Cover not available
Part of
Dimensions of Iconicity
Edited by Angelika Zirker, Matthias Bauer, Olga Fischer and Christina Ljungberg
[Iconicity in Language and Literature 15] 2017
► pp. 39–62

Tracking linguistic primitives

The phonosemantic realization of fundamental oppositional pairs

| Lund University

This paper investigates how cross-linguistic phoneme distributions of 56 fundamental oppositional concepts can reveal semantic relationships by looking into the linguistic forms of 75 genetically and areally distributed languages. Based on proposals of semantic primes (Goddard & Wierzbicka 2002), reduced Swadesh lists (Holman et al. 2008), presumed ultraconservative words (Pagel et al. 2013), attested basic antonyms (Paradis, Willners & Jones 2009) and sense perception words, semantic oppositional pairs were selected. Phonemes were divided according to: the frequency of vowels’ second formant and consonants’ energy accumulation, sonority, a combination of the aforementioned two, and general phonetic traits, e.g. voicing. Using a biplot, the phonological relatedness between the investigated concepts was illustrated graphically, and the phoneme distributions’ over- and underrepresentation from the average was calculated for each concept. Salient semantic groupings and relations based solely on phonological contrasts were found for most investigated concepts, including the semantic domains: Small, Intense Vision-Touch, Large, Organic, Horizontal-Vertical Distance, Deictic, Containment, Gender, Parent and Diurnal, and the sole concept old. The most notable relations found were: mother/i vs. father, a three-way deictic distinction and a dimensional tripartite oppositional relationship. Embodiment, oppositional thinking and evidence for more general concepts to precede complex concepts were proposed as explanations for the results.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Lexical universals
    • 1.2The oppositional relation
    • 1.3Phonosemantics
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Language sampling
    • 2.2Concept sampling
    • 2.3Sound classification and quantification
    • 2.4Analyses
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Related phoneme distribution
    • 3.2Deviation from average
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Embodiment and phonosemantics
    • 4.2The oppositional relationship
    • 4.3Semantic origins
    • 4.4Explanatory suggestions for the semantic relations
      • 4.4.1Parent and deictic
      • 4.4.2Small-intense vision-touch, and large-organic and horizontal-vertical distance
      • 4.4.3Conjoined components
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 8 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.15.03joh
References
Abelin, Å
1999 Studies in Sound Symbolism. PhD dissertation, Gothenburg University.
Barlett, E. J
1976 Sizing things up: The acquisition of the meaning of dimensional adjectives. Journal of Child Language 3: 205–219.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. & Kay, P
1969 Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M
1996 The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: Cognitive vs. linguistic determinants. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds), 145–176. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Brown, C. H., Holman, E. W., Wichmann, S. & Velupillai, V
2008 Automated classification of the world’s languages: A description of the method and preliminary results. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 61(4): 285–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagiuca, W
1994 The Evolution of Grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carling, G. & Johansson, N
2015 Motivated language change: Processes involved in the growth and conventionalization of onomatopoeia and sound symbolism. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 46(2): 199–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G
2013 Cognition, typological generalizations, and universal grammar. Lingua 130: 50–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V
1973 What’s in a word? On the child’s acquisition of semantics in his first language. In Cognitive Development and Acquisition of Language, T. E. Moore (ed.), 65–110. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cytowic, R
1989 Synaesthesia: A Union of the Senses. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deese, J
1965 The Structure of Associasions in Language and Thought. Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H
2014 Demonstratives, frames of reference, and semantic universals of space. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(3): 116–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M
2012 Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10): 654–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W
1982 Where have all the adjectives gone? In Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? and Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax, Robert M. W. Dixon (ed.), 1–62. Amsterdam: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. V
2010 Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 1: Methodology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J
1977 The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing, R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (eds), 67–82. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A
(eds) 2002 Meaning and Universal Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings [Studies in Language Companion Series 60–61]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hogg, R. M. & McCully, C. B
1987 Metrical Phonology: A Course Book. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Holman, E., Wichmann, S., Brown, C. H., Velupillai, H., Müller, A. & Bakker, D
2008 Explorations in automated language classification. Folia Linguistica 42(2): 331–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O
1922 Language – Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Johansson, N. & Zlatev, J
2013 Motivations for sound symbolism in spatial deixis: A typological study of 101 languages. The Public Journal of Semiotics 5(1): 3–20. 〈[URL]〉 (16 September 2016)Google Scholar
Johansson, N., and Carling, G
2015 The de-iconization and rebuilding of iconicity in spatial deixis: An Indo-European case study. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics, 47(1): 4–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K
2008 Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Justeson, J. & Katz, S
1991 Co-occurrence of antonymous adjectives and their contexts. Computational Linguistics 17(1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Kemmerer, D
1999 “Near” and “far” in language and perception. Cognition 73: 65–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kita, S., Kantartzis, K. & Imai, M
2010 Children learn sound symbolic words better: Evolutionary vestige of sound symbolic protolanguage. In The Evolution of Language – Proceedings of the 8th International Conference (Evolang8), A. D. M. Smith, B. de Boer & M. Schouwstra (eds), 206–213. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Köhler, W
1929 Gestalt Psychology. New York NY: Liveright.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P
2001 Vowels and Consonants: An Introduction to the Sounds of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P
1982 Speech errors and grammatical planning of utterances: Evidence from Swedish. In Textstrategier i tal och skrift, W. Koch, C. Platzack & G. Tottie (eds). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Malle, B. F
2002 The relation between language and theory of mind in development and evolution. In The Evolution of Language out of Pre-Language [Typological Studies in Language 53], T. Givon & B. F. Malle (eds), 265–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P
2009 Functional categories: An evolutionary perspective. In Language Evolution: The View From Restricted Linguistic Systems, R. Botha & H. de Swart (eds), 179–202. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Needham, A. & Baillargeon, R
1993 Intuitions about support in 4.5-month-old infants. Cognition 47: 121–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J
1992 Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J
1994 The frequency code underlies the sound-symbolic use of voice pitch. In Sound Symbolism, L. Hinton, J. Nichols & J. J. Ohala (eds), 325–347. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Pagel, M., Atkinson, Q. D., Calude, A. S. & Meade, A
2013 Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across Eurasia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(21): 8471–8476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C., Willners, C. & Jones, S
2009 Good and bad opposites: Using textual and experimental techniques to measure antonym canonicity. The Mental Lexicon 4(3): 380–429. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Premack, A. & Premack, D
1983 The Mind of an Ape. New York NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F
1999 Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(2): 253–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S. & Hubbard, E. M
2001 Synaesthesia: A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8: 3–34.Google Scholar
Sapir, E
1929 A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology 12(3): 225–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, F
1916 Course in General Linguistics. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
SIL International
(2012) Ethnologue Online. 〈[URL]〉 (16 September 2016).
Söderpalm, E
1979 Speech errors in normal and pathological speech. Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 14. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Swadesh, M
1971 The Origin and Diversification of Language, J. F. Sherzer (ed.). London: Transaction.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, H
1994 Sound symbolism in deictic words. In Tongues and Texts Unlimited. Studies in Honour of Tore Jansson on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Anniversary, H. Auli & P. af Trampe (eds), 213–234. Department of Classical Languages, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Viberg, Å
2001 Verbs of perception. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, H. Martin, E. König, W. Oesterreicher & W. Raible (eds), 1294–1309. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G. & de Villiers, P. A
1978 Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L.
1956 Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, J. B. Carroll (ed.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wichmann, S., Holman, E. W. & Brown, C. H
2010 Sound symbolism in basic vocabulary. Entropy 12(4): 844–858. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wienold, G. & Rohmer, U
1997 On implications in lexicalizations for dimnesional expressions. In The Locus of Meaning. Papers in Honor of Yoshihiko Ikegami, K. Yamanaka & T. Ohori (eds), 143–185. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Willners, C
2001 Antonyms in Context: A Corpus-based Semantic Analysis of Swedish Descriptive Adjectives. Lund University.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J
2005 What’s in a schema? Bodily mimesis and the grounding of language. In From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemasin Cognitive Linguistics, B. Hampe (ed.), 323–342. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Carling, Gerd, Chundra Cathcart & Erich Round
2022. Reconstructing the Origins of Language Families and Variation. In Oxford Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution, ► pp. 811 ff. DOI logo
Erben Johansson, Niklas, Andrey Anikin, Gerd Carling & Arthur Holmer
2020. The typology of sound symbolism: Defining macro-concepts via their semantic and phonetic features. Linguistic Typology 24:2 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Gil, David
2023. The grammaticalization and dissolution of High Extended Intonation: an inalienable possession paradigm in Roon. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 76:3 ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Nyst, Victoria, Marta Morgado, Timothy Mac Hadjah, Marco Nyarko, Mariana Martins, Lisa van der Mark, Evans Burichani, Tano Angoua, Moustapha Magassouba, Dieydi Sylla, Kidane Admasu & Anique Schüller
2022. Object and handling handshapes in 11 sign languages: towards a typology of the iconic use of the hands. Linguistic Typology 26:3 ► pp. 573 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 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.