# Sounds and meaning/...



## ThomasK

This is a vast topic, I know, but I hope I am allowed to explore the topic here. My question is: we all know onomatopeia, but would you think there are other ways in which there is some *link between sounds and meaning in its broadest sense*? _(We have a word like 'klankwaarde' (sound value) in Dutch, though not solely referring to this...)_

I have a go at it: 
- *shot* (injection, shooting) is probably not considered an onomatopeia, but the sibilant /sh/, the open /a/ and the explosion in the /t/ remind me of the meaning - but of course: does that make sense ? 
- could it be that a lot of love words contain *m* (_amour_ in Fr., _minne_ in older Dutch), or* l* (_love_, _lief_ in Dutch, _Liebe_, ...), both liquidae ?
- */u/* in English is considered to have a negative 'sound value', in Dutch it is also considered 'dark' ('dof')... 

Would you think there are some universal associations? Any references or considerations are welcome. I know this is dangerous territory, but I do not mind being sent back to earth...;-)


----------



## pickarooney

I'm puzzled by the 'negative sound value' of /u/ in English. I've no idea what you mean by it.


----------



## ThomasK

Well, it is not something I invented. I simply read once that /u/ was avoided in (brand) names. Maybe it is not true, I am just checking.


----------



## SDLX Master

ThomasK said:


> Well, it is not something I invented. I simply read once that /u/ was avoided in (brand) names. Maybe it is not true, I am just checking.


 
If that's so, then people drive a "Hyndai" or a "Mitsbishi" to work after having a bowl of "Capt'n Crnch" for breakfast.


----------



## ThomasK

Well, maybe because there is a short and a *longer /u*/, long words and *one-syllable words*, and only the combination of *both* is the potentially negative. But no problem if I were mistaken. 

If you want another one: *'x'* is supposed to have a sophisticated ring. Lexus (short /u/, two syllables), Xerox, Fox,... ???

Just by the way: think of the Emily Dickinson poems, like _To make a prairie/ it takes a *clover* and one bee; /One *clover* and a bee, /And *reverie*. / The *reverie* alone will do./ If bees are few._ Could it be that 'airy' effect could not exist with all the /*i(e)/*'s ? I think a lot of people will agree that poetry exists to a large extent by the grace of sound (and 'sound values' ?).


----------



## Tagarela

Hi,

As for brands, I don't know in which extent it is important.
I was thinking about Google and Facebook, but before SDLX Master, I could not thought of  "real" companies names. Perhaps it is more a local feeling that people try to generalize. 

Thomask, but what it is your main point? That in the origin the sounds of words has to do with their meanings, or how the sounds subjectively changes our conception of some words? 

Good bye.:


----------



## ThomasK

Ohohoh, what a difficult question! I guess that I suppose ;-) that certain notions or concepts do not allow for certain letter/ sound combinations, and also that certain sounds evoke some vague notion. It seems plausible that plosives have a fairly agressive ring when put at the beginning of a word. 

I now think of *baby*. That seems like a counterexample to my theory: children and plosives might not belong together. Yet, the above mentioned examples seem to hold --- or at least to some extent. How about poetry for example, although that is a combination/ 'texture' of words ?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Well, with onomatopoeia, once you stop thinking about words that make sounds or even ones that have sounds close to their meaning, it becomes hard to make associations.

Steven Pinker actually has published some theories of this type, relating to your question Thomas (not sure if you've ever heard of him), he suggests that long words can be used for things that are big. Stacatto words can be used for things that are sharp / quick. The words we pronounce quite low (deep in the mouth / throat) for stuff that happened long-ago or far-away. Here he compares "this & that", "near & far", "here & there").

Then he conducted an experiment with 2 made-up words, he had a pointy cloud and a soft cloud and named one of them the _malooma_ and the other one the _takata_ (picture).
Nearly everyone said that the _takata_ was the pointy cloud (ragged edges) and the malooma was the soft cloud.

I had to go and check what else he mentioned, and there is another interesting example about Chinese where he points that there are two words *qīng* _(with a high tone)_ and *zhóng* _(with a low tone)_, one means "light" and the other means "heavy", well, it's obvious which one is which! (zhóng = heavy / qīng = light)

I remember a survey as well that listed common beginnings of words for specific connotations, for example words that have to do with the 'nose' often begin with *sn-; *like snout, snorkel, snoot, sneeze, sniffle, snivel, snore, snort, snuff, snarky, snob (looking down your nose at someone), snooty, snotty, snub.

There are other theories such as 'gl-' for emission of light (glare/glass/glaze/gleam/glimmer/glimpse/glin/glisten/glitter/glow)
and 'j-' for sudden motion (jab/jag/jagged/jam/jangle/jerk/jig/jiggle/jingle/jitter/jot/judder/juggle/jump) etc

So you might want to research his theories, I am quite sceptical about the association of sound and meaning though, I can't deny the above, or the fact I thought of_ takata_ and _malooma_ when I first saw those clouds, but give people time and too many counter-examples can be drawn to make me believe, however I haven't completely made up my mind. I think it's important to approach this with an open mind because otherwise personal hopes / expectations lead people to disregard results that they don't like and can lead to biased research.

But I thought you might find that interesting anyway.


----------



## ThomasK

Steven Pinker: yes, yes, borrowed some books from the library, but it seemed to me it would take too much time to work through them. 

But great information, thanks! The *qing/zhong* reminds me of bells in Dutch [they go *bim-bam* (big-small)], dogs [*waf-waf* for small ones, *woof-woof* for big ones]. 

But you're right: this is a spontaneous generalisation, that may be corroborated by some examples, but there seem to be exceptions at least. I try not to be biased though, and try to refrain from judgments. My 
feeling is that it is in some way relevant, but again, it is only a hunch: because *we pass on information in various ways, almost subliminally*. I tend to believe that sounds - just like word choice, metaphors, syntax - exert some hidden influence, though quite often hard to trace --- and that is what I am interested in. 

Just one more example: a quote containing a pun/ alliteration/ rhyme/..., might seem more 'true' than others. or at least they will be remembered more easily, and thus have a chance of getting accepted more easily.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> Just one more example: a quote containing a pun/ alliteration/ rhyme/..., might seem more 'true' than others. or at least they will be remembered more easily, and thus have a chance of getting accepted more easily.


 
Interesting point.
I'd be more tempted to say that it was the underlying message / personal interest that means it would be remembered. For example, about 2 weeks ago I was reading some passages from a book about the history of English and there was a little rhyme of a few lines, but it really stuck with me, I don't believe it was because of anything other than, I was really interested in its message and its relevance in the chapter of the book.

If you're interested, it relates to how English was changing so quickly and people wanted to make it stop the rapid developments and keep it 'fixed';

_But who can hope his lines should long,_
_Last, in a daily changing tongue?_
_While they are new, Envy prevails;_
_And as that dies, our language fails_

_Poets that Lasting Marble seek,_
_Must carve in Latin or in Greek;_
_We write in Sand..._

I think the rhyme made me remember it better, I wouldn't say it made it more true though, because lots of things deal with subjective opinion where right/wrong doesn't enter the spectrum, but yeah, you made an interesting point.


----------



## ThomasK

Ok, very interesting. We can agree that at least rhyme works 'mnemotechnically', but I think I did not 'postulate' that sound form was a sufficient condition for a quote to work. I mainly meant that some minor interest may be stimulated by an 'attractive'/ intriguing language form. 

But things are quite different to literature, I think, because form in my eyes is way more important than in prose. it might even be the starting point, whereas in prose contents is. 

let us however not forget our starting point, which I reformulated above, thanks to you: *can sound elicit some kind of meaning, or be it connotation, and thus exert (subliminal...) influence? *


----------



## Alxmrphi

> but I think I did not 'postulate' that sound form was a sufficient condition for a quote to work


 
I didn't imply you did?
I only responded to your comment about:


> Just one more example: a quote containing a pun/ alliteration/ rhyme/..., might seem more 'true' than others


 
I mentioned there was a rhyme which helped me remember it (like you mentioned) and I mentioned it wasn't this that constituted it to be more true (like your quote implied).

I didn't think I implied anything you did not say (I think a misunderstanding).
On the reformulated point; I'm more inclined to believe it's the semantic meaning in mentalese, represented by the sound(s) of the word that excert any subliminal influence.
Though actually, re-thinking that point. I think tempo / volume add a lot, saying something quick and loud to excert an influence that is like panicking, compared to a relaxing feeling of someone reading soft poetry, I don't think it's in the relationship of the spoken word to the meaning.

Have I misunderstood your point (I think I might have?) - if so, can you correct me.


----------



## ThomasK

You know, don't worry: I am still developing my question itself, while trying to deal with (interesting) comments. I quite agree for sure that non-verbal aspects (tempo, volume, but also facial expression, maybe even the way of dressing, etc.) has a strong influence. But let's try to go into the sound links - if any. 

I do not know mentalese, am just beginning to study some Finnish, but no doubt, semantic meanings play a very important role, which to seems self-evident, but that is due to the fact that I only had a quick look at the LOT theory. My point however is that whereas mental concepts do play a very important role in communication, we underestimate the effect of phonetic, syntactical, lexical choices, maybe even on them... Pinker might perhaps be able to illustrate that the choice of sounds affects the mental image. Perhaps. 

I still wonder about the rhyme effect. I remember a singer who once said that rhymes always 'ring true' (it was in Dutch; hope that is ok in English). 

_(But now I need to  crawl in, kip down, hit the hay, hit the sack, if synonym.com is correct or... 'go bedwards' ? But thanks for the interesting exchange and the reference)_


----------



## Alxmrphi

ThomasK said:


> _(But now I need to crawl in, kip down, hit the hay, hit the sack, if synonym.com is correct or... 'go bedwards' ? But thanks for the interesting exchange and the reference)_


 
I'll see if I can find any related info and if so, either PM or message here as I would like to see what evidence there is out there about this topic, but refinement of the question =


----------



## ThomasK

_(Good Lord, synonym.com is not very good then. But I had invented the last one myself, while trying to be funny...)_


----------



## effeundici

Perhaps I'm too simplistic but I believe that there are some words which are indubitably strictly connected to the sound they are composed of.

Think of *mum/mamma/mutter/mother/ma (*_chinese_*)/mère*

It obviously comes from the first sound all newborns utter : _m-m-m-m-m-m_


----------



## ThomasK

We could open up a separate chapter on baby language, but that has little or nothing to do with meaning, I am afraid, but with the baby's ability to pronounce sounds: a/i are the easiest, plosives (p/t/k) and,  I believe, some liquidae (m). But so I do not think there is any (even vaguely) semantic link. _If there is, please substantiate that claim - and you would be confirming my (...) hypothesis... _


----------



## danielfranco

(Just a musing, mind… No factual value, at all.)

Imagine the first hominid that conciously decided to utter a noise as the label for a thing. She and her kind have been making vocalisations for the last few thousand years, but they were all motivated by emotional outbursts. But one day she has what she believes is a stroke of genius and utters "*crghpht*", while pointing at a particularly sharp rock that she wants to use to smash open a gourd. And then she goes around her pack, trying to convince everyone to use the same noise ("crghpht") to refer to the rock.

So the rest of her cohorts decide she is being too weird and use the pointy flint to knock her over the head with it and make her shut up already.

So then, the next day, another more cunning hominid points to a fluffy bunny and gurgles "*mmpfboooooie*," which is immediately accepted by everyone. Ever since then, we make the same noise when we see fluffy soft cuddly things.

What I'm trying to say is that I believe both the sound representation of the actual object and an arbitrary decision to make a random noise make up all the sounds and meanings in languages. It's been such a long time since the appearance of the first languages (heck, it's been forever since Babel, no?) that it is probably true that sound and meaning are linked in many different ways that are not apparent or discernible. Is all.

The End.
D


----------



## ThomasK

I do not doubt in principle the average arbitrarity of the connection sound/ meaning or concept, but I would just like to explore whether some links could not be too 'nice' to be a coincidence. We might end up with some kind of onomatopeia, but in the broader sense. If some Steven Pinker comes up with that kind of ideas, there is reason to wonder whether it does not somehow (but how ?) make sense. But true enough, it is hard to corroborate the claim, and it might not be universal.

Interesting addition: a Finnish friend wrote to me about their very own words for Latin words. He explains first that there have been many occasions in the history of Finnish where neologisms have been looked for to replace foreign loans (eg. _reklaami, biblioteekki_...), even in the form of contests. But then he adds: "Elias Lönnrot, the collector of Kalevala, proposed the word "*lieke*" for _electricity_. However, I believe Roos's suggestion *sähko* [which got accepted] sounds more "electrical" while Lönnrot's word has a warm and friendly tone (this may be just a native illusion, since liekki = flame ;-))."

So there is this tendency, I guess, of spontaneous associating sound with meaning, though strictly unfounded. And it seems that the best conclusion will be that it seems hard to substantiate the claim that sounds are sometimes linked with meaning, which does not exclude the possibility, as is suggested by a linguist like Steven Pinker. (it might come close to onomatopeias though)


----------



## ThomasK

In the meantime I happened to come across a lot of considerations in David Crystal's _Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (1987)._ entitled _*Sound Symbolism*._ I cannot mention a lot, but he does refer to for example the endings of verbs (_slap_ does not end in a plosive by coincidence), or to /sl/ words in English (which often have a negative meaning), but he says English does not offer that many example. Korean, however,  has over a thousand sound-symbolic words, Japanese has a large onomatopoeic vocabulary. 

Most interesting to me: he points out the remarkable association of front vowels with nearness, rear vowels with distance (_this_ vs. _that_), in a lot of language, and for example the link between smallness and close vowels, largeness and open vowels. However - and that is the key issue of course - he point that in _big_ and _small_ in English, you have just the opposite. Same problem with _mama/ papa_ or _baba_ (expressing mother with a nasal, father with an oral front consonant): *there is a remarkable parallel in lots of languages all over the world, but... there are exceptions* (Georgian, South Asian languages). So that might be the conclusion. But should anyone find references to more recent research in that field, I'd be interested.


----------



## Sepia

ThomasK said:


> Well, it is not something I invented. I simply read once that /u/ was avoided in (brand) names. Maybe it is not true, I am just checking.



As a general assumption, applicable on all cultures, it simply makes no sense at all as the letter "u" has totally different pronounciations in different languages.


----------



## ThomasK

I must say I agree, and realized that later on indeed, but I was rendering an American viewpoint. And even then: _Google_ seemed like a counterexample, but I think in the end one will have to say - as I pointed, I believe - that some rules seem to hold, but with exceptions (and I do not know whether one can still call that a true rule in scientific contexts...).


----------

