تصویرگونگی آوایی بررسی رابطۀ میان آوا و معنا

نوع مقاله : علمی-مروری

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری گروه زبان شناسی، دانشکدۀ علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران

2 دانشیار زبان‏شناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

10.30465/ls.2021.6694

چکیده

نگرۀ سوسور دربارۀ رابطۀ قراردادی (یا به تعابیر دیگر، وضعی، اعتباری، یا دل‏بخواه) میان واژه‏ها و مدلول‏‏های‏شان بر جریان غالب زبان‏شناسی نوین سایه افکنده و چون قاعده‏ای بنیادین در زبان‏شناسی نمایانده شده است. اما مطالعات پرشماری از اواخر دهۀ دوم سدۀ بیستم تا به امروز این نگرۀ سوسوری را با استناد مثال‏های نقض گوناگونی از زبان‏های مختلف جهان به پرسش گرفته و رابطۀ میان آوا و معنا را در این مثال‏ها نه پیوندی دل‏بخواه یا مبتنی بر قرارداد محض، بلکه رابطه‏ای «تصویرگونه» برشمرده است. نوشتار حاضر، پس از مرور مطالعات عمده‏ای که در این زمینه صورت گرفته‏اند، رأی سوسور را دربارۀ رابطۀ قراردادی میان واژه‏ها و مدلول‏های‏شان به معیار نقد می‏سنجد و، در پایان، به چشم‏انداز تازه‏ای که ممکن است از رهگذر نقد دیدگاه سوسور و به واسطۀ مفهوم «تصویر‏گونگی آوایی» به سوی واج‏شناسی شناختی گشوده شود اشارۀ گذرایی می‏کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

phonetic Iconicity: Relationship between Sound Patterns and Meaning

نویسندگان [English]

  • saleh tabatabi 1
  • hayat ameri 2
  • Sahar Bahrami-Khorshid 2
1 Linguistics Department, Humanities Faculty, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran
2 Linguistics Department, Humanities Faculty, Tarbiat Modares University
چکیده [English]

Saussure’s view of conventional/arbitrary relationship between the signifier (sound patterns/words) and the signified (meanings) has governed the mainstream of modern linguistics and been represented as a linguistic premise. However, by giving counterexamples from a large variety of world languages, numerous studies have questioned the Saussurean view since the late 1920s. The studies have demonstrated that the relationships between the sound patterns and the meanings in these counterexamples are “iconic” rather than conventional/arbitrary. By reviewing a number of the major studies, the present paper aims to evaluate the Saussurean view and, finally, to note in passing a very likely new approach to cognitive phonology in terms of the concept of “phonetic iconicity

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • phonetic iconicity
  • onomatopoeia
  • ideophones
  • phonesthemes
  • reference
Berko Gleason, J., and Bernstein Ratner, N. (2017). The development of language. 9th edition. Boston: Pearson.
Cabrera, J. C. M. (2020). Iconicity in language: An encyclopaedic dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Chen, Y. C., Huang, P. C., Woods, A. et al. (2019). “I know that ‘Kiki’ is angular: The metacognition underlying sound–shape correspondences.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26, 261–268.
Childs, G. T. (1994). “African ideophones.” In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, and J. J. Ohala (Eds.). Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 178–206.
Crystal, D. (2007). Words, words, words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dingemanse, M. (2011). “The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu.” PhD Thesis, Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.
Dingemanse, M. (2012). “Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones.” Language and Linguistics Compass 6, 10, 654–672.
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015). “Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 603–615.
D’Onofrio, A. (2014). “Phonetic detail and dimensionality in sound-shape correspondences: Refining the bouba-kiki paradigm.” Language and Speech, 57, 3, 367-393.
Firth, J. R. (1930). Speech. London: Benn’s Sixpenny Library. Reprinted in Strevens, P. (ed.). (1964). The tongues of men and speech. London: Oxford University Press.
Fort, M., Martin, A. and Peperkamp, Sh. (2015). “Consonants are more important than vowels in the bouba-kiki effect.” Language and Speech, 58, 2, 247-266.
Hashimoto, T., Usui, N., Taira, M., Nose, I., Haji, H., and Shozo, K. (2006). “The neural mechanism associated with the processing of onomatopoeic sound.” Neuroimage 31, 1762–1770.
Hinton, L., Nichols, J., and Ohala, J. J. (1994). Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Imai M., Kita S., Nagumo M., Okada H. (2008). “Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning.” Cognition, 109, 54–65.
Jakobson, R. (1978). Six lectures on sound and meaning. Translated by John Mepham. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jakobson, R., and Waugh, L. R. (1979). The sound shape of language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Joseph, J. E. (2000). Limiting the arbitrary: Linguistic naturalism and its opposites in Plato’s Cratylus and modern theories of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company. 
Körtvélyessy, L. (2011). “A cross-linguistic research into phonetic iconicity.” Lexis 6, 27-39.
Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). “The shape of boubas: Soundshape correspondences in toddlers and adults.” Developmental Science, 9, 316–322.
McGregor, W. (2001). “Ideophones as the source of verb in Northern Australian languages.” In F. K. E. Voeltz and C. Kilian-Hatz (Eds.). Ideophones (pp. 205-211). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mikone, E. (2001). “Ideophones in the Balto-Finnic languages.” In F. K. E. Voeltz and C. Kilian-Hatz (Eds.).  Ideophones, (pp. 223-233). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Peirce, C. S. (1931). “Principles of philosophy.” In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A. Burks (Eds.) The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Plato (1998). Cratylus. C. D. C. Reeve (Tr.). Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company
Sapir, E. (1929). “A study in phonetic symbolism.” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 225-239.
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye avec la collaboration d’Albert Riedlinger. Paris & Lausanne: Payot.
Sauter, D. A., Eisner, F., Ekman, P., & Scott, S. K. (2010). “Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations.” Proceedings of  Natural Academy of Science U.S.A. 107(6), 2408–2412.
Schmidtke, D. S., Conrad, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2014). “Phonological iconicity.” Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 80. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00080.
Shinohara, K., and Kawahara, Sh. (2016). “A cross-linguistic study of sound symbolism: The images of size.” In N. Rolle, J. Steffman, & J. Sylak-Glassman (Eds.) Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 6-7, 2010, (pp. 396-410 ). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
 Tanz, C. (1971). “Sound symbolism in words relating to proximity and distance.” Language and Speech. 14 (3), 266-276.
Taylor, J.  R. (Ed.) (2015). The Oxford handbook of the word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsur, R., and Gafni, Ch. (2019). “Methodological issues in the study of phonetic symbolism.” Scientific Study of Literature 9(2), 195-229
Watson, R. L. (2001). “A comparison of some Southeast Asian ideophones with some African ideophones.” In F. K. E. Voeltz and Ch. Kilian-Hatz (Eds.). Ideophones (pp. 385-406). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.