Advertisement

Onomatopoeia, the Showing–Saying Continuum, and Perceptual Resemblance

  • Ryoko SasamotoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Sound book series (PASTS)

Abstract

Following on from the discussion in Chap.  2, this chapter presents an alternative account of onomatopoeia in the framework of relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Blackwell, 1986/1995). It will be argued that onomatopoeia is located on the continuum of showing and saying and involves communication via perceptual resemblance. This analysis, first developed in Sasamoto and Jackson (Lingua, 36–53, 2016), sees onomatopoeia as a communicative phenomenon, and it does not matter to the current study whether or not the link between sound and meaning is systematic or non-arbitrary. Onomatopoeia exploits the perceptual resemblance between its phonetic form and sensory experience. It provides both direct and indirect evidence for the first layer of information that the communicator intends to point out. The showing nature of onomatopoeia allows for the communication of nebulous, intangible impressions, which are extremely difficult to put into propositional terms. The use of onomatopoeia, this way, allows for the sharing of impressions.

Bibliography

  1. Blakemore, Diane. 2008. Apposition and Affective Communication. Language and Literature 17 (1): 37–57.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007085054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ———. 2011. On the Descriptive Ineffability of Expressive Meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (14): 3537–3550.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 2015. Slurs and Expletives: A Case against a General Account of Expressive Meaning. Language Sciences 52: 22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/12106/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Flyxe, Martin. 2002. Translation of Japanese Onomatopoeia Into Swedish (with Focus on Lexicalization). Africa & Asia 2: 54–73.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J., J. Fodor, and M. Garrett. 1975. The Psychological Unreality of Semantic Representations. Linguistic Enquiry 6: 515–531.Google Scholar
  7. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Oxford: Blackwell. http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/715.html.
  8. Grice, H. Paul. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66 (3): 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols, and John Ohala, eds. 1995. Sound Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511751806.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kadooka, Kenichi. 2005. On the Degree of Lexicalization in English Onomatopoeia from a Historical Perspective. The Ryukoku Journal of Humanities and Sciences 27 (1): 1–13.Google Scholar
  11. Kita, Sotaro. 1997. Two-Dimensional Semantic Analysis of Japanese Mimetics. Linguistics 35 (January): 379–416.  https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.2.379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Köhler, Wolfgang. 1929. Gestalt Psychology. New York: H. Liveright.Google Scholar
  13. Meinard, Maruszka Eve Marie. 2015. Distinguishing Onomatopoeias from Interjections. Journal of Pragmatics Complete 76: 150–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Noh, Eun-Ju. 2000. Metarepresentation: A Relevance-Theory Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ramachandran, Vilayanur, and Edward Hubbard. 2001. Synaesthesia—A Window into Perception, Thought and Language. Journal of Consciousness Studies 8 (12): 3–34.Google Scholar
  16. Sasamoto, Ryoko, and Rebecca Jackson. 2016. Onomatopoeia—Showing-Word or Saying-Word? Relevance Theory, Lexis, and the Communication of Impressions. Lingua 175: 36–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2002. Pragmatics, Modularity and Mind-Reading. Mind & Language 17 (1–2): 3–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2015. Beyond Speaker’s Meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15 (2): 117–149.Google Scholar
  20. Toratani, Kiyoko. 2005. A Cognitive Approach to Mimetic Aspect in Japanese. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31 (1): 335–346.  https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v31i1.856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2013. Fukushiteki Onomatope No Tokushusei—Tagisei/Jishosei Kara No Kosatsu. In Onomatope Kenkyu No Shatei: Chikazuku Oto to Imi, ed. Kazuko Shinohara and Ryoko Uno, 85–99. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.Google Scholar
  22. Trask, R. Larry. 1993. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London: Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/A-Dictionary-of-Grammatical-Terms-in-Linguistics-1st-Edition/Trask/p/book/9780415086288.
  23. Westport Now Media. 2014. Big Lionel Has Found A Home—WestportNow.Com—Westport, Connecticut. Westport Now, September 9. https://westportnow.com/index.php?/v2_5/comments/meet_lionel/.
  24. Wharton, Tim. 2003a. Interjections, Language, and the “Showing/Saying” Continuum. Pragmatics and Cognition 11 (1): 39–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ———. 2003b. Natural Pragmatics and Natural Codes. Mind & Language 18 (5): 447–477.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. The Semantics of Interjection. Journal of Pragmatics 18 (2–3): 159–192.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90050-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/meaning-and-relevance/500D9D857CB3274BD23AF6FB381133B7.
  29. Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton. 2006. Relevance and Prosody. Journal of Pragmatics, Special Issue: Prosody and Pragmatics 38 (10): 1559–1579.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.04.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SALISDublin City University SALISDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations