Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-10T06:49:50.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Affect and iconicity in phonological variation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2020

Annette D'Onofrio Open the ORCID record for Annette D'Onofrio [Opens in a new window]  and
Penelope Eckert Open the ORCID record for Penelope Eckert [Opens in a new window]
Annette D'Onofrio
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, USA
Penelope Eckert*
Affiliation:
Stanford University, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Penelope Eckert Department of Linguistics Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305, USA eckert@stanford.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study of iconic properties of language has been marginalized in linguistics, with the assumption that iconicity, linked with expressivity, is external to the grammar. Yet iconicity plays an essential role in sociolinguistic variation. At a basic level, repetition and phonetic intensification can intensify the indexicality of variables. Iconicity plays a further role in variation in the form of sound symbolism, linking properties of sounds with attributes or objects. Production studies have shown some phonological variables exhibiting sound symbolism, particularly in the expression of affect. In some cases, the observation of sound symbolism has been largely interpretive. But in others, stylistic variability as a function of speaker affect has provided empirical evidence of iconicity. This article examines the role of iconicity and performativity in transcending the limits of reference, reviews iconicity in production studies, and provides experimental evidence that sound symbolism influences how listeners attribute affect to linguistic variation. (Variation, iconicity, affect)

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 29 - 51
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Acton, Eric (2019). Pragmatics and the social life of the English definite article. Language 95:37–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acton, Eric, & Potts, Christopher (2014). That straight talk: Sarah Palin and the sociolinguistics of demonstratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18:3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agha, Asif (2003). The social life of a cultural value. Language and Communication 23:231–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bekker, Ian (2007). Fronted /s/ in General White South African English. Language Matters 38:46–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekker, Ian, & Levon, Erez (2017). The embedded indexical value of (s)-fronting in Afrikaans and South African English. Linguistics 55:1109–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Emile (1939). Nature du signe linguistique. Acta Linguistica 1:23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besnier, Niko (1990). Language and affect. Annual Review of Anthropology 19:419–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, & Weenink, David (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, version 6.0.16. Online: www.praat.org; accessed 1 September 2018.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1950). Rhyme, assonance, and morpheme analysis. Word 6:117–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1985). The inherent iconism of intonation. In Haiman, John (ed.), Iconicity in syntax: Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford, June 24–26, 1983, 97–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1989). Intonation and its uses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Buhrmester, Michael; Kwang, Tracy; & Gosling, Samuel D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspective on Psychological Science 16:3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith (1993). Bodies that matter. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Calder, Jeremy (2019). The fierceness of fronted (s): Linguistic rhematization through visual transformation. Language in Society 48:31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn (2007). Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions. American Speech 82:32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell-Kibler, Kathryn (2011). Intersecting variables and perceived sexual orientation in men. American Speech 86:52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel, & Dijkstra, Katinka (2010). Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition 115:179–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, Herbert H. (2006). Context and common ground. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., vol. 3, 105–108. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
D'Onofrio, Annette (2014). Phonetic detail and dimensionality in sound-shape correspondences: Refining the bouba-kiki paradigm. Language and Speech 57:367–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Onofrio, Annette (2015). Persona-based information shapes linguistic perception: Valley girls and California vowels. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19:241–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Onofrio, Annette; Pratt, Teresa; & Van Hofwegen, Janneke (2019). Compression in the California Vowel Shift: Tracking generational sound change in California's Central Valley. Language Variation and Change 31(2):193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark (2018). Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3:1–30. doi: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12:453–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2011). Where does the social stop? In Gregersen, Frans, Parrott, Jeffrey K., & Quist, Pia (eds.), Language variation: European perspectives III, 13–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2019a). The individual in the semiotic landscape. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4. doi: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope (2019b). The limits of meaning: Social indexicality, variation, and the cline of interiority. Language 95:751–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskénazi, Maxine; Levow, Gina-Anne; Helen, Meng; Parent, Gabriel; & Suendermann, David (2013). Crowdsourcing for speech processing: Applications to data collection, transcription and assessment. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flipsen, Peter Jr.; Shriberg, Lawrence; Weismer, Gary; Karlsson, Heather; & McSweeny, Jane (1999). Acoustic characteristics of (s) in adolescents. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 42:663–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fónagy, Ivan (1983). La vive voix: Essais de psycho-phonétique. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Gabrielsson, Alf, & Lindström, Erik (2010). The role of structure in the musical expression of emotions. In Juslin, Patril N. & Sloboda, John A. (eds.), Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications, 367–400. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gal, Susan (2013). Tastes of talk: Qualia and the moral flavor of signs. Anthropological Theory 13:31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, Susan, & Irvine, Judith T. (2019). Signs of difference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geenberg, Kate (2014). Sound symbolism in Adult Baby Talk (ABT): The role of the frequency code in the construction of social meaning. Paper presented at NWAV 43, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew, & Heath, Jeffrey (1998). Sex, sound, symbolism, and sociolinguistics. Current Anthropology 39:421–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos (2016). Foundations of intonational meaning: Anatomical and physiological factors. Topics in Cognitive Science 8:425–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haeri, Niloofar (1996). ‘Why do women do this?’: Sex and gender differences in speech. In Guy, Gregory R., Feagin, Crawford, Schiffrin, Deborah, & Baugh, John (eds.), Towards a social science of language, 101–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John (1980). The iconicity of grammar. Language 56:5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Elliott, & Levon, Erez (2017). The substance of style: Gender, social class and interactional stance in (s)-fronting in southeast England. Linguistics 55:1045–72.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Timothy L. (1996). Synesthesia-like mappings of lightness, pitch, and melodic interval. The American Journal of Psychology 109:219–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Irvine, Judith (1990). Registering affect: Heteroglossia in the linguistic expression of emotion. In Lutz, Catherine A. & Abu-Lughod, Lila (eds.), Language and the politics of emotion, 121–61. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith (2001). Style as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In Eckert, Penelope & Rickford, John R. (eds.), Stylistic variation in language, 21–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith, & Gal, Susan (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, politics, and identities, 35–83. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.), Style in language, 350–77. New York: MIT Press and John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1965). Quest for the essence of language. Diogenes 13:21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, & Waugh, Linda R. (2002). The sound shape of language. 3rd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, Sunwoo (2016a). Conventions for affective meanings: Non-canonical terminal contours in English polar interrogatives. Speech Prosody, 907–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, Sunwoo (2018). Intonation and sentence type conventions: Two types of rising declaratives. Journal of Semantics 35:305–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, Sunwoo, & Potts, Christopher (2016). Intonational sentence-type conventions for perlocutionary effects: An experimental investigation. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26 (SALT 26):1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, John (2015). Iconicity in Saussure's linguistic work, and why it does not contradict the arbitrariness of the sign. Historiographia Linguistica 42:85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, Wolfgang (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word 18:273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1972). On the mechanism of linguistic change. In Sociolinguistic patterns, 160–82. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William; Ash, Sharon; & Boberg, Charles (2006). The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology and sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert; Kim, Silverman; Tolkmitt, Frank; Bergmann, Günther; & Scherer, Klaus (1985). Evidence for the independent function of intonation contour type, voice quality, and F0 range in signaling speaker affect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 78:435–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, Wallace; Hodgson, Richard; Gardner, Robert; & Fillenbaum, Samuel (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken language. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60:44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levon, Erez (2007). Sexuality in context: Variation and the sociolinguistic perception of identity. Language in Society 36:533–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levon, Erez; Maegaard, Marie; & Pharao, Nicolai (2017). The sociophonetics of /s/. Special issue of Linguistics 55(5).Google Scholar
Li, Fangfang (2017). The development of gender-specific patterns in the production of voiceless sibilant fricatives in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics 55:1021–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, Daphne; Pathman, Thanujeni; & Mondloch, Catherine J. (2006). The shape of boubas: Sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science 9:316–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLemore, Cynthia (1990). The interpretation of L*H in English. In McLemore, Cynthia (ed.), Texas linguistic forum 32: Discourse, 127–47. Austin: University of Texas Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Morton, Eugene S. (1994). Sound symbolism and its role in non-human bertebrate communication. In Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna, & Ohala, John J. (eds.), Sound symbolism, 348–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, John (1994). The biological bases of sound symbolism. In Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna, & Ohala, John J. (eds.), Sound symbolism, 222–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. (1868). On a new list of categories. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Science 7:287–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair (1985). Actions speak louder than words: Paralanguage, communication, and education. TESOL Quarterly 19:259–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plichta, Bartlomiej (2013). Akustyk: Speech analysis and synthesis plug-in for Praat. Online: http://github.com/akustyk.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert (2004). On constructing social meaning with stop release bursts. Paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 15, Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert (2006). Intonational variation and social meaning: Categorical and phonetic aspects. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 12:189–202.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert (2007). Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11:478–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podesva, Robert; Callier, Patrick; Voigt, Rob; & Hilton, Katherine (2015). The voice embodied: Bringing the quantitative analysis of body movement into the study of phonation. Poster presented NWAV 44, Toronto.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert, & Van Hofwegen, Janneke (2016). (s)exuality in small-town California: Gender normativity and the acoustic realization of (s). In Levon, Erez & Mendes, Ronald Beline (eds.), Language, sexuality and power: Studies in interactional sociolinguistics, 168–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher (2007). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33:165–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, Teresa (2019). Embodying ‘tech’: Phonetic variation, articulatory retraction, and social meaning. Journal of Sociolinguistics 23:1–22.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Online: http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia: A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies 18:3–34.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward (1929). A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology 12:225–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, Klaus R.; Ladd;, D. Robert & Silverman, Kim E. A.. (1984). Vocal cues to speaker affect: Testing two models. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 76:1346–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnoebelen, Tyler, & Kuperman, Victor (2010). Using Amazon Mechanical Turk for linguistic research. Psihologija 43:441–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Basso, Keith H. & Selby, Henry A. (eds.), Meaning in anthropology, 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1994). Relative motivation in denotational and indexical sound symbolism of Wasco-Wishram Chinookan. In Hinton, Leanne, Nichols, Johanna, & Ohala, John J. (eds.), Sound symbolism, 40–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23:193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane (2007). Empirical evidence for gendered speech production: (s) in Glaswegian. In Cole, Jennifer & Hualde, Jose I. (eds.), Laboratory phonology 9, 65–86. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, & D'Arcy, Alexandra (2009). Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language 85:58–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trager, George L. (1958). Paralanguage: A first approximation. Studies in Linguistics 13:1–12.Google Scholar
Voigt, Robert; Podesva, Robert J.; & Jurafsky, Dan (2014). Speaker movement correlates with prosodic indicators of engagement. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 7. Online: https://nlp.stanford.edu/pubs/speechprosody_voigt.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodworth, Nancy L. (1991). Sound symbolism in proximal and distal forms. Linguistics 29:273–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L., & Lee, Hyunjung (2014). The stability of perceptual compensation for coarticulation within and across individuals: A cross-validation study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 136:382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Qing (2005). A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the construction of a new professional identity. Language in Society 34:431–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Qing (2008). Rhotacization and the ‘Beijing smooth operator’: The social meaning of a linguistic variable. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12:201–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Qing (2018). Language and social change in China: Undoing commonness through Cosmopolitan Mandarin. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar