Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 10, 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
Accepted author manuscript, 693 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Literature review › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Literature review › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language
AU - Dingemanse, Mark
AU - Blasi, Damian E.
AU - Lupyan, Gary
AU - Christiansen, Morten H.
AU - Monaghan, Padraic
N1 - This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 10, 2015 DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
PY - 2015/10
Y1 - 2015/10
N2 - The notion that the form of a word bears an arbitrary relation to its meaning accounts only partly for the attested relations between form and meaning in the languages of the world. Recent research suggests a more textured view of vocabulary structure, in which arbitrariness is complemented by iconicity (aspects of form resemble aspects of meaning) and systematicity (statistical regularities in forms predict function). Experimental evidence suggests these form-to-meaning correspondences serve different functions in language processing, development, and communication: systematicity facilitates category learning by means of phonological cues, iconicity facilitates word learning and communication by means of perceptuomotor analogies, and arbitrariness facilitates meaning individuation through distinctive forms. Processes of cultural evolution help to explain how these competing motivations shape vocabulary structure.
AB - The notion that the form of a word bears an arbitrary relation to its meaning accounts only partly for the attested relations between form and meaning in the languages of the world. Recent research suggests a more textured view of vocabulary structure, in which arbitrariness is complemented by iconicity (aspects of form resemble aspects of meaning) and systematicity (statistical regularities in forms predict function). Experimental evidence suggests these form-to-meaning correspondences serve different functions in language processing, development, and communication: systematicity facilitates category learning by means of phonological cues, iconicity facilitates word learning and communication by means of perceptuomotor analogies, and arbitrariness facilitates meaning individuation through distinctive forms. Processes of cultural evolution help to explain how these competing motivations shape vocabulary structure.
KW - BRITISH SIGN-LANGUAGE
KW - GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY ASSIGNMENTS
KW - TAKETE-MALUMA PHENOMENON
KW - SOUND-SYMBOLISM
KW - SUFFIXING PREFERENCE
KW - WORDS
KW - GESTURE
KW - SPEECH
KW - SHAPE
KW - CORRESPONDENCES
U2 - 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
DO - 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
M3 - Literature review
VL - 19
SP - 603
EP - 615
JO - Trends in Cognitive Sciences
JF - Trends in Cognitive Sciences
SN - 1364-6613
IS - 10
ER -