Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Dingemanse, M. (2017)
Publisher: Language Science Press
Languages: English
Types: Part of book or chapter of book
Linguistic discovery is viewpoint-dependent, just like our ideas about what is marginal and what is central in language. In this essay I consider two supposed marginalia —ideophones and interjections— which provide some useful pointers for widening our field of view. Ideophones challenge us to take a fresh look at language and consider how it is that our communication system combines multiple modes of representation. Interjections challenge us to extend linguistic inquiry beyond sentence level, and remind us that language is social-interactive at core. Marginalia, then, are not the obscure, exotic phenomena that can be safely ignored: they represent opportunities for innovation and invite us to keep pushing the edges of linguistic inquiry.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Childs, G. Tucker. 1994. African ideophones. In Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala (eds.)S,ound symbolism, 178-204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction gramm a.rOxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Dingemanse, Mark & Kimi Akita. 2016. An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: On the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones, with special reference to JapanJeosue.rnal of LinguisticsFirstView. 1-32. DOI:10.1017/S002222671600030X
    • Dingemanse, Mark, Francisco Torreira & N. J. Enfield. 2013. Is 'Huh?' a universal word? Conversational infrastructure and the convergent evolution of linguistic items.PLOS ONE 8(11). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0078273
    • Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studieLsa.nguage86(3). 663-687.
    • Joseph, Brian D. 1997. On the linguistics of marginality: The centrality of the periphery.Chicago Linguistic Society33. 197-213.
    • Kunene, Daniel P. 1965. The ideophone in Southern SothoJ.ournal of African Languages4. 19-39.
    • Müller, Max. 1861L. ectures on the science of language. Vol..L1ondon: Longmans, Green.
    • Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1992. Iconicity and generative gramLmaanrg. uage68(4). 756-796.
    • Nuckolls, Janis B. 1996S.ounds like life: Sound-symbolic grammar, performance, and cognition in Pastaza Quechua . New York: Oxford University Press.
    • Scheglof, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysi.sCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). S2t0u0d1.ies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    • Wilkins, David P. 1992. Interjections as deictJiocus.rnal of Pragmatics18(2-3). 119-158.
    • Wohlgemuth, Jan & Michael Cysouw (eds.). 20R10a.ra & Rarissima: Documenting the fringes of linguistic diversi.tByerlin; New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from