What is it about?
We show that humans are less likely to be denoted by compounds than other entities are. We explain that this is due to the fact that compounds are (relatively) transparent denominations. Compounds do not work well for humans because humans resist transparency. This is due to the way we conceptualise humans, i.e. as more than the sum of their parts. Reducing them to one characteristic (as transparent denominations do) amounts to negating their essential complexity.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Humans resist transparent denominations. This is due to the way we conceptualise humans. The form is motivated, not in the sense that it resembles the referent, but in the sense that it resembles the way we conceptualise the referent. Humans being conceptualised as more than the sum of their parts, their denominations tend to be comparatively opaque.
Perspectives
This article led to very interesting discussions with colleagues, who suggested examples and possible counter-examples. It triggered one of the best compliments a researcher can hope to hear: "How did you even realise"? Once I started suspecting the phenomenon, and, at the same time, the explanation for it, I compiled a set of data, and elaborated a theoretical framework which could account for it - and it seems to work.
Elise Mignot
Universite Paris-Sorbonne
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Denominations of humans, International Journal of Language and Culture, June 2018, John Benjamins,
DOI: 10.1075/ijolc.00005.mig.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
