Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T01:00:32.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Iconicity and Metaphor: Constraints on Metaphorical Extension of Iconic Forms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Irit Meir
Irit Meir*
Affiliation:
The University of Haifa
*
Department of Hebrew Language and Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders The University of Haifa Haifa, Israel 31905, [imeir@univ.haifa.ac.il]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some conceptual metaphors common in spoken languages are infelicitous in sign languages. The explanation suggested in this article is that the iconicity of these signs clashes with the shifts in meaning that take place in these metaphorical extensions. Both iconicity and metaphors are built on mappings of two domains: form and meaning in iconicity, source domain and target domain in metaphors. Iconic signs that undergo metaphoric extension are therefore subject to both mappings (Taub 2001). When the two mappings do not preserve the same structural correspondence, the metaphorical extension is blocked. This restriction is formulated as the double-mapping constraint, which requires multiple mappings to be structure-preserving. The effects of this constraint go beyond explaining possible and impossible metaphors in sign languages. Because of the central role of metaphors in various linguistic processes, constraints on their occurrence may affect other linguistic structures and processes that are built on these metaphors in both sign and spoken languages.

Keywords

iconicitymetaphordouble-mappingsign languagesconstraintsmodality

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 86 , Issue 4 , December 2010, pp. 865 - 896
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Meir Etdegi, Debbie Menashe, Sara Lanesman, Orna Levy, and Doron Levy for providing the ISL data on which this study is based, and for useful discussions of these data. I am grateful to Carol Padden for very helpful discussions and for providing many of the ASL examples in the article, to Sotaro Kita for helpful discussion of mimetics, and to Greg Carlson, Sali Tagliamonte, Karen Emmorey, and an anonymous referee for their valuable comments. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 8th Theoretical Issues of Sign Language Research conference, Barcelona, September 2004, and at the Second International AFLiCo conference, Lille, May 2007. I thank the participants for their comments and questions. This work was partly supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation no. 553/04 to Irit Meir. Illustrations are copyright © of Sign Language Research Laboratory, University of Haifa.

References

Armstrong, David F., Stokoe, William C.; and Wilcox, Sherman E.. 1995. Gesture and the nature of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Meir, Irit; and Sandler, Wendy. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81. 301–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, and Padden, Carol A.. 2001. Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. Foreign vocabulary in sign languages: A cross-linguistic investigation of word formation, ed. by Brentari, Diane, 87–119. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Ruth, Martin, Paula; and White, Theresa. 1992. Forced choice recognition of sign in novice British Sign Language learners. Applied Linguistics 13. 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Richard J. 1976. Some constraints on possible words. Semantikos 1. 27–66.Google Scholar
Claudi, Ulrike, and Heine, Bernd. 1986. On the metaphorical base of grammar. Studies in Language 10. 297–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, John M., and Hutchinson, D. S.. 1997. Plato complete works. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Diffloth, Gerard. 1972. Notes on expressive meaning. Chicago Linguistic Society 8. 440–47.Google Scholar
Dobrovol'skij, Dmitrij, and Piirainen, Elisabeth. 2005. Figurative language: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen (ed.) 2003. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, Karen, and Lane, Harlane L. (eds.) 2000. The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lynn. 1975. Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language 51. 940–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51. 696–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7. 155–70.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1997. How language reflects the embodied nature of creative thought. Creative thought, ed. by Ward, Tomas B., Smith, Steven M., and Vaid, Jyotsna, 351–73. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. (ed.) 2008. Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Haiman 1985, 187–219.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar. Language 56. 515–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John (ed.) 1985. Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasada, Rie. 1998. Sound symbolic emotion words in Japanese. Speaking of emotions: Conceptualization and expression, ed. by Athanasiadou, Angeliki and Tabakowska, Elzbieta, 83–98. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasada, Rie. 2002. ‘Body part’ terms and emotion in Japanese. Pragmatics & Cognition 10. 107–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1986. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1985. The iconicity of the universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. In Haiman 1985, 151–85.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 1995. Japanese phonology. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John, 817–38. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1922. Symbolic value of the vowel i. Philologica 1. 15–33.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 1991. Spatial syntax and spatial semantics in the inflection of signs for the marking of person and location in Auslan. International Journal of Sign Linguistics 2. 29–62.Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro. 1997. Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics 35. 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward S., and Bellugi, Ursula. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberth, Ann K., and Gamble, Mary Ellen B.. 1991. The role of iconicity in sign language learning by hearing adults. Journal of Communication Disorders 24. 89–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meier, Richard P. 1982. Icons, analogues, and morphemes: The acquisition of verb agreement in ASL. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Meier, Richard P., Cormier, Kearsy; and Quinto-Pozos, David. 2003. Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1998. Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs: The case of backwards verbs. Sign Language and Linguistics 1. 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20.2.413–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2003. Grammaticalization and modality: The emergence of a case-marked pronoun in Israeli Sign Language. Journal of Linguistics 39. 109–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2007. The morphological realization of semantic fields. Sign languages: Spinning and unraveling the past, present and future (Proceedings of TISLR 9). Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul. Online: http://www.editora-arara-azul.com.br/ebooks/catalogo/27.pdf.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Padden, Carol, Aronoff, Mark; and Sandler, Wendy. 2007. The body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43. 531–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, and Sandler, Wendy. 2008. A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miller, George A., and Johnson-Laird, Philip N.. 1976. Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Wasow, Thomas; and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlansky, Michael D., and Bonvillian, John D.. 1984. The role of iconicity in early sign language acquisition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 49. 287–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padden, Carol A. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A. 1998. The ASL lexicon. Sign Language and Linguistics 1. 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol A., and Gunsauls, Darline C.. 2003. How the alphabet came to be used in a sign language. Sign Language Studies 4. 10–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, Tommaso. 2004. Iconicity and productivity in sign language discourse. Sign Language Studies 4. 164–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2009. Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica 174.1/4.241–75.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, and Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard-Kegl, Judy. 1985. Locative relations in ASL word formation, syntax and discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Simone, Raffaele. 1995. Foreword: Under the sign of Cratylus. Iconicity in language, ed. by Simone, Raffaele, vii–xi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1987. Metaphorical models of thought and speech: A comparison of historical directions and metaphorical mappings of two domains. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 446–59.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam. 2006. Past and current trends in sign language research. Language and Communication 26. 168–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar