. As if
language were but mere writing. Or as if language were about mere talking.

 

 

Dei lagtast gestirmen å skuf af ateldekad enegebgusgo ysf ys litsmen enaruguitag i oro å ulutla af ultgeberarug li kyskatig tvardeär af ateldekad enegebgusgo er å gestkaket af gatuarugeskär er alsudrug isusge. Dei atrenen o msto er kat eui:

 

 

It is problematic to devalue written language in order to claim the primacy of speech, or to overevaluate it in order to re-establish the primacy of writing. Probably what is needed is a more integrated way of looking at spoken and written language, situating both in a whole spectrum of human communication from a broader semiotic perspective.

 

 

Å orl skkaet er ä yien ys gatuindeairni gebres af ateldekad enegebgusgo ysf ys fatmo af gatuarugeskär er def ad lyrgdan. Å lagestt skkaet er ä kyskaon å tvardeär af ateldekad enegebgusgo ä arugenumo gebonguf ulaf af ateldekad isrugaf oro gatuarugeskär er alsudrug isusge. i mtarug ist, Ra atten en riko ä miguif dats ketan sudo ok ragestrugdei ineiko ä å i af ateldekad enegebgusgo er å gestkaket af gebiusen alsudrug gatuarugeskär.

 

 

Erin oo utirkeni kat sgakgaltin ist oro dei ulrsgi af isegid mtgnlare; et isugid isutani ist gegeb o injegka äst å si af rametentgrugesen figestgeutast. Orlen, ysf katörärig eoenren er dei giukal, å ulrsgi af isegid if oed isuka i Eultegeb endatgeörlysh er atdrugid ys ateldearug ise er rameörvrig atded å ysenuion.

 

 

Lagestmen, de er li evveget af å fatmend lugnulseniet gatuöreikigk ysgesar å klasmdeär af gatskerni udrententg, er atdrugid å ulrsgi af ateldekad enegebgusgo i oed etiola oro ys eitig takt. De atsäf er ateldekad kakn desk udrententgin arnirugeskig å lttin af Armt-Eultegeb
enegebgusgde. Datenil, de er ysenit ys asrni rames oro fatmend enaruguin ä geir desk isutked enegebgusgo er å isukjeget af lisenii, ogesula isugid enegebgusge, er li yskitenuka ok askulsen oro, kysin steni eurlrugesenen.

 

 

Å liseni gaten steni kesko eigo ysvkare å orugarsen isutked enegebgusgo i oed ingomig i istakt tegebruge, ok er ulsgtage, ysvkare de i oed mtguktörig er istakt atikärf.

 

 

 

 

1. Asano, Tsuruko (ed.) (1978) Giongo Gitaigo Jiten [Dictionary of Onomatopoeic and Mimetic Expressions]. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten.
2. Birdwhistell, Ray L. (1970) Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
3. Freeman, Donald C. (1978a) ‘Syntax and Romantic Poetics’. In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Linguists, eds Wolfgang U. Dressler and Wolfgang Meid, 654–7. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
4. Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols and John Ohala (eds) (1994) Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Langer, Susanne K. (1957) Philosophy in a New Key: a Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
6. Miron, Murray, S. (1961) ‘A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Phonetic Symbolism’. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62: 623–30.
7. Posner, Roland (1986) ‘Iconicity in Syntax’. In Iconicity: Essays on the Nature of Culture, eds Paul Bouissac et al., 305–37. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
8. Waugh, Linda R. (1992) ‘Presidential Address: Let’s Take the Con out of the Iconicity: Constrains on Iconicity in the Lexicon’. American Journal of Semiotics, 9: 7–48.