Phonosemantic Interference: Multiple Motivation in the Imitative Word Coinage (on the Material of Invented Languages)

Introduction. Phonosemantic interference is a phenomenon in imitative word coinage in which the sound shape of a single imitative sign can be conditioned by several categorically different motives of nomination. Several phonosemantic studies have reported this effect; however, a clear definition of the term, the description of the existing models of motive combinations, as well as possible explanations behind this phenomenon have yet to be developed. The objective of this article is to attempt to formulate the definition of this term and to describe the mechanisms of phonosemantic interference using new linguistic material (artificially constructed lexis).

Methodology and sources. The study is conducted within the framework of the phonosemantic approach developed by Stanislav Voronin on the material of artificially constructed words from well-known fictional languages Lapin, Klingon, Elvish, and Navi. Methods of the research include the method of continuous sampling, typological comparison, and the method of phonosemantic analysis.

Results and discussion. Using the material of artificially constructed lexis, the examples of the combination of several motives of nomination for a single sound-imitative sign are demonstrated and the motives of their coinage are studied. The typological comparison of the artificially constructed words against imitative words of natural origin has revealed similar models of multiple motivation both in artificial and natural word coinage, which suggests that multiple nomination is a regular way of primary nomination. The definition of the term phonosemantic interference has been provided.

Conclusion. Multiple motivation reflects the complex nature of the intermodal perception of extralinguistic objects. In the case of phonosemantic interference, the phonetic form of a word is the product of a co-operative action of several senses. The reflection of several denotata in a single sound form increases the variety of primary forms and meanings and helps explicate subtle semantic contrasts. The notion of phonosemantic interference enables analyzing, describing, and understanding the mechanisms of complicated cases of imitative word coinage within the framework of the already well established phonosemantic taxonomy.

1. Jespersen, O. (1922), “Symbolic value of the vowel I”, Philologica, no. 1, pp. 15–33.

2. Sapir, E. (1929), “A Study in Phonetic Symbolism”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 225–239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070931.

3. Paget, R. (1930), Human Speech (Some Observations, Experiments, and Conclusions as to the Nature, Origin, Purpose and Possible Improvement of Human Speech), Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London, UK.

4. Hockett, C.F. (1960), “The origin of speech”, Scientific American, vol. 203, pp. 88–96.

5. Bolinger, D.L. (1962), “Intonation as a universal”, Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguistics, in Lunt, H.G. (ed.), Mouton, The Hague, FRA, pp. 833–844.

6. Bolinger, D.L. (1978), “Intonation across languages”, Universals of Human Language, vol 2: Phonology, in Greenburg, J.H., Ferguson, C.A., and Moravcsik, E.A. (eds.), Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, USA, pp. 471–524.

7. Ohala, J.J. (1983), “Cross-language use of pitch: an ethological view”, Phonetica, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 1–18. DOI: 10.1159/000261678.

8. Ohala, J.J. (1994), “The frequency code underlies the sound symbolic use of voice pitch”, Sound Symbolism, in Hinton, L., Nichols, J. and Ohala, J.J. (eds.), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 325–347.

9. Traunmüller, H. (1994), “Sound symbolism in deictic words”, Tongues and Texts Unlimited. Studies in Honour of Tore Jansson on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Anniversary, in Auli, H., and Trampe, P. (eds.), Dept. of Classical Languages, Stockholm Univ., SWE, pp. 213–234.

10. Ramachandran, V.S. and Hubbard, E.M. (2001), “Synaesthesia – A window into perception, thought and language”, Journal of Consciousness Studies, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 3–34.

11. Nobile, L. (2011), “Words in the mirror. Analysing the sensorimotor interface between phonetics and semantics in Italian”, Semblance and Signification, in Michelucci, P., Fisher, O., and Ljungberg, Ch. (eds.), John Benjamins Publ. Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 101–132.

12. Johansson, N. and Zlatev J. (2013), “Motivations for Sound Symbolism in Spatial Deixis: A Typological Study of 101 Languages”, The Public Journal of Semiotics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3–20.

13. Bankieris, K. and Simner, J. (2015), “What is the link between synaesthesia and sound symbolism?”, Cognition, vol. 136, pp. 186–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.013.

14. Voronin, S.V. (2006), Osnovy fonosemantiki [The Fundamentals of Phonosemantics], Lenand, Moscow, RUS.

15. Voronin, S.V. (1975), “Angliiskie zvukoizobrazheniya dunoveniya rtom [English sound imitatives of blowing]”, Voprosy leksikologii, leksikografii i stilistiki. Trudy Samarkandskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni A. Navoi, vol. 291, Samarkand, pp. 48–51.

16. Flaksman, M.A. (2015), “Diachronic development of English iconic vocabulary”, Can. Sci. (Ling.) Thesis, St Petersburg State Univ., SPb., RUS.

17. Davydova, V.A. (2016), “Sound Symbolism in Invented Languages”, in Flaksman, M.A., Brodovich, O.I. (eds.), Anglistics of the XXI century, vol. 2. Phonosemantics: in commemoration of Professor Dr. Stanislav Voronin’s 80th anniversary, St Petersburg State Univ., SPb., RUS, pp. 32–39.

18. Davydova, V.A. (2017), “Lingvokonstruirovanie i materija zvuka: fenomen onomatopei v vymyshlennyh jazykah (Word coinage and sound: onomatopoeia in invented languages)”, Current Issues of Linguistics, VI international scientific and practical conference, SPb., ETU, RUS, 20 apr. 2017, pp. 266–273.

19. Shvetsova, N.N. (2011), “Iconic Words in English Dialects”, Can. Sci. (Ling.) Thesis, St Petersburg Univ. of Economy, SPb., RUS.

20. Adams, R. (2005), Watership Down: A Novel, Scribner, N.Y., USA.

21. Okrand, M. (1992), The Klingon Dictionary, 2nd ed., Pocket Books, N.Y., USA.

22. Fauskanger, H.K. (2013), Quettaparma Quenyallo / Quenya-English Wordlist, available at: https://folk.uib.no/hnohf/wordlists.htm (accessed 17.06.2020).

23. Miller, M. (2019), Na’vi-English Dictionary v. 14.2, available at: https://eanaeltu.learnnavi.org/dicts/NaviDictionary.pdf (accessed 17.06.2020).

24. Voronin, S.V. (1990), “O metode fonosemanticheskogo analiza [On the method of phonosemantic analysis]”, Lingvometodicheskie Aspekty Semantiki I Pragmatiki Teksta, Kursk, USSR, pp. 98–100.

25. Flaksman, M.A. (2016), Slovar' angliiskoi zvukoizobrazitel'noi leksiki v diakhronicheskom osveshchenii [Dictionary of English sound-visual vocabulary in diachronic lighting], Institute of Foreign Languages, RKhGA, SPb., RUS.

26. Serebrennikov, B.A. (1977), Yazykovaya nominatsiya: obshchie voprosy [Language nomination: general issues], Nauka, Moscow, USSR.

27. Davydova, V.A. (2019), “Zhestovaia motivatsiia zvukoizobrazitelnyx slov: litsevaya mimika v zvukoizobrazheniiax malogo razmera (The Gestural Motivation for Sound-Symbolic Words: Facial Mimics in Denominations of Smallness)”, Current Issues of Linguistics, VIII international scientific and practical conference, SPb., ETU, RUS, 22–23 apr. 2019, pp. 243–249.

28. Gazov-Ginzberg, A.M. (1965), Byl li yazyk izobrazitelen v svoikh istokakh? (Svidetel'stvo prasemitskogo zapasa kornei) [Was the language pictorial in its origins? (Evidence of a presemite stock of roots)], Nauka, Moscow, USSR.

29. Voronin, S.V. (2004), Angliiskie onomatopy: fonosemanticheskaya klassifikatsiya [English Onomatopes: a Phonosemantic Classification], Gelikon Plyus, SPb., RUS.

30. Voronin, S.V. (2005), Iconicity. Glottogenesis. Semiosis: Sundry Papers, St Petersburg Univ. Press, SPb., RUS.

31. Galeev, B.M. (1987), Chelovek, iskusstvo, tekhnika (problemy sinestezii v iskusstve) [Man, art, technology (problems of synesthesia in art)], Kazan, Izd-vo KGU, USSR.

32. Gorelov, I.N. (1977), “The problem of the Functional Basis of Speech]”, Dr. Sci. (Philol.) Thesis, Magnitogorsk Pedagogical Institute, Magnitogorsk, USSR.

33. Leont'ev, A.N. (1983), Izbrannye psikhologicheskie proizvedeniya [Collected Works in Psychology], vol. II, Pedagogika, Moscow, USSR.

34. Ivanov, V.A. (2017), “Onomatopoeic designations of knocks in Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages”, Current Issues of Linguistics, VI international scientific and practical conference, SPb., ETU, RUS, 20 apr. 2017, pp. 274–280.

35. Koleva-Zlateva, Zh. (2009), “On the coalescence of homonymic etymological nests of sound symbolic origin], Slavica, XXXVIII, pp. 19–34.

36. Jääskeläinen, A. (2016), “Mimetic schemas and shared perception through imitatives”, Nordic Journal of Linguistics, vol. 39, no. 2, pp.159–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586516000147.

37. Mazanaev, I.A. (1985), “The Main Groups of English and Lesgin Iconic Words”, Can. Sci. (Philol.) Thesis, Univ. of Leningrad, Leningrad, USSR.

38. Mikhalev, A.B. (1995), Teoriya fonosemanticheskogo polya [The Theory of the Phonosemantic Field], Izd-vo Pyatigor. gos. lingv. un-ta, Krasnodar, USSR.

39. 39 Slonitskaya, E.I. (1987), “Sound-Symbolism in Designating Roundedness”, Can. Sci. (Philol.) Thesis, Univ. of Leningrad, Leningrad, USSR.