Document Type : Research

Authors

1 PhD in Linguistics, Allameh Tabataba'I University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor in Linguistics at Allameh Tabataba'I University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The study, identification, and explanation of the relationship between linguistic signs and their referents have been topics explored by thinkers in various fields, from philosophy to linguistics. Plato's Cratylus, for instance, delves into the connection between words and their meanings, discussing whether words have intrinsic and real meanings or if the relationship between linguistic signs is conventional. Naturalists also viewed language as a representation of the inherent truth of the universe, believing that each linguistic sign genuinely represents what it refers to.
In Greek philosophy, conventionalists divided the linguistic sign into two parts: the mental structure and the phonetic structure. They argued that while the mental structure related to a concept is the same for all individuals and languages, the differences between speakers of different languages lie in the choice of a phonetic structure for a specific concept, leading to variations in words and the formation of different languages. Later semiotic theories, like Saussure's, introduced the conventional nature of the phonetic structure. In contrast to his philosophical predecessors, Saussure introduced the signified, or mental structure, which Aristotle and his followers considered a fixed and common denominator—an agreed-upon concept.
Later semiotic theories, like Saussure's, introduced the conventional nature of the phonetic structure. In contrast to his philosophical predecessors, Saussure introduced the signified, or mental structure, which Aristotle and his followers considered a fixed and common denominator—an agreed-upon concept.
Throughout history, philosophers and linguists have approached these enduring problems from various perspectives. Onomatopoeia, a small group of words that represent a vocal imitation of sounds associated with them in nature, has been presented as evidence supporting the theory of a natural connection between linguistic form and meaning. Onomatopoeia enhances iconicity, which refers to the relationship of resemblance or similarity between the form and meaning of a sign.
From an iconicity perspective, onomatopoeias are "a group of new or conventional words based on the perception of similarity between a part of their phonetic form and the reference or an independent phoneme related to the source of the phoneme" (Benczes, 2019). The formation of onomatopoeia does not necessarily rely on an objective similarity between the word and its reference; the mental perception of such similarity is sufficient.
However, many onomatopoeias exhibit a direct or indirect iconic connection to their source. Thus, within the realm of iconicity, phonetic representation takes two main forms. The first form, known as "direct iconicity," involves a word that directly imitates the intended sound in such a way that hearing it evokes the natural sound in the listener's mind (Masuda, 2002). For example, the word "cuckoo" sounds similar to the sound made by a specific bird, creating a recognizable association for speakers of the language.
Van Humboldt (Mueller-Vollmer & Messling, 2017) distinguished between indirect iconicity and its direct counterpart. He referred to a set of words that, instead of directly mimicking the sound heard in nature, reconstruct the auditory effect of that sound on the listener's perception. In this case, rather than replicating the sound itself, the word captures the effect or impression of the sound. For instance, the feeling of pain, movement, happiness, or characteristics like color, sex, tenderness, roughness, softness, distance, or closeness are represented through the letter "Ava," forming what is known as an "ideophone."

Keywords

  1. Attridge, D. (1988). Peculiar Language: Literature as Difference from the Renaissance. London: Routledge.
  2.  Benczes, R. (2019). Rhyme over reason: Phonological motivation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Biabani, A., Talebian, Y., Mohammadi Kordiani, M. (2016). Examination of Onomatopoeia in Sohrab Sepehri’s “Hasht Ketab”. Journal of Prose Studies in Persian Literature, 19(40), 25-48. doi: 10.22103/jll.2016.1573 [In Persian].
  4. Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2016). Sound- meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(39), 10818– 10823.
  5. Bredin, H. (1996). "Onomatopoeia as a Figure and a Linguistic Principle". New Literary History, 27(3), 555-569. Retrieved from <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057371>.
  6. Davari Ardakani, N., Moghani, H. (2015). An Analysis of Onomatopoeic Words in Dashtestani dialect: Structural and Semantic Approaches/ Negar Davari Ardakani Hossein Moghani. Zabanpazhuhi, 7(15), 83-106 [In Persian].
  7. Etebari, Z. (2018). Structural and Semantic Analyses of Onomatopoeic words in Gilaki in Comparison with Persian language. Journal of Iranian Regional Languages and Literature, 8(2), 1-24 [In Persian].
  8. Fort, M., Martin, A., & Peperkamp, S. (2014). Consonants are more important than vowels in the bouba-kiki effect. Language and Speech, 58, 247–266.
  9. Hamano, Shoko. (1994). Palatalization in Japanese sound symbolism. Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols, and John J. Ohala, eds. Sound symbolism.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 148–57.
  10. Itagaki, S. (2019). A Study on Sound Symbolism: The Cognitive and Neural Mechanism Underlying the Sound-meaning Correspondence in Language. Doshisha University Graduate School of Life and Medical Sciences. Kyoto City, Japan.
  11. Jakobson, R. (1971 [1965]). Quest for the essence of language. In R. Jakobson (ed.), Selected Writing II Word and Language (pp. 345-359). The Hague: Mouton.
  12. Kawahara, S., Kasuko, S., & Grady, J. (2015). Iconic inferences about personality from sounds and shapes. In M. K. Hiraga, W. J. Herlofsky, K. Shinohara, & K. Akita (Eds.), Iconicity: East meets west (pp. 57– 69). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  13. Köhler, W. (1930). Gestalt Psychology. London: G. Bell and Sons.
  14. Laing, C. (2019). A role for onomatopoeia in early language: evidence from phonological development. Language and Cognition. 11(2). 173-187
  15. Masuda, K. (2002). A Phonetic Study of Sound Symbolism. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge,. United Kingdom, Cambridge.
  16. Maurer, Daphne, Thanujeni Pathman, and Catherine J. Mondloch. (2006). The Shape of Boubas: Sound–Shape Correspondences in Toddlers and Adults. Developmental Science 9(3): 316–322.
  17. Moazzeni, A., Ansari, H. (2017). The Music of Sounds in Mowlavi's Masnavi and Sonnets. Persian Literature, 7(1), 1-18 [In Persian].
  18.  Mohammadi, A., Naghshbandi, A. (2015). Analysis and Examination of Onomatopoeia as Well as an Investigation into Its Kurdish Instances. Comparative linguistic research , 5(9), 245-260 [In Persian].
  19. Mohyaldin Qomshei, Q. (2010). Iconicity of phonological, Morphological and syntactic Structures in Persian. Ph.D Dissertation,  Allameh Tabataba'i University. Tehran. Iran [In Persian].
  20. Mueller-Vollmer, Kurt and Markus Messling. (2017) Wilhelm von Humboldt. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.) , Retrieved from <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/wilhelm-humboldt/>.
  21. Nielsen, A. K. S., & Rendall, D. (2011). The sound of round: Evaluating the sound-symbolic role of consonants in the classic Takete-Maluma phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65,115–124.
  22. Nikoubakht, N. (2004). Onomatopoeia and the theory of the origin of language. LIRE.1 (3):115-132 [In Persian]
  23. Peirce, C.S. (1931). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vol I: Principles of Philosophy. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
  24. Rasekh-Mahand, M. (2001).  Ferdinand de Saussure.  The Book of Month in Literature. 7(55). 82-83 [In Persian].
  25. Safavi, k. (1988). A short history of Persian language. Tehran: Markaz [In Persian].
  26. Samareh, y. (2014). The phonology of persian language (sounds and phonetactics). 2nd ed. iup. Tehran [In Persian].
  27. Sapir, E. (1929). A Study in Phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology 12, 225-239.
  28. Sasli, A. (2010). Comparative study of Onomatopoeia in the Persian language and Sorani Dialect of Kurdish language. Master’s thesis,  Payame Noor University.Tehran. Iran [In Persian].
  29. Sidhu, D.M., Pexman, P.M. (2018). Five mechanisms of sound symbolic association. Psychon Bull Rev 25, 1619–1643. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1361-1
  30. Vahidiyan Kamyar, T. (1996). The Dictionary of onomatopoeias in persian.  Mashhad: Fredowsi Univesity of Mashhad Press [In Persian].