Cover not available
Part of
Dimensions of Iconicity
Edited by Angelika Zirker, Matthias Bauer, Olga Fischer and Christina Ljungberg
[Iconicity in Language and Literature 15] 2017
► pp. 39–62

Tracking linguistic primitives

The phonosemantic realization of fundamental oppositional pairs

| Lund University
This paper investigates how cross-linguistic phoneme distributions of 56 fundamental oppositional concepts can reveal semantic relationships by looking into the linguistic forms of 75 genetically and areally distributed languages. Based on proposals of semantic primes (Goddard & Wierzbicka 2002), reduced Swadesh lists (Holman et al. 2008), presumed ultraconservative words (Pagel et al. 2013), attested basic antonyms (Paradis, Willners & Jones 2009) and sense perception words, semantic oppositional pairs were selected. Phonemes were divided according to: the frequency of vowels’ second formant and consonants’ energy accumulation, sonority, a combination of the aforementioned two, and general phonetic traits, e.g. voicing. Using a biplot, the phonological relatedness between the investigated concepts was illustrated graphically, and the phoneme distributions’ over- and underrepresentation from the average was calculated for each concept. Salient semantic groupings and relations based solely on phonological contrasts were found for most investigated concepts, including the semantic domains: Small, Intense Vision-Touch, Large, Organic, Horizontal-Vertical Distance, Deictic, Containment, Gender, Parent and Diurnal, and the sole concept old. The most notable relations found were: mother/i vs. father, a three-way deictic distinction and a dimensional tripartite oppositional relationship. Embodiment, oppositional thinking and evidence for more general concepts to precede complex concepts were proposed as explanations for the results.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Lexical universals
    • 1.2The oppositional relation
    • 1.3Phonosemantics
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Language sampling
    • 2.2Concept sampling
    • 2.3Sound classification and quantification
    • 2.4Analyses
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Related phoneme distribution
    • 3.2Deviation from average
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Embodiment and phonosemantics
    • 4.2The oppositional relationship
    • 4.3Semantic origins
    • 4.4Explanatory suggestions for the semantic relations
      • 4.4.1Parent and deictic
      • 4.4.2Small-intense vision-touch, and large-organic and horizontal-vertical distance
      • 4.4.3Conjoined components
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 8 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.15.03joh
References (53)
References
Abelin, Å. 1999. Studies in Sound Symbolism. PhD dissertation, Gothenburg University.
Barlett, E. J. 1976. Sizing things up: The acquisition of the meaning of dimensional adjectives. Journal of Child Language 3: 205–219.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. & Kay, P. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. 1996. The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: Cognitive vs. linguistic determinants. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds), 145–176. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Brown, C. H., Holman, E. W., Wichmann, S. & Velupillai, V. 2008. Automated classification of the world’s languages: A description of the method and preliminary results. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 61(4): 285–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagiuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carling, G. & Johansson, N. 2015. Motivated language change: Processes involved in the growth and conventionalization of onomatopoeia and sound symbolism. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 46(2): 199–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2013. Cognition, typological generalizations, and universal grammar. Lingua 130: 50–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. 1973. What’s in a word? On the child’s acquisition of semantics in his first language. In Cognitive Development and Acquisition of Language, T. E. Moore (ed.), 65–110. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cytowic, R. 1989. Synaesthesia: A Union of the Senses. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deese, J. 1965. The Structure of Associasions in Language and Thought. Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2014. Demonstratives, frames of reference, and semantic universals of space. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(3): 116–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10): 654–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? In Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? and Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax, Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), 1–62. Amsterdam: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. V. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 1: Methodology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. 1977. The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (eds), 67–82. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. (eds). 2002. Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings [Studies in Language Companion Series 60–61]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogg, R. M. & McCully, C. B. 1987. Metrical Phonology: A Course Book. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Holman, E., Wichmann, S., Brown, C. H., Velupillai, H., Müller, A. & Bakker, D. 2008. Explorations in automated language classification. Folia Linguistica 42(2): 331–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1922. Language – Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Johansson, N. & Zlatev, J. 2013. Motivations for sound symbolism in spatial deixis: A typological study of 101 languages. The Public Journal of Semiotics 5(1): 3–20. 〈[URL]〉 (16 September 2016)Google Scholar
Johansson, N., and Carling, G. 2015. The de-iconization and rebuilding of iconicity in spatial deixis: An Indo-European case study. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics, 47(1): 4–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. 2008. Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Justeson, J. & Katz, S. 1991. Co-occurrence of antonymous adjectives and their contexts. Computational Linguistics 17(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Kemmerer, D. 1999. “Near” and “far” in language and perception. Cognition 73: 65–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kita, S., Kantartzis, K. & Imai, M. 2010. Children learn sound symbolic words better: Evolutionary vestige of sound symbolic protolanguage. In The Evolution of Language – Proceedings of the 8th International Conference (Evolang8), A. D. M. Smith, B. de Boer & M. Schouwstra (eds), 206–213. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Köhler, W. 1929. Gestalt Psychology. New York NY: Liveright.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. 2001. Vowels and Consonants: An Introduction to the Sounds of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. 1982. Speech errors and grammatical planning of utterances: Evidence from Swedish. In Textstrategier i tal och skrift, W. Koch, C. Platzack & G. Tottie (eds). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Malle, B. F. 2002. The relation between language and theory of mind in development and evolution. In The Evolution of Language out of Pre-Language [Typological Studies in Language 53], T. Givon & B. F. Malle (eds), 265–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. 2009. Functional categories: An evolutionary perspective. In Language Evolution: The View From Restricted Linguistic Systems, R. Botha & H. de Swart (eds), 179–202. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Needham, A. & Baillargeon, R. 1993. Intuitions about support in 4.5-month-old infants. Cognition 47: 121–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J. 1994. The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. In Sound Symbolism, L. Hinton, J. Nichols & J. J. Ohala (eds), 325–347. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Pagel, M., Atkinson, Q. D., Calude, A. S. & Meade, A. 2013. Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across Eurasia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(21): 8471–8476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C., Willners, C. & Jones, S. 2009. Good and bad opposites: Using textual and experimental techniques to measure antonym canonicity. The Mental Lexicon 4(3): 380–429. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Premack, A. & Premack, D. 1983. The Mind of an Ape. New York NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. 1999. Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(2): 253–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S. & Hubbard, E. M. 2001. Synaesthesia: A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8: 3–34.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1929. A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology 12(3): 225–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, F. 1916. Course in General Linguistics. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
SIL International. (2012). Ethnologue Online. 〈[URL]〉 (16 September 2016).
Söderpalm, E. 1979. Speech errors in normal and pathological speech. Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 14. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Swadesh, M. 1971. The Origin and Diversification of Language, J. F. Sherzer (ed.). London: Transaction.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, H. 1994. Sound symbolism in deictic words. In Tongues and Texts Unlimited. Studies in Honour of Tore Jansson on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Anniversary, H. Auli & P. af Trampe (eds), 213–234. Department of Classical Languages, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Viberg, Å. 2001. Verbs of perception. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, H. Martin, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (eds), 1294–1309. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G. & de Villiers, P. A. 1978. Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L.. 1956. Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, J. B. Carroll (ed.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wichmann, S., Holman, E. W. & Brown, C. H. 2010. Sound symbolism in basic vocabulary. Entropy 12(4): 844–858. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wienold, G. & Rohmer, U. 1997. On implications in lexicalizations for dimnesional expressions. In The Locus of Meaning. Papers in Honor of Yoshihiko Ikegami, K. Yamanaka & T. Ohori (eds), 143–185. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Willners, C. 2001. Antonyms in Context: A Corpus-based Semantic Analysis of Swedish Descriptive Adjectives. Lund University.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. 2005. What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemasin Cognitive Linguistics, B. Hampe (ed.), 323–342. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Gil, David
2023. The grammaticalization and dissolution of High Extended Intonation: an inalienable possession paradigm in Roon. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 76:3 ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Carling, Gerd, Chundra Cathcart & Erich Round
2022. Reconstructing the Origins of Language Families and Variation. In Oxford Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution, ► pp. 811 ff. DOI logo
Nyst, Victoria, Marta Morgado, Timothy Mac Hadjah, Marco Nyarko, Mariana Martins, Lisa van der Mark, Evans Burichani, Tano Angoua, Moustapha Magassouba, Dieydi Sylla, Kidane Admasu & Anique Schüller
2022. Object and handling handshapes in 11 sign languages: towards a typology of the iconic use of the hands. Linguistic Typology 26:3 ► pp. 573 ff. DOI logo
Erben Johansson, Niklas, Andrey Anikin, Gerd Carling & Arthur Holmer
2020. The typology of sound symbolism: Defining macro-concepts via their semantic and phonetic features. Linguistic Typology 24:2 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.