Skip to main content Accessibility help

Playful iconicity: structural markedness underlies the relation between funniness and iconicity



Words like ‘waddle’, ‘flop’, and ‘zigzag’ combine playful connotations with iconic form–meaning resemblances. Here we propose that structural markedness may be a common factor underlying perceptions of playfulness and iconicity. Using collected and estimated lexical ratings covering a total of over 70,000 English words, we assess the robustness of this association. We identify cues of phonotactic complexity that covary with funniness and iconicity ratings and that, we propose, serve as metacommunicative signals to draw attention to words as playful and performative. To assess the generalisability of the findings we develop a method to estimate lexical ratings from distributional semantics and apply it to a dataset 20 times the size of the original set of human ratings. The method can be used more generally to extend coverage of lexical ratings. We find that it reliably reproduces correlations between funniness and iconicity as well as cues of structural markedness, though it also amplifies biases present in the human ratings. Our study shows that the playful and the poetic are part of the very texture of the lexicon.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Playful iconicity: structural markedness underlies the relation between funniness and iconicity
      Available formats

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Playful iconicity: structural markedness underlies the relation between funniness and iconicity
      Available formats

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Playful iconicity: structural markedness underlies the relation between funniness and iconicity
      Available formats


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (, which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Address for correspondence:


Hide All
Aryani, A., Conrad, M., Schmidtke, D. & Jacobs, A. (2018). Why ‘piss’ is ruder than ‘pee’? The role of sound in affective meaning making. PLOS ONE 13(6), e0198430.
Attardo, S. (2018). Universals in puns and humorous wordplay. In Winter-Froemel, E. & Thaler, V. (eds.), Cultures and traditions of wordplay and wordplay research (pp. 89110). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Audring, J., Booij, G. & Jackendoff, R. (2017). Menscheln, kibbelen, sparkle. Linguistics in the Netherlands 34(1), 115.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B.Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods 39(3), 445459.
Bateson, G. (1955). A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric Research Reports 2(39), 3951.
Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Joulin, A. & Mikolov, T. (2017). Enriching word vectors with subword information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 5, 135146.
Clark, H. H. (2016). Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review 123(3), 324347.
Crystal, D. (1996). Playing with linguistic problems: from Orwell to Plato and back again. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (GURT) 1996: Linguistics, Language Acquisition, and Language Variation: Current Trends and Future Prospects (pp. 529).
Dingemanse, M. (2011). Ideophones and the aesthetics of everyday language in a West-African society. The Senses and Society 6(1), 7785.
Dingemanse, M. (2014). Making new ideophones in Siwu: creative depiction in conversation. Pragmatics and Society 5(3), 384405.
Dingemanse, M. (2019). ‘Ideophone’ as a comparative concept. In Akita, K. & Pardeshi, P. (eds), Ideophones, mimetics, expressives (pp. 1333). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dressler, W. U. & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics: diminutives and intensifiers in Italian, German, and other languages. Berlin/New York: M. de Gruyter.
Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a joke: types of conversational humour. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(5), 12841299.
Engelthaler, T. & Hills, T. T. (2018). Humor norms for 4,997 English words. Behavior Research Methods 50(3), 11161124.
Fortune, G. (1962). Ideophones in Shona: an inaugural lecture given in the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland on 28 April 1961. London/New York: Oxford University Press.
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R companion to applied regression (3rd ed.). Retrieved from <>.
Glenn, P. J. (2003). Laughter in interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Graesser, A. C., Long, D. L. & Mio, J. S. (1989). What are the cognitive and conceptual components of humorous text? Poetics 18(1), 143163.
Haiman, J. (2014). Six competing motives for repetition. In MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A. & Moravcsik, E. (eds), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (pp. 246260). New York: Oxford University Press.
Havránek, B. (1964). The functional differentiation of the standard language. In Garvin, P. L. (ed.), A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp. 316). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Hollis, G., Westbury, C. & Lefsrud, L. (2017). Extrapolating human judgments from skip-gram vector representations of word meaning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 70(8), 16031619.
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2017). Basque ideophones from a typological perspective. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 62(2), 196220.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in language (pp. 350377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jakobson, R. & Waugh, L. R. (1979). The sound shape of language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Joseph, B. D. (1994). Modern Greek ts: beyond sound symbolism. In Hinton, L., Nichols, J. & Ohala, J. J. (eds), Sound symbolism (pp. 222236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keuleers, E., Lacey, P., Rastle, K. & Brysbaert, M. (2012). The British Lexicon Project: lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods 44(1), 287304.
Kim, S. (2015). Ppcor: an R package for a fast calculation to semi-partial correlation coefficients. Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods 22(6), 665674.
Klamer, M. (2002). Semantically motivated lexical patterns: a study of Dutch and Kambera expressives. Language 78(2), 258286.
Kris, E. & Gombrich, E. (1938). The principles of caricature. British Journal of Medical Psychology 17(3/4), 319342.
Kunene, D. P. (2001). Speaking the act: the ideophone as a linguistic rebel. In Voeltz, F. K. E. & Kilian-Hatz, C. (eds), Ideophones (pp. 183–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kwon, N. & Round, E. R. (2014). Phonaesthemes in morphological theory. Morphology 25(1), 127.
Levisen, C. (2018). Dark, but Danish: ethnopragmatic perspectives on black humor. Intercultural Pragmatics 15(4), 515531.
Low, P. A. (2011). Translating jokes and puns. Perspectives 19(1), 5970.
Lydall, J. (2000). Having fun with ideophones: a socio-linguistic look at ideophones in Hamar, Southern Ethiopia. In Yimam, B., Pankhurst, R., Chapple, D., Admassu, Y., Pankhurst, A. & Teferra, B. (eds), Proceedings of the XIV International Conference of Ethiopian Studies (pp. 886891). Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.
Mandera, P., Keuleers, E. & Brysbaert, M. (2015). How useful are corpus-based methods for extrapolating psycholinguistic variables? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 68(8), 16231642.
Menninghaus, W., Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O. & Jacobs, A. M. (2014). Sounds funny? Humor effects of phonological and prosodic figures of speech. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8(1), 7176.
Mihas, E. (2012). Ideophones in Alto Perene (Arawak) from Eastern Peru. Studies in Language 36(2), 300344.
Motamedi, Y., Little, H., Nielsen, A. & Sulik, J. (2019). The iconicity toolbox: empirical approaches to measuring iconicity. Language and Cognition 11(2), 188207.
Nuckolls, J. B. (1999). The case for sound symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology 28, 225252.
Nuckolls, J. B., Nielsen, E., Stanley, J. A. & Hopper, R. (2016). The systematic stretching and contracting of ideophonic phonology in Pastaza Quichua. International Journal of American Linguistics 82(1), 95116.
Pawley, A. (2010). Helter skelter and ñugl ñagl: English and Kalam rhyming jingles and the psychic unity of mankind. In McElhanon, K. A. & Reesink, G. (eds), A mosaic of languages and cultures: studies celebrating the career of Karl J. Franklin (pp. 273293). Dallas, TX: SIL e-Books.
Perlman, M., Little, H., Thompson, B. & Thompson, R. L. (2018). Iconicity in signed and spoken vocabulary: a comparison between American Sign Language, British Sign Language, English, and Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology 9, e01433.
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. L. & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1, e00227.
Perry, L. K., Perlman, M. & Lupyan, G. (2015). Iconicity in English and Spanish and its relation to lexical category and age of acquisition. PLoS ONE 10(9), e0137147.
Perry, L. K., Perlman, M., Winter, B., Massaro, D. W. & Lupyan, G. (2017). Iconicity in the speech of children and adults. Developmental Science, 21(3), e12572.
Pharies, D. A. (1990). A Structural correspondence in the lexicons of Basque and Spanish. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 91(1), 107121.
Pimentel, T., McCarthy, A. D., Blasi, D. E., Roark, B. & Cotterell, R. (2019). Meaning to form: measuring systematicity as information. ArXiv:1906.05906 [Cs]. Retrieved from <>.
R Core Team. (2019). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from <>.
Rastall, P. (2004). Playful English: kinds of reduplication. English Today 20(4), 3841.
Samarin, W. J. (1969). The art of Gbeya insults. International Journal of American Linguistics 35(4), 323329.
Samarin, W. J. (1970). Inventory and choice in expressive language. Word 26, 153169.
Svantesson, J.-O. (2017). Sound symbolism: the role of word sound in meaning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 8(5), e1441.
Thompson, B. & Lupyan, G. (2018). Automatic estimation of lexical concreteness in 77 languages. In Kalish, C., Rau, M., Zhu, J. & Rogers, T. T. (eds), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2018) (pp. 11221127). Retrieved from <>.
Vaden, K. L., Halpin, H. R. & Hickok, G. S. (2009). IphOD: Irvine phonotactic online dictionary, version 2.0. Retrieved from <>.
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E. & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: a new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67(6), 11761190.
Welmers, W. E. (1973). African language structures. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Westbury, C. & Hollis, G. (2019). Wriggly, squiffy, lummox, and boobs: What makes some words funny? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 148(1), 97123.
Westbury, C., Hollis, G., Sidhu, D. M. & Pexman, P. M. (2017). Weighing up the evidence for sound symbolism: distributional properties predict cue strength. Journal of Memory and Language 99, 122150.
Westbury, C., Shaoul, C., Moroschan, G. & Ramscar, M. (2016). Telling the world’s least funny jokes: on the quantification of humor as entropy. Journal of Memory and Language 86, 141156.
White, E. B. (1941). Preface. In White, E. B. & White, K. S. (eds), A subtreasury of American humor (pp. xi–xxii). New York: Coward-McCann.
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Retrieved from <>.
Wickham, H. (2017). tidyverse: easily install and load the ‘Tidyverse’ . Retrieved from <>.
Winter, B. (2019). Sensory linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Winter, B., Perlman, M., Perry, L. & Lupyan, G. (2017). Which words are most iconic? Iconicity in English sensory words. Interaction Studies 18(3), 432453.
Zwicky, A. M. & Pullum, G. K. (1987). Plain morphology and expressive morphology. In Aske, J., Beery, N., Michaelis, L. & Filip, H. (eds), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Vol. VII (pp. 330340). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.


Playful iconicity: structural markedness underlies the relation between funniness and iconicity



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed