Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Cognitive Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Divjak, Dagmar

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.902
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.297

CiteScore 2018: 2.09

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.075
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 2.063

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 29, Issue 2


Diagrammatic iconicity explains asymmetries in Paamese possessive constructions

Simon Devylder
  • Corresponding author
  • Centre for Languages and Literature, Division of Cognitive Semiotics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-05-05 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0058


Grammatical asymmetries in possessive constructions are overtly coded in about 18% of the world’s languages according to the World Atlas of Language Structures What primarily motivates these grammatical asymmetries is controversial and has been at the crux of the “iconicity vs. frequency” debate This paper contributes to this debate by focusing on the grammatical asymmetries of Paamese possessive constructions, and looking for the primary motivating factor in their multidimensional experiential context. After a careful account of four experiential dimensions of distance (functional, affective, sociopragmatic, and embodied), the degrees of experiential distance are shown to systematically correspond to the degrees of formal distance of the possessive constructions used to refer to these experiences (e.g., direct or indirect suffixation of kinship and body part terms). Relevant anthropological and linguistic data concerning Paamese is used to explore whether this correspondence between language and experience is primarily motivated by iconicity or economy. I argue that diagrammatic iconicity is the primary motivating factor for the grammatical asymmetries in Paamese possessive constructions, and that economy can account for some, but not all cases. I also show that economy and iconicity can collaborate in motivating some cases, and thus do not necessarily need to be opposed.

Keywords: iconicity; frequency; economy; possession; inalienability; kinship; body parts


  • Aronson, E., T. D. Wilson & R. M. Akert. 2013. Social psychology, 8th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar

  • Barnlund, D. C. & C. Harland. 1963. Propinquity and prestige as determinants of communication networks. Sociometry 26(4). 467–479.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2008. On iconicity of distance. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 49–57.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2016. Typology and the future of cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 587–602.Google Scholar

  • Crowley, Terry. 1982. The Paamese language of Vanuatu (No. 87–89). Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Crowley, Terry. 1996. Inalienable possession in Paamese grammar. In H. Chappell & W. McGregor (eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation, vol. 14, 383–432. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • De Vignemont, F. 2011. Embodiment, ownership and disownership. Consciousness and Cognition 20(1). 82–93.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Vignemont, F. 2017. Agency and bodily ownership: The bodyguard hypothesis. In F. De Vignemont & A. Alsmith (eds.), The subject’s matter. Self-consciousness and the body, 217–237. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • De Vignemont, F., A. Majid, C. Jola & P. Haggard. 2009. Segmenting the body into parts: Evidence from biases in tactile perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62(3). 500–512.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Devylder, Simon. 2014. Paamese language and culture (SD1), Digital collection managed by PARADISEC. [Open Access] DOI: CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Devylder, Simon. 2016. The PART-WHOLE schema we live through: A cognitive linguistic analysis of part-whole expressions of the self. Lyon: University Jean Moulin Lyon 3 dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Devylder, Simon. 2017. Cutting and breaking the embodied self. CogniTextes 16. http://cognitextes.revues.org (3 January 2018).

  • Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in cognitive sciences, 19(10), 603–615.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Divjak, Dagmar, Natalia Levshina & Jane Klavan. 2016. Cognitive linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 447–463.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 1980. Speech and song styles: Avoidance styles. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), The languages of Australia, 58–68/Sections 3.3–3.4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info (accessed 10 May 2017).

  • Enfield, Nick J., Asifa Majid & Van Staden. Miriam. 2006. Cross-linguistic categorisation of the body: Introduction. Language Sciences 28(2). 137–147.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Festinger, L., K. W. Back & S. Schachter. 1950. Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing, vol. 3. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

  • François, A. 2001. Contraintes de structures et liberté dans l’organisation du discours. Une description du mwotlap, langue océanienne du Vanuatu. Paris: Université Paris-Sorbonne-Paris IV dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Gaby, Alice R. 2006. The Thaayorre ‘true man’: Lexicon of the human body in an Australian language. Language Sciences 28. 201–220.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Geeraerts, Dirk. 2016. The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 527–542.Google Scholar

  • Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax II. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar. Language 56. 515–540.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59. 781–819.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 2000. Iconicity. In Geert Booij, Joachim Mugdan & Christian Lehmann (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook, vol. I, 281–288. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 2008. In defence of iconicity. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 35–48.Google Scholar

  • Haiman, John. 2014. Six competing motives for repetition. In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 246–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0015 (accessed 22 January 2018).

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 1–33.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In Andrej L. Malchukov Brian MacWhinney & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 197–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haviland, W. A., H. E. Prins, D. Walrath & B. McBride. 2011. The essence of anthropology. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

  • Itkonen, E. 2005. Analogy as structure and process: Approaches in linguistics, cognitive psychology and philosophy of science, vol. 14. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Jakobson, Roman. 1965. Quest for the essence of language. Diogenes 51. 21–37.Google Scholar

  • Janda, Laura A. & Lene Antonsen. 2016. The ongoing eclipse of possessive suffixes in North Saami. Diachronica 33(3). 330–366.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnston, R. 1981. Conceptualizing in Nakanai and English. In K. Franklin (ed.), Syntax and semantics in Papua New Guinea languages, 212–224. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: SIL.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science 4(2). 195–208.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh, vol. 4. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Metonymic grammar. In Klaus-Uwe Panther, Linda Thornburg & Antonio Barcelona (eds.), Metonymy in grammar, 45–71. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W. 2016. Working towards a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 465–478.Google Scholar

  • Lawton, M. P., L. Nahemow & J. Teaff. 1975. Housing characteristics and the well-being of elderly tenants in federally assisted housing. Journal of Gerontology 30(5). 601–607.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Majid, Asifa. 2010. Words for parts of the body. In B. C. Malt & P. Wolff (eds.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience, 58–71. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Majid, Asifa, Nick J. Enfield & Miriam van Staden. 2006. Parts of the body: Cross-linguistic categorisation. Special issue of Language Sciences 28. 137–359.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Majid, Asifa & Miriam van Staden. 2015. Can nomenclature for the body be explained by embodiment theories? Topics in Cognitive Science 7(4). 570–594.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Meir, I., C. Padden, M. Aronoff & W. Sandler. 2013. Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 309–343.Google Scholar

  • Moreland, R. L. & S. Topolinski. 2010. The mere exposure phenomenon: A lingering melody by Robert Zajonc. Emotion Review 2. 329–339.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nichols, J. 1988. On alienable and inalienable possession. In William Shipley (ed.), In Honor of Mary Haas, 557–609. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1974 [1931]. The Icon, Index, and Symbol. In C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (eds.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.). 2017. Entrenchment, memory and automaticity: The psychology of linguistic knowledge and language learning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, Hans-Jörg. 2016. Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 543–558.Google Scholar

  • Simons, Gary. 1982. Word taboo and comparative Austronesian linguistics. Pacific Linguistics C–76. 157–226.Google Scholar

  • Smith, M. B. 2002. The polysemy of German es, iconicity, and the notion of conceptual distance. Cognitive Linguistics 13(1). 67–112.Google Scholar

  • Sonesson, G. 2010. From mimicry to mime by way of mimesis: Reflections on a general theory of iconicity. Sign Systems Studies 38(1/4). 18–65.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Speiser, Felix. 1990. An ethnology of Vanuatu: An early twentieth century study Translated from German by D. Q. Stephenson. Bathurst, Australia: Crawford House.Google Scholar

  • Van Langendonck, Willy. 2007. Iconicity. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Vesterinen, R. 2010. The relation between iconicity and subjectification in Portuguese complementation: Complements of perception and causation verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 21(3). 573–600.Google Scholar

  • Zajonc, R. B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9. 1–27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zlatev, Jordan. 2016. Turning back to experience in cognitive linguistics via phenomenology. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 559–572.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-05-12

Accepted: 2018-02-04

Revised: 2018-01-23

Published Online: 2018-05-05

Published in Print: 2018-05-25

Citation Information: Cognitive Linguistics, Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 313–348, ISSN (Online) 1613-3641, ISSN (Print) 0936-5907, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0058.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Language and Cognition, 2019, Volume 11, Number 02, Page 256

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in