Cover not available
Part of
Ideophones, Mimetics and Expressives
Edited by Kimi Akita and Prashant Pardeshi
[Iconicity in Language and Literature 16] 2019
► pp. 77–100

Chapter 4
Cross-linguistic variation in phonaesthemic canonicity, with special reference to Korean and English

This study compares the canonicity values of Korean paradigmatic phonaesthemes (e.g., pɛŋpɛŋ: pʰɛŋpʰɛŋ ‘a neutral: stronger and more violent motion of circling’; piŋkɨl: pɛŋkɨl ‘twirling of a bigger: smaller object’) and of English non-paradigmatic phonaesthemes (e.g., gl- ‘vision, light’ in glisten, glitter, gleam, glow). Measured against Kwon and Round’s (2015) seven canonical criteria for phonaesthemes, it reveals that they are differentiated only in terms of the strict restriction of one meaning per form. The contribution of the current canonical analysis of variations in phonaesthemic phenomena is twofold: (i) it empirically clarifies the relationship between English and Korean phonaesthemes; and (ii) it demonstrates the utility of the proposed canonical criteria for phonaesthemes, for cross-linguistic comparisons of phonaesthemic phenomena.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Canonical Typology
    • 2.1Essential components of the framework: base, core, and criteria
    • 2.2Previous study on phonaesthemic canonicity: Kwon and Round (2015)
  • 3.Overview of Korean phonaesthemes in ideophones
  • 4.Data
  • 5.Canonical analysis of Korean paradigmatic phonaesthemes
    • 5.1Frequency among lexical stems
    • 5.2Frequency among parts of speech
    • 5.3Image iconicity
    • 5.4One form, one meaning
    • 5.5Non-recurrent residues
    • 5.6Transparency of form
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 May 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.16.05kwo
References (56)
References
Abelin, Å. 1999. Studies in sound symbolism. Ph.D. dissertation, Göteborg University.Google Scholar
Abramova, E., Fernández, R. and Sangati, F. 2013. Automatic labeling of phonesthemic senses. Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, and I. Wachsmuth (eds),1696–1701.Google Scholar
Baerman, M. and Corbett, G. G. 2012. Stem alternations and multiple exponence. Word Structure 5: 52–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K. 2004. The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language 80: 290–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F. and Christiansen, M. H. 2016. Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113: 10818–10823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, R. A. 1988. Austronesian Root Theory: An Essay on the Limits of Morphology [Studies in Language companion series 19]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. 1950. Rime, assonance, and morpheme analysis. Word 6: 117–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bond, O. 2013. A base for canonical negation. In Canonical Morphology and Syntax, D. Brown, M. Chumakina and G. G. Corbett (eds), 20–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, D., Chumakina, M., Corbett, G. G., Popova, G. and Spencer, A. 2012. Defining ‘periphrasis’: Key notions. Morphology 22: 233–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. and Chumakina, M. 2013. What there might be and what there is: An introduction to Canonical Typology. In Canonical Morphology and Syntax, D. Brown, M. Chumakina and G. G. Corbett (eds), 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Childs, G. T. 1994. African ideophones. In Sound Symbolism, L. Hinton, J. Nichols and J. Ohala (eds), 178–204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 2003. Agreement: Canonical instances and the extent of the phenomenon. In Topics in Morphology: Selected Papers from the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (Barcelona, September 20–22, 2001), A. Ralli and S. Scalise (eds), 109–128. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
2005. The canonical approach in typology. In Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories (Studies in Language Companion Series 72), Z. Frajzyngier, A. Hodges and D. S. Rood (eds), 25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Canonical Typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83: 8–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Canonical derivational morphology. Word Structure 3: 141–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91: 145–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diffloth, G. 1994. i: big, a: small. In Sound Symbolism, L. Hinton, J. Nichols, and J. Ohala (eds), 107–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6: 654–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., and Monaghan, P. 2015. Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19: 603–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Schuerman, W., Reinisch, E., Tufvesson, S. and Mitterer, H. 2016. What sound symbolism can and cannot do: Testing the iconicity of ideophones from five languages”. Language 92: 67–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. 1930. Speech. London: Ernest Benn.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56: 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamano, S. 1998. The Sound-Symbolic System of Japanese. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hinton, L., Nichols J. and Ohala J. J. 1994. Sound symbolism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchins, S. S. 1998. The psychological reality, variability, and compositionality of English phonaesthemes. Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 2012. In defense of prosodic typology: A response to Beckman and Venditti. Linguistic Typology 16: 341–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. 1956. An Outline of English Phonetics. Cambridge: Heffer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. S. 1984. Aspects of Korean morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Kwon, N. 2015. The natural motivation of sound symbolism. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Queensland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwon, N. and Round, E. R. 2015. Phonaesthemes in morphological theory. Morphology 25: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwon, N. 2016. Empirically observed iconicity levels of English phonaesthemes. Public Journal of Semiotics 7: 73–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Total reduplication in Japanese ideophones: An exercise in Localized Canonical Typology. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2: 40. 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Iconicity correlated with vowel harmony in Korean ideophones. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 9: 1. 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
To appear. A theoretical extension of Ohala’s frequency code hypothesis on size-sound symbolism. In Sound Symbolism in the History of Thought, L. Nobile (ed.). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Larsen, D. and Heinz, J. 2012. Neutral vowels in sound-symbolic vowel harmony in Korean. Phonology 29: 433–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. S. 1992. Phonology and sound symbolism of Korean ideophones. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Lockwood, G. and Dingemanse, M. 2015. Iconicity in the lab: A review of behavioural, developmental, and neuroimaging research into sound-symbolism. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1246.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Martin, S. E. 1962. Phonetic symbolism in Korean. American Studies in Altaic Linguistics 13: 177–189.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 1983. Phonological features and morphological structure. In Papers from the Para-Session on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. J. F. Richardson, M. Marks and A. Chukerman (eds), 135–161. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1989. Linear order in phonological representation. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 71–99.Google Scholar
Monaghan, P., Shillcock, R. C., Christiansen, M. H., and Kirby, S. 2014. How arbitrary is language? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369: 20130299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, E. 1978. Reduplicative constructions. In Universals of Human Language, vol. 3: Word Structure, J. H. Greenberg (ed.), 297–334. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Otis, K. and Sagi, E. 2008 Phonoaesthemes: a corporabased analysis. Proceedings of the 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, B. C. Love, K McRae, and V. M. Sloutsky (eds), 65–70.Google Scholar
Parault, S. J. 2006. Sound symbolic word learning in written context. Contemporary Educational Psychology 31: 228–252. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.06.002. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parault, S. J. and Schwanenflugel, P. J. 2006. Sound-symbolism: A piece in the puzzle of word learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35(4): 329–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1932. Collected Writings, 2: Elements of Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. and Vigliocco, G. 2010. Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1: 227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. and Lawler, J. M. 1981. Athematic metaphors. Proceedings of the 17th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 17), R. Hendrick, C. Masek, and M. F. Miller (eds). 318–342.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1994. Relative motivation in denotational and indexical sound symbolism of Wasco-Wishram Chinookan. In Sound Symbolism, L. Hinton, J. Nichols, and J. J. Ohala (eds), 40–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sohn, H. -M. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tufvesson, S. 2011. Analogy-making in the Semai sensory world. The Senses and Society 6: 86–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ultan, R. 1978. Size-sound symbolism. In Universals of Human Language, vol. 2: Phonology, J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, and E. A. Moravcsik (eds), 525–568. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Uspensky, B. A. 1972. Subsystems in language, their interrelations and their correlated universals. Linguistics: An International Review 88: 53–71.Google Scholar
Woodworth, N. L. 1991. Sound symbolism in proximal and distal forms. Linguistics 29: 273–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zingler, T. 2017. Evidence against the morpheme: The history of English phonaesthemes. Language Sciences 62: 76–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Willemsen, Jeroen & Ehm Hjorth Miltersen
2020. The expression of vulgarity, force, severity and size. Studies in Language 44:3 ► pp. 659 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.