{"title":"什么是偶像性?","authors":"Fabian Bross","doi":"10.1075/sll.22003.bro","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Iconicity has been defined in three majors ways in the sign language literature. Some authors describe iconicity\n as a similarity mapping between a signifier (the mental representation of the form side of a linguistic sign) and its referent,\n while others state that iconicity is to be understood as a similarity mapping between a signifier and its meaning. Other scholars\n have defined iconicity as a similarity mapping between a signifier and some other mental representation. The goal of this paper is\n to give an overview of the consequences entailed by defining iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and its referent, a\n signifier and its meaning, or a signifier and some mental concept. These consequences will be discussed from different theoretical\n perspectives. It will be argued that definitions viewing iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and some associated mental\n concept work best, while definitions based on reference and meaning run into several theoretical problems or are, at least, rather\n theory-specific.","PeriodicalId":171449,"journal":{"name":"Sign Language & Linguistics","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is iconicity?\",\"authors\":\"Fabian Bross\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/sll.22003.bro\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Iconicity has been defined in three majors ways in the sign language literature. Some authors describe iconicity\\n as a similarity mapping between a signifier (the mental representation of the form side of a linguistic sign) and its referent,\\n while others state that iconicity is to be understood as a similarity mapping between a signifier and its meaning. Other scholars\\n have defined iconicity as a similarity mapping between a signifier and some other mental representation. The goal of this paper is\\n to give an overview of the consequences entailed by defining iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and its referent, a\\n signifier and its meaning, or a signifier and some mental concept. These consequences will be discussed from different theoretical\\n perspectives. It will be argued that definitions viewing iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and some associated mental\\n concept work best, while definitions based on reference and meaning run into several theoretical problems or are, at least, rather\\n theory-specific.\",\"PeriodicalId\":171449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sign Language & Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"2 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sign Language & Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.22003.bro\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sign Language & Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.22003.bro","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Iconicity has been defined in three majors ways in the sign language literature. Some authors describe iconicity
as a similarity mapping between a signifier (the mental representation of the form side of a linguistic sign) and its referent,
while others state that iconicity is to be understood as a similarity mapping between a signifier and its meaning. Other scholars
have defined iconicity as a similarity mapping between a signifier and some other mental representation. The goal of this paper is
to give an overview of the consequences entailed by defining iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and its referent, a
signifier and its meaning, or a signifier and some mental concept. These consequences will be discussed from different theoretical
perspectives. It will be argued that definitions viewing iconicity as a mapping between a signifier and some associated mental
concept work best, while definitions based on reference and meaning run into several theoretical problems or are, at least, rather
theory-specific.