Your profession? (a linguist? a chicken farmer? a Catholic priest?)
Your sex?
Your native language?
Have you studied sound symbolism (phonosemantics)?
Feel free to leave me your e-mail address, if you'd like: (I don't post them)
And your name, if you'd like: (I don't post them either)
First, I'm curious if anybody is willing to offer an off-the-cuff opinion
as to what percentage of modern linguists believe in the complete arbitrariness
of the sign?
Mark all that apply:
You will undoubtedly want to comment and qualify. Please just try to
mark these as best you can. Some of the issues that come up in the earlier
questions may be addressed in the later ones. There will also be an opportunity
at the end to comment.
In some cases your replies to later questions can be predicted from
your replies to earlier questions. Please check all that apply anyway.
Ready to practice your quantifiers?
A. PERVASIVENESS OF PHONOSEMANTICS ACROSS LANGUAGES
A1. All word meanings
in all languages are completely arbitrary.
A2. All word meanings
in some languages are completely arbitrary.
A3. All word meanings
in no languages are completely arbitrary.
A4. All word meanings
in all languages can be completely predicted by their form.
A5. All word meanings
in some languages can be completely predicted by their form.
A6. All word meanings
in no languages can be completely predicted by their form.
A7. All word meanings
in all languages can be partially but not completely predicted by their
form.
A8. All word meanings
in some languages can be partially but not completely predicted by their
form.
A9. All word meanings
in no languages can be partially but not completely predicted by their
form.
A10. Some (but not
all) word meanings in all languages are completely arbitrary.
A11. Some (but not
all) word meanings in some languages are completely arbitrary.
A12. Some (but not
all) word meanings in no languages are completely arbitrary.
A13. Some (but not
all) word meanings in all languages can be completely predicted by their
form.
A14. Some (but not
all) word meanings in some languages can be completely predicted by their
form.
A15. Some (but not
all) word meanings in all languages can be partially but not completely
predicted by their form.
A16. Some (but not
all) word meanings in some languages can be partially but not completely
predicted by their form. (Whew!)
A17. In some languages
no word meanings are completely arbitrary.
A18. In some languages
no word meanings can be completely predicted by their form.
A19. In some languages
no word meanings can be partially predicted by their form.
A20. In all languages,
very few word meanings are affected by their form
A21. In all languages,
a considerable number of word meanings, but less than 50% are affected
by their form
A22. In all languages,
more than 50% of word meanings are affected by their form
A23. In all languages,
all but a very few word meanings are affected by their form
A24. In all languages,
all word meanings are affected by their form
A25. In most languages,
very few word meanings are affected by their form
A26. In most languages,
a considerable number of word meanings, but less than 50% are affected
by their form
A27. In most languages,
more than 50% of word meanings are affected by their form
A28. In most languages,
all but a very few word meanings are affected by their form
A29. In most languages,
all word meanings are affected by their form
A30. In a few languages,
very few word meanings are affected by their form
A31. In a few languages,
a considerable number of word meanings, but less than 50% are affected
by their form
A32. In a few languages,
more than 50% of word meanings are affected by their form
A33. In a few languages,
all but a very few word meanings are affected by their form
A34. In a few languages,
all word meanings are affected by their form
********
B. REASON FOR PHONOSEMANTIC EFFECTS
B1. Sound affects meaning
in onomatopoeic words, in words which refer to sounds themselves or which
refer to things which make sounds. The phonetics of these words resembles
the sound of the referent.
B2. Early languages
were more iconic. As language evolves, it becomes increasingly abstracted
from its form. Therefore those languages which have changed less over time
are more iconic.
B3. There is a natural
process in human psychology which conspires to associate with any form
a coherent meaning. Therefore there is a tendency (for example in a language
learner) to try to ascribe a single coherent meaning to a word and a morpheme
with the result that words and morphemes are said to have 'meanings'. This
process (I'll call it Semantic Association) also applies on the lower level
of the sub-morpheme (partial syllables -- to onsets and rhymes, say, as
described by e.g. Bolinger, Rhodes, Lawler, McCune).
B3.1 Submorphemes do
have a meaning
B3.2 Submorphemes can
have a meaning
B4. Semantic Association
applies also on the level as low as the phoneme.
B4.1 Phonemes do have
a meaning
B4.2 Phonemes can have
a meaning
B5. Semantic Association
applies as low as the phonetic feature (i.e. labials or stops have some
common element of meaning).
B5.1 Phonetic features
do have a meaning
B5.2 Phonetic feature
can have a meaning
B6. The level on which
Phonosemantic Association applies is language-dependent.
B7. The level on which
Phonosemantic Association applies is dependent on the word.
B8. Phonosemantic effects
are truly iconic. I am thinking now of something like what Plato describes
in the Cratylus, where things in the world to which words refer have an
'essence' and the sound meanings somehow synesthetically reflect that essence.
It need not be that this synesthetic association be 'right' or 'wrong'
like Plato thought. It can be like Nodier thought in his later years that
there's an interpretive element to this synesthetic correspondence... in
other words, different people or cultures and 'feel' this essence differently
and hence express it differently.
*******
C. GRAMMAR OF PHONOSEMANTICS
C1. Phonosemantics
is actually in the grammar (langue) or implicit in the meaning of the word
regardless of how it is used.
C2. Phonosemantics
is more prevalent in certain forms of speech (such as poetry) than in others.
C3. Both C1 and C2
hold.
C4. The extent to which
C1 and C2 hold is language-dependent.
C5. The extent to which
C1 and C2 hold is dependent on the word.
C6. The semantics of
a word is analyzable into discrete identifiable components, such as a denotative
or referential vs. a connotative -- some of these are arbirarily associated
with a phonetic/phonological form and some are not.
C7. The semantics of
a word cannot be cleanly enough analyzed into discrete components that
it makes sense to talk of some components being arbitrary and others not.
*********
D. NATURALISM AND CONVENTIONALISM
D1. There is some
correlation between the phonological form of words and their semantics,
but that correlation is 'conventional'. That is, Sapir, for example, believed
there to be a correlation between sound and meaning, but he believed that
that was only due to a tendency to give words with similar sounds similar
meanings. So if the basic word for 'house' in some language starts with
/h/, then other words for dwellings are likely to start with /h/ as well,
but whether or not 'house' starts with /h/ is arbitrary.
D2. The correlation
between the form of a word and its semantics is 'natural' or perhaps synesthetic.
So there is some aspect of the meaning of /m/ or /l/ which will be universal
(cross-linguistically).
D3. The 'natural'
vs. 'conventional' distinction is language-dependent. In some languages
phonosemantics is natural, in others conventional.
D4. The 'natural'
vs. 'conventional' distinction is dependent on the word. For some words
phonosemantics is natural, in others conventional.
D5. The correlation
between the form of a word and its semantics is partially 'natural' and
partially 'conventional'.
D5.1 This is true
of all words.
D5.2 This is true
of some words.
*********
E. FURTHER COMMENTS