Main Article Content
Uitgangspunte in twee interdissiplinêre navorsingsprojekte oor ikonisiteit
Abstract
Die doel met hierdie artikel was tweeledig. In die eerste plek het ek saaklik probeer aantoon dat bepaalde aansprake van die (New) Iconicity Research Project (IRP) oor (i) die leidende rol wat van die linguistiek in navorsing oor ikonisiteit en (ii) van die IRP self in die bevordering van die samewerking tussen taal- en letterkunde rondom navorsing oor die verskynsel gekwalifiseer moet word deur die doelstellings en bevindings van 'n navorsingsprojek oor dieselfde onderwerp wat in die sewentigerjare in Suid-Afrika van stapel gestuur is en tot meerdere publikasies gelei het. In die tweede plek, in die lig van die belangrikheid van 'n deeglik gemotiveerde taalopvatting om navorsing oor ikonisiteit in 'n taal- en literêre konteks te rig, het ek op bepaalde gebreke in die vertrekpunte van die IRP gewys en probeer aantoon hoe die talige fundering van HCT Müller se taalmimetiese navorsing hierdie gaping kan help oorbrug. Gesien die voortgesette relevansie van Müller se navorsing is dit noodsaaklik dat sy insigte oor ikonisiteit (opnuut) onder die aandag van die breër navorsingsgemeenskap gebring moet.
The purpose of this article is twofold. I firstly attempted to indicate concisely that certain claims of the (New) Iconicity Research Project (IRP) about (i) the leading role of linguistics in research on iconicity and (ii) the role of the IRP itself in the promotion of the cooperation between linguistics and literature regarding research on iconicity must be qualified by the objectives and findings of a research project on the same topic that was launched in the seventies in South Africa and that led to a number of publications. Secondly, in view of the importance of a well-motivated language view to direct research on iconicity in a linguistic and literary context, I indicated a number of shortcomings in the points of departure of the IRP and tried to indicate how the language foundation of HCT Müller's language mimetic research can help to bridge this gap. Given the continued relevance of Müller's research it is crucial that his insights into iconicity once again be brought to the attention of the broader research community.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2007, 25(3): 369–383
The purpose of this article is twofold. I firstly attempted to indicate concisely that certain claims of the (New) Iconicity Research Project (IRP) about (i) the leading role of linguistics in research on iconicity and (ii) the role of the IRP itself in the promotion of the cooperation between linguistics and literature regarding research on iconicity must be qualified by the objectives and findings of a research project on the same topic that was launched in the seventies in South Africa and that led to a number of publications. Secondly, in view of the importance of a well-motivated language view to direct research on iconicity in a linguistic and literary context, I indicated a number of shortcomings in the points of departure of the IRP and tried to indicate how the language foundation of HCT Müller's language mimetic research can help to bridge this gap. Given the continued relevance of Müller's research it is crucial that his insights into iconicity once again be brought to the attention of the broader research community.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2007, 25(3): 369–383
