40 лет Санкт-Петербургской типологической школе

Special research has shown, however, that cases of iconicity in grammar are numerous, and they deserve serious consideration. It is no freak of fate that when the issue of «natural classification» (i. a. in grammar) arises, the issue of iconism would be lurking there, waiting to be dealt with. So in the «natural classification» of the system of meanings belonging to the universal functional/semantic category of plurality — a classification evolved by V. S. Xrakovskij and his colleagues in the ground-breaking monograph «Typology of Iterative Constructions» (1989 — in Russian; 1997 — in English).

According to G. P. Melnikov [Melnikov 1989: 19], typological conceptions proclaiming the primate of solely formal or solely conten-sive characteristics are aspectuative, and it is approaches aiming at uncovering the laws of «matching», of interdependance, implicative relations in the system that are conducive to synthesis of newly discovered and earlier amassed knowledge. I hold that ignoring possible iconicity we basically ignore implicative relations, we ignore casuality. Exclude probing iconicity — and you largely exclude in-depth understanding, the cognitive retrospective (casuality) and the cognitive perspective (heuristics).

RL-multiplicatives (i. e. iterative verbs with r or / as for-matives) are a graphic illustration of iconism in grammar [Jespersen 1928; Gonda 1940; Gazov-Ginzberg 1965]. In Modem English, for instance, almost three fourths of its RL-verbs are in origin onomatopoeic or sound-symbolic, and — er, — le are not (contrary to the standard opinion) dead suffixes — they are living suffixes, still fairly productive: witness N. Bartko [2001]. As V. S. Xrakovskij [1997: 28] notes, «One of the universal features of lexical multiplicatives (and semelfac-tives)… is that they are predominantly, if not solely, onomatopoeic by origin…The authors approach this problem from grammatical point of view. Earlier I approached this from a general typological point of view [Voronin 1980; 1982], cf. [Voronin, Bartko 1999]. I now approach this specifically from the vantage point of phonosemantic typology.»

Literary sources usually point out the fact that these formatives are connected with the sphere of onomatopoeia and sound symbolism. Wilmanns [1896: 93,98], for instance, states that German verbs in — em chiefly denote repeated, rapid and brief movements, and aural and visual impressions of such movements, and «a large number of them are onomatopoeic formations [plätschem „splash“, stottem „stutter“, glitzem „glitter“)». Kluge [1913: 10] observes that Old Germanic verbs with the suffix — arôn (as in OHG flogarôn «flutter») always denote movement, noise and light.

The significant role of iconicity in RL-formatives is noted i. a. by Paul [1959: 119,121], Schmidt [1964: 122], Fleischer [1983: 321–322] for German, Hummelstedt [1939: 133], Wessén [Wessén 1970: 110] for Swedish, Rijpma, Schuringa [1971: 147] for Dutch. De Vooys [1967: 247], in his study of Dutch onomatopoeic and sound-symbolic expressivism, writes that «frequentatives» (iteratives) «could have been, from the very beginning… a product of what Paul called Uhrschöpfung».

Thus the sphere of Germanic iterative RL-formatives is vocabulary that in origin is iconic (words like those for sound, movement, light, speech, physical and emotional states are a prominent and universally acknowledged part of the iconic lexis), and the stems of RL-formatives are in origin iconic.

However, the iconic nature of the stem in these verbs is not sufficient ground to pass judgement on the nature and origin of the RL-formatives themselves. Some authors speak of their inherent iconicity. Marchand, for instance, observes: «Words in — er are compounds of several symbolic elements, one of which is final — er» [Marchand 1969:

273]; «Like — er, — le is not a derivative suffix proper from existing roots. <…> Many verbs have probably never had a simple root without the /l/ element…» [ibid: 323].

It is usually noted that modem Germanic RL-suffixes go back to West-Germanic and Scandinavian secondary suffixes (a result of metanalysis) with the determinatives — r-, — l-, OS, OHG — arô-, -aiô-;OIcel — ra, — la Guxman [1966: 201]; it is also noted that determinatives that belong to the compound secondary suffix are, in origin, — and this is important — part of the underlying stem — they actually are its final consonant Belyaeva [1965: 128]. We thus have in evidence two facts of the utmost importance: the iterative RL-formative is, in origin, part of the underlying stem; this stem is iconic in nature.

All this brings us to the conclusion: Germanic iterative RL-for-matives are iconic in origin, and their nature is iconic.