Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:44:26.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantically Motivated Lexical Patterns: A Study of Dutch and Kambera Expressives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Marian Klamer
Marian Klamer*
Affiliation:
Leiden University
*
Faculty of Arts, Leiden University, Dept. of SE Asia and Oceania, PO Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands, [m.a.f.klamer@let.leidenuniv.nl]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Are linguistic signs really as arbitrary as they are assumed to be, and how exceptional are semantically motivated lexical patterns? These old questions are re-addressed with the help of new quantificational data on two genetically unrelated languages, Kambera (Austronesian) and Dutch (Indo-European). The hypothesis is that semantically complex items such as expressives favor a structurally complex form, and vice versa. An examination of seven distinct types of lexical items found statistically robust semantically motivated lexical patterns. Linguistic signs appear to be less arbitrary than is commonly assumed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , June 2002, pp. 258 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 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

References

Anttila, Raimo. 1976. Meaning and structure of Finnish descriptive vocabulary. (Texas Linguistic Forum 5.) Texas.Google Scholar
Bartens, Angela. 2000. Ideophones and sound symbolism in Atlantic Creoles. Helsinki: Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent. 1994. Evidence for pervasive synesthetic sound symbolism in ethnozoological nomenclature. In Hinton, et al., 76–93.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1995. The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert, and Santen, Ariane van. 1998. Morfologie: de woordstructuur van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chastaing, Maxime. 1964. Nouvelles recherches sur le symbolisme des voyelles. Journal psychologique normale et pathologique 61.75–88.Google Scholar
Chastaing, Maxime. 1965. Dernières recherches sur le symbolisme vocalique de la petitesse. Revue philosophique de la France et de l'étranger 155.41–56.Google Scholar
Childs, Tucker G. 1994. African ideophones. In Hinton, , et al., 178–99.Google Scholar
Clynes, Adrian. 1995. Topics in the phonology and morphology of Balinese [based on the dialect of Singaraja, North Bali]. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Clynes, Adrian. 1998. The emergence of the marked: Interactions of phonology and semantics in Balinese. University of Brunei Darussalam, ms.Google Scholar
Clynes, Adrian. 2000. Phonological structures and expressiveness: The role of iconicity in ‘the emergence of the marked‘. Proceedings of AFLA 7, ed. by Klamer, Marian, 15–32. Amsterdam: Free University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
de Groot, A. W. 1963. De interjectie. Studies op het gebied van het hedendaagse Nederlands [Acta Linguistica Rheno-Trajectina], ed. by de Groot, A. W. and Schultink, H., 13–22. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Haas, Wim, and Trommelen, Mieke. 1993. Morfologisch Handboek van het Nederlands. The Hague: SDU Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
Elders, Stefan. 2001. Defining ideophones in Mundang. In Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz, 97–110.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan. 1996. Similarity and frequency in phonology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University dissertation.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan, Broe, Michael; and Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1997 [1995]. Similarity and phonotactics in Arabic. Bloomington, IN and Chicago: Indiana University and Northwestern University, ms.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan, and Zawaydeh, Bushra. 2001. The psychological reality of OCP-place in Arabic. Language 77.91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudge, Erik. 1970. Phonological structure and ‘expressiveness‘. Journal of Linguistics 6. 6–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., Rooij, J. de; and van den Toorn, M. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2nd revised edn. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1994. Iconicity. The encylopedia of language and linguistics, ed. by Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Hamano, Shoko. 1998. The sound-symbolic system of Japanese. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Heestermans, Hans. n.d. [1990]. Luilebol! Het Nederlands scheldwoordenboek. Amsterdam: Thomas Rap.Google Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna; and Ohala, John J. (eds.) 1994. Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jonker, J. C. G. 1906. Over de eind-medeklinkers in het Rottineesch en Timoreesch. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 59.263–343. Leiden: Royal Institute of Linguistics and Anthropology (KITLV).Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1994. Modern Greek ts: Beyond sound symbolism. In Hinton, et al., 222–36.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1997. On the linguistics of marginality: The centrality of the periphery. Chicago Linguistic Society 33.197–213.Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro. 1997. Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics 35.379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 1998. A grammar of Kambera. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2000a. How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers. Lingua 110.69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2000b. Austronesian expressives and the lexicon. Proceedings of AFLA 6, ed. by Kitto, Catherine and Smallwood, Carolyn, 201–19. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2001. Expressives and iconicity in the lexicon. In Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz, 165–81.Google Scholar
Krott, Andrea, Baayen, R. Harald; and Schreuder, Robert. 2000. Analogy in morphology: modelling the choice of linking morphemes in Dutch. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen, ms.Google Scholar
Mattens, W. H. M. 1984. De voorspelbaarheid van tussenklanken in nominale samenstellingen. De nieuwe taalgids 77.333–43.Google Scholar
Middelkoop, P. 1950. Proeve van een Timorese grammatica. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Landen Volkenkunde 106.375–517. Leiden: Royal Institute of Linguistics and Anthropology (KITLV).Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1982. The synchronic and diachronic behaviour of plops, squeaks, croaks, sighs and moans. International Journal of American Linguistics 48.49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onvlee, Louis. 1984. Kamberaas (Oost-Soembaas)-Nederlands Woordenboek. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1965. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1993. Dissimilarity in Arabic verbal roots. North Eastern Linguistic Society 23, 367–81.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1994. Syllable structure and word structure. Papers in laboratory phonology 3: Phonological structure and phonetic form, ed. by Keating, Pat, 168–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The syllable. The structure of phonological representations, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 337–84. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Sereno, Joan A. 1994. Phonosyntactics. In Hinton, et al., 263–75.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Uhlenbeck, E. M. 1949. De structuur van het Javaanse morpheem. Bandoeng: Nix & Co.Google Scholar
Van Dale Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal. 1999. 13th revised edn., ed. by Geerts, G. and Heestermans, H. Utrecht/Antwerpen: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry, and Klamer, Marian. 1997a. The uneven trochee and the structure of Kambera roots. Dam Phonology [HIL phonology papers 2], ed. by Nespor, Marina and Smith, Norval, 39–57. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry, and Klamer, Marian. 1997b. The prosodic structure of Kambera roots and words. Proceedings of the seventh international conference on Austronesian linguistics, ed. by Odé, Cecilia and Stokhof, Wim, 105–23. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Toorn, M. C. 1981a. De tussenklank in samenstellingen waarvan het eerste lid een afleiding is. De nieuwe taalgids 74.197–205.Google Scholar
van de Toorn, M. C. 1981b. De tussenklank in samenstellingen waarvan het eerste lid systematisch uitheems is. De nieuwe taalgids 74.547–52.Google Scholar
van de Toorn, M. C. 1982a. Tendenzen bij de beregeling van de verbindingsklank in nominale samenstellingen I. De nieuwe taalgids 75.24–33.Google Scholar
van de Toorn, M. C. 1982b. Tendenzen bij de beregeling van de verbindingsklank in nominale samenstellingen II. De nieuwe taalgids 75.153–60.Google Scholar
Voeltz, F. K. Erhard, and Kilian-Hatz, Christa (eds.) 2001. Ideophones. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walli-Sagey, Elisabeth. 1986. On the representation of complex segments and their formation in Kinyarwanda. Studies in compensatory lengthening, ed. by Wetzels, Leo and Sezer, Engin, 251–95. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar