Main Article Content
Riglyne vir 'n teoretiese raamwerk vir die beskrywing van ikonisiteit/taalmimesis
Abstract
Die vertrekpunt van hierdie artikel is bepaalde teenstrydighede in die funderende aansprake oor ikonisiteit vanuit die geledere van die Amsterdam-gebaseerde Iconicity Research Project wat myns insiens in die weg staan van 'n gegronde sistematisering van kennis oor die verskynsel. In 'n poging om riglyne te vind wat die basis vir 'n nuwe teoretiese raamwerk vir die beskrywing van ikonisiteit kan vorm, knoop ek veral aan by die teoretiese grondslag wat HCT Müller in die sewentiger- en tagtigerjare van die vorige eeu gelê het met baanbrekersnavorsing oor taalmimesis/ikonisiteit wat steeds uiters relevant blyk te wees. Aanknopings by bepaalde insigte van Paul Bouissac, wat ook bepaalde aannames van die IRP krities vanuit 'n memetiesevolusionêre ondersoek het, word uitgewys, enersyds ter ondersteuning van my kritiek en andersyds om aan te toon dat die rigting waarin na 'n nuwe basis vir navorsing oor die onderwerp gesoek moet word reeds begin oopgaan.
This article focuses on some conflicts arising from the foundational claims about iconicity from among the ranks of the Amsterdam-based Iconicity Research Project (IRP). These claims, the author believes, stand in the way of a well-founded systematisation of knowledge of the phenomenon. In an effort to find guidelines that could form the basis of a new theoretical framework for describing iconicity, I propose a return to the theoretical groundwork done by HCT Müller in the 1970s and 1980s with his pioneering research on linguistic iconicity/iconicity, which still appears extremely relevant today. Links with certain insights of Paul Bouissac, who also critically examined some of the assumptions of the IRP from a memetic evolutionary angle, are pointed out. This is done, on the one hand, in support of my criticism, and, on the other, to show that the direction in which a new basis for research on the topic must be found has already begun.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2008, 26(1): 43–57
This article focuses on some conflicts arising from the foundational claims about iconicity from among the ranks of the Amsterdam-based Iconicity Research Project (IRP). These claims, the author believes, stand in the way of a well-founded systematisation of knowledge of the phenomenon. In an effort to find guidelines that could form the basis of a new theoretical framework for describing iconicity, I propose a return to the theoretical groundwork done by HCT Müller in the 1970s and 1980s with his pioneering research on linguistic iconicity/iconicity, which still appears extremely relevant today. Links with certain insights of Paul Bouissac, who also critically examined some of the assumptions of the IRP from a memetic evolutionary angle, are pointed out. This is done, on the one hand, in support of my criticism, and, on the other, to show that the direction in which a new basis for research on the topic must be found has already begun.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 2008, 26(1): 43–57
