z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Language is more abstract than you think, or, why aren't languages more iconic?
Author(s) -
Gary Lupyan,
Bodo Winter
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
philosophical transactions of the royal society b biological sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.753
H-Index - 272
eISSN - 1471-2970
pISSN - 0962-8436
DOI - 10.1098/rstb.2017.0137
Subject(s) - computer science , linguistics , programming language , philosophy
How abstract is language? We show that abstractness pervades every corner of language, going far beyond the usual examples of freedom and justice In the light of the ubiquity of abstract words, the need to understand where abstract meanings come from becomes ever more acute. We argue that the best source of knowledge about abstract meanings may be language itself. We then consider a seemingly unrelated question: Why isn't language more iconic? Iconicity-a resemblance between the form of words and their meanings-can be immensely useful in language learning and communication. Languages could be much more iconic than they currently are. So why aren't they? We suggest that one reason is that iconicity is inimical to abstraction because iconic forms are too connected to specific contexts and sensory depictions. Form-meaning arbitrariness may allow language to better convey abstract meanings.This article is part of the theme issue 'Varieties of abstract concepts: development, use and representation in the brain'.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom