Tseng: Iconicity as Power

7/29/2019 Tseng: Iconicity as Power

1/24

Abstract

Scholars interested in iconicity in language and/or literature have concerned

themselves with the following questions. Is it valid to define iconicity based on a

signs being similar in quality to its object or referent? Is iconicity arbitrary or

motivated? What iconic aspects are manifested in language structure or language

change? How does iconicity on various linguistic levels contribute to the aesthet-

ics of literature? Instead of continuing these extensively discussed issues, this

study investigates how iconicity embodies or transmits what we may callat leastin terms of its effectpowerful verbal energy or verbal force. Arguing for iconic-

ity as transmitting verbal energy, the present article concentrates on three partic-

ular issues: (1) accumulative homology (i.e., structural or semantic likeness per-

meating various linguistic levels); (2) iconicity as a metalanguage; (3) iconicity

catalysing the release of energy through a fusion of words and world. For pur-

poses of illustration, this paper uses examples from Wordsworths The Prelude

and from Zen discourse.

1. Introduction

Wordsworth himself is aware of the power of language, be it positive or nega-

tive, as he touches upon the linguistic incarnation of thought:

If words be not (recurring to a metaphor before used) an incarnation of the thought

but only a clothing for it, then surely will they prove an ill gift; such a one as those poi-

soned vestments, read of in the stories of superstitious times, which had the power to

consume and to alienate from his right mind the victim who put them on. Language,

if it do not uphold, and feed, and leave in quiet, like the power of gravitation or the air

we breathe, is a counter-spirit, unremittingly and noiselessly at work to derange, tosubvert, to lay waste, to vitiate, and to dissolve. (Wordsworth 1974, 2: 8485)

Does Wordsworths own use of language, then, manifest the power to convey

adequately his vision of reality? Some critics of Wordsworth have brought into

Iconicity as power: Examples from Wordsworth

and Zen discourse1

MING-YU TSENG

JLS 33 (2004), 123 03417638/04/033 1

Walter de Gruyter


2/24

2 Ming- Yu Tseng

question the power of his poetry. For example, Miller (1985: 112113) suggests

that the sign-making power inherent in Wordsworths poetry is itself a struggle

or a displacement of form and meaning, a struggle between mimesis and em-

blem, between imitative form and creative form, and between various mean-

ings of the same sign (Miller 1985: 77).

Davies (1986: 36118), on the other hand, highlights the power that accumu-

lates through lexical repetition and through the tautology exemplified in Words-

worths poetry. Supported by his statistical analysis, Daviess (1986: 84) conten-

tion is that words could be reinforced and generalized by repetition and

association with one another, so that they could contribute a special force to pas-

sages of reflective and abstract writing, redeeming them from plain abstractness,

and revealing the strength of the link between sensuous and mental experienceboth in Wordsworths substance and in his style. Davies implies that the power

that an appropriate choice of words can lend to verbal texture and cognitive po-

tency is that of making thinking less abstract and bringing words and expression

closer to actual corporeal feelings and emotions.

Textual power can indeed be effected through various linguistic means. In this

study, I illustrate how iconicity may be characterized as the well-spring of the

power of language. In order to expand my illustration, I select examples from

Wordsworths The Prelude and from an Eastern genre unique to Zen/Chan2

Buddhismthe koan. Koans are the short, even abrupt, paradoxical verbal ex-changes recorded from ancient Chinese monastic or Chan settings. They have

been used as an aid to lead Zen trainees to enlightenment, to the intuitive grasp

of the Ultimate Truth as seen and known by the Buddha Shakyamuni. As such,

Zen dialogues manifest the power to transform subjectivity and, therefore, merit

attention in the study of textual power.

The general nature of the relationship between Wordsworth and Zen was first

explored by Blyth (1942: 412424). He quotes a variety of spiritual moments

in Wordsworths poetic experience to illustrate sparks of Zen in his poetry. For

example, he suggests that the spirit of Zenthe essential non-difference and in-terpenetration of inner and outeris captured and expressed by Wordsworth in

these lines: sees the parts/ As parts, but with a feeling of the whole (The

Prelude, VII, 712713)3. More than half a century later, employing the scholar-

ship of comparative literature, Rudy (1996) offers a detailed intercultural ac-

count of Wordsworths spirituality and Zen Buddhism. He argues that what

emerges in Wordsworths poetry is a consciousness similar in course and profile

to the Zen experience of cosmic influx resulting from its formal procedures of

self-emptying (Rudy 1996: 16). By contrast, in Tseng (2002a) I approach the

Wordsworth-Zen connection from a linguistic-semiotic perspective rather than

a literary-philosophical viewpoint. I explore how immediacy is represented and

constructed in text and how the speech-writing interplay operates in both

Wordsworth and Zen discourse. The present study highlights yet another linguis-


3/24

Iconicity as power: Wordsworth and Zen discourse 3

tic-semiotic issue, that of iconicity; however, the focus here is on the textual pow-

er of iconicity rather than the link between Wordsworth and Zen discourse.

Scholars interested in iconicity in language and literature have been mostly

concerned with the following questions. Is it valid to define iconicity based on

a signs being similar in quality to its object or referent? (Bierman 1962; Good-

man 1970; Eco 1976: 189216). Is iconicity arbitrary or motivated? (Eco 1976:

190; Fischer and Nnny 2001). What iconic aspects are manifested in language

structure or language change? (Jakobson and Waugh 1979; Cooper and Ross

1975; Mayerthaler [1981] 1988; Haiman 1985; Bolinger 1975: 218; Nnny and

Fischer 1999). How might a typology of iconicity in language be formulated?

(Haiman 1980; Hiraga 1994; Anderson 1998: 129313; Fischer and Nnny 1999:

xxixxvi). How does iconicity on various linguistic levels contribute to the aes-thetics of literature? (Wimsatt 1954; Jakobson [1965] 1971; Graham 1992). In-

stead of continuing these extensively discussed issues, this study proposes to in-

vestigate what function iconicity serves. However, it is not the aesthetic

function but the affective or performative function that is emphasized here, for

such a dimension has not received sufficient attention (cf. Davie 1955: 195).

Thus, the purpose of this study is mainly twofold. First, it investigates how the

iconic use of language embodies verbal energy. Secondly, it analyzes some iconic

aspects ofThe Prelude and Zen dialogues. In order to address the affective, per-

formative dimension of iconicity, my analysis focuses on three particular textualaspects: (1) accumulative homology, (2) iconicity as a metalanguage, and (3)

iconic energy, or the capacity to fuse, to forge a unity between words and world.

2. Accumulative homology as power

Johansen (1996) argues that literature exhibits a double iconicity. One is what

he calls first degree iconicity: the similarity between the order of words and

the order of events (Johansen 1996: 49). This type of iconicity is intersemiot-

ic, for the similarity exists between sign and object. The other is termed sec-ond degree iconicity, which is a kind of intratextual or intralingual simi-

laritya similarity between various linguistic levels, that is, within the sign

system itself (Johansen 1996: 4850). For example, Caesars well-known dictum

Veni, vidi, vici mirrors the order of the narrated events (Jakobson 1960: 350):

this identity of order is first degree iconicity. Furthermore, similarity or identity

also exists in the repetition of initial-consonant /v/ and final vowel /i/ and three

disyllabic verbs (Jakobson 1960: 358). Such identity is an example of second de-

gree iconicity (Johansen 1996: 49). First and second degree iconicity respective-

ly correspond with exophoric and endophoric iconicity, proposed by Nth.

The term exophoric reminds us that the verbal sign relates to something be-

yond language, while the term endophoric has to do with relations of reference

within language (Nth 2001: 22).


4/24

4 Ming- Yu Tseng

Intralingual iconicity can be linked with homology. To Barthes, ([1964]

1973: 65) homology is a double paradigm, which reveals itself, for example,

when the commutation test is used. The test operates by effecting a change in a

signifier of a sentence and observing whether the change results in a corre-

sponding change in the plane of content (signified). Through this test, terms of

opposition, of difference or of similarity are called upon and displayed, thus es-

tablishing a paradigm for more than one term, more than one choice. The par-

adigm is homological in that the terms are subjected to the same paradigmatic

considerations and belong to the same classification.

As Barthes ([1964] 1973: 66) explains, [t]he commutation test allows us in

principle to spot, by degrees, the significant units which together weave the syn-

tagm, thus preparing the classification of those units into paradigms. Barthesutilises the notion of homology in order to illustrate the syntagm and paradigm

of a sign system. However, I would add that homology functions on both the

paradigmatic plane and the syntagmatic plane. Besides, by relating the concept

of homology to iconicity, we can make explicit how similarity of patterning

works in and beyond text.

By accumulative homology I mean structural or semantic likeness or iden-

tity permeating various levels. I shall show how such resemblances are related

to each other and contribute to the meaning expressed. As a result, the distinc-

tion between intralingual iconicity and intersemiotic iconicity is blurred; struc-tural and semantic resemblances are operative within the text, and meanwhile

they bridge the gap between the text and the world created and depicted. The

following passage captures the essence of joy and bliss felt when the persona

conversed with things that really are.

My seventeenth year was come, 405

And, whether from this habit rooted now

So deeply in my mind, or from excess

Of the great social principle of life

Coercing all things into sympathy,

To unorganic natures I transferred 410

My own enjoyments, or, the power of truth

Coming in revelation, I conversed

With things that really are, I at this time

Saw blessings spread around me like a sea.

Thus did my days pass on, and now at length 415

From Nature and her overflowing soul

I had received so much that all my thoughts

Were steeped in feeling. I was only thenContented when with bliss ineffable

I felt the sentiment of being spread 420

Oer all that moves, and all that seemeth still,

Oer all that, lost beyond the reach of thought


5/24


And human knowledge, to the human eye

Invisible, yet liveth to the heart,

Oer all that leaps, and runs, and shouts, and sings, 425

Or beats the gladsome air, oer all that glidesBeneath the wave, yea, in the wave itself

And mighty depth of waters. Wonder not

If such my transports were, for in all things

I saw one life, and felt that it was joy; 430

One song they sang, and it was audible

Most audible then when the fleshly air,

Oercome by grosser prelude of that strain,

Forgot its functions and slept undisturbed.

(The Prelude, II, 405 434)

The joy is not just felt but seen like a sea. Although the bliss experienced is

said to be ineffable, the persona does not stop short of attempting to charac-

terize that sense of blessing. Under scrutiny are five linguistic devices that are

used iconically in the passage:sentence length, repetition,semantic components,

semantic distance, andgrading. As will be shown, these devices interrelate and

converge in their contributing to accumulative homology. It is through their

interaction and cooperation with one another(cf. Toolan 1996: 326) that iconic-

ity works and gains its power.The quoted passage includes two long sentences. The first one (lines 405414)

introduces blessings spread (414). The continuity of the long sentence is analo-

gous to the movement of spreading. Another long sentence, running from line 418

to 428, continues to encapsulate the sentiment of being spread. As Nnny

(2001: 159) observes, [a] long line may serve as an imagic icon of length, distance,

duration or, more metaphorically, of vastness, great height, swelling, spreading,

stretching and width. Here, the very length of the sentences may be iconic of both

the substantial extent of the joyful feelings and the movement of spreading.

The prepositional phrase oer all that (421, 422, 425, 426) further intensifiesthe movement of the sentiment, of the experience because the preposition oer

(over) itself indicates movement. Moreover, the repetition of oer all that

can be interpreted as being iconic of the movement and the pervasiveness of the

joy being spread. The intensity is further heightened through the repetition of the

mental process (Halliday 1994: 112119) mediated through verbs such as felt

and saw: I at this time/ Saw blessing spread (413414), I felt the sentiment

of being spread (420), I saw one life, and felt that it was joy (430). The effect

achieved is amplification: affectual meanings are repeated until the appropriate

volume is reached (Martin 1992: 533). The devices ofsentence length and repeti-

tion interact and interrelate in building up the verbal energy of iconicity.

The semantic features or components of some words also figure in this chain of

meaning-making (cf. Goodenough 1956). For example, words like move (421),


6/24

6 Ming- Yu Tseng

leap, run (425), beat, glide (426), and transport (429) all have the se-

mantic feature of +ACTION. This semantic feature corresponds with the circu-

larity of the sentiment and thus iconically presents the going-on and operative

spreading of great joys. Another semantic feature that contributes to the intensity

of perception is +AURAL; the following words contain such a feature: shout,

sing (425), song (431), audible (431, 432), ear (432), prelude, strain

(433). Taken together, these words have an iconic effect of amplifying perception,

reinforced by the feature of +VISUAL as exemplified by repeated saw (414,

430). These semantic features +ACTION, +AURAL, +VISUAL do not function

separately but cooperate in the rendering of the going-on of inner perception.

Moreover, the clustering ofsemantic features does not function by itself but is in-

tegrated with other devices. The semantic feature +VISUAL corresponds to therepetition of the mental verb saw. The feature +ACTION is compatible with

the length of the sentences that signifies the movement of sentiment.

Like the shared semantic features, semantic opposites also contribute to the

power of accumulative homology. The enormous semantic distance or space

(Rips et al. 1973) created by words of contrast also plays an iconic role in the

representation of ineffable bliss. The following quotations (my emphases) re-

veal the all-pervasiveness of the perception: all that moves versus all that

seemethstill (421) and Oer all that beats the gladsome air (425426) ver-

sus oer all that glides/ Beneath the wave (426427). The enormoussemanticdistance, together with the shared semantic features, reinforces the devices of

repetition andsentence length in that they all contribute to building up a sense

of substantiality and intensity.

Finally,grading is a complex of system of polarity (Sapir 1958). Such linguis-

tic resources as intensifiers, comparison, and quantifiers are involved in grad-

ing: I had receivedso much (417), One song they sang, and it was audible

/ Mostaudible then when the fleshly ear,/ Oercome by grosserprelude of that

strain (431433), in allthings/ I saw one life, and felt that it was joy (429

430; emphases added). These linguistic resources are chosen consistently tohighlight the increase side of the scale. More importantly, they iconically repre-

sent the increasing extent and intensity of the felt experience (cf. Downes 2000:

111112). Rather than contributing to moving toward the decrease or less side

of the scale, the linguistic choices from the grading system further reinforce the

other devices discussed so far.

These five linguistic devices are a concatenation, a mutual reinforcement and

cooperation with one another in the signification process. The similarities of pat-

terningwhether it be lexical, phrasal, sentential, semantic, or textualinterre-

late and integrate, stretching upwards to the sentence and supra-sentence level

and diving downwards to the lexical level (cf. Hodge and Kress 1988: 263). The

long sentence mirroring the substantial extent of the joyful feelings is an example

of intersemiotic iconicity, and so is thesemantic distance shown by the words of


7/24


contrast or by antonyms. Similarly, thegrading system of expressing greater ex-

tent or larger quantity is intersemiotic iconicity, as it relates to something beyond

language. All three devices reflect the unusual substantiality of Wordsworths

perceptions. Among the examples of intralingual iconicity are repetition of the

same words or phrases(e.g., saw, felt, and oer all that ) andsemantic fea-

turessharedby certain words, for the identity or similarity these two linguistic de-

vices respectively exhibit relates to the language itself. However, as we have

seen, the use of such intralingual iconicity also contributes to the depiction of the

great joys; it emphasizes and re-emphasizes the vast extent and great intensity

of the bliss which Wordsworth (or the persona) experiences. The devices them-

selves also evince intersemiotic iconicity. Together with the interaction and in-

terrelation of the five linguistic devices, the combination and integration of in-tralingual and intersemiotic iconicity lie at the heart of accumulative homology.

According to Peirce (19311958: 2.2772.282), metaphor, together with image

and diagram, is a type of iconicity. Indeed, metaphorical iconicity is woven into

these Wordsworthian lines already laden with iconic codification. In particular,

the conceptual metaphor (Lakoff and Turner 1989: 5051; Lakoff and Johnson

1980: 39) or, in Goatlys term, the root analogy emotion is liquid comes into

play (Goatly 1997: 64): blessings spread like a sea (II, 414) and all my

thoughts/ Weresteeped in feeling (II, 417418; my emphases). There is a differ-

ence between basic conceptual metaphors, which are cognitive in nature, andparticular linguistic expressions of these conceptual metaphors (Lakoff and

Turner 1989: 51). The same conceptual metaphor can be expressed through var-

ious unique linguistic expressions. For example, Wordsworth uses the sea image

and the effect of water (by the use of the past participle steeped) to convey

pervasive blissful experience; another poet might use, for instance, a still lake as

a metaphor for a peaceful mental state. Understanding metaphor involves the

mapping of source-domain schema onto the target-domain schema. The emo-

tion-as-liquid metaphor can map the movement and spaciousness of a sea onto

the domain of emotional states. The metaphor thus assists in the progressive in-tensification of euphoria. The metaphorical iconicity joins with accumulative

homology in articulating verbal power. As Lakoff and Turner (1989: 63) point

out, cognitive metaphors possess a persuasive power or influence:

For the same reasons that schemas and metaphors give us power to conceptualize and

reason, so they have power over us. Anything that we rely on constantly, unconscious-

ly, and automatically is so much part of us that it cannot be easily resisted, in large

measure because it is barely even noticed. To the extent that we use a conceptual sche-

ma or a conceptual metaphor, we accept its validity. Consequently, when someone else

uses it, we are predisposed to accept its validity. For this reason, conventionalized

schemas and metaphors havepersuasive power over us. (Original emphasis)

The link between metaphor and iconicity will be further discussed below (see

Section 4).


8/24

8 Ming- Yu Tseng

3. Iconicity as a metalanguage

Hjelmslev ([1943] 1953: 7677) views a metalanguage as a higher-level language

used to describe, explain or comment on an object language, that is, first-orderlanguage whose system is directly under scrutiny. Barthes ([1964] 1973: 92) de-

velops Hjelmslevs ideas and thus defines a metalanguage: there the signifieds

of the second system are constituted by the signs of the first. What characterizes

metalanguage is that it is an operation, as Barthes ([1964] 1973: 92) explains:

an operation is a description founded on the empirical principle, that is to say[,]

non-contradictory (coherent), exhaustive and simple, scientific semiotics, or

metalanguage, is an operation (original emphasis).

Kim (1996: 122123) further elaborates on metalanguage as an operation:

Metalanguage is an operation because the plane of content itself is a system of signi-

fication. Metalanguage takes the denotative meaning system itself as its content (i.e.,

content2) and expresses it. Its expression is an operation. However, this operation con-

sists of expression for expression, and this is a scientific operation. From this it follows

that metalanguage functions as a language to analyze the expression of denotative

meaning. Furthermore, metalanguage allows one to name signifieds (i.e., content2) de-

rived from a denotative discourse as well as to talk about them.

Three aspects of the operation function can be derived. First and foremost,

the fact that metalanguage employs the denotative language, the first language,as its content (signified) constitutes an operation, for signification itself in-

volves meaning-making. Secondly, metalanguage serves to analyze or explain

the first-order language. Besides, because of its being a semiological concept,

metalanguage enables us to highlight and see clearly the signifieds of a higher-

order language that could have been taken for granted or ignored had the im-

plicit metalanguage not been brought to conscious attention.

Iconicity is a metalanguage, for the iconic device functions to comment on

language. More importantly, seeing iconicity as metalanguage helps to bring to

the fore the signified of a higher order. This section will elucidate multiple ico-nicity as manifested in Zen dialogues and relate it to metalanguage. The discus-

sion here concentrates on the pattern of question and answer as used in Zen dis-

course. Almost every Zen koan involves the question-answer pattern. Here are

three examples.

(1) A monk asked Chao Chou, The myriad Dharmas return to one. Where

does the one return to?

Chou said, When I was in Ching Chou, I made a shirt. It weighed seven

chins [i.e., Chinese pounds].(Piyen chi, The Blue Cliff Record, Case 45; cf. Cleary and Cleary 1992: 270)

(2) A monk asked Pa Ling, What is the Blown Hair Sword [i.e., a very sharp

sword that could cut a hair when it is blown against the sword]?


9/24


Pa Ling said, Each and every branch of coral supports the moon.

(Piyen chi, The Blue Cliff Record, Case 100; cf. Cleary and Cleary 1992: 554)

(3) A monk asks Shou Shan, What is Buddha?Shan said, A new bride rides a donkey; the mother-in-law drags it.

(Tsungjung lu, Book of Serenity, Case 65; cf. Cleary 1988: 273)

Since the questions are concerned with enlightenment, Buddhahood, or the Ul-

timate Truth, the answers can be adequately interpreted only in the Zen context.

Discourse iconicity finds expression in the very form of question and answer,

question as indicated by the verb ask (wen) and interrogatives such as

where (hechu) and what (juhe) and answer because question and answer

form an adjacency pair. Three simultaneous iconic qualities are exemplified inthe way language is used in koans (Tseng 1997: 185190). Firstly, the question-

answer pattern itself is analogous to the process of seeking the Way, from puz-

zlement and confusion toideally or principallyenlightenment. It is the ques-

ton-answer pattern, not, for example, complaining-excusing or informing-ac-

knowledging, that is foregrounded in koans. We may well ask what might be the

extra meaning behind the pattern. Although the answer given in each koan

generates more puzzlement than clarification, the question-answer form itself

cannot be taken for granted but can be rendered an iconic interpretation in the

Zen context. Secondly, the abruptness and seeming irrelevance of answers inmost koan dialogues are analogous to the ineffability of the Ultimate Reality.

The Reality cannot be represented in propositional terms and is not thus repre-

sented. Instead, it can only be induced to experience this Reality. In other words,

saying something amounts to saying nothing and yet some aspects of the Path are

still signified or pointed to.

Take koan (3) for instance: in response to a monks question about the Ulti-

mate Reality, Master Shou Shan said A new bride rides a donkey; the mother-

in-law drags it. It is hard to associate the response with the question. What is

the connection between the new bride or the mother-in-law with enlighten-ment? Does riding or dragging a donkey have any special or symbolic meaning?

As the monk continued to wrestle with the response, he might grasp some-

thing about the unspeakable enlightened experience, or he might not. It might

be possible to understand the Masters response in this way: it is odd, unaccept-

able and wrong, especially in Chinese culture, to have ones mother-in-law drag

a donkey while her daughter-in-law (the bride) sits on it, because a bride is sup-

posed to serve her mother-in-law, not the other way round. Therefore, some

kind of reversal is suggested in the Masters answer. This understanding is a

metaphorical construal. The reversal may suggest that expecting verbal illustra-

tion of enlightenment puts one further away from it. Or the reversal may sug-

gest negating a commonly held world-view. The inference could go on and on.

But one thing is certain: the Masters answer frustrates the monks intention


10/24

10 Ming- Yu Tseng

of seeking direct verbal explanation, which can build up conceptuality rather

than experience the Ultimate first-hand. The Masters remark here may

amount to saying Its not right to seek the Truth through words or speech! or

Stop thinking and practise! or Zen transcends words!. However, telling the

monk directly Zen transcends words is pragmatically and cognitively differ-

ent from saying A new bride rides a donkey; the mother-in-law drags it. The

former reinforces our habitual way of using language, which Zen Masters re-

ject. The latter has some cognitive force the former lacksat least arousing

doubt in the mind of a novice.

Thirdly, the difficulty in understanding the verbal exchange is a concomitant

of the Zen masters wholly original, creative response, which intensely stimu-

lates the mind of an enlightenment-seeker. Each koan as a whole illustrates theforce of the macro-illocutionary device of arousing doubt and anguish so as to

alter the state of consciousness and induce the consciousness aimed at. As

McPhail (1996: 114) succinctly characterizes koans:

The koan, like postmodernism, is an attempt to challenge and undermine the essen-

tializing consequences of rationality, to unmask them as constructions. But the re-

wards of the seafarer who attempts to navigate between the Scylla of idealism and the

Charybdis of realism, like the rewards of the Zennist, are potentially great: If the

grueling, frustrating pursuit of the koan is carried on to the end, there comes a break-

through to a realm of truth far deeper than, far transcendent of, any intellectual state-ments explains Winston King (1993: 1920).

Thus the difficulty of koan dialogues can be construed as iconic of the doubt

and anguish required for the maturation of the higher consciousness of Zen.

Considered in the light of metalanguage as an operation, discourse iconicity

is not a mere static concept to be identified, but an appropriate dynamic gov-

erning the discourse strategy that underlies koan dialogues. It is appropriate,

for the metalanguage highlights thesignified of koan dialogues: enlightened ex-

perience. Besides, the signified is in line with the working of iconicityformmiming meaning (Fischer and Nnny 1999). It is dynamic, for iconicity as a

metalanguage serves to signify some aspects of realization of Ultimate Truth in

a subtle way and to articulate language more as an operation or a force than as

mere representation (cf. Thibault 1998: 411).

Iconicity as a metalanguage of a developed mind is also operative in The

Prelude. Note that the subtitle of the poem is Growth of a Poets Mind. The

very pattern of question and answer also functions in the poem. In the opening

stanza, a series of questions or rather, reflexive questions appear, questions in

which speaker and listener are the same:

Now I am free, enfranchised and at large,

May fix my habitation where I will. 10

What dwelling shall receive me, in what vale


11/24


Shall be my harbour, underneath what grove

Shall I take up my home, and what sweet stream

Shall with its murmurs lull me to my rest?

The earth is all before mewith a heart 15Joyous, nor scared at its own liberty,

I looked about, and should the guide I chuse

Be nothing better than a wandering cloud

I cannot miss my way.

(The Prelude, I, 919; my emphases)

It is not until the end ofThe Prelude that a possible answer is given to the speak-

ers questions concerning where to find a place of harbour. As Wolfson (1986:

178) observes, these lines are the affirmative answers toward which Words-

worth has conducted his project of self-inquiry.

Prophets of Nature, we to them will speak

A lasting inspiration, sanctified

By reason and by truth; what we have loved

Others will love, and we may teach them how: 445

Instruct them how the mind of man becomes

A thousand times more beautiful than the earth

On which he dwells, above this frame of things

(Which, mid all revolutions in the hopes

And fears of men, doth still remain unchanged) 450

In beauty exalted, as it is itself

Of substance and of fabric more divine.

(The Prelude, XIII, 442452)

The interrogative mind framing the questions is here moving towards an insight

as the language assumes a prophetic voice. A new perception of mind is formed;

Wordsworth finds Mind in its highest sense to be the destination to which any

life journey that humans embark on should lead. As with koan dialogues, the

question-answer pattern can be construed as iconic of a progression from un-knowing to knowing, from uncertainty to realization of Truth. The process is re-

inforced by the form of reflexive questions. As argued in Tseng (2002a: 186

187), they highlight the process, rather than the result, of an interrogative mind.

Compare the two sets of sentences:

How could I tell her the truth?

What have I achieved after so many years efforts?

When on earth shall I be able to finish this essay?

I really dont think I should tell her the truth.

I wonder if I have achieved anything after so many years efforts.

I doubt when I shall be able to finish this essay.

The questions, when posed by oneself, demonstrate ones own thinking over the

things that can no longer be taken for granted. The questions bring to the fore


12/24

12 Ming- Yu Tseng

the process of an inquiring mind at work. By contrast, the declaratives sound

more like the result of reasoning over the activities concerned or more like re-

porting the result of ones thinking to another person. This emphasis on process

corresponds to the operative dimension of metalanguage. Thus, the iconicity of

a metalanguage operates and extends from the beginning to the end of the po-

em; the whole work can be seen as a meditation on the question posed at the

beginning, the ending lines supplying an answer.

4. Iconic energy fusing words and world

This section further examines the verbal energy transmitted by iconicity. The

so-called verbal energy or textual power refers to a writers or speakers

persuasive power over and subsequent influence upon the reader or the hearerthrough language. It is then significant to address the reception as well as the

production of iconicity.

The sign can be divided into signifier and signified. The signification process

or what Peirce (19311958: 5.484) calls semiosis amounts to the cognitive ef-

fect the sign has on its interpreter. That is, the sign enters the human mind, and

the human mind is activated by the sign. As Kim (1996: 76) summarizes, sem-

iosis is a transactional process in which the action of the sign and that of the con-

sciousness meet.

The consciousness is a kind of a screen, or a medium or field where things given in the

world and in the mind can meet together. Ortega y Gasset (1987) put this aspect as fol-

lows: To all appearances, consciousness is the strangest thing in the universe, for, judg-

ing by its mode or presentation, it seems to [be] the conjunction, joining, or intimate

and perfect bonding of two totally different things; my act ofreferring-to and that-to-

which-I-am-referring (Ortega y Gasset 1987: 88). The consciousness is a medium for

both the representation and transformation of external realities. (Kim 1997: 7778)

Sign and consciousness are thus not separate but can be regarded as inter-fused

in semiosis (cf. Merleau-Ponty 1962: 392409). This view accords with Merrells(2001) argument for a nonobjectivist view of sign or, in his own words, prop-

erly minding the sign. The fusion of mind and signs entails not only a semiotic

agent or interpreter who engenders meaning but also a process of interactive

becoming. Meaning requires something lending itself to the becoming

of meaning and to the agent of that becoming, who is herself part of the process

of becoming (Merrell 2001: 107). What lies at the heart of this argument is a

call for attention to iconicity and indexicality, which are part of the entire range

of the semiotic creation of meaning.

Symbols without iconic and indexical dimensions are inert; icons and indices without

symbolic form are less than genuine signs. they [i.e., icons and indices] are an inte-

grated part of the whole human interaction. The very existence of explicitly engen-

dered symbols is dependent upon icons and indices at implicit (corporeal, felt) levels


13/24


of tacit knowability. But icons and indices cannot emerge into the arena of explicitly

articulated knowledge without their proper symbolic attire. (Merrell 2001: 101)

To put it in another way, meaning as mediated through symbolic signs is basedon our shared human experience such as bodily sensations, images, bodily ori-

entation and kinesis, and relations of proximity and of causality, which are con-

nected with iconicity and indexicality. The existence of an enormously wide

range of human experience engenders the production of symbolic signs while

symbolic signs in their turn give form and substance to as-yet-inarticulate hu-

man experiences. This helps to explain why iconicity is so pervasive in language.

Let us further consider how iconicity figures in semiosis, where sign and con-

sciousness meet. Tabakowska (1999: 410) writes:

The basic cognitive assumption that linguistic structures are the reflection of the world

not as it is, but as it is perceived by a cognizant human being, underlies a definition of

iconicity as the conceived similarity between conceptual structure and linguistic form.

The relation between reality, cognition and language conditions the process of con-

cept formation, where the consecutive stages ofperception (reality), conceptualization

(cognition) andsymbolization (language) represent consecutive phases of abstraction

(Nowakowska-Kempna 1995: 109). Forms are paired with concepts, and the motiva-

tion for this process might be some kind of similarity. (Tabakowskas emphasis)

The three consecutive stages of mental activity are compatible with Ortega yGassets model of three modalities of consciousnessperceiving, imagining,

and mentioning:

We shall refer to those events by which an object is rendered present to us as acts of

perceiving orpresentation, [to those in which an object is given to us in the manner of

absence as acts ofrepresentation or imagining,] and to those others in which an object

is given by way of allusion and reference as acts ofmentioning or bringing to mind.

(Ortega y Gasset 1987: 122, original emphasis; translators insertion)

Ortega y Gasset sees consciousness as a dynamic which performs three types ofacts. Perceiving an object right before us corresponds, presumably, to percep-

tion. Imagining or recollecting an object to our mind and comparing it with a

memory is mediated by cognitive activity, and is therefore better described as

an act of conception, although Ortega y Gasset is presumably here not con-

cerned with the thoughts which are coupled with the imagining since he does

not emphasize them. His mentioning is tantamount to symbolization in that

both involve the use of words, concepts and images to convey what is seen.

Furthermore, one issue implicit in the accounts of Tabakowska and Ortega y

Gasset is whose consciousness is involved in producing and recognizing iconic-

ity. Some form of conception or pre-conception is imposed on the reader, smug-

gled into his mind, by both a writers conceived similarity between conceptual

structure and linguistic form and the mentioning of an experience or supposed


14/24

14 Ming- Yu Tseng

reality. That is, readers or listeners are tacitly invited to engage in some aspect

of an experience and are affected by the speakers or writers ways of saying.

Consequently, they will have a strong predisposition to perceive and conceive

of it in the way it is represented and told. The process of how readers and lis-

teners identify and interpret iconicity may be different from the way a writer

uses iconicity. Tabakowska (1999: 411) points out the difference:

Traditionally, it has been generally assumed that iconic relations are one-way process:

from expression to concept. However, if we agree that the ability to recognize a given

similarity results from the language users knowledge of a given culture and language,

then we can also reasonably assume that the process may be reversed: via the (linguis-

tic) convention, the user of language might associate (by recognizing relevant similar-

ities) certain expressions with certain concepts, and in consequence arrive at a certainview, or interpretation, of reality.

That is, the three consecutive phases from perception, conceptualization and

symbolization are reversed when the reader undertakes iconic construals: from

symbolization through conception to (inner) perception. Namely, language

evokes thoughts or concepts; the concept articulates and predisposes the mind

to form a connection between the linguistic form and the object or content re-

ferred to. Then a certain reality or perception is created and emerges through or

into the imagination. In developing a meaningful understanding and interpreta-tion, the reader has to actively participate in recruiting, projecting, and blend-

ing additional background knowledge, context, and memories (Fauconnier and

Turner 2002: 166; cf. Holland 1988: 146153; Gibbs 1994: 263264).

As such, iconicity catalyses or releases perceptual-cum-verbal energy which

searches persistently for possible similarities between the language used and

the world, between form and meaning, between verbal expression and reality

either reality as such or subjective reality. Taborsky (2001: 90, 93) uses a meta-

phor to characterize the energy that iconicity embodies: An iconic sign has an

inherent Will, a desire to be something it refers to. Thus it is well suited to thetask of establishing mediate relations as all signs do. More importantly, it has

the ability not only to represent, but also to copy, to mirror, to body forth or to

reflect in the mind an image of the object or the reality concerned as if it were

the object or the reality itself. This is due to qualities or relations becoming es-

tablished with words through long association, so that eventually it is as if no

split existed between the sign and the world.

What is the consequence of the readers attempting an iconic interpretation?

Tabakowska (1999: 410) remarks that iconic construals do not [necessarily] re-

late to perceptual process per se, but directly reflect conceptual structures

the ongoing flow of cognition (Langacker 1990: 108). For example, an ono-

matopoetic word like ding-dong reflects the sound of a doorbell; this type of

iconicity is clearly perceptually motivated. However, recognizing this iconic


15/24


16/24

16 Ming- Yu Tseng

perience its symbolic form (i.e., symbolization). Moreover, he must have re-

flected on this experience and analyzed it (i.e., in a further act of conception)

before it was written. His perception (or recollection) of the tree is thus coupled

with his conception or creative re-formulation of his original experience of ob-

serving the actual tree.

What similarity may be conceived to exist between the poets conception of

reality and the language he uses? First of all, the sequence of the visual objects

mentioned in the poem iconically imitates the movement of the poets eye. The

tree unfolds to the reader as the poet saw it. He set his eyes on the tree, approach-

ing from some distance to close proximity, as suggested by the deictic or indexi-

cal expressions there and then this: A single tree standing there (VI,

9091, my emphasis), Oft have I stood/ Foot-bound uplooking at this lovelytree (VI, 100101, my emphasis). The eye also moves from the ground to

the top (VI, 93) and from the general to the specific details: a single tree (VI,

90), an ash (VI, 91), sinuous trunk, boughs exquisitely wreathed (VI, 93),

lightsome twigs/ And outer spray (VI, 9596), seeds, (VI, 96), and yellow

tassels and festoons (VI, 97).

Another iconic quality is subtly manifested in this passage: the coexistence of

contrasts can be rendered an iconic interpretationoppositions are resolved

(cf. Tseng 2002b: 6770). An ash trimmed out by Winter stands with its trunk

and master branches green with ivy everywhere. On winter nights the poet hasclear visions of human forms and superhuman powers (107) evoked by those

branches. An ordinary tree is a fairy work of earth (109). The tree is depicted

almost like a human form: wreathed (92), in pride (99), and with outland-

ish grace (100) while the poet-spectator, standing there alone foot-bound

(101) and motionless, is himself almost like a tree. Nevertheless, rather than

heightening the oppositions or separations, these contrasts, striking or subtle,

are mingled together in the act of composition. The leaves of the tree are all

gone, and yet it is still green with ivy. It is in the moonlit darkness of the night

that observing the tree is so revealing. Also interfused in the description of thetree are day and night, recollection and standing: the tree beneath which the

poet-spectator stands in the moonlight and the same tree recollected as he sees

it in daylight when he can discern the colours green (VI, 95) and yellow

(VI, 97). The poet and the tree are put into relationship in the act of beholding

and through the trees magic power on the poet; this interrelationship is rein-

forced by a parallel: the single tree standing and the poet standing alone. Hart-

man (1985: 322) remarks that contrast in Wordsworth points beyond the activity

of pointing. Furthermore, he sees contrast in Wordsworth as a manifestation

of verbal dynamism: the dynamics of contrast and of blending cooperate, since

insight still proceeds from sight, from the blended might of all the oppositions

(Hartman [1964] 1987: 241). Indeed, Hartmans comment supports an iconic

reading of the passage. That the contrasts are interrelated and interfused not


17/24


only attests to the workings of Mind in relation to nature but also reflects the

poets conceptual reality in which oppositions are blended. What is revealed is

the blended might of Mind and external world: The external World is fitted

to the Mind;/ And the creation (by no lower name/ Can it be called) which they

with blended might/ Accomplish (The Recluse, 821824, see Words-

worth 19401949, vol. 5). Yet again, iconicity may be observed in the concocting

of the blended might. Thus, the description of the tree (i.e., symbolization)

provokes reflection and the reader renders an interpretation (i.e., conceptuali-

zation). As readers, we are invited to see the reality, whether inner or outer (i.e.,

perception), as Wordsworth sees itas perception only rather than an ultimate-

ly separate reality. This iconic reading of the passage enables us to see how lan-

guage tacitly communicates meaning, inviting us to see a certain reality mir-rored and shown by language.

Such a world view of interconnectedness, interpenetration or interdepend-

ence is also suggested by koan (4).

(4) As the officer Lu Hsuan was talking with Nan Chuan, he said, Master of

the Teachings Chao said, Heaven, earth, and I have the same root; myriad

things and I are one body. This is quite marvelous.

Nan Chuan pointed to a flower in the garden. He called to the officer and

said, People these days see this flower as [in] a dream.(Piyen chi, The Blue Cliff Record, Case 40, Cleary and Cleary 1992: 244)

This koan and Wordsworth converge in several respects. First and foremost, the

interrelatedness of man and nature, subject and object, internal and external as

suggested by Wordsworth is explicitly articulated by the teaching from Master

Chao: Heaven, earth, and I have the same root; myriad things and I are one

body. Furthermore, just as Wordsworths poetic universe is directed to things

of every day (Coleridge [1817] 1983, 2: 56), Zen discourse is characterized by

its everydayness. Using whatever object happens to be nearby as a means ofteaching is common in the Zen context, hence the mention of a garden flower

in koan (4). The act of seeing is another point of contact. Whether it is Words-

worths looking at the tree or peoples seeing the flower, the act of seeing points

beyond the object being seen, and indeed beyond the act of seeing itself.

The flower-as-in-a-dream metaphor can be interpreted in this way: the qual-

ities of the source domain (i.e., the dream) such as being illusory, transient,

beautiful, splendid and miraculous are mapped onto the target domainthe

supposed ultimately real outwardly perceived flower. The qualities of being

splendid and miraculous match the remark of the officer Lu Hsuan: This is

quite marvelous. In other words, Nan Chuan seems to be implying that Lu

Hsuan is one of those who see a flower as if in a dream. The Masters reply could

be interpreted as refuting Lu Hsuans reaction, for he sees the flower not as


18/24

18 Ming- Yu Tseng

such but through a dream, something mediated. That is, he wonders at Master

Chaos teachings, but his realization of Chaos words is not a direct, intuitive

grasp of the Truth. On the other hand, the committed Buddhist is encouraged

to contemplate actual life, supposedly real life itself, as illusory, imperma-

nent, and transient just like a dream. It is only through waking from this dream

that all sentient beings can come face-to-face with the Ultimate Truth of univer-

sal conditionality. All things whatsoever, not excluding words and ideas, are

emptyinterdependent and interrelated. Considered in this light, then, see-

ing a flower as in a dream reinforces Master Chaos dictum. The contrasts evoked

by the tenor (flower) and by the vehicle (dream) are blended in this meta-

phorreality and dream, external and internal, common and miraculous, visi-

ble and invisible. Here then, source and target are interfused or commingled,rather than there being a unidirectional mapping from source to target (cf.

Hiraga 1999: 465 466; Turner and Fauconnier 1995: 184187).

More importantly, a metaphor-icon link is manifested in the above analysis.

Hiraga (1998) illustrates how metaphor and iconicity interrelate in two ways:

iconicity in metaphor and metaphor in icon. The former refers to iconic

moments in metaphor, which are operative in the mapping between source

and target. They are mimetic mental representations of sensory perceptions,

and constitute imagic iconicity. At the same time, a mental space develops a

structure by selecting and schematising the images, namely, an image-schematicstructure, which has a diagrammatic representation of the image content of

mental space (Hiraga 1998: 155). In other words, any image evoked by a met-

aphor is an imagic iconicity; it is iconic in that there exist visual similarities be-

tween the sensory perception and the image content triggered by a metaphor.

Simultaneously, a middle mental space called generic space, which contains

what source and target have in common, maps onto each of them (Fauconnier

1997: 149). This is a diagrammatic type of iconicity operating in the analogy

between the corresponding image-schematic structures of the generic space

and the input spaces [i.e., source and target] (Hiraga 1998: 156). Take koan (4)for example. The visual image of a flower evoked in ones mind is an example

of imagic iconicity. Diagrammatic iconicity is the correspondence between the

generic space and the input spaces: the qualities of being splendid, miraculous,

and transient. Both types of iconicity illustrate iconicity in metaphor.

The other type of metaphor-icon link in language is metaphor in icon.

Metaphor in icon also relates to imagic and diagrammatic aspects of the lin-

guistic form. Conventional metaphors which conceptualises our everyday expe-

riences and reality also conceptualises our understanding of language structure

and use. These metaphors navigate the way we interpret the forms of linguistic

expressions (Hiraga 1998: 159). A metaphor gives an iconic meaning its form;

a metaphorical reading of a text may reinforce an iconic meaning and quality in

the text. Take koan (4) for instance. Understanding the flower-as-in-a-dream


19/24


metaphor indeed helps spell out the iconic qualities of the koan. First, the form

of the metaphor, relating two seemingly unrelated objects to each other in a

sentence, corresponds with interrelatedness and interdependence suggested by

Master Chaos dictum. Hence, the form of the metaphor itself can be iconically

interpreted. Furthermore, the interrelatedness is further reinforced by the

blending of the contrasts respectively triggered by the two input spaces flow-

er and dream. The two types of metaphor-icon link also illustrate the dy-

namic mechanism of metaphorical-iconic mappings (Hiraga 1998: 161).

Prompted by metaphor, the cognitive operations of mental mappings contrib-

utes to the verbal energy of iconicity.

5. ConclusionAlthough some scholars (e.g., Fischer and Nnny 1999: xvxxi; Johansen 1996:

51; Mller 2001) have considered iconicity as charged with force, their treat-

ments leave room for further investigation. For example, Johansen (1996: 51)

first attributes to the non-arbitrariness of iconicity its magical effectpre-

tend[ing] that no split between words and world exists. He then further ex-

plains some possible reasons for such an effect:

It may be that different factors collaborate to this end. First, the surplus coding of the

poetic expression, the strengthening of the intrasystemic relations between phonemes,syllables, words, phrases, etc., is communicated to the denoted universe and to the ele-

ments of signification. The palpable and reiterated qualities that make the parts of the

text mirror each other, its self-reflecting capacity, [are] so pervasive that [they] envelop

the semantic differentiation in a haze of similarity and sameness. (Johansen 1996: 51)

However, Johansen mentions this in passing, because his main concern is to de-

fine and characterize literary discourse through the concept of iconicity.

This study offers a detailed account of iconicity as power. Rather than taking

the iconic force of language for granted, this study has attempted to trace what

contribute to the verbal energy transmitted by iconicity. First and foremost, theintegration and interaction of some iconic devices permeating various linguistic

levels of the same text embody a powerful verbal effect, in that the iconic mean-

ings are consistently linked and foregrounded and in that the iconic force inten-

sifies. Furthermore, that iconicity is a metalanguage adds to the dynamic force

triggered by iconicity, for metalanguage itself is an operation: it involves mean-

ing-making, it analyzes language, and it enables the reader and the writer to

bring to the fore the signified of a high-order language. Finally, iconicity catal-

yses verbal energy which searches persistently for similarities between words

and world. By highlighting the qualitative resemblances in the sign-object or

sign-reality relationship, iconicity prevents signs from degenerating into feeble

mediation or facile representation. In this sense, iconicity elevates signs from

being mere signs; it enables signs to mimic or reflect reality, which is in the final


20/24

20 Ming- Yu Tseng

analysis neither objective nor subjective, neither inner nor outer, but partakes

of both. Iconicity shortens the distance between form and meaning, between

words and world. As such, it is an appropriate and powerful means for the rev-

elation of Wordsworths Way and for Zen.

National University of Kaohsiung

Notes

1. This article is a revised version of a paper presented at theThird Conference of the

International Association of Literary Semantics, 79 April 2002, University of Bir-

mingham, U.K. I am grateful to its participants for comments. Special thanks are due

to Professor Michael Toolan for suggesting some useful references. I would also liketo express my acknowledgement to the National Science Council of the Republic of

China, Taiwan, for its support for the project (NSC 90-2411-H-390-001).

2. Zen is a Japanese term for Chinese Chan, which derives from Sanskrit Dhyana, mean-

ing profound contemplation in a state of higher consciousness.

3. All the citations from The Prelude in this study are from the 1805 edition. They are

referred to by the Books where they appear, followed by their line numbers.

References

Anderson, Earl R. (1998).A Grammar of Iconism. Cranbury: Associated University Presses.

Barthes, Roland ([1964] 1973). Elements of Semiology. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith (trans.). New

York: Hill and Wang.

Bierman, Arthur K. (1962). That there are no iconic signs. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research

23 (2): 243249.

Blyth, R. H. (1942). Zen in English Literature and Oriental Classics. Tokyo: Hokuseido Press.

Bolinger, Dwight (1975).Aspects of Language, 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt.

Cleary, Thomas (trans.) (1988). Book of Serenity. Boston: Shambhala.

Cleary, Thomas and Jonathan C. Cleary (trans.) (1992). The Blue Cliff Record. Boston: Shambhala.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor ([1817] 1983). The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge 7: Biographia

Literaria, 2 vols., James Engell and W. Jackson Bate (eds.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Cooper, William E. and John Robert Ross (1975). Word order. In Papers from the Parasession on

Functionalism, R. E. Grossman, L. J. San, and T. J. Vance (eds.), 63111. Chicago: Chicago Lin-

guistic Society.

Danesi, Marcel (1994). Messages and Meanings: An Introduction to Semiotics. Toronto: Canadian

Scholars Press.

Davie, Donald (1955). Articulate Energy: An Enquiry into the Syntax of English Poetry. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Davies, Hugh Skyes (1986). Wordsworth and the Worth of Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Downes, William (2000). The language of felt experience: Emotional, evaluative and intuitive. Lan-

guage and Literature 9 (2): 99121.

Eco, Umberto (1976).A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Fauconnier, Giles (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Fauconnier, Giles and Mark Turner (2002). The Way We Think. New York: Basic Books.


21/24


Fischer, Olga and Max Nnny (1999). Introduction: Iconicity as a creative force in language use. In

Form Miming Meaning: Iconicity in Language and Literature, Max Nnny and Olga Fischer

(eds.), xvxxxvi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

(eds.) (2001). The Motivated Sign: Iconicity in Language and Literature2. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Gibbs, Raymond W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goatly, Andrew (1997). The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.

Goodenough, W. (1956). Componential analysis and the study of meaning. Language 32: 195216.

Goodman, Nelson (1970). Seven strictures on similarity. In Experience and Theory, Lawrence Foster

and J. W. Swanson (eds.), 1929. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Graham, Joseph F. (1992). Onomatopoetics: Theory of Language and Literature. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Haiman, John (1980). The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56 (3):

515540.

(ed.) (1985).Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward

Arnold.

Hartman, Geoffrey H. (1985). The unremarkable Wordsworth. In On Signs, Marshall Blonsky (ed.),

321333. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

([1964] 1987). Wordsworths Poetry 17871814. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hiraga, Masako K. (1994). Diagrams and metaphors: Iconic aspects in language.Journal of Pragmatics

22: 521.

(1998). Metaphor-icon link in poetic texts: A cognitive approach to iconicity.Journal of the University

of the Air16: 147175. (1999). Blending and an interpretation of haiku: A cognitive approach. Poetics Today 20 (3):

461481.

Hjelmslev, Louis ([1943] 1953). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, F. J. Whitfield (trans.). Balti-

more: Waverly Press.

Hodge, Robert and Gunther Kress (1988). Social Semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Holland, Norman N. (1988). The Brain of Rober Frost: A Cognitive Approach to Literature. London:

Routledge.

Jakobson, Roman (1960). Closing statement: linguistics and poetics. In Style in Language, Thomas

A. Sebeok (ed.), 350377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

([1965] 1971). Quest for the essence of language. In Selected Writings II, 345359. The Hague:Mouton.

Jakobson, Roman and Linda Waugh (1979). The Sound Shape of Language. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.

Johansen, Jorgen Dines (1996). Iconicity in literature. Semiotica 110 (12): 3755.

Kim, Kyong Liong (1996). Caged in Our Own Signs: A Book About Semiotics. Norwood: Ablex.

King, Winston L. (1993). Zen and the Way of the Sword: Arming the Samurai Psyche. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University

Press.

Lakoff, George and Mark Turner (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.

Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. (1990). Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/

New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mayerthaler, Willi ([1981] 1988). Morphological Naturalness. Ann Arbor: Karoma.


22/24

22 Ming- Yu Tseng

McPhail, Mark Lawrence (1996). Zen in the Art of Rhetoric: An Inquiry into Coherence. Albaby:

State University of New York Press.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1962). Phenomenology of Perception, Colin Smith (trans.). London:

Routledge.Merrell, Floyd (2001). Properly minding the sign.Journal of Literary Semantics 30 (2): 95109.

Miller, J. Hillis (1985). The Linguistic Moment: From Wordsworth to Stevens. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Mller, Wolfgang G. (2001). Iconicity and rhetoric: A note on the iconic force of rhetorical figures in

Shakespeare. In The Motivated Sign: Iconicity in Language and Literature 2, Olga Fischer and

Max Nnny (eds.), 305322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Nnny, Max (2001). Iconic function of long and short lines. InThe Motivated Sign: Iconicity in Language

and Literature 2, Olga Fischer and Max Nnny (eds.), 157188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Nnny, Max and Olga Fischer (eds.) (1999). Form Miming Meaning: Iconicity in Language and Lit-

erature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Nth, Winfried (2001). Semiotic foundations of iconicity in language and literature. In The Motivated

Sign: Iconicity in Language and Literature 2, Olga Fischer and Max Nnny (eds.), 1728. Am-

sterdam: John Benjamins.

Nowakowska-Kempna, I. (1995). Konceptualizacja uczuae w jezyku polskim. Warszawa: Wyzsza Sz-

kola Pedagogiczna.

Ortega y Gasset, Jose (1987). Psychological Investigations, Jorge Garcia-Gomez (trans.). New York:

Norton.

Peirce, Charles Sanders (19311958). Collected Papers, 8 vols. Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, and

Arthur W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rips, Lance J., Edward J. Shoben, and E. E. Smith (1973). Semantic distance and the verification of

semantic relations.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior12: 120.Rudy, John G. (1996). Wordsworth and the Zen Mind: The Poetry of Self-Emptying. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Sapir, Edward (1958). Grading: a study in semantics. In Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Lan-

guage, Culture and Personality, David G. Mandelbaum (ed.), 122149. Berkeley and Los Ange-

les: University of California Press.

Tabakowska, Elzbieta (1999). Linguistic expression of perceptual relationships: Iconicity as a princi-

ple of text organization. In Form Miming Meaning: Iconicity in Language and Literature, Max

Nnny and Olga Fischer (eds.), 409 422. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Taborsky, Edwina (2001). What is a sign?Journal of Literary Semantics 30 (2): 8394.

Thibault, Paul J. (1998). Metalanguage. In Encyclopedia of Semiotics, Paul Bouissac (editor-in-chief),408411. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Toolan, Michael (1996). Total Speech: An Integrational linguistic Approach to Language. Durham:

Duke University Press.

Tseng, Ming-yu (1997). Symbolic discourse: Mystical writing as anti-language. Language and Litera-

ture 6 (3): 181195.

(2002a). On the interplay between speech and writing: Where Wordsworth and Zen discourse

meet.Journal of Literary Semantics 31 (2): 171198.

(2002b). Expressing the ineffable: Toward a poetics of mystical writing. Social Semiotics 12 (1):

6382.

Turner, Mark and Giles Fauconnier (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor

and Symbolic Activity 10 (3): 183204.

Wimsatt, W. K., Jr. (1954). The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. Lexington: University

of Kentucky Press.

Wolfson, Susan J. (1986). The Questioning Presence: Wordsworth, Keats, and the Interrogative Mode

in Romantic Poetry. Ithaca: Cornell University press.


23/24


Wordsworth, William (19401949). The Poetical Works of William Wordsworth, 5 vols., Ernest de

Selincour and Helen Darbishire (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon.

(1974). The Prose Works of William Wordsworth, 3 vols., W. J. B. Owen and Jane Worthington

Smyser (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon. (1979). The Prelude 1799, 1805, 1850, Jonathan Wordsworth, M. H. Abrams, and Stephen Gill

(eds.). New York: W. W. Norton.


24/24

Tseng: Iconicity as Power

Documents