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
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

Cited by 1 other publications

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 10 october 2022. 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.