Language is more abstract than you think, or, why aren't languages more iconic?

Abstract

How abstract is language? We show that abstractness pervades every corner of language, going far beyond the usual examples of and In the light of the ubiquity of abstract words, the need to understand where abstract meanings come from becomes ever more acute. We argue that the best source of knowledge about abstract meanings may be language itself. We then consider a seemingly unrelated question: Why isn't language more iconic? Iconicity-a resemblance between the form of words and their meanings-can be immensely useful in language learning and communication. Languages could be much more iconic than they currently are. So why aren't they? We suggest that one reason is that iconicity is inimical to abstraction because iconic forms are too connected to specific contexts and sensory depictions. Form-meaning arbitrariness may allow language to better convey abstract meanings.This article is part of the theme issue 'Varieties of abstract concepts: development, use and representation in the brain'.

Varieties of abstract concepts: development, use and representation in the brain

“…The section focuses on how language and social interaction shape abstract concepts [31,32,34], on how the re-enactment of linguistic experience might have an embodied counterpart, i.e. the activation of the mouth [32], and on the role of iconicity in concrete and abstract concepts [33,34]. One paper [35] casts doubts on the exclusive importance ascribed to language for conceptual acquisition, when linguistic information is dissociated by a grounded approach.…”

“…Lupyan and Winter [33] address two apparently related questions: how abstract is language, and why isn't language more iconic (iconicity ¼ similarity between form of words and word meanings)? They demonstrate that abstractness is a pervasive linguistic phenomenon, and contend that in order to understand it we should turn to language.…”

“…Future research will need to convincingly highlight the main dimensions that characterize abstract concepts (linguistic, social, emotional) and to verify whether these dimensions assume different values for different kinds of abstract concepts. In our theme issue we have included a section on grounding of abstract concepts in perception and action systems [22][23][24][25][26][27] and two sections focusing on the roles of the inner experience (situatedness in inner processes [28], interoception [29] and metacognition [30]) and of the linguistic and social experience in grounding abstract concepts [31][32][33][34][35].…”

Does vocabulary help structure the mind?

“…Of course, linguistic meanings are not limited to concrete categories. Instead, much -and on some analyses, most -of what we talk about is quite abstract (Lupyan & Winter, 2018). For abstract categories such as containment, causality, and time, researchers have often posited innate (or "core") knowledge as the source of meanings that words map onto (e.g., Spelke & Kinzler, 2007).…”

“…Though there might be fuzziness around the boundaries, someone who has never encountered the word "tree" would presumably come to have some concept of trees based on perceptual experiences alone. But this argument is difficult to maintain for abstract meanings (Lupyan & Winter, 2018). In learning English, we learn words such as "exciting", "pathetic", "miracle", "lucky", "barely", "opinion", "fun", "somewhere" and "meanwhile".…”