Mark Dingemanse


Displaying 1 - 12 of 12
  • Blokpoel, M., Dingemanse, M., Kachergis, G., Bögels, S., Drijvers, L., Eijk, L., Ernestus, M., De Haas, N., Holler, J., Levinson, S. C., Lui, R., Milivojevic, B., Neville, D., Ozyurek, A., Rasenberg, M., Schriefers, H., Trujillo, J. P., Winner, T., Toni, I., & Van Rooij, I. (2018). Ambiguity helps higher-order pragmatic reasoners communicate. Talk presented at the 14th biannual conference of the German Society for Cognitive Science, GK (KOGWIS 2018). Darmstadt, Germany. 2018-09-03 - 2018-09-06.
  • Bögels, S., Milvojevic, B., De Haas, N., Döller, C., Rasenberg, M., Ozyurek, A., Dingemanse, M., Eijk, L., Ernestus, M., Schriefers, H., Blokpoel, M., Van Rooij, I., Levinson, S. C., & Toni, I. (2018). Creating shared conceptual representations. Poster presented at the 10th Dubrovnik Conference on Cognitive Science, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2017). Moving beyond bouba and kiki: Cross-linguistically attested iconic mappings in spoken languages. Talk presented at the workshop Types of iconicity in language use, development, and processing. Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2017-07-06 - 2017-07-07.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Talk presented at the Center for Language Studies Colloquium. Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2012-05-31.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). Ideophones and creativity. Talk presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Portland, Oregon. 2012-01-06 - 2012-01-08.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). Ideophones at the intersection of theory and methods in African linguistics [plenary lecture]. Talk presented at the 43rd Annual Conference on African Linguistics. New Orleans. 2012-03-15 - 2012-03-17.
  • Dingemanse, M., Torreira, F., & Enfield, N. J. (2012). Huh? The form and semiotics of a possible universal interjection for initiating repair. Talk presented at the CogLingdays 5. Groningen, the Netherlands. 2012-12-14 - 2012-12-15.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). Reduplication and expressive morphology in ideophones [plenary lecture]. Talk presented at the workshop Total Reduplication: morphological, pragmatic and typological features. Brussels, Belgium. 2012-11-18 - 2012-11-19.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). Show, don’t tell: A multi-methods approach to performance and creativity in ideophones. Talk presented at the 5th Language, Culture & Mind conference (LCM V): Integrating Semiotic Resources in Communication and Creativity. Lisbon, Portugal. 2012-06-27 - 2012-06-29.
  • Dingemanse, M., & Majid, A. (2012). The semantic structure of sensory vocabulary in an African language. Talk presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2012). Sapporo, Japan. 2012-08-01 - 2012-08-04.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2012). The semantic structure of sensory vocabulary: Ideophones, imagery, and iconicity. Talk presented at the Workshop on Embodiment and Sound-Symbolism. Keio University, Tokyo. 2012-08-06 - 2012-08-07.
  • Mitterer, H., Schuerman, W. L., Reinisch, E., Tufvesson, S., & Dingemanse, M. (2012). The limited power of sound symbolism. Talk presented at the 18th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP 2012). Riva del Garda, Italy. 2012-09-06 - 2012-09-08.


    In defiance of the assumed design principle of language of arbitrariness between sign and signified, many languages use ideophones, which are depictive words for sensory imagery. The form-meaning mappings in ideophones have been variably hypothesized to be language-specific, universal, or a mixture of both. We test the claim of universality, and in particular, the claim that ideophones “do the work of representation by phonetic means” (Tedlock, 1999). In support of this claim, recent research shows that naive listeners can consistently map certain sounds to certain meanings in nonce words, leading to claims that such mappings may underlie the evolution of language (Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001). Given the theoretical weight ascribed to sound-symbolism in language, it is important to know whether ideophones could live up to this promise. The "recognizability" of these mappings may be due to both segmental and suprasegmental properties of the stimuli. While the segmental properties tend to be singled out, prosodic aspects have not been investigated yet. To critically evaluate the power of lexicalised sound-symbolism in ideophones, we recorded over 200 ideophones from five semantic categories (Sound, Motion, Texture, Visual Appearance, and Shape) and from five languages (Japanese, Korean, Semai, Siwu, Ewe, representing four language families).

Share this page