Glottometrics 31 2015 - RAM-Verlag ... Wandruzhka (1952), Kronasser (1952), Ullmann (1964). The study

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Glottometrics 31 2015 - RAM-Verlag ... Wandruzhka (1952), Kronasser (1952), Ullmann (1964). The...

  • Glottometrics 31



    ISSN 2625-8226

  • Glottometrics

    Glottometrics ist eine unregelmäßig er-

    scheinende Zeitdchrift (2-3 Ausgaben pro

    Jahr) für die quantitative Erforschung von

    Sprache und Text.

    Beiträge in Deutsch oder Englisch sollten

    an einen der Herausgeber in einem gängi-

    gen Textverarbeitungssystem (vorrangig

    WORD) geschickt werden.

    Glottometrics kann aus dem Internet her-

    untergeladen werden (Open Access), auf

    CD-ROM (PDF-Format) oder als Druck-

    version bestellt werden.

    Glottometrics is a scientific journal for the

    quantitative research on language and text

    published at irregular intervals (2-3 times a


    Contributions in English or German writ-

    ten with a common text processing system

    (preferably WORD) should be sent to one

    of the editors.

    Glottometrics can be downloaded from the

    Internet (Open Access), obtained on CD-

    ROM (as PDF-file) or in form of printed


    Herausgeber – Editors

    G. Altmann Univ. Bochum (Germany)

    K.-H. Best Univ. Göttingen (Germany)

    G. Djuraš Joanneum (Austria)

    F. Fan Univ. Dalian (China)

    P. Grzybek Univ. Graz (Austria)

    L. Hřebíček Akad .d. W. Prag (Czech Republik)

    R. Köhler Univ. Trier (Germany)

    H. Liu Univ. Zhejiang (China)

    J. Mačutek Univ. Bratislava (Slovakia)

    G. Wimmer Univ. Bratislava (Slovakia)

    Bestellungen der CD-ROM oder der gedruckten Form sind zu richten an

    Orders for CD-ROM or printed copies to RAM-Verlag

    Herunterladen/ Downloading:

    Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

    Glottometrics. 31 (2015), Lüdenscheid: RAM-Verlag, 2015. Erscheint unregelmäßig.

    Diese elektronische Ressource ist im Internet (Open Access) unter der Adresse verfügbar.

    Bibliographische Deskription nach 31 (2015) ISSN 2625-8226

  • Contents Glottometrics 31 Hanna Gnatchuk Sound symbolism: Myths and reality 1 - 30 Emmerich Kelih, Gabriel Altmann A continuous model for polysemy 31 - 37 Hanna Gnatchuk Anglicisms in the Austrian Newspaper KLEINE ZEITUNG 38 - 49 Best, Karl-Heinz Malay borrowings in English 50 – 53 Yu Fang, Haitao Liu Comparison of vocabulary richness in two translated Hongloumeng 54 - 75 Wei Huang Quantitative studies in Chinese language 76 – 84 Ruina Chen Bibliography of quantitative linguistics of Chinese Researchers in International Academic Journals 85 - 88 Bibliography Peter Grzybek, Emmerich Kelih Glottometrics 1-30: Bibliography 89 - 102

  • 1

    Glottometruícs 31, 2015, 1-30

    Sound symbolism: Myths and reality

    Hanna Gnatchuk

    Abstract. The given article is devoted to V.V. Levitskij’s book “Sound symbolism: myths and reality” (2009). In this book the linguist 1) distinguishes the most topical problems in this area which require further investigations; 2) he gives a thorough look at the theoretical studies of sound symbolism in the USA, Canada, Europe and the countries of the previous Soviet Union; 3) he represents the results of the experiments conducted at Chernivtsi National Juri Fedjkovich university and compares them with the outcomes by the other researchers; 4) he pays a careful attention to the methodological demands in his experiments. The researcher takes the view that the authentic and objective results can only be obtained when one follows correct methodological principles. This survey is a kind of homage to our teacher.

    Keywords: sound (phonetic) symbolism, iconicity, phonosemantics, subjective and objective sound symbolism, motivation.

    1. What is symbol? Sign and its types Before studying such a linguistic phenomenon as sound symbolism, V. Levitskij gives some information about signs. Sign is regarded in semiotics as a material object which points to the subject of the outer reality. On the whole, the sign has two features: a) it is material; b) it points to something. By way of illustration, the author gives the example of “smoke”. On the one hand, “smoke” may be a sign of wood fire; on the other hand, it may signal that enemies are coming. In such a way, these features are both perceived by people and point to the subject of outer reality (regardless themselves). Nevertheless, they are connected with the reality in a different way:

    1. The connection that has cause-effect character (“smoke” is a result of wood fire); 2. The connection that has conventional character.

    The signs of the first type are called “natural” (Schaff, 1963:183), the others – artificial. Levitskij states that the character (the connection of sign with the outer reality) plays more significant role than the features (“natural” feature – created by nature; “artificial” – created by people). Here the researcher gives the following example: if it is sunny in the morning, then the participants of the excursion may decide to gather at the bus-station at that time. Under the other conditions, the excursion will not take place. In this case, “sunny or cloudy” morning will take no part in the human mind. It will be a conventional signal, not a symptom (as a smoke of fire, cough when one is cold). Therefore, Levitskij considers that it will be more correct to make the first division of signs according to “symptom-nonsymptom” (by analogy with Schaff), The researcher declares that signs-symptoms are connected with our environment by cause-effect relations.

    The other signs are divided by him into three basic groups: indexes, icons and symbols. Indexes are connected with the environment by conventional relations (all linguistic signs are indexes); icons (photos, pictures, sculpture, etc) are copies or reflections of the

  • Hanna Gnatchuk ________________________________________________________________


    reality. Special attention should be paid here to the emblems or the color of flags. In this case, the author believes that symbol takes an intermediate place between indexes and icons. Levitskij draws a parallel with E. Lerch (1939) who noticed that symbol keeps only relation accuracy (“relationstreu”), not material one. In such a way, the distinctive feature of symbol is its connection not with material resemblance but with structural.

    Finally, the author summarizes the above-mentioned opinions: All signs have the following common properties: 1) they are material (perceived by

    people); 2) they point to any subject of the outer reality (they have “pointing” function); 3) they point to the subject regardless themselves (they have “substituting” function); 4) the meanings of the signs are ascribed by certain social groups. The most important property which makes a distinction between the signs is the type of the relations of signs with the outer reality: cause-effect connection, material resemblance, structural resemblance or the absence of resemblance. In accordance with these, all signs are divided into symptoms, icons, symbols and indexes:

    SIGNS ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Symptoms Icons Symbols Indexes ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Cause-effect Material Structural the absence of relation resemblance resemblance resemblance Supporting Pierce’s theory, Wescott (1980) divides all signs into two categories –

    signals and indexes. Wescott interprets symbols as arbitrary signs whereas icons – the signs which are in the accordance with the designated subjects. Levitskij suggests comparing his scheme with R. Wescott’s one.

    The author considers that sound symbolism is based on the structural resemblance between a sound and a sense (not material). Therefore, it would be incorrect to identify the terms iconicity and symbolism (the term “iconicity” has been widely used in the USA recently). The author considers that the term “iconicity” can be interpreted too wide: it combines both iconicity and sound symbolism. Or it can be regarded too narrow: only as onomatopoeia in so far as iconic signs are connected with subjects by material resemblance. It is clear that there cannot be a full material resemblance between the iconic language sign (sound imitative word) and the subject which is signified by this sign (sound imitative words of different languages which mean identical subjects of the ou