ICONICITY

1. (Semantics) Principle by which semantic relations are reflected in the formal patterns by which they are realized. Thus a direct object is a complement of a verb while an adverbial such as today is not: In that sense the semantic relation of verb to object is closer. In the order of words in English, direct objects are also closer to the verbs: I saw John today or Today I saw John, not I saw today John. In this way there is an iconic correspondence between the linear order of elements and their semantic pattern.
    The term is from Peirce's theory of signs. Linguists today mostly use the term independently. | ?
2. (Cognitive) In recent two or three decades, with the development of language and cognition studies, people have found that there is a certain relationship between language structure and experiential structure. Cognitive linguistics claims that language is shaped or at least influenced by our experience of the world and the way we perceive and conceptualize it (Ungerer and Schmid 2001).
    The cognitive constraint and influence on language is first embodied by "iconicity". Iconicity is a set of signs whose meaning in some crucial way resembles their form (Nanny and Fischer 1999). It denotes that linguistic structure is a reflection of cognitive or experiential structure. Iconicity is of great significance in revealing the mapping relationship between cognition and language structure.
    As cognitive linguistics does not just concern about the real world of objects; but deals with the cognitive models we have about the world, it provides a new reference point for the iconic relation. It is the external factors such as reality; physiology, cognition, knowledge, meaning and pragmatics together that attribute to the motivation of linguistic form. The main principles of iconicity are manifestations of human's conceptualization processes. | Luxi Yang, 2010

IDEATIONAL METAFUNCTION

1. (Systemic Functional Linguistics) Or, ideational function. Language concerned with building and maintaining a theory of experience. It includes the experiential function and the logical function.
    The experiential function refers to the grammatical choices that enable speakers to make meanings about the world around us and inside us.
    Halliday describes the logical function as those systems "which set up logical-semantic relationships between one clausal unit and another" (2003). The systems which come under the logical function are taxis and logico-semantic relations.. | Wikipedia, 2021
2. (Systemic Functional Linguistics) The ideational meanings are the meanings about how we represent experience in language. Whatever use we put language to, we are always talking about something or someone doing something. Eggins (2004) explains in SFL the ideational strand of meaning involving two components: that of experiential meaning in the clause, and that of the logical meaning between clauses in clause complexes. Experiential meaning is expressed through the system of transitivity or process type, with the choice of process implicating associated participant roles and configurations. | Mahya Alaei and Saeideh Ahangari, 2016

IDENT
(Optimality Theory) A faithfulness constraint:

IDENT(F)
Every feature (F) of the input segment is identical to every feature in the output segment. A segment in the input is identical to the corresponding segment in the output.

IDENT(VOC)
(Optimality Theory) A constraint:

IDENT(Voc)
Maintain the identity of the [voc] specification: one violation for each segment that differs in the [voc] specification between the input and output.

IDENT(VOICE)
(Optimality Theory) A constraint:

IDENT(Voice)
Maintains the identity of the [±voice] specification. One violation for each segment that differs in voicing between the input and output.

IDENTIFIABLE
(Pragmatics) A referent is identifiable if the addressee is able "to distinguish it from all other individuals in the universe of discourse" (Lyons 1977). Several sorts of factors may lead a speaker to assume that the addressee can identify a referent and, thus, to employ a formally definite NP (e.g. a pronoun, an NP with a demonstrative, or a definite article) when speaking about that referent.

1. The referent has already been mentioned in the prior discourse.
2. It is physically present in the speech context.
3. Or it constitutes common knowledge amongst the members of a speech community (e.g. the President, the cat next door).

IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT ON ELLIPSIS
(Syntax) The following identification requirement has roots that go back to Chomsky (1965) (see Lipták 2015 for discussion):

Identification Requirement on Ellipsis
Antecedent and material properly contained within the ellipsis site must be featurally nondistinct.

IDENTITY

1. (Sociolinguistics) One framework for the analysis of identity as produced in linguistic interaction is based on the following principles:
   1. Identity is the product rather than the source of linguistic and other semiotic practices and therefore is a social and cultural rather than primarily internal psychological phenomenon.
   2. Identities encompass macro-level demographic categories, temporary and interactionally specific stances and participant roles, and local, ethnographically emergent cultural positions.
   3. Identities may be linguistically indexed through labels, implicatures, stances, styles, or linguistic structures and systems.
   4. Identities are relationally constructed through several, often overlapping, aspects of the relationship between self and other, including similarity/difference, genuineness/artifice and authority/delegitimacy.
   5. Identity may be in part intentional, in part habitual and less than fully conscious, in part an outcome of interactional negotiation, in part a construct of others' perceptions and representations, and in part an outcome of larger ideological processes and structures.
    | Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall, 2005
2. (Syntax) In ellipsis research, theories based on syntactic identity adhere to the view that identity is calculated on the basis of syntactic representations, including LF-representations derived from surface syntactic structure.
   1. John might like this movie, and Bill might, too.
   2. John might like this movie, and Bill might like this movie, too.
    In a case like (1)/(2), this would mean that the deleted predicate is formally identical to the predicate phrase in the antecedent: the verb and its argument are the same and have the same structural relation to each other. Semantic theories of identity on the other hand propose that the unpronounced material is similar to the meaning of the antecedent material, requiring for example that the antecedent and elided material be truth-conditionally equivalent. If identity is syntactic, antecedent and elided material should be found in the same kind of syntactic contexts and show the same syntactic composition. If identity is defined with respect to meaning, the syntactic contexts/syntactic composition could be different, as long as the formal differences do not translate into a semantic one that makes the meanings non-identical. To decide between these options, research on the identity condition has concentrated on finding the limits of tolerable and intolerable semantic and formal mismatches (terms borrowed from Thoms 2015) between the antecedent and its presumed elliptical counterpart. | Anikó Lipták, 2015

IDENTITY CONDITION ON ELLIPSIS

1. (Syntax) It is clear that ellipsis requires an antecedent of some sort:
   1. # Mary didn't.
    Importantly, however, not any kind of antecedent will do. Cases abound where the context, linguistic or situational, makes it possible to understand what the missing material is intended to mean, yet the ellipsis itself is ungrammatical.
   2. The plants need water. # I was hoping you would.
   3. a. Susan hugged Bill, but Mary didn't.
      b. * Bill was hugged by Susan, but Mary didn't.
    In (2), the first sentence makes it clear that the second sentence is intended to mean 'I was hoping you would water them', but ellipsis is not licensed here; informally, it seems that there is a required level of parallelism between antecedent clause and ellipsis site, and this level is not reached in (2). (3) shows that this parallelism must be structural at least to some extent: in English VP ellipsis, voice mismatches are not allowed (see Merchant 2013, Paparounas 2020). As such, we can be satisfied that the identity of antecedent clause and ellipsis site must be stated at some level more fine-grained than, say, that of pure thematic relations. The precise characterization of the identity condition has been a topic of intensive research, and remains a topic of lasting controversy. Three main questions arise here:
   4. a. Is the identity condition computed over syntactic or semantic representations?
      b. How closely must the ellipsis site match the antecedent?
      c. Do antecedents have to be linguistic?
    | Lefteris Paparounas, 2020
2. (Syntax) 
   1. Someone solved the problem, but I don't know who (solved the problem).
   2. A: Did you not tell your friends about the game today?
      B: I did, but I forgot to tell them where (the game is).
   3. The problem was solved, but I don't know who # (solved the problem).
   4. A: Did you not tell your friends about the game today?
      B: I did, but I forgot to tell them how long # (the game is).
    I believe that one of the reasons that ellipsis remains elusive to date is that the literature has been experiencing an "identity crisis"—an overreliance on the axiomatic assumption that material can be elided only if the linguistic context provides an identical copy of it. This assumption, which is at the heart of an influential line of theories known as identity theories, provides a straightforward explanation for the acceptability of some uses of ellipsis and the unacceptability of others. For example, the context in (1) is expected to enable ellipsis because it provides an identical copy of the to-be-elided material, and the unacceptability of (3) similarly follows from the fact that the antecedent has been passivized and therefore no longer satisfies the identity requirement.
    But there are also many counterexamples that suggest that the identity condition is neither necessary nor sufficient for characterizing the distribution of ellipsis. | Till Poppels, 2020

IDENTITY QUESTION
(Syntax) 

The identity question (Merchant 2019)
What is the relationship between the understood material in the ellipsis site and its antecedent?

IDEOPHONE

1. (Phonology) A term used by Africanists of a distinct class of forms characterized by phonological structures that tend to be peculiar to them, e.g. by patterns of sound symbolism, reduplicative structures, or distinct patterns of tones. | Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, 2003
2. (Phonology) A word or phrase that does the work of representation by phonetic means. "Ideophones" are abundant in all known languages and constitute a counterforce to the arbitrariness of phonemes. It is naming that lies behind the Greek-derived term onomatopoeia, which simply means 'to make names'. Words described as onomatopoeic in English are called picture words in German (Lautbilder) and French (mots images). This reflects the fact that ideophones are often synesthetic, representing phenomena in sensory domains other than the auditory one.
    The term "ideophone" first came into use among linguists specializing in African and especially Bantu languages. By now the study of ideophones has become a part of the Africanist subtradition in linguistics. | Dennis Tedlock, 1999

IDIOCONSTRUCTION
(Diasystematic Construction Grammar) Short for idiosyncratic construction. Many constructions are language-specific ("idioconstructions"), which means that they can only be used in specific communicative contexts associated with a particular language. That's part of their pragmatic meaning. | Steffen Höder, 2021

IDIOMATICITY

1. (Grammar; Phraseology) As useful and powerful as the atomistic schema is for the description of linguistic competence, it doesn't allow the grammarian to account for absolutely everything in its terms. As anyone knows who has worked with practical grammar-writing or with detailed text analysis, the descriptive linguist needs to append to this maximally general machinery certain kinds of special knowledge—knowledge that will account for speakers' ability to construct and understand phrases and expressions in their language which are not covered by the grammar, the lexicon, and the principles of compositional semantics, as these are familiarly conceived. Such a list of exceptional phenomena contains things which are larger than words, which are like words in that they have to be learned separately as individual whole facts about pieces of the language, but which also have grammatical structure, structure of the kind that we ordinarily interpret by appealing to the operation of the general grammatical rules. This list is not merely a supplement to the lexicon: it contains information about fully productive grammatical patterns, including what have been variously referred to as minor sentence types, special constructions, and the like.
    We think of a locution or manner of speaking as idiomatic if it is assigned an interpretation by the speech community but if somebody who merely knew the grammar and the vocabulary of the language could not, by virtue of that knowledge alone, know (i) how to say it, or (ii) what it means, or (iii) whether it is a conventional thing to say. Put differently, an idiomatic expression or construction is something a language user could fail to know while knowing everything else in the language. | Charles J. Fillmore, Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O'Connor, 2003
2. (Grammar; Semiotics) If it is conceived in a broader way, it can be defined as the creation of new signs by gathering several pre-existing elements, and attributing a new meaning to the whole (cf. Timofeeva 2012). This is a general semiotic mechanism that affects virtually all the levels of the system, not only the phraseological one. For example, in English spelling, the function of the grapheme <sh> represents a single phoneme (/š/) with two letters whose function is different when they are not together (<s>, <h>). In morpho-syntax, the analytic tenses are based on this principle, if compared with synthetic tenses. Conjugations such as I have read; I was reading enhance the verbal system joining two words whose function is not the same when they are alone. This type of grammatical non-compositionality can be considered as a case of functional idiomaticity. | Antonio Pamies-Bertrán, 2017
3. (Grammar; Phraseology) I will offer the following two definitions of "idiomaticity":
   1. Nativelike selection of expression. (inspired by Pawley and Syder 1983)
   2. That which one has to know over and above rules and words. (inspired by Fillmore et al (1988)
    The latter definition breaks with the traditional view that knowing a language involves two types of knowledge: rules and lexical items—period. Although it is common knowledge that there is more to knowledge of a language than dictionary items and syntax, Fillmore's suggestion nevertheless represents a breakthrough in linguistic theory. Surprisingly, the fact is that it is only in the last few decades that we have we seen this insight empirically demonstrated and theoretically accounted for. In this connection it should perhaps be pointed out that we must distinguish between the study of idiomaticity and the study of idioms. Idioms in the sense "opaque invariant word combinations" have been studied by theoretical linguists quite extensively, but these bona fide idioms do not contribute to the idiomaticity of a text in any important way. Presence of such idioms in a text does not necessarily make it idiomatic; nor does their absence make it unidiomatic. | Beatrice Warren, 2008

ILLOCUTIONARY ACT
(Pragmatics) A concept introduced into linguistics by the philosopher J. L. Austin in his investigation of the various aspects of speech acts. In his framework, locution is what was said and meant; illocution is what was done; and perlocution is what happened as a result.
 When somebody says Is there any salt? at the dinner table, the "illocutionary act" is a request: 'please give me some salt' even though the locutionary act (the literal sentence) was to ask a question about the presence of salt. The perlocutionary act (the actual effect) might be to cause somebody to pass the salt. | Wikipedia, 2022

ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE

1. (Pragmatics) The speaker's intention in producing an utterance. An illocutionary act is an instance of a culturally defined speech act type, characterized by a particular "illocutionary force"; for example, promising, advising, warning, etc.
    Thus, if a speaker asks How's that salad doing? Is it ready yet? as a way of ("politely") enquiring about the salad, his/her intent may be in fact to make the waiter bring the salad. Thus the illocutionary force of the utterance is not an inquiry about the progress of salad construction, but a demand that the salad be brought. | Harold F. Schiffman, ?
2. (Pragmatics) Illocutionary force is the combination of
   • the illocutionary point of an utterance, and
   • the particular presuppositions and attitudes that must accompany that point, including the
     • strength of the illocutionary point,
     • preparatory conditions,
     • propositional content conditions,
     • mode of achievement,
     • sincerity conditions, and
     • strength of sincerity conditions.
      Illocutionary force distinguishes the following types of acts:
     • asserting,
     • promising,
     • excommunicating,
     • exclaiming in pain,
     • inquiring, and
     • ordering.
      (Crystal 1980, Searle and Vanderveken 1985) | SIL Glossary of Linguistic Terms, 2003

IMPERFECTIVE ASPECT

1. (Grammar) Abbr. IPFV or IMPV. A grammatical aspect used to describe a situation viewed with interior composition. The imperfective is used in language to describe ongoing, habitual, repeated, or similar semantic roles, whether that situation occurs in the past, present, or future. Although many languages have a general imperfective, others have distinct aspects for one or more of its various roles, such as progressive, habitual, and iterative aspects. The imperfective contrasts with the perfective aspect, which is used to describe actions viewed as a complete whole. | Wikipedia, 2022
2. (Grammar) A term used in the analysis of aspect, referring to those forms of the verb which mark the way in which the internal time structure of a situation is viewed. Imperfective forms (or imperfectives) contrast with perfective forms, where the situation is seen as a whole, regardless of the time contrasts it may contain. The contrast is well recognized in the grammar of Slavic languages. | David Crystal, 2008

IMPERSONAL CONSTRUCTION
(Grammar) A clausal construction in which no subject is realized, or at least no referential subject.
 In German:

1. Impersonal passive:
   Es
   EXPLETIVE

   wird
   AUX

   getanzt.
   dance.PARTICIPLE

   'Dancing is going on.'
2. Construction with impersonal pronoun in subject position:
   Man
   one

   trägt
   wear.3SG

   diesen
   this

   Sommer
   summer

   weiß.
   white

   'One wears white this summer.'

3. Nichiyobi
   sunday

   heiten
   close.shop

   'We are closed on Sundays.' (after Yamamoto 2006)

IMPLICIT ARGUMENT
(Syntax) Reference to non-overt arguments has been made in the description of a wide range of syntactic phenomena. Some of them (PRO, pro, A/A'-traces) are relatively well understood, and there exists a certain consensus regarding their analysis. There is another class of non-overt arguments, often referred to as "implicit arguments", for which no such consensus prevails. Implicit arguments do not seem to form a unified class. To appreciate this, let us examine some cases which have been argued to involve implicit arguments.

1. Implicit agents of passives (vs. middles and unaccusatives)
   a. This ship was sunk [ PRO to collect the insurance ]. (Passive)
   b. # This ship sank [ PRO to collect the insurance ]. (Unaccusative)
   c. * This ship sinks easily [ PRO to collect the insurance ]. (Middle)
2. Implicit arguments of nouns
   a. the negotiations [ PRO to achieve a peaceful settlement ]
   b. the use of drugs [ PRO to fall asleep ]
   c. the playing of the game [ PRO to prove a point ]
3. Null objects (Rizzi 1986)
   Italian
   a.
    

   Questo
   this

   conduce
   leads

   (la
   the

   gente)
   people

   alla
   to.the

   seguente
   following

   conclusione
   conclusion

     'This leads (people) to the following conclusion.'
   b.
    

   Questo
   this

   conduce
   leads

   (la
   the

   gente)
   people

   a
   to

   [ PRO
    

   concludere
   conclude

   quanto
   what

   segue ].
   follows

     'This leads people to conclude what follows.'
4. Implicit arguments of adjectives (Roeper 1987)
   a. It is necessary / * inevitable [ PRO to go ].
   b. It is wise / * probable [ PRO to go ].
5. Implicit agents of agentive suffixes (e.g., -able)
   Goods are exportable [ PRO to improve the economy ].

IMPLICIT CAUSALITY

1. (Semantics) In causal dependent clauses, the preferred referent of a pronoun varies systematically with the verb in the main clause (contrast Sally frightens Mary because she ... with Sally loves Mary because she ...). This "implicit causality" phenomenon is understood to reflect intuitions about who caused the event. Researchers have debated whether these intuitions are based on linguistic structure or instead a function of high-level, non-linguistic cognition. | Joshua K. Hartshorne, 2013
2. (Semantics) A semantic bias associated with particular verbs which affects clausal integration.
   1. John blamed Bill because he broke the window.
   2. John fascinated Bill because he was interesting.
   In Example (1) there is a preference to interpret the pronoun as referring to the character 'Bill' (Noun Phrase 2) whereas in Example (2) there is a preference to interpret the pronoun as referring to the character 'John' (Noun Phrase 1). The implicit causality congruency effect is the finding that it takes longer to read a sentence when it contains an ending inconsistent with the verb bias than an ending consistent with the verb bias.(Caramazza, Grober, Garvey & Yates, 1977) | Andrew J. Stewart, Martin J. Pickering, and Anthony J. Sanford, 1998

IMPLICIT CONSEQUENTIALITY
(Semantics) When a consequence is not explicitly stated, it may nevertheless be implicit, just like a cause, particularly when it is not important for the development of the narrative. The way an event or state is described, and in particular the verb used, suggests which protagonist is the likely focus of the consequences of the event or state. For example, if John frightened Mary, it is unlikely that one can guess exactly what will follow as a consequence (e.g., and so she avoided him for the rest of the evening); what is more likely to be guessed is that it is Mary who suffered the consequences of being frightened.
 Consequentiality is naturally associated with interpersonal verbs. | Alan Garnham, Svenja Vorthmann, and Karolina Kaplanova, 2020

IMPLICIT CREATION VERB
(Semantics) A verb that entails the creation of an entity, but that entity is not expressed by an argument of the verb:

1. Mary braided her hair.
2. She tied her shoelaces.
3. Mary piled the cushions.
4. She chopped the parsley.
5. She sliced the bread.

Page Last Modified January 20, 2024

 

B a c k   T o   I n d e x