“Sound symbolism” in English

This article seeks to resolve the long-running controversy about “sound symbolism” — that is, the controversy as to whether as phonemes, sound features, and so on can be meaningful apart from the morphemes they are part of. It argues that both opponents and proponents have been partly right and partly wrong. Words in English often do convey some meaning through their sound as well as through the morphemes, as proponents have said; but the meaning is conveyed more systematically, abstractly and indirectly than they have allowed. Meaning in English is generally conveyed by conventionalised abstract symbols, as opponents have said; but “sound symbolism” is often truly symbolic, and symbols may be motivated in one respect while conventionalised in another. (Besides, English uses iconic and deictic/indexical means of expression, elsewhere than in sound.)The article seeks to resolve the controversy in two further ways. First, it argues for the role of articulation in providing a precise and regular mechanism for conveying meaning and controlling interpretation, which neither side has made clear. Second, it argues that, just as the details of a word's conceptual meaning vary according to the context of use interacting with the word's semantic structure, so does the interpretation of sound meaning vary in context.

► “Sound symbolism” can be motivated, in expressive interjections, and onomatopoeia.
► By extension, it also symbolises events, qualities and grammatical intensification.
► It uses features like plosiveness and aspiration, mainly through articulation.
► Like word meaning, it is polysemous, and constrained by context.
► Both its proponents and its opponents have been partly right and partly wrong.