Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:57:26.138Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mimetic schemas and shared perception through imitatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2016

Anni Jääskeläinen
Anni Jääskeläinen*
Affiliation:
Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, P.O. Box 3, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article examines the interplay between certain depictions of sound and certain mimetic schemas (intersubjectively shared, body-based image schemas that concern basic processes and activities). The research contributes to the study of ideophones and also demonstrates that it is beneficial to study these types of words in written everyday interaction, as well as in spoken everyday interaction. Two Finnish sound words (ideophones, imitatives), naps ‘snap, pop’ and humps (the sound of relatively soft falling) are examined and their different meanings are analysed. Some research questions of this analysis are: What causes the sound described by either naps or humps? What kind of movement is described and to what mimetic schema is the sound linked? And also: What concrete, spatial processes might motivate the words’ more abstract uses? The examination indicates that naps and humps are used as concrete depictions of sounds and movements, but also more abstractly, as depictions of cognitive and emotional processes without any spatial movement or audible sound. The motivations for these more abstract uses are studied: It is argued that the basic uses of naps and humps are tied to certain bodily processes as their sounds or impressions, and that the more abstract uses of naps and humps reflect metaphorical mappings that map the mimetic schemas of these basic, bodily experiences to more abstract experiences. Grounds for this kind of use is the unique construal of imitatives: they present an imagistic, iconic depiction of a sensation and thus evoke imagery that is shared on a direct bodily level. Thus they aid in identifying with others and their experiences on a level that is directly accessible.

Keywords

iconicityideophonesimitativesmetaphormimetic schemas
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 39 , Special Issue 2: Discourse, Grammar and Intersubjectivity , October 2016 , pp. 159 - 183
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2016 

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

Clark, Herbert & Gerrig, Richard. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66 (4), 764–805.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, Chris. 2010. Auditory scene analysis. In Goldstein (ed.), 186–191.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6 (10), 654–672.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2013. Ideophones and gesture in everyday speech. Gesture 13 (2), 143–165.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. In press. Expressiveness and system integration: On the typology of ideophones, with special reference to Siwu. STUF – Language Typology and Universals. http://ideophone.org/files/Dingemanse-STUF-Expressiveness-and-system-integration.pdf, accessed 21 April 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enwald, Liisa. 1997. Kaiken liikkeessä lepo: monihahmotteisuus Mirkka Rekolan Runoudessa [Rest in all motion: Ambiguity in the poetry of Mirkka Rekola]. Helsinki: SKS,.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Sweetser, Eve (eds). 1996. Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 1998. Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22 (2), 133–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Östman, Jan-Ola. 2004. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-language Perspective, 11–86. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Bruce E. (ed.). 2010. Encyclopedia of Perception, vol. 1. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph E. 1997. Theories are building revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 267–290.Google Scholar
Hampe, Beate (ed.). 2005. From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna & Ohala, John J. (eds.). 1994. Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Anni. 2007a. Puheen imitatiivikonstruktioita: Proadverbin ja proadjektiivin sitomat imitatiivi/ele -konstruktiot puheessa [Imitative constructions of speech: Imitative/gesture constructions bound by a proadverb or a proadjective in speech]. Presented at XXXIV Finnish Conference of Linguistics Kielitieteen päivät, Oulu, 24–25 May 2007.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Anni. 2007b. Examining imagery: The sounds of coming and going. Presented at the 10th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC 10), Kraków, 15–20 July 2007.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Anni. 2012. Sehän menee että suhahtaa – tulemisen ja menemisen äänet [‘It goes so that is whizzes’ – the sounds of coming and going]. In Herlin, Ilona & Kotilainen, Lari (eds.), Verbit ja Konstruktiot [Verbs and constructions], 62–103. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Anni. 2013. Todisteena äänen kuva: suomen kielen imitatiivikonstruktiot [Imitations of sounds as evidence: The constructions of imitatives in the Finnish language]. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Nordic Studies. [Available at http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-8860-5] Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Anni. 2015. Suomen äännesymboliikkaa imitatiivien kautta tarkasteltuna [Sound symbolism in Finnish: Imitatives as examples]. Virittäjä 119 (4), 464–497.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 2005. The philosophical significance of image schemas. In Hampe (ed.), 15–33.Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro. 1997. Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics 35, 379–415.Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro. 2000. How representational gestures help speaking. In McNeill (ed.), 162–185.Google Scholar
Kunene, Daniel P. 2001. Speaking the act: The ideophone as a linguistic rebel. In Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz (eds.), 183–191.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Turner, Mark 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisities. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leisiö, Timo. 2010. Musiikin yhdeksän evoluutiota [Nine evolutions of music]. Tieteessä tapahtuu 28, 3–15.Google Scholar
McAlpine, David. 2010. Auditory localization: Physiology. In Goldstein (ed.), 167–170.Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 2001. Ideophones as the source of verbs in Northern Australian languages. In Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz (eds.), 205–221.Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, David (ed.). 2000. Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, David & Duncan, Susan D.. 2000. Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In McNeill (ed.), 141–161.Google Scholar
Mikone, Eve. 2001. Ideophones in the Balto-Finnic languages. In Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz (eds.), 223–233.Google Scholar
Moore, Kevin Ezra. 2014. The Spatial Language of Time: Metaphor, Metonymy and Frames of Reference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
NS = Nykysuomen sanakirja [Dictionary of contemporary Finnish], vols. 1–3, 1966. Edited by Matti Sadeniemi. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Nuckolls, Janis B. 2001. Ideophones in Pastaza Quechua. In Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz (eds.), 271–285.Google Scholar
Oswalt, Robert L. 1994. Inanimate imitatives in English. In Hinton et al. (eds.), 293–306.Google Scholar
Penttilä, Aarni. 1957. Suomen kielioppi [The Finnish grammar]. Porvoo: WSOY.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter. 2002. How metonymic are metaphors? In René Dirven & Ralf Pörings (eds.), Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, 407–434. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reisberg, Daniel. 2010. Auditory imagery. In Goldstein (ed.), 164–167.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Richard. 1994. Aural images. In Hinton et al. (eds.), 276–292.Google Scholar
Rytkönen, Ahti. 1935. Deskriptiivisistä sanoista [Of descriptive words]. Virittäjä 39, 90–102.Google Scholar
Rytkönen, Ahti. 1940. Eräiden itämerensuomen tm-sanojen historiaa [History of certain tm-words of Proto-Baltic-Finnic]. Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Sivula, Jaakko.1989. Deskriptiiviset sanat [Descriptive words]. In Jouko Vesikansa (ed.), Nykysuomen sanavarat [The wordstock of modern Finnish], 165–182. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Evan. 2001. Empathy and consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8, 1–32.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Veldi, Enn. 2001. Estonian–English dictionary of onomatopoeic words. In Juha Leskinen (ed.), Itämerensuomalaista ekspressiivisanaston tutkimusta [Studies of expressive vocabulary in Baltic-Finnic languages], 137–144. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto.Google Scholar
Veldi, Enn. 2004. Phonosemantic accuracy in bilingual dictionaries: English and Estonian derogatory words. In Williams, Geoffrey & Vessier, Sandra (eds.), 11th Euralex 2004 Proceedings, vol. 1. http://www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2004/059_2004_V2_Enn%20VELDI_Phonosemantic%20accuracy%20in%20bilingual%20dictionaries_English%20and%20Estonian%20derog.pdf, accessed 12 October 2015.Google Scholar
Voeltz, F. K. Erhard & Kilian-Hatz, Christa. 2001a. Introduction. In Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz (eds.), 1–8.Google Scholar
Voeltz, F. K. Erhard & Kilian-Hatz, Christa (eds.). 2001b. Ideophones. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yost, William A. 2010. Auditory localization: Psychophysics. In Goldstein (ed.), 170–174.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2005. What's in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In Hampe (ed.), 313–342.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2007. Intersubjectivity, mimetic schemas and the emergence of language. Intellectica 2–3 (46–47), 123–152.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2008. The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In Zlatev, Jordan, Racine, Timothy P., Sinha, Chris & Itkonen, Esa (eds.), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity, 215–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2014. Image schemas, mimetic schemas and children's gestures. Cognitive Semiotics 7 (1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar