Language and Nature: An analysis of Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries by Martin Haspelmath

The argument for iconicity in language has been thoroughly explored by linguists in the past couple of decades. In his paper, Haspelmath argues that many have inappropriately used certain types of iconicity in seeking to explain grammatical asymmetries. The three forms he believes are suspect are iconicity of quantity, iconicity of complexity, and iconicity of cohesion. He does not refute other types of iconicity such as iconicity of sequence and iconicity of repetition.

The argument for iconicity in quantity is that the plurals of words are longer than the singular form because they represent greater quantity. Iconicity of complexity represents the idea that complex thoughts and meanings are expressed by complex forms. And lastly, iconicity of cohesion states that a more cohesive form represents objects or meanings that belong closely together. Haspelmath begins each section by explaining the reasons for advocating iconicity in these categories and cites many of the linguists who have written in support of these ideas.

Haspelmath takes the opposing view by saying that frequency and not iconicity is a more appropriate explanation for these asymmetries. He states that he is dissatisfied with the fact that anything that seems to be non-arbitrary is grouped into the iconicity category by linguists when there are, in fact, other relevant explanations as well. Also, he argues that if iconicity of quantity, complexity, and cohesion are purported to be universal explanations, then they should act as such without breaking down with certain data samples.

Haspelmath states that frequency is a better explanation than iconicity with regards to quantity because the singular forms are much more frequent than the plural. He explains that sign systems follow and economy principle where predictability determines length and frequency is directly correlated with predictability. Also, iconicity of quantity does not extend to explain why words for ‘ten’ are often not longer than words for ‘seven’, etc.

With regards to iconicity of complexity, Haspelmath goes through and shows how each of the less complex forms presented in previous research are also more frequent. He then proceeds to show examples where less complex forms are more marked than their counterparts in areas such as number, gender, causation, case, and person.

In iconicity of cohesion, Haspelmath looks at the frequencies of kinship terms, body parts, and other alienable nouns and their possession forms in English and Spanish to make the point that frequency is a better predictor of these asymmetries.

In conclusion, Haspelmath does not attempt to overstate the role of frequency or completely discredit iconicity in these areas. He states: “I conclude that for most of the core phenomena for which iconicity of quantity, complexity and cohesion have been claimed to be responsible, there are very good reasons to think that they are in fact explained by frequency asymmetries and the economy principle. The final result may look iconic to the linguist in some cases, but iconicity is not the decisive causal factor.”