A cross-linguistic study of lexical iconicity and its manifestation in bird names

Abstract This dissertation is a cross-linguistic study of lexical iconicity. The study is based on a genealogically stratified sample of 237 languages. The aim is to contribute with an empirical study to the growing dialogue focusing on different forms of lexical iconicity. The conceptual framework of the present study is based on an analysis of types and means of lexical iconicity in the sample languages. Archaeological and cultural evidence are used to tie lexical iconicity to its context. Phenomena related to lexical iconicity are studied both cross-linguistically and language-specifically. The cognitive difference between imitation and symbolism is essential. Lexical iconicity is not only about the iconic relationship between form and referents, but also about how certain iconic properties may become conventional, means used to create sound symbolism. All the sample languages show some evidence of lexical iconicity, demonstrating that it is a universal feature. Nine comparisons of onomatopoeic verbs and nouns, with samples varying between six and 141 languages, show that typologically highly different languages use similar means for creating words based on sound imitation. Two cross-linguistic comparisons of bird names demonstrate that a vast majority of the Eurasian names of the common cuckoo and the world-wide names of crow and raven of the 141 genera are onomatopoeic.

On Toponymic Constructions as an Alternative to Naming Patterns in Describing Finnish Lake Names

This thesis combines a computational analysis of a comprehensive corpus of Finnish lake names with a theoretical background in cognitive linguistics. The combination results on the one hand in a description of the toponymic system and the processes involved in analogy-based naming and on the other hand some adjustments to Construction Grammar. Finnish lake names are suitable for this kind of study, as they are to a large extent semantically transparent even when relatively old. There is also a large number of them, and they are comprehensively collected in a computer database. The current work starts with an exploratory computational analysis of co-location patterns between different lake names. Such an analysis makes it possible to assess the importance of analogy and patterns in naming. Prior research has suggested that analogy plays an important role, often also in cases where there are other motivations for the name, and the current study confirms this. However, it also appears that naming patterns are very fuzzy and that their nature is somewhat hard to define in an essentially structuralist tradition. In describing toponymic structure and the processes involved in naming, cognitive linguistics presents itself as a promising theoretical basis. The descriptive formalism of Construction Grammar seems especially well suited for the task. However, now productivity becomes a problem: it is not nearly as clear-cut as the latter theory often assumes, and this is even more apparent in names than in more traditional linguistic material. The varying degree of productivity is most naturally described by a prototype-based theory. Such an approach, however, requires some adjustments to onstruction Grammar. Based on all this, the thesis proposes a descriptive model where a new name -- or more generally, a new linguistic expression -- can be formed by conceptual integration from either a single prior example or a construction generalised from a number of different prior ones. The new model accounts nicely for various aspects of naming that are problematic for the traditional description based on analogy and patterns.

Monopolising Names? : The Protection of Geographical Indications in the European Community

Marketing of goods under geographical names has always been common. Aims to prevent abuse have given rise to separate forms of legal protection for geographical indications (GIs) both nationally and internationally. The European Community (EC) has also gradually enacted its own legal regime to protect geographical indications. The legal protection of GIs has traditionally been based on the idea that geographical origin endows a product exclusive qualities and characteristics. In today s world we are able to replicate almost any prod-uct anywhere, including its qualities and characteristics. One would think that this would preclude protec-tion from most geographical names, yet the number of geographical indications seems to be rising. GIs are no longer what they used to be. In the EC it is no longer required that a product is endowed exclusive characteristics by its geographical origin as long as consumers associate the product with a certain geo-graphical origin. This departure from the traditional protection of GIs is based on the premise that a geographical name extends beyond and exists apart from the product and therefore deserves protection itself. The thesis tries to clearly articulate the underlying reasons, justifications, principles and policies behind the protection of GIs in the EC and then scrutinise the scope and shape of the GI system in the light of its own justifications. The essential questions it attempts to aswer are (1) What is the basis and criteria for granting GI rights? (2) What is the scope of protection afforded to GIs? and (3) Are these both justified in the light of the functions and policies underlying granting and protecting of GIs? Despite the differences, the actual functions of GIs are in many ways identical to those of trade marks. Geographical indications have a limited role as source and quality indicators in allowing consumers to make informed and efficient choices in the market place. In the EC this role is undermined by allowing able room and discretion for uses that are arbitrary. Nevertheless, generic GIs are unable to play this role. The traditional basis for justifying legal protection seems implausible in most case. Qualities and charac-teristics are more likely to be related to transportable skill and manufacturing methods than the actual geographical location of production. Geographical indications are also incapable of protecting culture from market-induced changes. Protection against genericness, against any misuse, imitation and evocation as well as against exploiting the reputation of a GI seem to be there to protect the GI itself. Expanding or strengthening the already existing GI protection or using it to protect generic GIs cannot be justified with arguments on terroir or culture. The conclusion of the writer is that GIs themselves merit protection only in extremely rare cases and usually only the source and origin function of GIs should be protected. The approach should not be any different from one taken in trade mark law. GI protection should not be used as a means to mo-nopolise names. At the end of the day, the scope of GI protection is nevertheless a policy issue.