Cover not available
Article published In:
Living Metaphors and Metonymies
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 20:1] 2022
► pp. 195–209

Onomatopoeia and metonymy

ORCID logo | Corvinus University of Budapest
ORCID logo | Corvinus University of Budapest
When it comes to onomatopoeia, it is often claimed that such words are the epitome of sound symbolism, as the link between form and meaning is felt to be “natural”. Yet, this is quite far from the case: onomatopoeic words do need to conform to the phonological and morphological restrictions of a respective language. Due to these restrictions, onomatopoeic forms can vary greatly with regard to the degree to which they are felt to be imitative of a particular sound, making it quite a challenge to succinctly delimit or define this category of words. Accordingly, the paper investigates the role of onomatopoeic formations in English and provides a novel definition of onomatopoeia that is able to encompass both novel and lexicalised examples. In order to do so, the paper advocates a metonymy-based approach to onomatopoeic forms.
While it is often stated within cognitive linguistics that metonymy is fundamental in language and cognition (see Barcelona, 2019 for a recent overview), few researchers have done so much to justify this claim as Antonio Barcelona. The present paper is in honour of this lifelong achievement.
Keywords: English, onomatopoeia, metonymy, echoic, imitative
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What onomatopoeic forms are there in English?
  • 3.Onomatopoeia and linguistic convention
  • 4.Revisiting the definition of onomatopoeia
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00107.ben
References (40)
References
Abelin, Å. (2011). Imitation of bird song in folklore – onomatopoeia or not? TMH-QPSR, 51 (1), 13–16.Google Scholar
Adams, V. (1973). An introduction to modern English word-formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Akita, K. (2013). Constraints on the semantic extension of onomatopoeia. Public Journal of Semiotics, 5 (1), 21–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Assaneo, M. F., Nichols, J. I., & Trevisan, M. A. (2011). The anatomy of onomatopoeia. PLoS ONE, 6 (12), e28317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attridge, D. (1984). Language as imitation: Jakobson, Joyce, and the art of onomatopoeia. MLN, 99 (5), 1116–1140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2004). Metonymy behind grammar: The motivation of the seemingly “irregular” grammatical behavior of English paragon names. In G. Radden & K-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 357–374). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
(2009). Motivation of construction meaning and form: The roles of metonymy and inference. In K-U. Panther, L. L. Thornburg & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 363–401). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). The conceptual motivation of bahuvrihi compounds in English and Spanish. In M. Brdar, S. T. Gries & M. Fuchs (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Convergence and expansion (pp. 151–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Metonymy in, under and above the lexicon. In S. Martín Alegre, M. Moyel, E. Pladevall & S. Tubau (Eds.), At a time of crisis: English and American studies in Spain. Works from the 35th AEDEAN Conference UAB/Barcelona 14–16 November 2011 (pp. 254–271). Barcelona: Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona – AEDEAN.Google Scholar
(2019). Chapter 7: Metonymy. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations of language (pp. 167–194). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benczes, R. (2019). Rhyme over reason: Phonological motivation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. (2017). Metonymy and word-formation: Their interactions and complementation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Brdar, M., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2013). Some reflections on metonymy and word-formation. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 1 (1), 40–62.Google Scholar
(2014). Where does metonymy begin? Some comments on Janda (2011). Cognitive Linguistics, 25 (2), 313–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bredin, H. (1996). Onomatopoeia as a figure and a linguistic principle. New Literary History, 27 (3), 555–569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1958). Words and things: An introduction to language. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Brown, B. (1979). Rhetorical figures of communion, presence, and severance: Toward an efficient rhetoric of business. The ABCA Bulletin, 42 (3), 14–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L. (2005). How to show languages are related: Methods for distant genetic relationship. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 262–282). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins English Dictionary Online. [URL]
Guynes, S. A. (2014). Four-color sound: A Peircean semiotics of comic book onomatopoeia. Public Journal of Semiotics, 6 (1), 58–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. J. (1994). Introduction: Sound symbolic processes. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 1–12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hrushovski, B. (1980). The meaning of sound patterns in poetry: An interaction theory. Poetics Today, 2 (1a), 39–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hughes, G. (2000). A history of English words. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kadooka, K-I. (2005). On the degree of lexicalization in English onomatopoeia from a historical perspective. The Ryukoku Journal of Humanities and Sciences, 27 (1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Katamba, F. (1994). English words. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. (2020). Onomatopoeia: A unique species? Studia Linguistica, 74 (2), 506–551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2006). Language, mind, and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1959). Phonetic symbolism in English word-formation. Indogermanische Forschungen, 64 1, 146–168.Google Scholar
(1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Meinard, M. E. M. (2015). Distinguishing onomatopoieas from interjections. Journal of Pragmatics, 76 1, 150–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (1992). Iconicity and generative grammar. Language, 68 (4), 756–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswalt, R. L. (1994). Inanimate imitatives in English. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 293–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, R. (1994). Aural images. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 276–292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rūke-Draviņa, V. (1976). Gibt es Universalien in der Ammensprache? Salzburger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 2 1, 3–16.Google Scholar
Sarvasy, H. (2016). Warblish: Verbal mimicry of birdsong. Journal of Ethnobiology, 36 (4), 765–782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. de. (1915/1959). Course in General Linguistics. In E. Bally, A. Sechehaye & A. Riedlinger (Eds.). Trans. W. Baskin. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Skorupa, P., & Dubovičienė, T. (2015). Linguistic characteristics of commercial and social advertising slogans. Santalka: Filologija, Edukologija, 23 (2), 108–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Oxford English dictionary (2000). Online edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsur, R. (2001). Onomatopoeia: Cuckoo-language and tick-tocking. The constraints of semiotic systems. Cogprints online database of articles. [URL]; accessed 14 July 2016.
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar