Language and Evolution: Books, Presentations and Papers
Motor Theory of Language
To go to:
Chapter I Hypothesis:Phonological/Semantic Equivalence
Chapter II Parallelism of Speech and Gesture
Chapter III Speech-sound and Gesture Elements
Chapter V Evidence from other languages
Observed relation of sound and meaning Experimental study of the relation of sound and meaning Systematic relation of sound and meaning Homophones
***********************************************************
Part I presented the basic hypothesis of the inter-relationship between language, gesture and perception - the source of the relation between the sound and meaning of words lying in their derivation in parallel from the central patterning in the brain associated with each action and each perception. Part II assembles evidence of apparent links between the sound and meaning of words as they can be observed in the vocabulary of languages. Verification is used in the sense it has in relation to any wide-ranging theory. Demonstration of the truth of any extensive theory is not possible in an absolute sense; a scientific theory cannot be proved logically to be true in the same way as a mathematical equation but a hypothesis can be shown to be increasingly plausible by its power to bring together and explain in a coherent way regularities observed in a wide range of facts in the area covered by the hypothesis. In this way the truth of any theory becomes cumulatively more and more probable.
In the case of the hypothesis considered in this study, the contention is that it provides an explanation for the regularities observed in the material presented in Part II and that the collection of observations presented is in total difficult to explain without assuming a natural and physiological relation between the sound and meaning of words on the lines set out in Part I. The material presented starts from the assumption that whatever in neurological terms the specific relation may be in the brain between the patterning responsible for articulation of a word and the patterning associated with the percept or action referred to, the link between sound and meaning should, if the hypothesis is correct, be apparent to some degree in existing vocabulary, that is, in any single language, such as English, there should be systematic relations between the sounds of words which resemble each other in meaning and between the meanings of words which resemble each other in sound. Furthermore, if the link is a natural one, then there should be some felt relation (as distinct from simply observed resemblance) between the sound and meaning of individual words, some perception of their appropriateness for their meaning.
The orthodox view is that sound and meaning are unrelated and that the choice of speech-sound to express a particular meaning is essentially arbitrary. So in categorising the universal features of language Hockett gives as one of the principles generally accepted:
"Arbitrariness The relation between a meaningful element in language and its denotation is independent of any physical and geometrical resemblance between the two... or, as we say, the semantic relation is arbitrary rather than iconic .. There are marginal exceptions, including traces of onomatopoeia".
Nevertheless, Hockett also points out, without observing the possible conflict with the principle of arbitrariness, the fact that "the phonological systems of the world ... all seem to have more in common than is strictly 'necessary', that is, the degree of resemblance strikes one as greater than is required merely by the defining features of language and the known cultural and biological properties of our species... Are there constraints imposed by as yet unrecognised properties of the organs of speech and of human hearing?".
Other writers, whilst resisting any idea of sound symbolism, have noted apparent regularities in the relation of sound to meaning. Firth dealt with this in some detail:
"We must beware of sound symbolism ... There is no suggestion whatever of Humboldt's 'impression on the ear resembling the effect of the object on the mind' ... The sounds in themselves 'paint' nothing ... Words are acquired habits but they are not often particular responses to particular stimuli .. A phonetic habit is an attunement, a setting of the central nervous system, which will be touched off by the appropriate phonetic stimulus ... 'Words' group themselves into families of linked words or related habits ... With the doubtful exception of certain sibilant consonants, there would appear to be no inherent value in any speech sound. It is all a matter of habit."
Some of the regularities of relation of sound and meaning which he observed are described later on.
Hörmann, in a survey chapter on 'The Imitation of Sounds and Sound Symbolism' commented that what meaning is conditioned to which sign is basically quite arbitrary and therefore there is an element of randomness or absence of logical necessity in the relationship of sign and object signified but went on to refer to the contrary line of thought: "the belief, deeply rooted in our natural feeling for language, that meaning lies directly in the sounds of words; this belief is sustained by a peculiar feeling that it is self-evident, which certainly constitutes a very important experience in the mother-tongue and in any other language of which we have a reasonable understanding". Bloomfield gave what he thought was a simple demonstration of the arbitrariness of the relation of sound and meaning: "What we call HORSE, the Germans call PFERD, the Frenchman CHEVAL, the Cree Indian MISATIM and so on; one set of sounds is as unreasonable as any other." - though in fact all he demonstrated was that for the word HORSE (and not necessarily for other words) the relation between sound and meaning is not apparent and may not exist. Dineen argued: "If there had to be a direct connection between the nature of the things languages talk about, there would be only one language or there would have to be a one-to-one set of conversion rules to account for the different sounds used in different languages", a recognition that words may differ between languages without necessarily disproving the existence of systematic relations between sound and meaning as Bloomfield thought was the case.
It would be possible much to extend this preliminary citation of linguisticians who are convinced of the arbitrariness of the relation between speech-sound and meaning - and to comment critically on their views, which for the most part are not more than a simple denial of the relation. They cannot prove that all language is arbitrary; they may appeal to observation that for certain words there is no apparent relation between sound and meaning but this does not establish that such a relation exists for no words at the present time or has not existed for other words in the past. Peterfalvi offers an interesting comment on the orthodoxy: "Pourquoi est-il important pour la linguistique contemporaine que le signe linguistique soit arbitraire?.. Si en effet on partait du principe générale que le signifiant et le signifié d'un signe linguistique sont unis par des liens fondés sur l'analogie ou l'isomorphisme, toute l'analyse des langues mené à bien par les linguistes (à commencer par l'analyse phonologique) serait impossible sous sa forme actuelle".
The views of believers in the arbitrary character of the sounds of language are offset, if not outweighed, by the views of those who have believed in a natural origin for language and that the sounds of words have a not purely conventional relation to their meanings. Historically, belief in the natural character of language was widespread. Indian grammarians held that there is a natural connection of a word with its meaning. Plato in the dialogue Cratylus discussed this precise issue:
"Cratylus says that everything has a right name of its own, which comes by nature and that a name is not whatever people call a thing by agreement, just a piece of their own voice applied to the thing, but that there is a kind of inherent correctness (orthoteta tina ton onomaton pephukenai) which is the same for all men, both Greeks and foreigners" whereas Hermogenes was not persuaded that "there is any correctness of names other than convention and agreement". Socrates reached the conclusion: "A name then it appears is a vocal imitation (mimema phonei) of that which is imitated... It will seem ridiculous, no doubt, that things are made manifest through imitation in letters and syllables; nevertheless it cannot be otherwise. For there is no better theory upon which we can base the truth of the earliest names for things (unless we have recourse to dei ex machina'.)".
Lucretius argued similarly and said rather contemptuously about the convention theory:
".... putare aliquem tum nomina distribuisse desiperest. Nam cur hic posset cuncta notare vocibus et varios sonitus emittere linguae tempore eodem alii id non quiesse putentur."
i.e. what is the source of the convention by which things acquire certain names, if words are not of natural development?
St. Thomas Aquinas said: "Nomina debent rerum congruere". Dalgarno, one of the earlier English writers on language, said:
"All languages guided by the instinct of nature have more or less onomatopoeia in them and I think our English has as much as any ... In all these and such like words, there is something symbolising and analogous to the nature of things."
Humboldt was certain that a connection between the sound of a word and its meaning exists; he distinguished between onomatopoeia and sound symbolism: The sound is not "a directly imitative sign but a sign which indicates a quality which the sign and the object have in common... To designate objects, it selects sounds which partly independently and partly in comparison with others produce an impression which to the ear is similar to that which the object makes upon the mind .. This kind of sign process which is based upon the particular meaning of each individual letter and whole groups of letters has undoubtedly exercised a prevailing, perhaps even exclusive, influence on primitive word formation. Its consequence has been a certain likeness of word-formation throughout all languages of mankind."
De Brosses cited a number of words which supported his view on the relation between word and object:
"Ils nous donnent de poser pour principe, qu'il y a de certains mouvements des organes appropriées à designer une certaine classe de choses de même espèce ou de même qualité Ils nous font voir comment l'homme, sans convention, sans s'apercevoir, forme machinalement ses mots le plus semblables qu'il peut aux choses signifiées."
Some more modern writers recognise the existence of sound symbolism but seek to explain it as being consistent with the principle of the arbitrary nature of speech-sounds. Sapir, for example1 argued: "Most words, like practically all elements of consciousness, have an associated feeling-tone. This feeling-tone, however, is not as a rule an inherent value in the word itself; it is rather a sentimental growth an the ward's true body, an its conceptual kernel.. The feeling-tones of wards are of no use, strictly speaking, to science... The interjections and sound-imitative wards of normal speech are related to their natural prototypes as is art, a purely social and cultural thing, to nature.. It may be objected that (in different languages) they may be looked upon as having grown out of a common instinctive base. But their case is nowise different from that of say the varying national modes of pictorial representation.. Neither the one nor the other is the same thing as or, in any intelligible sense, a direct outgrowth of, this natural feature... Such sounds as 'whippoorwill' 'to mew' 'to cow are in no sense natural sounds that man has instinctively or automatically reproduced. They are just as truly creations of the human mind, flights of the human fancy, as anything else in language. They do not directly grow out of nature, they are suggested by it and play with it. Hence the onomatopoeic theory of the origin of speech, the theory that would explain all speech as a gradual evolution from sounds of an imitative character, really brings us no nearer to the instinctive level than is language as we know it today. . It is quite impossible to show nor does it seem intrinsically reasonable to suppose that more than a negligible proportion of the elements of speech or anything at all of its formal apparatus is derivable from an onomatopoeic source."
Brosnahan in his interesting study of genetic influences an language referred briefly to "the possibility that expressiveness deriving from other sources may lead to the selection of specific speech sounds... There is no clear evidence yet of the nature of symbolic suggestiveness or expressiveness of mast speech sounds, or of the effect that this may have an the development of a sound complement. It would seem, it is true, not impassible that certain qualities of sound and certain types of articulation, considered as gestures, should be more expressive in particular situations than others, and we are thus hardly able to reject entirely any theory of the influence of expressiveness an a community's selection of its speech sounds, but in the absence of obvious indication of the operation of this influence, it would not seem too rash to neglect it here, as, at mast, of very minor importance"
Some more modern writers recognise the existence of sound symbolism but seek to explain it as being consistent with the principle of the arbitrary nature of speech-sounds. Sapir, for example, argued:
"Most words, like practically all elements of consciousness, have an associated feeling-tone. This feeling-tone, however, is not as a rule an inherent value in the word itself; it is rather a sentimental growth on the word's true body, on its conceptual kernel.. The feeling-tones of words are of no use, strictly speaking, to science... The interjections and sound-imitative words of normal speech are related to their natural prototypes as is art, a purely social and cultural thing, to nature.. It may be objected that (in different languages) they may be looked upon as having grown out of a common instinctive base. But their case is no wise different from that of say the varying national modes of pictorial representation.. Neither the one nor the other is the same thing as or, in any intelligible sense, a direct outgrowth of, this natural feature... Such sounds as 'whippoorwill' 'to mew' 'to caw' are in no sense natural sounds that man has instinctively or automatically reproduced. They are just as truly creations of the human mind, flights of the human fancy, as anything else in language. They do not directly grow out of nature, they are suggested by it and play with it. Hence the onomatopoeic theory of the origin of speech, the theory that would explain all speech as a gradual evolution from sounds of an imitative character, really brings us no nearer to the instinctive level than is language as we know it today.. It is quite impossible to show nor does it seem intrinsically reasonable to suppose that more than a negligible proportion of the elements of speech or anything at all of its formal apparatus is derivable from an onomatopoeic source."
Brosnahan in his interesting study of genetic influences on language referred briefly to "the possibility that expressiveness deriving from other sources may lead to the selection of specific speech sounds... There is no clear evidence yet of the nature of symbolic suggestiveness or expressiveness of most speech sounds, or of the effect that this may have on the development of a sound complement. It would seem, it is true, not impossible that certain qualities of sound and certain types of articulation, considered as gestures, should be more expressive in particular situations than others, and we are thus hardly able to reject entirely any theory of the influence of expressiveness on a community's selection of its speech sounds, but in the absence of obvious indication of the operation of this influence, it would not seem too rash to neglect it here, as, at most, of very minor importance
The objection advanced by another writer, Lord, that words are symbolic or onomatopoeic only if they are felt as such (from which he argues that the phenomenon is too subjective and unreliable to be taken seriously) does not damage the significance of sound symbolism any more than a parallel argument that could be advanced that traditional etymology relies on subjective judgments by the philologist not only to trace the line of descent of the sound and meaning of words but indeed to construct the whole system of comparative linguistics. Nor do the essentially rather sweeping and subjective views of Sapir about the relation of language and art on the one hand to nature and reality on the other establish his conclusion that onomatopoeia, in a wide sense, has not contributed substantially to the formation, and to the preservation, of the vocabulary of language. His idea that the word 'caw' for the sound made by a rook is an arbitrary artefact with no special or natural relation to the sound does not carry conviction.
For a more positive view of the significance of sound symbolism, the principal source in older writing is Jespersen. He dealt with the subject not uncritically. After referring to "wild hypotheses" of Greek and Latin grammarians to explain the natural origin of particular words, he said:
"Is there really much more logic in the opposite extreme which denies any kind of sound symbolism (apart from the small class of evident echoisms and 'onomatopoeia') and sees in our words only a collection of accidental and irrational associations of sound and meaning? ... Sounds may in some cases be symbolic of their sense even if they are not so in all words... There is no denying that there are words which we feel instinctively to be adequate to express the ideas they stand for."
Jespersen's belief was that sound symbolism is not simply a force that influenced the initial formation of language but one operating continually to make the words used more appropriate to their sense. He directly criticised de Saussure's approach: "De Saussure gives as one of the main principles of our science that the tie between sound and sense is arbitrary and rather motiveless... and to those that would object that onomatopoeic words are not arbitrary, he says that 'they are never organic elements of a linguistic system'... Here we see one of the characteristics of modern linguistic science; it is so preoccupied with etymology that it pays much more attention to what words have come from than to what they have come to be.. Though some echo words may be very old, the great majority are not... In the course of time, languages grow richer and richer in symbolic words... Sound symbolism, we may say, makes some words more fit to survive.. Echoism and related phenomena - these forces are vital to languages as we observe them day by day".
More recently, Jakobson, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, ranged himself among the sound symbolists: "Le symbolisme des sons est une realité indeniablement objective, fondée sur une connexion phenomenale entre different modes sensoriels, en particulier entre les sensations visuelles et auditives."
Similarly Swadesh, as an outcome of wide-ranging comparisons of vocabulary in support of his theory of glottochronology, concluded: "Sound imitation represents one of the most important sources of new lexical material". Consonantal and vocalic symbolism, according to him, played a major role in the early stages of language and he attributed particular importance in this to "man's special capacity, which he shares with the imitative birds.. of reproducing approximately the sounds of other species and those of non-animate origin (echolalia)."
Etymology and the relation of sound and meaning
From some of the views reported above, particularly of those who do not believe in sound symbolism as a real force, it would seem that there must be a conflict between the 'objective' science of etymology and the 'subjective' approach of sound symbolism. So: "Ordinary people feel etymological connections which, if they looked them up in a dictionary, might turn out to be non-existent". Folk etymology, general untaught beliefs about the origin and relation of words, is treated with a measure of condescension by philologists. But this attitude involves assumptions about the validity of the results of the philologists. Traditionally the ambition of etymology has been not simply to trace the history of the sound and meaning of individual words and to mark out their relation to other words but also, in some sense, to discover the origin of the words. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (which is one of the authoritative sources) describes its objective as follows:
"Etymology has been briefly defined.. as 'the origin, formation and development' (of a word)... The forms from which English words are derived, whether by descent or by adoption, are traced to their ultimate source so far as this is known or reasonably to be presumed... For words derived from French, the ultimate source is given where possible, and the same treatment is given to many Latin originals from which the English has directly or mediately been derived. The etymology of Greek words is usually given in detail.."
But what really is meant by determining the origin of individual words? For a composite word, its origin can reasonably be said to have been found when the identities of the component parts have been determined. The origin of the word WATERFALL is found without difficulty in the conjunction of WATER and FALL, two distinct English words. For words derived from proper names, the origin can be said to have been discovered if the etymologist can identify the time and circumstances in which the particular proper name acquired the more general application. The origin of the word SANDWICH is determined by saying that it is derived from the 4th Earl of Sandwich (1718-1792) for whom the device was said to have been invented. In a sense, the origin of English words is also found when they can be traced as a borrowing from French or another language - though this really transfers the search for the true origin of the word to the philologists of the other language; we do not, for example, think it sufficient to say that the origin of a word such as GERRYMANDER is a borrowing from the American - some more explanation of the development of the meaning is needed. The ODEE aims to find the ultimate origin of English words and is not content to say only that they have been borrowed from elsewhere.
But what of the words that appear to be aboriginally English and which are not composite? or which appear to be related in a somewhat indefinite way to similar words in languages in the geographical area in which English originally arose, the West Germanic linguistic area? All one may find here is not the origin of the word but its documented history. Why the word is what it is, is not necessarily ascertained.
How adequate as an alternative to any theory of sound symbolism as the formative element in words can the science of etymology be considered? This involves considering how complete and satisfactory are the principles upon which etymologists work and the origins of individual words presented in etymological dictionaries. Etymologists have written little about the principles on which they work and critical assessment of the results of their labours over the last 150 years - since the development of the comparative approach in the 19th century - has been lacking. To give a comprehensive answer would involve a repetition of the lifetime's work involved in the compilation of the etymological dictionaries; it would be necessary to examine critically the etymology given for each word, not only the 24,000 words treated in the ODEE but the French, Latin and Greek words which have gone to the formation of English.
Nevertheless, a more cursory examination is possible which allows one to form a provisional view about the results of etymology. The way of proceeding does not involve any direct challenge to the reliability of the etymological dictionary but summarises the total picture which the dictionary presents in the terms used by the compilers of the dictionary themselves. In the ODEE, the completeness of the etymologies presented varies for different words; the etymologies can be grouped in a number of categories on this basis. The categories are illustrated as follows:
(1) Composite words of English origin Example: LAPWING QE HLEAPEWINCE the first element of which is formally identical with LEAP and appears in Frisian names of the bird e.g. LEAP, LJEAP, MANTSJELEAP, WYFKELEAP, the second element contains the base (meaning 'move sideways or from side to side') of OE WINCIAN WINK. Variation of form is shown by ME LHAPWYNCHE (Ayenbite of Inwyt), LAPPEWINKE (Gower), LAPWYNG (Lydgate); the present form is due to association with LAP and WING 'because he lappes or clappes the wings so often' Minsheu 1617.
(2) Words of foreign origin and form Example: LANSQUENET Mercenary soldier in Germany - French: LANSQUENET - German: LANDSKNECHT formed on genitive of LAND plus KNECHT in the sense of 'soldier', KNIGHT.
(3) Words of foreign origin but Anglicised form Example: LANYARD (nautical) short piece of rope XVII - Old French LANIERE earlier LASNIERE from LASNE perhaps due to crossing of LAZ LACE and NASLE - German hypothetical) NASTILA - (German NESTEL string, lace); adopted earlier as (obsolete) LAINER (XIV Chaucer); the final syllable was associated with YARD.
(4) Words of English/Germanic origin Example: LAND QE LAND= Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Old Norse, Gothic LAND, Old High German LANT (Dutch, German LAND):- Common Germanic (hypothetical) LANDAM related to Old Celtic (hypothetical) LANDA (Irish LAND, LANN enclosure, Welsh LLAN enclosure, church, Cornish LAN open space, plain, Breton LANN (heath) whence French LANDE heath, moor, Laund. The Indo-European base (hypothetical) LONDH is not evidenced in other languages but the variant LENDH (hypothetical) is represented by Old Slavonic LEDINA heath, desert (Russian LJADD, LJADINA) Old Swedish LINDA fallow land. (5) Words with widespread use but unknown origin. Example: LARK OE LAFERCE, older LAEWERCE, LAURICAE, corresponding to Middle Low German, Middle Dutch LEWERIKE (Dutch LEEUWERIK) Old High German LERAHHA (German LERCHE) Old Norse LAEVIRKI (perhaps from English); of unknown origin. The Scottish variant LAVEROCK descends from ME LAVEROK.
(6) Words of dialect origin Example: LARRUP (colloquial) thrash. XIX. Of dialect origin; perhaps based on lather or leather.
(7) Words of difficult origin Example: LASS ME LASCE LAS(S)E; of difficult etymology like BOY, GIRL, LAD; perhaps northern development (cf. ASS for ASK hypothetical) ashes, ASS for ASK verb, BUSS for BUSK verb) of (hypothetical) LASK: - Old Norse (hypothetical) LASKWA feminine of (hypothetical) LASKWAR unmarried represented by Old Swedish LASK KONA unmarried woman (specific use of the sense 'unoccupied' or 'having no fixed abode' originally 'free from ties'; in Old Icelandic LOSKR means only 'weak, good for nothing').
(8) Words of unknown origin Example: LAD XVI ME LADDE of unknown origin; the earliest evidence and even modern currency point to concentration in the East and West Midlands and so perhaps to Scandinavian origin (cf. Norwegian ASKE LADD neglected child).
(9) Words of imitative origin Example: LULL XIV Imitative of the repetition of LU LU or similar sounds appropriate to singing a child to sleep; cf. Swedish LULLA Danish LULLE hum a lullaby Dutch LULLEN and further Middle Dutch LOLLEN mutter and Latin LALLARE sing to sleep.
(10) Words of symbolic or expressive origin Example: LUMBER move clumsily or heavily XIV (LOMERE) perhaps of symbolic origin. Example: LUMP Of symbolic sound; cf. DUMP, GLUMP, GRUMP, HUMP, MUMP Example: LASH Echoic or symbolic like the contemporary (obsolete) LUSH; cf. the parallel DASH/DUSH FLUSH/FLASH MASH/MUSH SMASH/SMUSH (dialect).
The ODEE also uses as an explanation of the origin of words the concept of blending. So for SNOOZE it has "perhaps suggested by SNORE and DOZE" and for SQUIGGLE it has "perhaps blend of SQUIRM and WIGGLE, WRIGGLE".
It is apparent:
(1) that authoritative etymology accepts as a legitimate explanation of the origin of words not simply sound-imitation (onomatopoeia) as for LULL but also symbolic and expressive forms where the relation between sound and meaning is less clear but a relation is felt to exist, as for LUMBER or LUMP;
(2) that tracing the history and the parallel appearances of a word in other languages is not necessarily the same as determining its origin; the relationships can be traced but the origin can still be said to be unknown or uncertain;
A first classification of the etymologies involves ascertaining what proportion of the words are said to be 'of obscure origin', what proportion are 'of disputed or doubtful origin', what proportion are of imitative, symbolic, expressive or blended origin and what part of the words are composite (so that the search for the origin has to be transferred to the component words). A large proportion of the words treated in the ODEE are composite. Many words, for example, are of the form REDEEM REJECT, PROPEL, PERTAIN PURSUE, INFRINGE INTREPID IMPART, SUPPLANT SUBSIST, EXPLICIT ENSURE, DISMISS DESCRIBE DEPRESS, CONJOIN COMPACT, ASTRIDE ASCRIBE APPROVE ABSTRACT. In addition to these straightforwardly derived words, there are others of transparent formation which present no etymological problem in themselves because the need is rather to look for the origin of their component parts. Another substantial class is of foreign non-naturalised words (often formed directly from Latin or Greek or taken directly from a foreign language) such as:
NATRON ONOMASTICON PREBYOPIA SPHRAGISTIC MACRAME PROTEGE SANG-FROID.
Assuming that more than half the words in the ODEE are composite, foreign non-naturalised words or words derived directly from Latin or Greek (and that in addition a good number of the words treated are obsolete), the total number of words currently in use for which etymologies are provided cannot exceed 10,000. Of this 10,000 the origin is 'obscure' 'unknown' 'disputed' for at least 1,000. For a further 300 the etymologies are clearly questionable. For more than 10% of words presenting a genuine etymological problem, the objective of etymology - to discover the true origin - has not been achieved. This is not to say that for the remaining 90% the effort to discover the origin has necessarily been any more successful. It only means that the compilers of the dictionary have not expressly acknowledged their lack of success. To judge the remainder of the etymologies, one would need to examine one by one the material used to justify the etymology presented. This would throw up a further large number of words where the true origin has not been found. As an example of a word not counted in the 10% of unsatisfactory etymologies referred to above, there is SANE for which the dictionary refers to Latin: SANUS without further explanation. In this case, the dictionary has not attempted to give the ultimate source of the Latin word and it would require separate examination of the Latin to determine whether the origin can be identified.
Lack of adequate origins for the words treated is even more striking if one looks at the position in terms of frequency of use of words and the part they play in current speech. The 1300 or so words for which no adequate origin is offered include many common words. It would be tedious to provide a full list but the following is a selection:
WORDS OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN ADZE BOLT BUN CUFF EARNEST HADDOCK AGAIN BONNET BUNCH CURSE EEL HAG AGOG BOOST BUNG DAFT ENVELOP HAIR ATTIRE BOOT BUSTLE DANCE EVEN HALT AWL BOOTY BUSY DAPPLED EVER HAMPER BAD BORE BUY DAUGHTER FLAG HAND BAR BOSS CAT DEAR FLASK HATCH BARON BOTHER CABBAGE DELAY FLATTER HAZE BOISTEROUSBOUGH CADGE DELICATE FLOUNCE HEATHER BASKET BOX CHASTISE DEVELOP FOE HEAVEN BAUBLE BRACKISH CHEESE DIAL FOLLOW HIDEOUS BED BRAG CHILD DINGLE FRET HINGE BEGIN BRAID CHILL DITCH FUSS HOBBY BEETLE BRANCH CHOP DOCK GALE HOPE BELLOW BRASS CHURN DODGE GAUNT HORSE BICKER BREAD CLIFF DOG GAY HOVER BIG BRICK CLOG DORMOUSE GIRL HUE BIRD BRIDE COAT DRAG GLADE HUGE BLACK BUTT COBBLER DREAD GLIDE HUMBUG BLISTER BRIM COD DRILL GOAL HUTCH BLITHE BRINE COMB DRUG GOD IDLE BLOCK BRINK CORE DRUDGE GOLF IF BLOOD BRITTLE COSY DUCK GORGEOUS ILL BLOUSE BROOK CRATE DUMB GREEDY IVY BLOW BRUNT CRAWL DUNG GROOM JAB BOAST BUD CRUSH DUSK GROUND JOB BOBBIN BUG CUB DYE GRUDGE JOLT BOGUS BULL CUDGEL EARL GUILT KEY KICK MACKEREL NASTY PICKLE PUMP RIPPLE KIDNEY MAGGOT NIGH PIER PUSS RISK KIPPER MAIM NOOK PINT PUT ROAM KIT MASCOT NORTH PIP PUZZLE ROCK KNIFE MISSEL-THRUSH OAT PITCH RACE ROOK KNOT MONKEY OFT PITH RAG ROUSE LAD MOP ORE PIVOT RAIL RUB LANE MOOD OSPREY POKE RAKE RUN LARK MOTLEY PACK POD RASP RUM LASS MOUND PAIL POUND RASHER SAIL LEFT MOW PATTER POUR RASPBERRY SCARE LEMON MUFFIN PARCH POUT RAT SCARLET LEWD MUG PATE PRETTY RESIN SCORN LOG MURK PEAR PRICK RICK SCOUR LOOP MUST PECK PRIG RIFLE SCRIMP LUCK NAG PEEVISH PRIMROSE RIM SEA LUMP NAP PET PRIVET RIND SEAL LUSCIOUS NAPE PEWTER PRY RIP SEEP SELF SKEIN SPRAY TARNISH TOSS WEASEL SHALLOW SKEWER SPRIG TARRY TRAM WEED SHAM SKID SPRINT TASSEL TRASH WHIM SHARK SKULL SPURT THAW TRIFLE WICK SHATTER SLAB SQUANDER THICK TRIM WIDE SHAVE SLIGHT SQUEEZE THISTLE TRINKET WIFE SHELTER SLOUCH STEAL THUS TROLLOP WITCH SHILLING SLOW STOCKING TIER TROT WONDER SHODDY SMOTHER STOAT TILT TRUDGE WOO SHOULDER SMOULDER STRAWBERRY TINY TRY WOOL SHRUG SNUB STRIPE TIRE TUB WORTH SICK SPAR STROLL TOAD TURNIP WOUND SIGH SPARK SWAY TODDLE TWIG WRAP SILT SPELL SWORD TOE WALK WRITE SINK SPLIT TALLOW TOFFEE WAN WRENCH SIZE SPOOL TANGLE TORTOISE WEAPON ZINC Words for which the ultimate origin is on the face of it questionable (in addition to words where the origin is specifically said to be unknown or obscure) include such common words as: ABOUT BET BEG BUTTERFLY DRIVE HEFTY LIVER ABSURD BALL BELT CARD EMPTY HERRING LONG AFTER BARGAIN BERRY CIGAR FLAT HOME OAK AIM BARREL BLESS CLOUD FLOW LAG OX AJAR BASIN BLUNT CORK FOG LAPEL PAMPER ALE BAT BODY DAWDLE FOX LAZY POOL ANGER BEACH BOLD DESK GAPE LEAF PUDDING APRICOT BEAT BOY DRAB GRAVY LEAP PUNCH ARGUE BECKON BRISK DRAWL GRIND LEEK REEL ASS BEE BROAD DRINK GRIN LIMP ROW SAP SLUM TUNE SCORCH SMOOTH URN SHIVER SNOOP WARP SHRIMP SOCK WILT SILVER SOCKET SLANG THWART SLATE TAB
Words for which the origin is unknown or obscure form an extremely high proportion of the average current spoken vocabulary of native English-speakers. It is difficult to establish how many words form the typical spoken vocabulary (there are great difficulties in sampling); the makers of Basic English made do with 850 words and analysis of telephone conversations showed that 96% of speech used no more than 737 words. It would probably be no great exaggeration to say that for one third of the normal English spoken vocabulary, the ultimate origin of the words is admitted to be unknown - and for a significantly higher proportion the origin is questionable.
Apart from the absence of satisfactory accounts of the origin of many frequently used words, what is also notable is the considerable reliance on origins of words which are said to be imitative, expressive, symbolic, echoic or the result of blending of other words for expressive purposes. The extent of these seems to disprove de Saussure's view that the onomatopoeic element (taken in a wide sense to include various forms of sound/meaning appropriateness)is of minimal importance. Excluding interjections, the ODEE ascribes imitative and similar origin to 360 words. In some cases the phonetic appropriateness of words is due to straightforward imitation of a sound:
BOW WOW BAA BUZZ CAW CHIFFCHAFF CLUCK BURR CHIRP FIZZ FROU-FROU GONG CUCKOO HICCOUGH HISS HUM JINGLE HEE-HAW MOAN MOO PIPIT PLOP MEW RAT-A-TAT RATTLE ROAR SWISH MIAOW TWITTER WHIMPER WHINE WHIRR PURR SWOOSH
These are traditional examples of onomatopoeia. The larger category is of words which are imitative, expressive or symbolic in ways not necessarily related to natural sounds. Some of the more interesting words which the compilers of the Dictionary put in this category are:
ABEYANCE BOULDER CHARM CROAK FIDGET GUSH LISP
BAY BOUNCE CHATTER DANDLE FLABBY HACK LOW
BLATANT BRASH CHUCK DANGLE FLIMSY HURL JAM
BLUBBER BRAWL CLAP DOVE FLOP HUSTLE JERK
BLUSTER BUBBLE CLASH DUMP FLUTE JAR JOG
BLOB BUFFER CRANE FLICK GASP JUMP
JUMBLE
BLOTCH BUFFOON CRICKET FLICKER GLIB KESTREL LASH
BOB BUMP CURLEW FLOG GOGGLE KNOCK LUMBER
BOMB CHAMP DASH FLUSH GRUMBLE LAP LUMP
BOUDOIR CHARADE CRISP GNASH GULP LAUGH MUNCH
MUSH PLOD QUAKE SLOBBER SIP SQUALL
STRUGGLE
MUTE PROD QUAVER SMACK SLING SQUIB STRUM
PAD PUNT QUIVER SMASH SLUDGE SQUIRT STUMP
PAT RAP RUSH SPIT SLUMP SUCK
SWAGGER
PEEP RAVEN SCRUNCH SPOUT SLUSH TAP TICK
PRATE REACH SEE-SAW SPUTTER SNATCH SQUIRM
TRICKLE
PRAWN REBUFF SIMPER SQUABBLE SNEEZE STORK TURTLE
PUFF SHATTER SLAB SHUFFLE SPRAWL STRIDE WEEP
WOE
YAWN
ZIGZAG
ZIP
ZOOM
The ODEE does not explain how the peculiar appropriateness these words have for their meanings arises. In some cases, there may be an underlying onomatopoeic element - as for BOMB BUMP CROAK GASP LISP SMACK STRUM ZIP - but even for these words the relation between the sound of the word and the assumed sound referred to is much less clear than in the case of BOW WOW CAW HISS &c. In some cases, the form of the word seems to have some kind of geometrical relation to the meaning - as for ZIGZAG SNATCH QUIVER SEE-SAW JERK DANGLE BLOB - but the relation is obscure. For some words which refer to movements of the face or mouth, the word seems to be that which reproduces the movements referred to - as for CHAMP GULP LAUGH MUNCH PUFF SIMPER SLOBBER SPIT SPUTTER SUCK YAWN. For others, though the expressiveness and appropriateness of the word to its meaning seem evident, it is impossible to see immediately why this should be so - as for STRUGGLE SWAGGER TRICKLE SQUIRM STRIDE SPRAWL SQUABBLE PLOD PROD JUMP FLABBY FLICKER BOUNCE HURL.
To summarise, an examination of the etymologies given in the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology shows that the origins are unknown, obscure or questionable for a surprisingly large part of the current English vocabulary. It also shows that a large number of familiar words are said to have imitative, expressive or symbolic origins but the manner in which these expressive words are related to their meanings and gain their expressiveness is left, for the most part, completely unclear.
Apart from the classification of words as symbolic by the etymological dictionaries, there has been a good deal of discussion by linguists of the expressiveness of particular words in the English language. The subject has also been touched on by anthropologists considering language as a part of culture. So Tylor remarked: "Observe how words whilst preserving, so to speak, the same skeleton may be made to follow the variation of sound, of force, of duration, of size, an imitative group.. will show: - CRICK CREAK CRACK CRASH CRUSH CRUNCH CRAUNCH SCRUNCH SCRAUNCH. Language is, in fact, full of phonetic modifications which justify a suspicion that symbolic sound had to do with their production, even though it may be hard to say exactly how.
Firth, while disbelieving in sound symbolism, assembled large collections of symbolic words and emphasised the systematic way they may be related to each other, quite separately From any etymological links:
"Although etymology has established the fact that SKETCH is from Italian SCHIZZO... SKETCHY derives its 'setting' from the living suffix Y and from the monosyllabic phonaestheme with initial SK, which appears to link 'superficial' experiences, particularly those associated with superficial movement, edges, surfaces that are thin layers or thin-shaped surfaces and certain kinds of thinness. Such words are SKATE SKEDADDLE SKID SKIFF SKILL SKIMP SKIN SKIP SKIRT SKIT SKULL. The etymology of these words is exceedingly various but it is impossible to ignore the suggestive value of the grouping... Take the phone sequence SLACK. It is not an isolated habit. It is part of a network of grouped habits.. The whole of the SLACK etymeme belongs to a much bigger group of habits we may call the SL phonaestheme... We are appreciably affected by initial and final phone groups not ordinarily recognised as having any function. Consider the following English words: SLACK SLOUCH SLUDGE SLIME SLOSH SLASH SLOPPY SLUG SLUGGARD SLATTERN SLUT SLANG SLY SLITHER SLOW SLOTH SLEEPY SLEET SLIP SLIPSHOD SLOPE SLIT SLAY SLEEK SLANT SLOVENLY SLAB SLAP SLOUGH SLUM SLUMP SLOBBER SLAVER SLUR SLOG SLATE .. A group of words such as the above has a cumulative suggestive value that cannot be overlooked in any consideration of our habits of speech. All the above words are in varying degrees pejorative. There is nothing inherently pejorative in the sounds.. It is possible that STRESSES and STRAINS, STRENGTH STRAIGHT or STRETCHED out things, might be associated in a common motor background; for example, STRIPE STRIDE STRIVE STRUGGLE STRANGE STREAK STRIKE STRING STRENUOUS STRUT &C It is interesting to note that these words have no common etymology and yet may be brought together by alliterative and experiential analogy."
Despite the examples he gave of expressive groups of words, Firth, as already noted, explained them as simply the result of habit - but even in his own terms, the question arises whether there is some universal or physiological basis for these habits, for the preferences which people demonstrate in their formation of words for particular sounds. There is no necessary conflict between saying that a particular mode of behaviour, in language or otherwise, is habitual and yet at the same time has a biological or physiological basis. Firth drew attention to the existence of parallel groups of expressive words in other languages. It is surprising that he did not feel it necessary to consider more closely how it is, if these are purely cultural phonaesthetic habits, they should be shared not only by speakers of the same language but by speakers of other distinct languages. The parallel development of similar phonetic habits in other communities makes it doubtful whether a purely cultural explanation is adequate.
Jespersen also presented detailed material bearing on sound symbolism:
"The simplest case is the direct imitation of the sound: thus CLINK... SPLASH... BLEAT... SNORT... GRUNT... But as our speech organs are not capable of giving a perfect imitation of all 'unarticulated' sounds, the choice of speech-sounds is to a certain extent accidental and different nations have chosen different combinations, more or less conventionalised for the same sounds; thus COCK-A-DOODLE-DOO French COQUELICO and for whisper: French CHUCHOTER Spanish SUSURAR. Next the echoic word designates the being that produces the sound (PEEWEET &c). Thirdly, as sound is always produced by some movement and is nothing but the impression which that movement makes on the ear, it is quite natural that the movement itself may be expressed by the word for its sound: the two are in fact inseparable. Note for instance such verbs as BUBBLE SPLASH CLASH CRACK PECK . Then we have words expressive of such movements as are not to the same extent characterised by large sounds; thus a great many words beginning with L combinations FL: FLOW... SL: SLIDE SLIP... GL: GLIDE. Sound and sight may have been originally combined in such expressions for an uncertain walk as TOTTER DODDER.. but in cases of this kind the audible element may be wanting and the word may come to be felt as symbolic of the movement as such This is also the case with many expressions for the sudden rapid movement by which we take hold of something; as a short vowel suddenly interrupted by a stopped consonant serves to express the sound produced by a very rapid striking movement (PAT TAP....). Similar sound combinations occur frequently for the more or less noiseless seizing of a thing.. SNAP... CATCH... There is also a natural connection between the action and the sound in the word TO TICKLE (Latin: TITILLARE). There is some more or less obvious association of what is only visible with some sound or sounds.. We may also think of the word ZIGZAG as denoting movement in alternate turns here and there.."
The distinction between the lists of expressive words presented by Firth and those presented by Jespersen is that whereas Firth did not attempt to explain why the particular sounds should have been chosen, Jespersen looked for a systematic relation between the particular sounds composing expressive words and the action, sound, perception &c to which the word refers. He was beginning to sketch out a detailed system of sound/meaning correspondences This systematic relation of sound and meaning was developed further by a linguist opposed to the idea that there is any natural relation of sound and meaning, Bloomfield:
"English is especially rich in another type of intense forms, the symbolic forms. Symbolic forms have a connotation of somehow illustrating the meaning more immediately than do ordinary speech-forms. The explanation is a matter of grammatical structure... to the speaker it seems as if the sounds were especially suited to the meaning".
Bloomfield's promised explanation of symbolic forms in terms of grammatical structure never really arrived. The nearest he came to it was in discussing the concept of roots underlying vocabulary: "Primary words that do not contain any affix-like constituents (e.g. BOY RUN RED) are classed as primary root-words.. A root may appear in only one primary word, as is the case with... MAN BOY CUT RED... or it may appear in a whole series of primary words... In the Germanic languages, modification of the root occurs in words of symbolic connotation as FLAP FLIP FLOP. If we take FLAP as the basic form of this root, we shall describe FLIP FLOP as derivatives... However we find clearly-marked phonetic-semantic resemblances between elements which we view as different roots... (In English symbolic words) we can distinguish, with varying degrees of clearness, and with doubtful cases on the borderline, a system of initial and final root-forming morphemes of vague signification. It is plain that the intense symbolic connotation is associated with this structure.
This is a far from clear account of how the expressiveness of symbolic forms can be explained as a matter of grammatical structure. If in fact the primary roots had any independent validity, or if the so-called root-forming morphemes were the product of some grammatical necessity, he might have an adequate explanation - but his account was undermined by the admission that the roots have no particular historical reality: "Now and then one still hears the claim that the roots which we set up must once upon a time have been spoken as independent words. The reader needs scarcely be told that this is utterly unjustified; the roots are merely units of partial resemblance between words". This amounts to no more than saying that systematic resemblances can be observed between words which are said to be symbolic or expressive; it says nothing about the origin of the expressiveness.
Nevertheless his classification of symbolic words is interesting. He pointed out that, in words with symbolic force, "we find recurrent initials:
FL 'moving light': FLASH FLARE FLAME FLICKER FLIMMER FL 'movement in air': FLY FLAP FLIT (FLUTTER) GL 'unmoving light': GLOW GLARE GLOAT GLOOM (GLEAM GLEAMING GLIMMER) GLINT SL 'smoothly wet': SLIME SLUSH SLOP SLOBBER SLIP SLIDE J 'up-and-down movement': JUMP JOUNCE JUG (JOG JUGGLE) JANGLE (JINGLE) In the same way we can distinguish finals: UMP 'clumsy': BUMP CLUMP CHUMP DUMP FRUMP HUMP LUMP RUMP STUMP SLUMP THUMP ARE 'big light or noise': BLARE FLARE GLARE STARE
What has been quoted from Firth, Bloomfield and Jespersen represents an earlier stage of discussion of sound symbolism, based on rather scattered observation of apparent relations between sounds and meanings. More recently, there has been a more experimental and quantitative approach. Before this is described, it is necessary to draw attention to the distinction between the different types of sound symbolism which may exist, namely symbolism of whole words (of the kind that Jespersen and Firth largely considered) and symbolism inherent in clusters of speech-sounds (as considered by Bloomfield) or in individual speech-sounds, consonants or vowels (which has been a major subject of study since Sapir's pioneering experiments). Also as a preliminary point, some of the experimentation is not confined to sound symbolism in English but provides evidence for sound symbolism as a force operating in other languages and across languages. This evidence goes some way to meet the criticism that whatever appropriateness of sounds and meanings may appear to exist in any single language such as English may be a peculiarity of that language or in any event may simply show that single language communities tend (as Firth argued) to develop habits of conventional origin in the sounds they use for particular clusters of ideas i.e. that sound symbolism, like all language, as the Saussureans contend, is a matter of culture and not of nature.
The earliest systematic experimental work on sound symbolism was done by Sapir but the most substantial study was that by Roger Brown and his associates. He provided in Words and Things (1958) an account to that date of the range of experiment carried out (a more up to date account is contained in Peterfalvi - Recherches Expérimentales sur Le Symbolisme Phonétique, Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique 1970). The experimental studies divide into those dealing with artificial words and those concerned with the ordinary vocabulary of language. The following summarises the experiments referred to:
Artificial Words
Sapir 1929 : A speaker of English is told that the syllables MAL and MIL both have the meaning TABLE but that one of the syllables is to symbolise a large table and the other syllable a small table. It is the subject's task to decide which syllable is more appropriate in each case. The only difference between the two invented words is in the vowel, one having an A and the other I, so that it must be the vowel that determines the subject's decision. Trying this discrimination on some 500 individuals, Sapir found an impressively large agreement on the relative size implications of the sounds studied. About 80% of the subjects agreed that A in MAL represented the larger table and I in MIL the smaller.
Newman 1933 further analysed Sapir's data and collected similar data. He was able to place the vowels on a scale of magnitude from small to large; in general larger magnitudes were associated by the experimental subjects with a large oral cavity, a low vocalic resonance and an articulation of the tongue towards the back of the mouth.
These results were striking but open to the criticism, already indicated, that since the experimental subjects were English-speakers, the experiment might simply be identifying a cultural habit of English-speakers. However Brown commented: "If the associations in the language are a purely arbitrary convention, it seems odd that they should be systematic, with magnitudes increasing as vowels move back in the mouth and fall in pitch. Perhaps there is something natural and inevitable in these associations..."
Wissemann l954 studied the creation of onomatopoeic words by German-speakers. The experimental subjects were asked to listen to 14 different noises artificially created by the experimenter (e.g. the noise of a wooden ball rolling down a plywood board to drop into a metal box). The subjects were asked either to invent new words to describe the noises, or to select words (invented by the experimenter) from a list as appropriate for the noise. The words chosen or invented by the subjects were found to be related in length, not to the duration of the noise, but to the number of distinct divisions heard in the noise, the more divisions heard being reflected in a greater number of syllables. Noises starting abruptly were given words starting abruptly with a consonant such as P T K; a noise beginning gradually was named by a word beginning with a consonant such as S or Z "The initial sounds of onomatopoeic names reproduce the stimulus gradients of referent noises. It was found that "tongue position is a more important articulational determinant of phonetic symbolism than is lip formation". All Wissemann s subjects (who were asked to explain the basis on which they chose onomatopoeic words), without any discussion or instruction, used similar principles in their invention of onomatopoeic words.
Natural Words
Newman 1933 studied vowel symbolism in English by listing all words related to size, about 500, in English; comparing the small words with the large, he found no significant difference in the size implications of the vowels used i.e. no confirmation in natural language of the results found by Sapir with the invented words MAL and MIL; Roger Brown independently did a similar study and also found no evidence of symbolic representation of magnitude by the differentiated use of vowels.
H. Muller 1935 attempted to meet the difficulty that sound symbolism of natural words might be peculiar to a single language, a cultural artefact, by testing with children whether words drawn from remote languages (Samoan, Bantu, Eskimo) were felt to be appropriate. He chose such words as TUMBA (meaning swelling) and ONGOLOLO (centipede) where the appropriateness seemed apparent - but his results could have been vitiated by unconsciously biassed selection of the words used.
Tsuru 1934 followed a different plan which has become the model for much subsequent experimentation. He compiled a list of 36 pairs of Japanese antonyms ('hot-cold' 'high-low' &c) and used as experimental subjects 57 native English-speakers with no knowledge of Japanese. The subjects were asked to match the English pairs of antonyms (spoken and written in Romanised farm). A chance result would have been that they should guess correctly in 50% of the cases; they guessed correctly significantly more often than this and therefore must have been offered some clue to the right answers by the form or sound of the Japanese words. These results suggested (since Japanese is taken to be a language unrelated to English) that they must have been relying on some universal phonetic symbolism - not simply a conventional association of sound and meaning. Roger Brown commented that even this experiment is subject to the criticism that there may have been selection by the Japanese experimenter of Japanese words which happened to bear some relation to the corresponding English forms, or that there may in any case be coincidences between forms in Japanese and English which would lead to apparently better than chance results.
Allport 1935 sought to evade these criticisms, in experiment on similar lines to Tsuru, by translating Tsuru's set of antonyms into Hungarian (unrelated to Japanese or English) so that any unconscious selection would be nullified. Nevertheless, the Hungarian words were guessed by the experimental subjects with more than chance success. The experiment was repeated on the same pattern in 1953 by Rich with pairs of Japanese and Polish words and again resulted in correct answers significantly above chance.
Brown., Black, Horowitz 1955 did an experiment with pairs of words translated into Chinese, Czech and Hindi which 85 experimental subjects had to guess. The results again were above chance. Roger Brown commented on these experiments that English-speaking subjects matching words with the Japanese, Hungarian, Chinese, Czech, Hindi and Croatian languages were always right more than half the time, which suggests that there are resemblances between sound and meaning apparent to men everywhere and that "these have played some part in the development of all natural languages with the result that semantic rules in totally unfamiliar languages do not seem to us to be quite arbitrary".
Brown, Black repeated the experiments with a group of Chinese-speakers. The results were somewhat discouraging. The Chinese matching words with Hindi and Czech, though still producing results somewhat above chance, did less well (particularly for Czech) than English-speakers. In particular, on the MAL/MIL contrast which was introduced into the test, the Chinese responded at the chance level.
These results meant that Brown had to reach a much more tentative conclusion about universal phonetic symbolism than he had earlier proposed: "Totally problematical is the existence of a universal human phonetic symbolism. The phonetic symbolism of the English speaking community may be entirely a result of similar linguistic training. (The Chinese experiment) has shown that the answer to the questions of universal phonetic symbolism will not be easily obtained and when obtained is not likely to be a simple one. There may after all be some associations of sound and meaning that are universally known and others that are a cultural product."
At this point perhaps the only comment on Brown's rather negative conclusion is that it seems only in relation to Chinese, in the experiments reported by him, that the matching of pairs of words from different languages was less satisfactory. It may be relevant to note that for non-tonal languages, the appropriateness of sounds to meanings of words involves a relationship with the phonemes which form the common basis of these languages. In the case of tonal languages like Chinese, a quite different principle is found to convey meaning, that is the pattern of pitch of the voice in the speaking of a word. It would not be surprising if speakers of non-tonal languages should find more difficulty in observing the sound-appropriateness of words in tonal languages or if speakers of tonal languages found more difficulty in judging the phonetic appropriateness of words from non-tonal languages.
Earlier experiment not described by Roger Brown and more recent experiment throws additional light on the subject:
Köhler 1947 carried out experiment to see how far there appeared to be a symbolic relation between the sound of a word and a visual pattern. He presented to a number of experimental subjects two shapes, one rounded and the other angular and asked them to associate with each shape one of two invented words MALUMA and TAKETE. The overwhelming majority of all subjects assigned MALUMA to the rounded shape and TAKETE to the angular one. His experiment has been repeated many times since then, not only in Germany and the United States but also for example in Tanganyika. Elsewhere the results have been equally striking and it has appeared as if there was a strange parallel or similarity between the visual and auditory shapes.
Maltzmann Morrisett Brooks 1956 They argued that if the matching of English/Japanese and English/Croatian by English-speaking subjects succeeds with more than chance probability and this is really the result of a universal phonetic symbolism, then it should not matter whether the experimental subjects know either of the two languages from which the words are drawn which are to be matched. It should therefore be possible to match the words of two languages unknown to the experimental subjects. However, the experiment - with American subjects matching Croatian and Japanese word lists - produced results not above the chance level. The difference from the earlier successful experiments was that the subjects were not matching pairs of words but single words from each language.
Brackbill Little 1957 Six groups of 40 English-speaking subjects were asked to judge equivalence of meaning for 3 sets of 50 pairs of words. The words were a random sample of high-frequency concepts and the three sets were pairs of words in English/Chinese, English/Japanese, English/Hebrew, Chinese/Hebrew. The subjects were able to give English equivalents of Hebrew words and to pair Japanese/Chinese and Japanese/Hebrew words at better than chance level. However, in pairing Chinese/Hebrew, correct guesses were significantly below chance. The authors interpreted the results of the study as contrary to the hypothesis of a universal phonetic symbolism: "We did not find that subjects were able to guess the English meanings of Chinese words significantly above chance". But the process of matching pairs was facilitated by marked contrasts of meaning. They concluded that (apart from the Chinese/Hebrew failure) non-cognate languages may employ similar patterns of sounds (and length of words) to designate similar meanings - at least among frequently used words.
Miron 1961 undertook a cross-linguistic investigation of phonetic symbolism using invented words. Such invented words have expressive symbolic value according to their inherent phonetic content and not to any meanings they may have via real-word associates. These affective meanings were found to bear consistent lawful relations to the phonetic properties of sounds. He concluded that the laws governing phonetic symbolism may be of a universal character.
Taylor and Taylor 1962 studied phonetic symbolism between unrelated languages. Phonetic symbolism occurred under all conditions in the three experiments they conducted but the symbolism was not universal; their results pointed to language-dependent mechanisms - symbolism was not identical in the different languages used. So, for example, they found that in Korean the initial letters T and P in single syllable words are associated with very big magnitudes while they are associated with very small magnitudes in English. The languages they used, English, Japanese, Korean and Tamil, were assumed to be historically unrelated.
Weiss 1964 The process of matching words from different languages is facilitated if the context is restricted. If for example it is known that the topic is 'tables' correct matching is facilitated. The evidence is that the phonetic symbolism is not based on similarity of initial consonants.
Ertel Dorst 1965 using an approach similar to that of Weiss found confirmation for expressive sound symbolism in twenty-five languages. They asked native speakers to make tape recordings of terms of emotions in the different languages. The subjects who listened to the tape recordings had to decide whether the sound sequences had a 'positive' aspect (good, happy &c) or a 'negative' aspect (bad, sad &c) i.e. a decision on feeling tone. Such matching succeeded in all languages with a probability in excess of chance.
Peterfalvi 1970 He repeated with French language-speakers experimental work which previously had been very heavily concentrated in the United States and Germany:
"Experiment suggests that the symbolism of a sequence of phonemes derives equally from the consonants and the vowels although the part played by the vowels is better established and more constant.... One can conclude more generally that phonetic symbolism (or at least the feeling that it exists) is not restricted to artificial words invented for the purpose ... The matching of words referring to movement is more adequate (in terms of the relation of sound to meaning) than for visual words... One finds a correspondence between the physical and symbolic character of sounds."
Besides presenting experimental material generally in line with American and German results, he went on to speculate on the nature of sound symbolism. He considered that, as an aspect of psychological universals, it is possible that phonetic symbolism has a universal base and is a particular aspect of synaesthesia:
"If phonetic symbolism exists in the words forming language, then this can only be as a result of correspondence between the phonic composition of the words and the meaning of the word in so far as it implies experience of stimuli affecting other sensory modalities.... It is possible that a word which evokes impressions (kinaesthetic perception) of movements is judged to be more appropriate than other words because it triggers off mechanisms similar to those which are involved in the actual source of phonetic symbolism."
Swadesh 1972 similarly proposed that patterns of movement may be suggested by the rhythm of the syllables or by making sounds that might be brought forth during the particular type of movement. "Roundness may be shown by using rounded vowel sounds... largeness may be shown.. with broad and narrow vowels. Sibilant sounds... imitate rustling or rushing noises and sometimes rubbing or slipping."
How to sum up this material? Possibly by Roger Brown's conclusion that the view that there is a universal phonetic symbolism playing some role in all languages is favoured but not compelled by the evidence; possibly by Newman's conclusion: "The basis of phonetic symbolism is fundamentally objective" or Peterfalvi's: "The idea of a universal phonetic symbolism is completely foreign to contemporary linguistics but... one can admit nevertheless the existence of a partial symbolism or one superimposed on existing languages without by so doing calling in question the results already achieved otherwise by linguistics" or Brackbill and Little's conservative conclusion that "non-cognate languages may employ similar patterns of sounds... to designate similar meanings".
Though the evidence is strong, on the basis of the research set out above, for the view that phonetic symbolism is a reality within individual languages and for a phonetic symbolism extended to cover non-cognate languages (but not necessarily all languages - Chinese looks to be an exception), little explanation is offered of the natural basis for phonetic symbolism (assuming that the cross-linguistic results rule out any simple cultural explanation). The most recent and perhaps most satisfactory attempt at explanation is that of Peterfalvi's that "phonetic symbolism is a particular illustration of synaesthesia" and is linked to "the expressive and symbolic role of gesture to which many authors have resorted to explain phonetic symbolism."
This is not far removed from more general reflections on phonetic symbolism by Vicente Garcia de Diego in Lecciones de Linguistica Española 1973:
"In the word PIMPIM used for the wagtail we have not an acoustic representation of ifs song but an acoustic expression which translates an optical impression of the rapidity of movement characteristic of the bird. Beyond the grasping of reality by sound, our mind draws in all the derivatives of reality and binds them together in the verbal expression... Phonetic symbolism originates from a translation-process between oral speech and internal-speech... It being accepted that articulation is a gesticulation of the mouth, it is not too violent an assumption to think that this gesticulation seeks to be expressive of reality in the same way as all gesturing. The relative uniformity of face and hand gestures between nations leads one to expect a relative conformity of phonic gestures with reality.." The origin of the sense of appropriateness of the word is not in the actual sounds which compose it but in the coincidence of the reality which it represents with our own internal organisation: "The perception of symbolism is intertwined with the interrelation of our perceptive faculties which are so connected to each other that the operation of one faculty automatically gives rise to activity of the other."
This section assumes that in English there is some widespread relation in vocabulary between the sound and the meaning of words. Without prejudging whether the sound/ meaning relationship is natural or conventional in origin (or how far the same or parallel sound/meaning relations exist in other languages), it seeks to derive from examination of observed parallelisms of sound and meaning for particular words some rules which appear to apply to, and to determine the network of sound/meaning relationships in English. The attempt is to relate the structure of words (in terms of the sound-elements of which they are composed) to the patterns of meaning which are found to link words to each other, to see how far variation in sound between similar words goes systematically in parallel with variation in meaning.
The starting assumption - that there is a widespread sound/meaning relation - is partly a technique of examination i.e. if one assumes this, what features of English vocabulary appear relevant to support or disprove the assumption, but it is partly also a justified assumption based on the observation and experiment reported earlier in this Chapter. The observation and experiment do not, of course, demonstrate that the sound/ meaning relation is total or that it is of natural origin (in the sense that it derives from human physiology) rather than initially conventional, convergently conventional or in some broad sense habitual. But the evidence up to this point seems sufficient to say that one cannot dismiss as improbable the existence of some underlying systematic relation of sound and meaning.
The method followed is to see what conclusions seem justified on examination of a collection of 1000 words where there are indications of some ordered sound/meaning relation. There are two immediate criticisms of this approach on which comment is needed. The first is that because the material is selective it is open to an initial doubt whether it has been contrived to fit the hypothesis. The second criticism is that material which depends for its inclusion on the expressiveness or felt appropriateness of the word to the meaning can be challenged by anyone who says that the word or words do not seem expressive or appropriate to him. On this second point, whilst the aspect of expressiveness is not ruled out as a real and important feature of language, it is not essential to the initial discussion in this section. A rigorous presentation can be based on the objective features of the collection of words, these objective features being observed resemblances of sound, i.e. the extent to which words contain the same sound-elements and the elements appear in the same order, plus observed relations of meaning as determinable by the use of any dictionary.
This leaves the methodological problem of how one can select a limited number of words for study from the total English vocabulary without running the risk that the results are biassed. On the extreme view, the only legitimate object of study would be the totality, the whole English vocabulary (though this is far from being a sharply defined concept) unless some valid sampling procedure can be used which would allow general conclusions to be inferred from a limited number of cases about the regularities existing in the total vocabulary. To analyse the totality, one would have to group all the words in the English language (24,000 in the ODEE and half a million in the Oxford Dictionary) in terms of their varying degrees of sound-resemblance, prepare a parallel analysis of their degrees of meaning-resemblance and seek to draw from this mass of material any general observations, classifications or rules which present themselves. Such an analysis of the total English vocabulary is clearly not feasible.
In practical terms one has to operate with something less than the totality, with a selection of words. But the random sampling of words (on lines used in the social sciences) is not a satisfactory approach. The object is to see how far systematic sound/meaning relationships exist, to discover the continuities, the links, between change in meaning and change in sound. A random choice of word-sounds and word-meanings would produce a collection of words more or less distant from each other both in meaning and in sound. Such a procedure would be no more valid or useful than, by analogy, if one wished to study the network of relationships in a human population, one worked with a randomly selected collection of individuals; the essence of study of a network of relationships is that one should bring together those elements which actually or potentially are related. Rather than proceeding by random sample, one would, in the case of human relationships, examine smaller groups brought together by some limiting feature, in terms of locality, name, appearance &c.
Whilst this shows the impracticability of basing views about the existence of a systematic relation of sound and meaning in English on examination either of the total vocabulary or of a random sample of words, it does not finally dispose of the difficulty that conclusions based only on a limited collection of words may be vitiated by the subjectivity of the selection. Any study must be conscious of this difficulty. The course adopted has been to work with the collection of words presented and draw from this any apparent regularities of the relation of sound and meaning but at the same time to bear in mind that this is only a selection of words and it is therefore necessary to check the generality of any conclusions reached by searching through the total English vocabulary for examples of words or groups of words which appear to depart from the regularities observed or to be otherwise in conflict with the findings. If departure from the regularities is found or there is conflict with the findings, then this does not necessarily of course prove that regularities do not exist -it may mean that the regularities have a limited area of application and that further rules must be devised to cover the case of words falling outside those based on the collection of words studied.
With this preliminary comment, one can now proceed to examine the list of words presented. These are set out in the immediately following Table. It consists of words where there is some apparent linking of sound and meaning. It would have been possible to extend the list considerably, particularly by including, as well as words which resemble each other in their initial sequences of sounds, words which resemble each other in the medial or closing sequences of sounds. There is no reason to assume that these other resemblances are any less important - but to include them would have made the list unmanageable. The list is large enough already for the purpose; it includes many common words which together form a major part of the normal vocabulary of English-speakers.
LIST OF WORDS ILLUSTRATING RELATION OF SOUND AND MEANING
B C D F F G H
BABBLE CLACK DIG FIRE FROLIC GABBLE HEAD
BAWL CLICK DELVE FLAME FARCE GIGGLE HEEL
BELCH CLiNK DITCH FLARE FUN GURGLE HAT
BLABBER CLANK DIKE FLASH FLING GOBBLE HOOD
BLEAT CLANG DUMP FLICKER FRITTER GULP HAIR
BLUBBER CLASH DROP FLINT FRIVOLOUS GAG HELMET
BLURT CLATTER DRIP FLIPPANT GAPE HEM
BLUSTER CRACK DIP FUSE FLIRT GASP HUMBLE
BELLOW CRASH DEEP FUME FLOUT GUSH HAUGHTY
FURNACE FLOUNCE GRUNT HIGH
BLOW CLAP DOWN FERVENT FLOURISH GRUMBLE HILL
BLOAT CLASP DELL FEVER FLAP GROWL HUMMOCK
BILLOW CLAMP DALE FURY FLIP GRUDGE HILLOCK
BULGE CLIP DUNE FIERCE FLAG GRIM HEAP
BULKY CLING FEROCIOUS FLY GRUFF HUMP
BELLY CLINCH DUST FIEND FAN GLOOMY HOLLOW
BLADDER CLENCH DIRT FANG GLUM HOLE
BREAST CLUTCH DUNG FORCE FAIR GLAD
BUST CLUMP DREGS FIGHT FOUL GLEE HOVEL
BUST CLUSTER DROSS FIST FILTHY GAY HUTCH
BURST DINGY FEUD FUSTY HUT
CRUNCH DUN FRAY FRESH GAZE HOUSE
BUBBLE CRUSH DIM FREEZE GLARE HALL
BOIL CRUMBLE DUSK FEAR FRIGID GLOWER HULL
BLISTER CRUMPLE DARK FLINCH GLANCE HULK
BALL CRIMP DANK FLEE GLIMPSE HUGE
BOLL CRANK DAMP FLURRY GLINT HEAVY
BOLE CROOKED FLUSTERED GLITTER HEFTY
BOWL CRUTCH DOLEFUL FLUSH GLIMMER HEAVE
BOULDER CRIPPLE DEAD FUSS GLAMOUR HAUL
CROUCH DIRGE FRET GLEAM HOIST
BULB CRINGE DOOM FRAUGHT GLOW HEFT
BUD CREEP DUMB FRANTIC GLOSSY
BLOOM CRAWL DEAF FRENZY GOSSAMER HAND
BLOSSOM CRAB DREARY FIT GLAZE HAVE
BLOW DULL FAINT GLASS HOLD
CLAW DUNCE FAIL GLIDE HUG
BOTTOM CLIMB DAZED FALTER HIT
BUTT CLAMBER DIZZY FALL GAIN HUNT
BUTTOCK CLUMSY DOZE FLOP GIVE HURT
BOOT CLOG DROWSE FLOUNDER GET HACK
BASE DRUNK FOUNDER GATHER HASH
BED CURL DRUGGED FLOAT GRAB HATCHET
BOARD COIL FOAM GRIP HEW
BENCH CURVE DRUDGE FROTH GRASP HARM
CORNER DREDGE GREED HATE
BEND DRAG FLOSS GRAPPLE HARSH
BIND DRAW FLUFF GROPE HARD
BUNCH FLOCK GRIND HISS
BUNDLE DAGGER FELT
BUN DIRK FLEECE GROUND HASP
DART FUR GRIT HINGE
BRIM DIG FEATHER GRAVEL HOOK
BRINK GROVEL HOOP
GROOVE HUNCH
GRAVE HUMP
LIST OF WORDS ILLUSTRATING RELATION OF SOUND AND MEANING (contd)
V CH J P T TH Y
VIVID CHAFFER JABBER PUFF TOUCH THROW YAP
VIOLENT CHATTER JARGON POUT TAP THRUST YELL
VIE CHUCKLE JINGLE PUCKER TAB THRASH YELP
VIGOROUS CHEERFUL JANGLE PURSE TAG THRONG YOWL
VERY JUMBLE POUCH TICK THWACK
VEHEMENT CHIN JUNGLE PAUNCH TICKLE THWART YAWN
VEX CHAP TACK THUMP
VENT CHOP JAW POINT TAKE THUNDER
VOMIT CHEEK JUT POKE TACKLE
VOLCANO CHAMP JET PIKE TUG THROB
VORTEX CHEW JETTY PIN TOW THRILL
CHISEL PIERCE TRUCK THROAT
VENOM CHIP JAB PANG TRAM THROTTLE
VINDICTIVE CHOP JOLT PUNCTURE TRAIN
VORACIOUS CHUNK JOG PONIARD TRAIL THEWS
VICTIM CHUMP JERK PENETRATE TRACK THIGHS
VAMPIRE JIG PINK TRACE
VULPINE CHIDE JUMP PRICK TREK THINK
VULTURE CHASTISE JIGGLE PROBE TREAD THING
JUGGLE PRY TRUDGE
VERMIN CHARGE PROD TRAMP THICK
VILE CHASE JOKE PRONG TROOP THIN
VILLAIN CHUCK JOSH PUNGENT TRUNDLE
VARLET CHECK JEST PICRIC TREADLE
VULGAR CHALLENGE JAPE PICKLE TROT
VICIOUS JEER PEPPER TRIP
VAPID JAUNT TOTTER
VAIN JOLLY PUT TUMBLE
VACANT JOVIAL PAT TOSS
VOID JOY POT
VANISH PAN TURN
VAPOUR JAR PUSH TURBID
VEIL JUG PUNCH TURBINE
PUMMEL TURGID
VARNISH JUST POUNCE TURMOIL
VELVET JUDGE PECK TURBULENT
VENEER JURY PICK TUMULT
VITREOUS TUSSLE
PULL TANGLE
VARY PLUCK TORQUE
VEER PILFER TORTURE
VACILLATE PLACE
VANE PRESS TURBAN
VIBRATE PROFFER TORCH
PROPEL TWIST
VIRTUE TWINE
VIRILE POOP TURN
VIRGINAL PROW TWIRL
VALID PROTRUDE TWIDDLE
VALIANT PROMONTORYTWITCH
PIER TWINGE
TWANG
PEER
PEEP TOP
PEEK TIP
PERCEIVE TAIL
TUFT
POLE TOE
PERCH
POND PILE TALE
POOL POST TELL
PUDDLE PALING TALK
PLUNGE PICKET TONGUE
PLUMB PEG TEACH
PLOP PROP
LIST OF WORDS ILLUSTRATING RELATION OF SOUND AND MEANING (contd)
S SC SL SP ST
SIP SCOLD SALIVA SPIT STAB
SEEP SCREAM SLAVER SPEW STING
SUP SCREECH SLOBBER SPOUT STILETTO
SUCK SLOB SPURT STIMULUS
OP SKIM SLATTERN SPATTER STIGMA
SOUP SCUM SLOVENLY SPLATTER STICK
SKIN SLEAZY SPLUTTER STAKE
SAY SCURF SLUT SPLOSH STOCK
SIGH SCABROUS SLUM SPLASH STUMP
SOUND SCAB SPILL STUB
SORE SCALE SLINK SPRAY STUBBLE
SORROW SCAR SLOUCH SPRINKLE STALK
SCORE SLUGGISH SPUME STEM
SEE SCOUR SLOW SPINDRIFT STAMEN
SEEK SCRUB SLACK STAFF
SEARCH SCRAPE SLUMP SPLAY STAVE
SCRATCH SLUMBER SPREAD STAY
SEA SCRIMP SLEEP SPRAWL STANCHION
SURF SKIMP SPRAIN STILT
SKINT SLIME SPLIT STORK
SAW SCANT SOIL SPLINT
SICKLE SCARCE SILT SPLINTER STOP
SCYTHE SCRAP SLUDGE STEP
SIEVE SCROUNGE SLUSH SPINE STAND
SIFT SCRABBLE SLEET SPINDLE STIR0
SLOP SPIKE START
SERPENT SCRAMBLE SLOSH SPEAR STRIDE
SNAKE SCAMPER SLOUGH SPICULE STROLL
SINUOUS SCURRY SLUR SPUR STRUT
SCUTTLE SLICK SPIRE STRAY
SURLY SKITTER SLEEK SPIGOT STRAGGLE
SULLEN SKIP SLITHER SPOKE STAGGER
SWEET SKATE SLIP SPRIG
SOUR SCUD SLIDE SPAR STUMBLE
SUGAR SKI SLEDGE SPROUT STIFF
SYRUP SLEIGH SPRAY STERN
SHERBET SCRAWL SPRING STUBBORN
SCRIBBLE STOLID
SET SCREED STURDY
SORT STEADY
SIT STAUNCH
SEAT STOUT
SETTLE STODGY
STARCH
SOW STUFF
SEED STOW
SEW STOKE
SEAM STOCK
SO STILL
SEEM STONE
SIMILAR STEEL
SUCH
SAME STRONG
SELF STRAIGHT
SIB STRETCH
STRAND
SOUL STRING
SOLE STRAP
STRIP
STRAIN
STRESS
STRIVE
STRIKE
STRUGGLE
STRANGLE
LIST OF WORDS ILLUSTRATING RELATION OF SOUND AND MEANING (contd)
SW SH W Z
SWEEP SHAKE WAVE ZEAL
SWAY SHIVER WAVER ZEST
SWING SHUDDER WANDER ZIP
SWIRL SHATTER WEAVE ZOOM
SWERVE SHEAR WAG ZIGZAG
SWOOP SHRED WAGGLE
SWALLOW WIGGLE
SWIFT SHOVE WOBBLE
SWISH SHOCK WADDLE
SWITCH SHIFT WALLOW
SWAT SHOVEL WADE
SWIPE WATER
SWAB SHY WET
SWASH SHUN WIPE
SWILL SHEER WASH
SWIM SHIRK
SWELL SHUNT WHIMPER
SHUT WAIL
WEEP
SHELVE WHINE
SHORE WHISTLE
SHINGLE WIND
SHOAL
SHALLOW WIND
WINCH
SHIMMER WHEEL
SHEEN WHIRL
SHINE WHISK
WHORL
SHRINK WORLD
SHRIVEL WHIRR
WHIZZ
SHRUG WHIP
SHOULDER
WHET
SHOUT WHITTLE
SHRIEK
SHRILL
SHREW
LIST OF WORDS ILLUSTRATING RELATION OF SOUND AND MEANING (contd)
L M N R
LAX MOODY NASTY ROCK
LOOSE MOOCH NICE ROLL
LEWD MOPE NAUSEOUS ROUND
LUST MAWKISH NOSE REVOLVE
LASCIVIOUS MAUDLIN NOSTRIL ROTATE
LECHEROUS MOROSE REEL
LICENTIOUS MORBID NULL ROVE
LIBERTINE MOURNING NUMB RAMBLE
LUXURIOUS MOANING NUN RUMBLE
LAVISH MUMBLING WRIGGLE
LUSH MOONING WRITHE
LUSCIOUS MORTIFIED NIB WRAITH
MALICIOUS NIBBLE WREATH
MAD NIP WRAP
LEISURED MUM NICK RUFF
LANGUID MUTE NUDGE RING
LOUNGING NOTCH RUNG
LETHARGIC MUD NAG ROUND
LAZY MUDDLE NEEDLE RIM
LOLL MEDDLE NIGGLE RIND
LOITER MESS RINK
LINGER MIX NET WRINKLE
LAG MUCK KNIT WRING
LURK MIXEN KNOT RUB
LURCH MULCH NEST RASP
LOUT MANURE
LUBBER MIRE NAME RAP
LOATHSOME MARSH NUMBER RAM
LIVID MORASS RIP
LURID MOIST NAKED ROB
LURE MIST NUDE RAPE
LAIR MUGGY REAP
LARCENY MURK NAPE REND
LOOT MOULD NECK WREAK
MILDEW WRECK
LUNGE MOSS WRENCH
LEAP MUSTY WREST
LASH MUSK RAVAGE
LAPSE MUST RAID
RABBLE
LITHE MANNER RIOT
LIMBER MEANS REBEL
LIMP MODE REVOLT
LAME METHOD ROW
LIMB MEASURE ROUGH
LEG MEDIUM ROGUE
LONG MACHINE RUFFIAN
LEAN RUSH
LANK RASH
RUN
LIQUID RACE
LEAK RAPID
LAKE
LICK ROAR
LIP RAGE
LISP WRATH
RABID
RAVING
RIGHT
WRONG
RIGHT
WRITE
WRIST
RULE WRIGHT
REIGN RITE
In the list, the words are grouped in order of the initial letter and are separated into sub-groups on a basis described later on. Words beginning with vowels are not included nor are rarer words though often they are found to fit very precisely into the apparent patterns of sound and meaning on which the groupings are constructed.
One other preliminary point: in examining the relation between the sound and meaning of the words, it is not a question of the letters which appear in any given word but of the sound-elements which go to compose it. The relation is between sound and meaning and not between spelling and meaning. Some earlier observation and research made the mistake of looking for symbolic significance in individual letters rather than in individual sounds or clusters of sounds. It made little sense in this earlier study to consider whether I is associated with small objects and A with large objects on the basis of words which might resemble each other in spelling but contained quite different sounds, such as LITTLE and TINY or LARGE and GRAND. Equally it was no disproof of any sound/meaning relation to note that there was an A in SMALL as well as in LARGE or an I in MIGHTY as well as in LITTLE when the pronunciation of the vowels is quite distinct.
The propositions for which examination of the above list of words is thought to provide evidence are as follows:
A There is an apparent order and rationality about the collection of words in terms of the relation between their meaning and the sound-elements of which they are formed;
B The probability is that words which are formed of similar sound-elements will tend to have related meanings and that words with related meanings will tend to be formed of similar sound-elements. The closer the relation of the meanings of words, the more probable it is that they will resemble each other in sound. The more closely they resemble each other in sound, the more probable it is that they will be related in meaning;
C Where there is a gradual and systematic change in sound-structure between words in a group, there is likely to be a gradual and systematically-related change in meaning. Words which have more sound-elements in common are likely to demonstrate more closely related meanings. The meaning/sound relation is stronger the more the common sound-elements are arranged in the same order in the different words and appear in the same position in the words;
D There appears to be no clear and simple relation between individual letters (speech-sounds) and gross aspects of meaning i.e. no links of the type that A is invariably associated with large objects and I with little objects. There are some characteristic features of the use of particular vowels in monosyllabic words but their effect depends on the consonants with which they are associated in the particular word. Similarly some consonants used initially or finally in monosyllabic words appear to make a uniform contribution to the total meaning of the word but the overall effect seems to depend on the other sound-elements with which they are associated in the particular word. Words starting with the same cluster of consonants are more likely to have meanings which are systematically inter-related. Words ending with the same clusters of vowels and consonants are likely to have meanings which are systematically inter-related;
E Certain consonants can be formed into groups on the basis that all the members of the group make some parallel or similar contribution to the total meaning of a word i.e. there appears to be some basis for subdivision of consonants into functional groups (in terms of the sound/meaning relation). Certain consonants, in terms of the meaning-contribution they make to words, may be classed in groups based on the type of movement they are associated with in the meaning of a word e.g. forceful movement, turning movements, lateral movements;
F The relation of sound and meaning in words in English is not specifically a matter of the aspect of a word created by the presence of any single letter or even any single letter-cluster. The meaning of a word is related to the whole structure of the sound-elements composing the word. Each element modifies the effect of the other elements with which it is found and the result is a specific total sound associated with a specific total meaning. The meaning adheres to the whole word;
There are words where there is a good degree of resemblance in sound to words falling in particular sound/meaning groups but which have meanings apparently totally distinct from the common meaning attaching to the particular group. There are also words which in sound-structure are identical with words included in a particular meaning-group but which have an apparently completely distinct meaning, that is the homophones. These demonstrate that the explanation of the sound/ meaning relation cannot be a matter of phonaesthetic habit. They also present a problem for any assumption that there is a direct link between sound and meaning -this is separately considered later.
In the first column of words in the list, those beginning with B
- the first sub-group has words in which L is the second letter or the L-sound is important in the total word. The words refer to noises made with the mouth or with the lips. The shared underlying meaning seems closely associated with the BL cluster. The apparently orderly variation of meaning between BABBLE BLABBER BLUBBER or between BLURT and BLUSTER is notable. The ODEE considers that all these words are probably imitative in origin and one can speculate that they derive directly from the movements of the lips involved in the sounds B and L. These are onomatopoeic words in the traditional sense - though some of them seem to imitate not sound but facial movement.
- the second sub-group also has L as an important letter (so that one would expect some meaning-relation to the first sub-group) but the words are less obviously onomatopoeic. Whilst BLOW may straightforwardly represent the facial movement involved in blowing, the remaining words transfer this meaning-aspect to more general ideas of swelling outward, pushing forward, bulging in fact. BLOAT is the swollen state resulting from BLOWING up something, BELLY presents the idea of something bulging, BREAST and BURST convey something swelling and thrust out; BUST, placed between these two words, can replace either of them. The ODEE does not suggest an imitative origin for any of these words but speculates that there may be etymological links between some of them. However, it does not posit any relation between BREAST and BUST (for the latter it says 'origin unknown') though it does between BURST and BUST in the other sense.
- the third sub-group contains the idea of swelling up but concentrates more on the rounded appearance of the resulting object. The differentiation of meaning between the homophones BOLL, BOLE and BOWL is interesting. All clearly refer to rounded objects, close to BALL, BOIL and BUBBLE. The ODEE links BOWL and BOLL but not BOLE BALL or BOIL. BUBBLE is said to be imitative in origin and not to be related directly to BOIL.
- the fourth sub-group still contains an underlying idea of something rounded or pressing forward and out; a BULB is a BUD beneath the ground; BLOOM and BLOSSOM open out and are ultimately BLOWN as they become fully opened. The sound/meaning relation is further removed from direct imitation or onomatopoeia. The ODEE links BLOOM and BLOSSOM to BLOW but gives 'origin unknown' for BUD and an unexplained Greek origin for BULB.
- the fifth sub-group contains words of a quite different character from those in the first four sub-groups. The initial B is not followed by an L. The common element of meaning in the sub-group appears to be 'something below' 'something downward'. This seems, in the first four words, to result from the co-presence of B and T. The ODEE sees no etymological link between the words (other than BUTT and BUTTOCK) and gives 'origin unknown' for BOOT BED. Disregarding etymology, the link between BUTT BOOT and BOTTOM, on the assumption that sound and meaning go in parallel, seems clear but the sound/meaning derivation of BED and BASE need further explanation.
- the sixth sub-group contains words in which N is a prominent letter. The N seems to be associated with some turning or bending aspect of meaning. BEND BUNCH and BUNDLE seem to go together on this basis. The ODEE for BUN suggests that it is likely to be small and round and the roundness could be related to the conjunction of B and N. The ODEE does not relate the words and gives 'origin unknown' for BUN and BUNCH.
- the last sub-group contains only two words BRIM and BRINK. These are interesting because of their close resemblance in sound and meaning. The ODEE does not relate them etymologically. Assuming that sound goes with meaning, they readily go with RIM RINK RIND. This illustrates how sound/meaning groups can be formed on the basis of partial resemblances not necessarily including the initial letters of the words.
This account of the sub-groups of words beginning with B demonstrates the kind of basis on which the list of words has been compiled and the order in which the words are placed. To some extent the order and grouping coincide with traditional etymology but there are divergences from it where the hypothesis of a sound/meaning link seems more helpful.
In looking through the remainder of the List there are some groups of words where the relation between sound and meaning seems particularly striking and where the sound appears to vary in parallel with the meaning. Examples of these groups are:
CLAP CRUNCH GET JAB POINT TOUCH CLASP CRUSH GATHER JOLT POKE TAP CLAMP CRUMBLE GRAB JOG PIKE TAB CLIP CRUMPLE GRIP JERK PIN TAG CLING CRIMP GRASP JIG PIERCE TICK CLENCH CRAMP GROPE JIGGLE PANG TACK CLUTCH CRANK GRAPPLE JUGGLE PUNCTURE TICKLE CLUMP CROOKED GREED JET PRICK TAKE CLUSTER CRUTCH GRIND JUT PROBE TACKLE SPIT SWEEP ROCK SPEW SWAY ROLL SPOUT SWING ROUND SPURT SWIRL REVOLVE SPATTER SWERVE ROTATE SPLATTER SWOOP REEL SPLUTTER SWALLOW ROVE SPLOSH SWIFT RAMBLE SPLASH SWISH
The group beginning with CLAP, for example, suggests very clearly an underlying unity of meaning, with a gradual change in meaning moving in step with the gradual change in sound after the initial CL. The group beginning with CRUNCH is almost equally striking, there is some link obviously with the first group e.g. CLINCH CLENCH CRUNCH CRUSH. The group containing GRAB GRIP GRASP can be compared with that containing CLAP CLIP CLASP. The words beginning with SP SPL or SPR suggest a strong relation between sound and meaning as do those in the group beginning with SWEEP where the initial SW appears to have a clear effect on the character of the word.
It is striking in definitions of some of these words in the dictionary to see how often words used to define or explain a word resemble in sound the word defined. So for JOLT the Oxford Dictionary has "abrupt shock or jerk", for PROD it has "a thrust with some pointed instrument, a poke".
The closer the relation in meaning, the more probable is the relation in sound. Perhaps the clearest demonstration of this is one that is so well-known that no one normally observes the relation between sound and meaning which exists i.e the resemblances of sound and meaning between words found in declensions and conjugations. A declension or conjugation is a systematic change in meaning (centring round a particular meaning) related to a systematic change in sound : IS/WAS ARE/WERE ME/MINE OX/OXEN SING/SANG/SUNG YOU/YOUR HE/HIM/HIS GO/GOES and soon. Curiously something like this close relation of sound and meaning is often seen in words used for opposed ideas such as: SMALL/TALL THIN/THICK LOW/LOFTY LIGHT/NIGHT/ BRIGHT SWEET/SOUR FAIR/FOUL GLAD/GLUM GET/GIVE PUSH/PULL STOP/ START HEAD/HEEL TOP/TOE NICE/NASTY RIGHT/WRONG and many others. Something similar is seen in other languages: an obvious example is Latin ALTUS which means both HIGH and DEEP. In the groups of words provided in the Illustrative List, a series like CLAP CLASP CLAMP CLIP CLING CLINCH CLENCH CLUTCH gives a similar impression of constituting a paradigm or declension of meaning parallel to the paradigm or declension of meaning seen in the normal case centred on a single idea.
A gradual change in sound-structure is likely to be related systematically to a gradual change in meaning. This can be explored first in relation to the group of words just referred to: that beginning with CLAP. Between CLAP (meaning to bring the arms and hands sharply together in front of the body) and CLASP which involves a similar but less abrupt movement perhaps with greater tension, the change of meaning seems parallel to that between GRAB or GRIP (meaning a rapid movement to seize hold of something) and GRASP which is a more deliberate movement with greater tension. From this equation one might conclude that the lengthening of the vowel and the insertion of the S produce the dual effect of lengthening the movement to which the word refers and increasing the force with which it is executed, There are other words where the same sort of change of meaning can be observed: RAP is a rapid movement striking against something - RASP is a continuous slower more forceful movement. As illustrations simply of the change associated with use of a long vowel rather than a short vowel, one can take SQUASH and SQUEEZE - BAT and BEAT To illustrate the effect of the insertion of S as increasing the force of an action, one can take PLASH and SPLASH, CRUNCH and SCRUNCH, QUASH and SQUASH
As between CLAP and CLASP, another distinction is that some audible sound is associated with CLAP and none with CLASP. The sound associated with CLAP can be compared with sounds associated with TAP RAP FLAP LAP which all involve a short, sharp, flat sound which seems to derive from the A in the words.
In GRIP on the other hand the short vowel I does not seem to have any sound necessarily associated with it any more than for TIP RIP FLIP LIP. The lengthening of the vowel into GROPE seems to produce a variation of meaning making the action slower and less defined. GROPE is a variation which carries the impression of 'seeking to GRIP'; it has not the force of GRASP (due to the S) or the definiteness and speed of GRIP (due to the short I). A pair such as DIP and DIVE or PROD and PROBE is somewhat analogous.
There are other parallels between the CLAP and GRIP groups. The nearest link to GRIP is CLIP - which the Oxford Dictionary defines inter alia as "to clasp with the arms - to grip tightly". The difference of meaning is small just as the difference of sound-structure is small. This comparison between CLIP and GRIP in terms of the sound/meaning relation should demonstrate the difference in the meaning-contribution of C to the word against the meaning-contribution of G. From the dictionary definition, it appears that CLIP has more reference to clasping with the arms and GRIP to holding firmly with the hand but it is not certain whether this is a unique consequence of the use of C or G followed by LIP or RIP or reflects a more general meaning-aspect of C and G. The ODEE does not suggest any etymological relation between the two words, despite the resemblance of meaning.
Continuing the examination of the words in the group, one can now look at the difference between CLASP and CLAMP. CLASP involves a grasping with the arms in a slower but stronger movement than CLAP and CLIP. In meaning CLASP and CLAMP, whether as nouns or verbs, are not far removed from each other. In the dictionary, the origin of the noun CLASP is said to be unknown - even though the word is defined as "a fastening consisting of two interlocking parts", a clear analogy to the action of CLIPPING or GRASPING. CLAMP differs from CLASP in that the vowel is short and in place of S there is M. With the shorter vowel CLAMP would be expected to represent a more definite and quicker movement than CLASP. The ODEE suggests no etymological relation between CLAMP and CLASP but defines CLAMP as "a clasp... for fastening things together... a name of appliances with opposite parts which may be brought together so as to seize, hold anything". The near identity of meaning with the word CLASP is apparent, even to the aspect of two parts which come together to hold something. On the dictionary definition, the difference of meaning seems to lie in the permanence or fixity of the fastening: CLAMP is said to be "usually of rigid material" and the effect of the M is apparently to contribute a meaning-aspect referring to the rigid form of the two arms of the fastening as against the pressing movement involved in CLASP and the sharp short action and noise involved in CLAP. Some confirmation of the effect of the AMP grouping of sounds can be seen by looking at TAMP as compared with TAP. TAMP is defined as "to ram home - to ram down hard so as to consolidate earth, gravel &c" whereas TAP, apart from the short sharp sound associated with it (as in CLAP), is defined as "a light blow" The difference of meaning between TAP and TAMP shows somewhat the same aspect of rigidity and fixity as compared with momentary action that there seems to be between CLAP and CLAMP.
The systematic variation of sound and meaning in the remainder of the group of words can be similarly examined. CLING as against CLIP seems to carry a meaning-aspect of continued holding and 'hanging on to' something. CLING is closely related to CLINCH (the ODEE suggests an etymological link): CLINCH is defined as "close grip.. to fasten by bending back the point of a nail driven through a plank" i.e. there is a complex of meaning-relationships to GRIP CLING CLENCH CLAMP (also a curved or bent fastening) CLINK (in the sense of a rivet) and soon. The sound/meaning relation of CLENCH to the other words in the group is also close. The ODEE gives for CLENCH the meaning "rivet" and also the action of "closing tightly, setting firmly together the fingers or fist"; there is an element of bending of the hand and fingers where the letter N seems to make a meaning-contribution similar to that already noted for it in BEND BUNDLE BUNCH. In the word CLENCH and in other words ending in CH such as CLUTCH CLINCH CRUNCH the CH appears to contribute an aspect of completed forceful action (see also CATCH SNATCH PINCH). The meaning-contribution of MP in CLAMP appears to be somewhat similar to that of NCH in CLENCH or CLINCH which have very similar meanings to CLAMP though they are not said to have any etymological relation to it.
CLUTCH, the next word in the group, is defined as "to hold tightly in the closed hand" and is etymologically perhaps related to CLAW. The CH in CLUTCH appears to carry the same meaning-aspect as in CLENCH. The T obviously has no independent force and it remains to consider the contribution made by U in association with CH. Some indication is perhaps given by its use in TOUCH which involves a forward movement similar to CLUTCH but without the grasping aspect. If the initial CL is taken to contribute the grasping aspect, then it can be deduced that the combination U with CH introduces a forward movement aimed at taking a firm hold on something
CLUMP most closely resembles CLAMP. CLUMP is defined as "a shapeless mass, a heap, a lump, a cluster, an equivalent of CLUNCH, to tread clumsily" from which the interrelation of meaning with words which resemble it in sound is apparent. So CLAMP also is defined as "to pile up (bricks, earth &c) in a heap, a heap of earth to cover potatoes, to tread heavily, to clump"; the distinction of meaning between CLUMP and CLAMP is very slight in the same way as the difference of sound between the two words is very small - even though the dictionary does not propose any etymological relation between the two words. The only discernible shade of meaning is perhaps that UMP carries more of an idea of clumsiness, perhaps of some dull sound, shapelessness in referring to a heap of something, which does not adhere in the same way to CLAMP; the meaning-aspect seen in CLUMP is also found in words such as DUMP LUMP SUMP.
The final word in the group of words starting CL considered here is CLUSTER. This differs a good deal in sound-structure from the other words. It is defined as "a collection, of things growing closely together, a bunch, a clot, a group, a crowd". The prevalence of defining words using the consonantal sequences CL CR GR is notable, Though no etymological relation to CLUMP is suggested, CLUSTER is given as one of the meanings of CLUMP. It is for consideration what variation of meaning is contributed by the sequence STER after CLU as compared with that contributed by MP after CLU in CLUMP. Earlier the MP was said to be associated with an aspect of rigidity and fixity and, in association with U in UMP, shapelessness or clumsiness. CLUSTER does not have any of these meaning aspects. In other words MP also gave the impression of something forced together (in TAMP CLAMP). CLUSTER on the other hand is defined as groups of things growing together or coming together, not forced together. Interestingly, the same aspect of 'coming together' is found in one of the few words similar in sound to CLUSTER, that is MUSTER - which is defined as "to bring together, to gather together, to collect together in a body".
This completes examination of the systematic relation between sound and meaning for the group of words beginning with CL. This has been done in some detail partly to illustrate a technique which can be applied to other groups of words where sound and meaning seem to vary in parallel but partly because, through the equations constructed, it is possible to arrive at more specific views on the particular meaning-aspects which logically appear to be associated with particular sound-elements or clusters of letters and which go to form the total meaning of a word. The tentative identifications of meaning-aspects associated with particular letters so far can be summarised as:
C appears to have reference to an action involving the bent arms
G appears to refer rather to an action involving the hand
L involves some bending movement (in this case of the arms)
A is associated on occasion with a sharp flat sound or to contribute to the rapidity of a movement, as contrasted with a slower movement associated with a longer vowel
P as a final letter is associated with the sharp conclusion of an action, a sharp completed noise
S seems to be associated with a stronger (though possibly slower) movement or with some greater tension of action
M at any rate before P seems to introduce an aspect of rigidity or firmness
I as a short vowel, like A, seems to be associated with more rapid movement but does not seem to have the same association with a short flat sound (at any rate on the basis of the words so far considered)
NG carries with it some idea of 'hanging on' or 'hanging down' (perhaps similar to the effect in DANGLE or BANGLE)
N contributes an aspect of curvature or bending
CH as a final letter seems, somewhat like P, to be associated with the completion of an action, probably rather abruptly
U as a short vowel is associated with indefiniteness, clumsiness, shapelessness, heaviness at any rate in the grouping UMP but at the same time when followed by CH it involves some movement forward.
In this way, tentative identifications of the meaning contributions made by individual sound-elements have been made for 12 letters or letter-sequences. The meaning-aspects are partial; none of the letters is linked with any very precise or large meaning, certainly nothing of the character that A indicates large objects and I indicates small objects. The same sort of examination can be made of other groupings of words where there appears to be a parallel variation of sound and meaning. It would obviously be a large task to deal in similar detail with every other word in the Illustrative List but there are some groups of particular interest including that beginning with the ST initial cluster which has been commented on by many writers on linguistics. The words considered are:
STAB STAFF
STAMP STUFF
STUMP STIFF
STUB STOW
STICK STORE
STEM STOKE
STOCK
STAB is defined as "to thrust a weapon into a person". Words which resemble it give an indication of the aspects of meaning contributed by the different sound-elements cf. GRAB JAB NAB. For JAB, the dictionary gives "to poke roughly, to stab"; for NAB, the definition is "to snatch or seize a thing"; for GRAB, the meaning is "a quick sudden clutch, grasp or attempt to seize". From consideration of the words GRIP and GRASP, the conclusion was reached that the GR appeared to have reference to an action involving closing of the hand to hold something. It therefore results that AB in GRAB and in STAB contributes an aspect of meaning related to the quickness and suddenness of the movement; this would also be in line with the meaning-aspect already associated above with the short vowel A. It is also consistent with the meanings of JAB and NAB. It further follows that the force of ST, at any rate in the word STAB, is similar to that of J in the word JAB i.e. some forward thrusting or poking movement. Since S has already been identified as an intensifier, giving a movement greater force, then T by itself ought also to be associated with a forward movement, though less forceful than ST together.
STAMP, the next word in the group, is defined as "to crush, press, to strike an impression on something, to strike the ground forcibly with the foot". The sound-elements in STAMP can be similarly related to the sound-elements in other words which resemble it. MP has been identified with an aspect of rigidity or firmness as in CLAMP and TAMP. A as a short vowel contributes to the rapidity of movement (and is associated also with a sharp flat sound). From the consideration of STAB, ST is said to contribute a forward thrusting or poking movement. These values for the sound-elements in STAMP seem to fit well together to produce the total meaning of the word, that is a strong forward thrusting movement, which is rapid, may have a sharp flat sound associated with it and is made with rigidity or firmness. (For STAMP as referring to a movement of the leg and foot rather than of the hand and arm one can compare a word resembling it such as TRAMP).
STUMP is defined as "to walk clumsily as with a wooden leg, the part remaining of a broken-off limb, a wooden leg, the remaining portion of a tree-trunk, stub, stalk, a post or pillar". The contribution to the total meaning of the word made by each sound-element can be assessed in the same way as for STAMP. The elements are ones which have already been considered in relation to the words already examined. The U sound (at any rate in UMP) appears to be associated with indefiniteness, clumsiness, shapelessness, heaviness and STUMP in this respect clearly agrees with LUMP CLUMP DUMP. The change of meaning between STAMP and STUMP, referring to actions, seems to fit well with the different meaning-aspects already identified for A (a quick movement) and U (some clumsy movement). It is not clear from the dictionary how over time the meanings of the word STUMP have developed, whether from the verb referring to clumsy movement later to extend to any object which is broken off and clumsy or from the noun to the verb. In so far as the word refers to a manner of walking, it can be linked with STEP STAMP STAND STOP STIR START STRIDE STRUT STROLL &c.
STUB both in sound and meaning is close to STUMP. It is defined as "the stump of a tree, a short thick nail, something that looks stunted, a stud or projection' and also, as a verb, "to grub up, to strike the toe violently against something". In STUB as a verb, the B, as in STAB and JAB, appears to contribute the suddenness of the action, with the ST, as for STUMP and STEP, referring to a forward movement of the leg and foot. The U sound again appears to contribute an aspect of clumsiness or shapelessness.
STALK follows the pattern of many words beginning with ST in referring both to an elongated object and to an aspect of movement (as in walking). It is defined as "stem, a slender connecting part in a plant, a slender upright support, to walk with stiff steps like a long-legged bird, to walk softly by stealthy approach". As a movement STALK in sound resembles WALK. The defining words used in the dictionary "to walk with stiff steps" resemble closely in sound the word STALK itself. In STALK as a noun, the ALK sound seems to be associated with the long slender aspect of the object; it may be no coincidence that the word for "a long-legged bird" has the same sound but a different spelling STORK. A comparison with STOCK, particularly as in the adjective STOCKY, suggests that the longer vowel sound in STALK is associated with a longer and more slender object and the short vowel sound in STOCK with a shorter thicker object.
STOCK is a word with very many meanings: "a trunk or stem, a stake, stocking, a stiff type of neckcloth, a thrust with a pointed weapon" and many others. Some meanings of STOCK have an aspect of movement which is related to STAB STUB STALK STICK as words also referring to movement. The resemblance in meaning appears to be between the contour of the movement referred to and the contour of the objects to which the words refer. As compared with STICK "a rod or staff of wood", the different vowel in STOCK seems to be related to a difference in dimension, the I being associated with a relatively thinner object and the O with a relatively thicker object.
STEM is defined as "the main body of a plant, trunk, stock, stalk (ordinarily implying more slenderness than stock or trunk)". This may suggest that CK K B MP in STOCK STALK STUB STUMP are generally associated with greater thickness but the effect seems to depend partly on the vowel with which these consonantal sounds are associated. STALK may be as thin as STEM and there may not be much difference in thickness of STEM and STICK. STEM, like other words beginning with ST, can also refer to a movement as well as the shape of an object. STEM as a verb is defined as "to stop, check, to tamp" and in this use the sound M seems to be associated with some rigidity or firmness.
STAFF is "a stick carried in the hand, a stick, pole or club used as a weapon, the shaft of a spear". Compare with STIFF defined as "rigid, not flexible". However if seems unlikely that the FF alone contributes the meaning-aspect of rigidity to STAFF and STIFF since STUFF is not associated with rigidity. It seems more likely that the vowel/consonant combination creates the aspect of rigidity (though see also TOUGH).
STOW is defined as "to place, to pack full, to store". It has a meaning close to other words beginning with ST such as STOCK STUFF STORE. The ST again seems to carry the meaning-aspect of a forward thrusting movement and the addition of the vowel-sound OW without a concluding consonant seems to leave the action uncompleted and indefinite. STORE, though etymologically unrelated to the words just discussed, is defined as "to stock, supply a person with something" and in sound and meaning it is obviously close to STOW.
STOKE is defined as "to feed, stir up, poke the fire". Etymologically it is said to be unrelated to words which resemble it in the contour of action referred to such as STOW STICK STUFF. STOKE also resembles POKE SPOKE STROKE where the ending OKE (a long vowel sound with a final consonant) seems to contribute a meaning-aspect referring to the length of the forward movement.
On the basis of examination of the group of words beginning with ST, a further 9 tentative identifications can be made of the meaning-aspects associated with particular letters or sound-groups:
B in final position contributes an aspect of quickness or suddenness at any rate in the sound-group AB - but it may rather be an aspect of completeness, the sharp ending of an action, in the same way as initial B (e.g. in BLOW) is associated with the sharp beginning of an action
T is associated with a forward movement which is intensified by S in ST in the same way as the movement associated with P is intensified in SP
ALK the long vowel-sound appears to have a meaning-aspect "elongated, slender", at any rate in the combination ALK
O as a short vowel-sound appears to refer to something which is thicker, at any rate as compared with shorter vowels (and possibly an aspect of 'rounded')
CK as a final sound has an obscure meaning-aspect different from that of C as an initial letter, It may be no more than something completed or terminated (rather like final B)
E appears to have a meaning-aspect, at any rate in EM, of less rigid than AM
OW has a vaguely indicated meaning-aspect, at any rate as the final letter-sequence of a word. It seems to do no more than allow the action to continue without any abrupt ending.
F The meaning-aspect contributed by F or FF is so far not well-defined. It may be some aspect of rigidity or force.
The next group considered is that beginning with P or PR:
POINT PIERCE
POKE PRICK
PEG PROD
PIKE PROBE
PEAK PRONG
POINT is defined as having a wide variety of meanings but the main definition is "to indicate position or direction by extending the finger" with other meanings "to prick, to pierce, to puncture, to work with a point as in pointing with a trowel, a prick, a dot, a spot, a speck, a minute part, a sharp end to which anything tapers". The fundamental meanings are no doubt the action of indicating with the finger and the contour of a pointed object - the sharp end to which anything tapers.
From the words already considered in this section, the value of some of the sound-elements composing POINT has been tentatively identified. P in the final position in a word has a meaning-aspect associated with a sharp conclusion of an action, a sharp completed noise. As an initial letter P seems to have a similar meaning-aspect. Comparing POINT with POKE PUSH PIERCE, there is a common element of pushing forward, thrusting forward, 'pointing'. T has been associated also with a forward movement as in TOUCH and STAB. POINT which brings together P and T seems to express the combined movement associated with the two sounds; it is interesting that in the reverse order as in TIP, the meaning is similar. The diphthong Ol together with the N in POINT seems to be associated with a fairly lengthy forward movement; possibly the N is associated with some bending or curving in the forward movement in pointing.
The next word considered POKE is not said to have any etymological connection with POINT but is defined as having a similar meaning "to thrust or push anything with one's hand or arm, the point of a stick or the like, to go prying into corners". POKE can be compared with SPOKE or PIKE. A SPOKE in contour resembles the contour of action in POKE (and has some broad resemblance to words such as STICK STOCK STALK). PIKE is defined as "a sharp point, a spike, the pointed end of a staff, a prickle or, as a local word, peak - a pointed or peaked summit". The etymology is linked with PICK an