Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited etymology for picture byencodingrelativesizeofthereferent.NearendessayIputforwardan self-similar forms.Withinandacrosstheseclusters,iconicfeaturesofvariouskindsenrichthe more prevalent.Atleastinthesubsetofbirdnames,indexicalityseemstoresideclusters distinguished fromindexicality,whichofthesetwokindsnon-arbitrarinessisbyfarthe Various kindsof‘iconicity’aredistinguished,andiconicityasawhole,narrowlydefi deployment androotshapealsohavetwooppositesources:oldversusrelativelynewlexis. two sources,againfundamentallyopposed:divergenceandconvergence.Disparatephoneme strongly disparatedeploymentsofphonemesandshapesroots.Self-similarityarisesfrom self-similarity amongitemsinsemanticsubsetsand,atthesametimeandsubsets, attempt toassessdegreesofarbitrariness(anditsopposites)inthefi involved. implies arathernarrowcompass,theelements broader eventhantheoneexaminedhere(seeBergen,p.290forliterature), butunfortunatelythetermitself this isclearlynotthecase.’Notethatterm have meaningsrelatedto“light”or“vision”asthereare phonological formisentirelyarbitrary,givenitssemantics,thereshould bethesameportionof June 2004,2,pp.290–311.Noticeinparticular(p.293):‘Onthebasis oftheassumptionthatasimpleword’s Central Europe 07W .Mny&SnLd DOI: © 2007W.S.Maney&SonLtd fundamentally different,indeedopposed,kindsofnon-arbitrariness not impossible, BEGINNING withthepremisethatcompletearbitrarinessoflinguisticsignisunlikelyif helpful conversationswhilewritingthisessay. Aristotle toPinker’,pp.93–140. Linguistic NaturalismanditsOppositesinPlato’s (hereafter 1 3 2 See,forexample,BenjaminK.Bergen,‘ThePsychologicalRealityofPhonaesthemes’,
For arecentoverviewofnon-arbitrarinessandrelatedmatters,see JohnE.Joseph, This istheplacetoexpressmythanksRichardBrownandSzilvia Molnar,withwhomIhadcritically NOMENCLATURE AND University CollegeLondon,SchoolofSlavonicandEastEuropeanStudies PHONOSEMANTIC SUBSETSINTHE Limiting theArbitrary , Vol.5,No.1,May2007 LEXICON: HUNGARIANAVIAN madár 1 Iexamineinthisessaynon-derivedHungarianaviannomenclaturean , ‘bird’. ), especiallychapter4,‘Natural Grammar andConventionalWordsfrom Daniel Abondolo DU SIGNE phon- phonaestheme Cratylus and andModernTheoriesofLanguage -aesth- sn- appliestoarangeofsound-sensepairingsthatis wrsta hr hs enns n e ...] . wordsthatsharethosemeanings.Andyet[. suggestingthatonlysoundandsensationare L’ARBITRAIRE t offormtofunction. 10.1179/174582107x235375 3 aredistinguished: Limiting theArbitrary: , Amsterdam,2000 gl- Language wordsthat ned, is ned, 2 Two , 80, Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited Hungarian: itcametosoundmorelikeaHungarianword. names ofwordsinsigningisanentirelyseparateissue. Zoltán Gombocz, Besztercei szójegyzék semantic continuityismaintained:apartfromtheoldestgloss,taken fromawordlist,notrunningtext(the meaning iscurrent.Heterogeneousthoughtheseglossesmayseem atfi refer totoads( the historyofHungarianwords in ourunderstandingofthathistory. within reasonablyclearlydelimitedsemanticsubsectionsofthelexiconcanprovideassistance what Iamsuggestinghereisthereverse:thatsynchronicrelationsbetweensoundandsense language, seePaulMenzerath, 1979 (hereafter‘Finnish’),pp.299–306 (299).Foranexampleofanalysisthelexicalcanon ofone in IrmengardRauchandGerald F. Carr(eds), based oncrudecounts’,seeRobert Austerlitz,‘TheMorphologyandPhonologyofFinnishGiven Names’, elaborate statisticalanalysisinthis essay. EWU történeti-etimológiai szótára philological recordthepremierHungarianetymologicaldictionary (LorándBenko of soundchangesbutalsosensedevelopmentorevenradical shift.Forexample,onthebasisof See StephenUllmann, (pronounceable, audible)nameofawordwhosesenseisthementalrepresentationrepresentation.
While myuseoftheterm Loránd Benko A detailedinvestigationintothehistoriesofthesewordswould entailmeticuloustracingnotonly Jeno To avoidperilousmisunderstandings,inthisessayIadopttheGombocz/Ullmannsystemoftalking ), p.877. , butratherinthepresent-dayshapeofnamesthemselvesandrelationsthese ˝ Kiss, losos -z- , citedasthemostprobabledirectsource)andthatofHungarian andvoicelessaffricate c Magyar madárnevek:azeurópaimadarakelnevezései . 1395),hedgehogs(1522),badgers(1533),marmots(1604),andhamsters (1608);onlythelast 5 ˝ etal.(eds), ’s explanationthatopiumissoporifi Jelentéstan ésnyelvtörténet [GlossaryofBeszterce],from sVs The PrinciplesofSemantics , Budapest,1976[hereafter to zVc Die ArchitektonikdesdeutschenWortschatzes canon Etymologisches WörterbuchdesUngarischen broughtthiswordmoreintolinewiththelexicalcanon impliescleavageto,anddeviationfrom,statisticalnorms,Iattempt no 7 wereadthattheHungarianwordfor‘salmon’, Statistical norm -c Daniel Abondolo , isglossedoverbythe [1926], Budapest,1997,pp.147–49.Non-arbitrarinessinthe Linguistic Method:EssaysinHonor of HerbertPenzl , 2ndedn,Glasgow,1959(hereafter c. 1390–1410),alltheputativereferentsaremammals. cally ofHungarianwordsforbirdsandother TESz hererefersto‘acrudeintuitive feeling forquantity ˝ KissinhismonographonHungarianavian c becauseitcontainsa‘virtusdormitiva’. ]) reconstructs , Budapest,1984(hereafter rst glance,one seesthatathreadof , 1954(hereafter EWU , Budapest,1992–1993(hereafter hörcsög asfollows:‘Form 4 ofthewordsforbirds ashavingbeenusedto Principles ˝ [ed.], lazac Architektonik Madárnevek ), pp.65–73;and , withvoiced A magyarnyelv , TheHague, 6 Rather, lazac ). ). lazac 8 , is of le
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited that heorsheiscrazy’, artefacts don’t’. in nowayundermineswhatItaketobeanunderlyingnaturethatbirdshave‘ina that thisornamemayrefertodifferentsubspecies,species,partsoffamilies natural kind,andthatthenamesweusetoreferthemarethuskindterms.Thefact combinations ofwhichthename nomenclature andinthelightofrelations,orvalences,phonemesphoneme it shouldbeexaminedinthelightofentiretyourknowledgeHungarianavian comparatively anddiachronically.Itshouldalsobestudiedfrom‘within’‘below’: should bestudiedforitself,andnotmerelyfrom‘without’‘above’,thatis, Laboratory Life:TheConstructionof Scientifi c Facts the world(ethnoscience,Westernscience;technologyofeverydaylife). themselves. Groupingsandpatternsofsuchnamesmaythenbecomparedwithgroupingsin values derivedfromandattributedtothem.Butthefocushereisonformsofnames this study.Thequalitiesofthereferentsareinterestandimportance,ascultural stress herethatthenatureofreferents,is,birdsthemselves,isalsoperipheralto adequately onlyoncedetailedworkwithinindividuallanguageshas beencarriedout. gathering somespecimensof connexions; butmypointisthatthisstepnotsuffi step intheunderstandingofhistorythiswordanditsculturalantecedents juxtaposition ofHungarian may alsobeappliedwithprofi productivity, doubletsandotherparonyms,synonymicclustering.Butinternalreconstruction lexicon andmorphophonemicsofalanguage,thestudyits‘irregularities’—degrees study ofalinguisticisolaterequiresinternalreconstruction:thecloseexamination order tolearnmoreaboutthem.AsWilliamA.Foleyputs it: from ‘crazy’;heorshedoesindeedcollectspecimensandotherdataconcerningartefactsin word work andeverydaythinkingbutalsotheir(partial)cause. similar to‘furniture’(seenote4). with thepositiontakenhereconcerning name,sense,andmentalrepresentationsthat‘love’isin thisway 13 12 11 10 9 For thepurposesofthisessayItakeamoderatelyrealistposition:assumethatbirdsare So muchforthehistoricalbackgroundofnamesandsensesthesewords.ButImust On theotherhand,IcannotagreewithGoddardwhenheasserts‘ifweheardofascientist Much ofmymethodtakesitstoolsfromtheworkshopinternalreconstruction.The
Cliff Goddard, William A.Foley, Goddard, John Searle, Equally ofinterestarethequestionsbirdnamescross-linguistically; butthesecanbeaddressed lived history. coupling isnotoptimal;aswithevolutionarychange,itsimply viable.Knowledgeisakindof view, bringingforthameaningfulworldinwhichcontinuedstructural couplingispossible.This it issomethingourbodiesuse,siton,orsleepin.Knowledgeperceptually guidedactioninthis ‘Furniture’ isnotsomenotionunderstoodsimplythroughadistributed neuralnetworkinthebrain; scientist Semantic Analysis . Fortheinvestigatorinhumanitiesdoespreciselythissortofwork,andisfar Mind, Language,andSociety 10 13 Putanotherway,‘out-thereness’isnotonlytheconsequenceofscientifi Semantic Analysis,APracticalIntroduction Anthropological Linguistics:AnIntroduction 12 unlessweweretomovetheitalicizationfromword Phonosemantic SubsetsintheLexicon ,
p. 251. harkály chairs t toalanguagewithclearcongeners.Forexample,the inordertodiscoverthenatureof ‘woodpecker’withitsObUgrianpendantsisanecessary harkály , London,1999,p.24,citingBrunoLatourandSteveWoolgar, , 2ndedn,Princeton,1986,pp.180–82. ismade. , Oxford,1988,p.251. , Oxford,1997,p.90.Notealso,in con cient. TheHungarianword 11 chairs 9 , wewouldthink chair harkály tothe nexion c 5
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited ( Thus wemightspecifyascorefeaturesofHungarianbirdnamesthepresences(h)ibilants presence of‘glides’( Hungarian Morphology they arecalled‘stable’stems,and, foraradicallydifferentapproachwithsimilarresults,AndrásKornai, InflMorphology ectional epenthesis noralternationsoffi here isexploratoryandhermeneutic:theobjectivetodiscoverwhat weneedtoknowmoreabout. Taylor, On theotherhandsharedfeaturesofbody-partnames In thissmallset, the lexiconandkindofworkessayedhere,Ithinkanswerisno. quantitative methodsinorder?AsIhintedabove,byandlarge,giventhevastnessof alternations: within varioussemanticfi designation areprobablydoomedtodubietyifnotoutrightfailure. of anystrictnessbywhichonemightmeasurethedegreeprototypicalityagivenbird they mayseematfi poorly: to beanoutlier.Ifweapplythisschemeofvaluesbody-partterms,theyscorerather 6 sisego 18 17 16 15 14 Whenever wedealwithlargeamountsofdataarefacedthequestion:strict For example,wemightsetupaschemewithwhichtoevaluatetheformalfeaturesofnames
The term I amgratefultoEndreTálos(personalcommunication)forthisHungarian term. See JohnR.Taylor, This isnottodiscountthevalueofprecise,statisticallyawarework withclosedcorpora.Buttheproject I returntoHungarianbody-part terms below. soe 3 23 2 1 23 234 3 + – + + ‘score’ – + bisyllabic o-lentn – – – + – – – – ‘score’ 2 – bisyllabic – – 1 – non-alternating + – 1 – liquid – – 0 – s(h)ibilant + – – – 1 + + gloss eye – – + 1 – – – 0 – mouth 2 – + + (+) heart + + – – – non-alternating + – – head liquid – + + – + s(h)ibilant gloss egret hand eagle tongue stork fi magpie crow dove crane buzzard ˝ ) 16 Categorization andliquidsand,atthemorphologicallevel,bisyllabicityabsenceofstem non-alternating szarka 17 , Budapest,1994,pp.30–35and 115–20. ), p.48. , Budapest,1988(hereafterAbondolo, + – (–) – + – + + rst sight,inourpresentstateofignoranceattemptsatsettingupametric j v zmsá sí fj é nev j kar ujj nyelv kéz fej szív szem száj ölyv daru galamb varjú szarka gólya kócsag sas ) andliquids( emergesasacomparativelyprototypicalbirdname,while Linguistic Categorization:PrototypesinTheory isusedheretoreferthesubsetofHungarianstemswhichundergo neither elds. Theprocedureinvolvespositingclustersofsharedfeatures. nal orpenultimatenon-high vowelswithzero.SeeD.Abondolo, l r Daniel Abondolo ): HIM 18 seemtobesesquisyllabicityandthe ), p.180andpp.203–04,209–10, where , Oxford,1989(hereafter 14 Intriguingthough ne arm nger ölyv Hungarian seems On 15
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited cally: 1972–1982 have initialnasals: names, whereinitialnasalsareoverabundant:ofthethirty-oneforms inmycorecorpus,nine(29percent) roots withinitialnasalmakeuproughly15percentofmonomorphemic vocabulary.Contrastmammal were trulyarbitrary,isvanishinglysmall,sinceinitialnasalsarenot aberrantintheHungarianlexicalcanon: I discussseparatelybelow).Theprobabilityofsuchadistribution’s occurring,iftheformsofthesenames name, inHungarian,willnotbeginwithanasal. about theterms sense, andformmyapproachtothemwillbehelpful.Imustalsosayafewwords which aren’tforsittingon(dentist’schairs),andsoon.’ handles (Chinesecups),birdswhichdon’tfl owls ( s(h)ibilant, liquid,orboth;butthereareexceptions,e.g., can statewithsomeconfi clusters. AsTaylorputsit:‘Ifweknowthatanentityisfeathered,haswings,andcanfl Items whichscorerelativelyhighwithinagivensemanticsubsetmaybeseenasprototypical from aTurkiclanguage;see noun hasthevowelprofi is known(itsFinnishcognate, Roman Jakobson:SelectedWritings. system ofsigns’,quotedbyRoman Jakobsoninhis‘AFewRemarksonPeirce’,StephenRudy (ed.), baglyot marten, ‘marmot’, Hungarian body-partvocabularyintermsofthesecomplexes. concepts oficonicity,indexicality,andsymbolism.Finally,inashortexcursus,Ishallexamine sense ofawordareassociated. is, asreferringtoaprocess—specifi paronymic attraction 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 Before Iembarkonthescrutinyofbirdandothernamesafewwordsconcerningmeaning, .suchperfectcorrelationsarerare.Therecupswithno . Again, compareTaylor:‘. To alessstrikingdegree,butinparallelfashion,mostHungarianbirdnamescontain First ofall,
Bagoly Of theninety-oddHungarianbirdnamesexaminedinthisessay, none hasaninitialnasal(orthographi- Taylor, The low‘score’of Wherein referstoabackvowel(orthographically: Compare alsoCharlesSandersPeirce’s defi Taylor, ld jv – + – + – + + – + + – + + + + + – no kB + liquid – – + glide (jv) – sesquisyllabic – – – + – + ‘score’ m nny attests.SeeAbondolo, bagoly Martes martes , Berlin,1985,pp.248–53(251). mókus didcontainaliquiduntilfairlyrecently,andbehavestodayasifit stilldid,asitsaccusativevariant 19 20 ; amongavianvocabularytheonlyexceptionislife-formtaxon term Categorization Categorization - 1 3 3 3 2 4 3 1 ,
kuvik meaning ‘squirrel’. macska iconicity ’, , and uhu nyérc szëm zmsá zv e é nevuj kar nyelv ujj kéz fej szem száj szív + + + + + + – le ‘cat’, istobeunderstoodhereasaverbalnounwithimperfectiveaspect,that , p.48. , p.50. ). i—ä lexical architectonics (anditsparonym , whichisofUralicvintage,suggeststhatnoteverythingaboutitsformalhistory , 23 EWU Phonosemantic SubsetsintheLexicon dence thatitalsolayseggs.’ HIM indexicality medve withamedialcluster).Theotherapparentoutlier, silmä vii. , p.692b. , pp.204–09. 25 ‘bear’, ContributionstoComparativeMythology. StudiesinLinguisticsandPhilology, , isalsoarchitectonicallyaberrant:noothermonomorphemicFinnish By cally: amentaloperation—inwhich thenameand , and sense nyúl nerc Imean‘thenetworkofinterlockingrelationswith ‘hare’, nition of nition , whicharecomplexesbuiltupfromtheprimary sound symbolism y (penguins),catswithouttails(Manxcats),chairs ) ‘mink, nyest 22 meaning Mustela ‘beech/stonemarten, u úoóaá 21 24 Tothiswemightadd:andthatits hattyú as‘thetranslationofasigninto another ’, . Ishallthentreattheconceptsof menyét ). ‘swan’, ‘weasel, héja Martes foina kar madár Mustela nivalis , isapre-conquestloan ‘goshawk’andthe ‘bird’itself,which ’, nyuszt ’, mormota y, we y, ‘pine- 7
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited to theanalysisofasubdomainFinnishlexisRaimoAnttilawrites:‘ of C.S.Peirce’ depend onit.’U.Stecconi,‘TheFoundationofaGeneralTheoryTranslationBuilttheSemiotics must beinfactaqualitythatchannelsthecontactwithobject;butitsrepresentativedoesnot pp. 144–45. is nowhereapparent( not withtheears,butmind’ andmetaphorizesitasapantherwhosescentiseverywherebut which De vulgarieloquentia als diePhrasederIndifferenz’( anderes dürftedieNormmeinen,imGedichtsolltenFormundInhalt koinzidieren,wofernsiemehrseinsoll verstummen —sondernweilesdurchseineSprachedasUnsagbare derSprachevonNaturimitiert.Nichts sehr dasSubjektredet—ehermöchtees,wieinjedemauthentischen Gebilde,durchdieseshindurchdarin driving atwhenhewroteofGoethe’s‘WanderersNachtlied’,namely thatitissosuperb‘weildarinnicht Stalph (eds), pp. 1–12. Karttunen (eds), See R.Anttila,‘MeaningandStructureofFinnishdescriptivevocabulary’,inRobertT.HarmsFrances ing. Butwithinoneandthesamelanguagehierarchicalselectioncontinuestomapvarioussemanticaxes.’ chooses itsownshapesfromthe“commonpool”.Theresultinghavethenimmediatepragmaticmean- forms tellusaboutthedomainsofsigns.Firstall,evenatlanguage-universallevel,eachlanguages term isfrequentlyusedbylinguists,ittrue,butalmostinvariablywithoutsemioticovertones.Canonical relation tothemselves,theirmaterialmakeup.Therulesofsuchmakeupimplycourse semiotic process,andthisfactisindeedrecognizedbylinguists.Butnotfully.Wearedealingwithsignsin “quindi” component; forexample,theyarealltokensandassuchtosomeextentindexesoftheirtypes.Theword index ofthebulletthatboredit.Allsignsweactuallyexchangeincommunicationhavealargeindexical causality orcontiguity,wecansaythattheonestandsforotherasanindex.Aholeonastreetsignis Semantics the relationship,ifany,whichholdsbetweenthosewordsorexpressionsandtheirreferentsdenotata’, ‘Sense isheredefi participate. features, orasIshalltermthemhereindices,arecluestothemeaningsinwhichwordscan perspicuous picture: words oftheshapeVC,Menzerathhadtocompressandcutcornersinorderpresenta require theuseofcolourandanimatedgraphics.Evenatsimplelevelbi-phonemic art. since itresemblesmorethepatterningperceptibleinmusicorothernon-representational obtaining amongthem.Meaningofthiskindisnotwhatusuallythoughtaslinguistic, themselves participatinginakindofmeaning,onethatresidestherelations other namesorlexicalexpressions’. a wordissign. exist, andthattheyareapreconditionoftheusewords.Second,shapename examining inanydetailthedistribution, withinthesenetworks,ofsemanticorgrammaticalsubsets. Literaturwissenschaftliche Beiträge 8 30 29 28 27 26 The visualrepresentationofthefullextentpatterningatthislevelcomplexitywould One waytounderstandhowsuchcluesmightworkisthinkoftheseindicesas Architektonik 29 This powerfulbutobscurekindofpatterning(onemightalmostsay: beauty)isperhapswhatAdornowas See RobertAusterlitz,‘JapanischeSäugetiernamen’,inIrmela Hijiya-KirschnereitandJürgen Compare UbaldoStecconiontheindexicalfeaturesofsigns:‘Whenanobjectreallyaffectsanother,by Richard A.Coates,‘Properhood’, , as itappearshere i , Cambridge,1977,p.206. 28 Bruno LewinzuEhren:FestschriftausAnla
(unpublished doctoralthesis,UniversityofLondon,2006),p.52.InhisPeirceanapproach , p.26.Menzerathwentnofurther; forexamplehedidnottakethevitalnextstepof Texas LinguisticForum5:PapersfromtheTranslatlanticFinnishConference ned toholdbetweenthewordsorexpressionsofasinglelanguageindependently 1.16whenhearguesthat‘the Qua atrm[ .] redolentemubiqueetnecubiapparentem . panteram [. 30 signthisshapehas(Peircean)indexicalfeatures. is theindexofanabstractItalianform.Analwayshasiconicpart,there , Bochum,1989,pp.1–11. Ästhetische Theorie Language Daniel Abondolo 26 Itakeitasaxiomaticthatsuchmentalassociations , 82,2006,2,pp.356–82(363).ComparealsoJohnLyons: , Frankfurt/M.,1970,p.114).Danteisonasimilarpathin volgare illustre b seines65.Geburtstages isanideallanguagethatwillhavetobefound Selection ). SeeJoseph, ,
Volume 1, fromaninventoryisabasic 27 Third,theseindexical Limiting theArbitrary , Austin,TX,1976, canonical Japan:Sprach-und forms.The , Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited language utilizationofF (hereafter (3) the and metaphor,themotionorposture[shape]ofreferent). designates notasound,butbirdculturally(andnaturally)associated withthatsound. as poeia theremaybeinbirdnamesisnotonomatopoeiathestrictest sense:thatwouldbeinformssuch Language ture’, inLeanneHinton,JohannaNicholsandJohnJ.Ohala (eds), F | | igitc,Uiest fClfri,18) sflos [ .]highF . Linguistics, UniversityofCalifornia,1984),asfollows:‘[. in thestrictestsense); the factor inthehistoryofmanybirdnames.Ilookfi usefulness inlinguisticexplanation,norisitonomatopoeia,thoughthislastamotivating A cautionarynoteisinorderatthispoint.Indexicalitynoticonicity,whateverthelatter’s Pseudo-Aristotle. Classical Greek reasons: large things.GérardDiffl vowels, andparticularlyhighbackcanoccurinthenamesofwordsdesignating of thereferent, high amplitudeinfrequencyformants[ofthename]correlatingwithrelativelysmallsize synaesthesia ofmetaphor,somenon-auditoryperceptthereferent,forexamplerelatively Part 1,pp.379–407. 0 34 33 32 31 conveys[themeaning]oflargeness’(p.91). hiss, At leastthreekindsoficonicityareoftenconfusedandconfl Note thatkinds(2)and(3)maybeatodds:thisexplains,amongotherthings,whyhigh
phonomimetic The terminGreekwas Compare ‘wild’vocabulary,below.Andeveninnon-‘wild’ strictlyspeakingwhatonomato- Roger WilliamsWestcottwasone ofthefi See BrentBerlin,‘EvidenceforPervasiveSynestheticSoundSymbolism inEthnozoologicalNomencla- or kinomorphomimetic , 47,1971,2,pp.417–28.See also PaulFriedrich,‘ShapeinGrammar’, boom Sound Symbolism , Cambridge,1968,p.16,wherehediscussestherelevantpassage inthe , whichrefertosounds.InHungarian 32 (thesoundofthenamesoundslikereferent;‘onomatopoeia’ oraspirationofvoicelessstopscorrelatingwith‘roughness’‘hairiness’); 0 31 ofvoice’(unpublishedMS,BerkeleyPhonologyLaboratory, Department of ), pp.76–93.BerlinquotesOhala,‘Anethologicalperspectiveon common cross- Asch—ab (2)the oth, discussingthisparadox inconnexionwithBahnarexpressives, (thearticulatorygestureorpostureresembles,againviasynaesthesia Phonosemantic SubsetsintheLexicon dasu Od— b| Ill ob | ´z || | | | | | ‘hairy,shaggy’:seeW.SidneyAllen, — — Oos—————————Ohm phonometaphoric Aas—Aal—Ahn—Aach—Ahm—Aar (Ar) As— es—eng um | er | | | | | Ale ihn | | | | | | | | — all Öl————————— — — rst toblazetrailsinthisarea.See‘LinguisticIconism’, an——ach— in— — (thesoundofthenameresembles,via kakukk rstaticonicity. ich —— ‘cuckoo’wehavemetonymy,since — — am Uhr (Ur) im ihm 0 signifi — — — – —irr Sound Symbolism Öhr 34 Ohr e body mlns ...]andlow . es (broadly)smallness[. Air ihr ated. Wemaytermthese(1)
| Vox Graeca:thePronunciationof Language , Cambridge,1994 De Audibilibus , 46,1970,2, kakukk of 33 9
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited noted theseareallwrittenwiththe ‘mouth’component). ho higher goalstoattain’(p.184).There isatraceofcircularitytothedistinction:Yipexcludes,for example, Language kinds oficonicitymaybeexploitedbyspeakersthe‘same’language. may be‘equally’iconic,theyareiconicindifferentways.Iwouldalsogoastepfurtherandsaythatboth and SoundSymbolisminLahu:loadingthesyllablecanon’, ‘mood-depicting’, compareJapanese poeic’ (gloss:‘sound-mimicking’,compareJapanese with literature.Hungarianterminologyhereparallelscloselythetraditional Japanese: ideophonic What ismore,kinds(2)and(3)canoverlaporequalwhathasbeentermed historical processes): grammar (inmanycaseswecanattributethesetodocumentedorclearlyreconstructable list ofexamplesindexicality,encodedassubmorphemicphonologicalfeaturesinlexico- in languageasallsemiosis. indexicality (whosecousinismetonymy)pinesintheshadow.Yetaspervasive Voyage enCratylie has cometoreferpreciselythatwhichisneithericonicnorindexical; seeGérardGenette, form-to-function matching,whethericonic,indexical,orboth. pp. 180–82,203. 10 ˇ 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 u In compensationforthisneglect,Ipresenthereaquasi-randomanddrasticallycurtailed Like itstropiccousinmetaphor,iconicitytendstohogthespotlightindiscussionswhich
, See ibid.,pp.184–93.Hestates explicitly thattheseexamplesarenotonomatopoeic,butrather ‘have For theseandseveralotherexamples,seeRomanJakobson LindaWaugh, Compare note28. The term Gérard Diffl Po-Ching Yip, The terminologyreferringtothisclassofformsisunfortunately superabundant:see‘i: háo ‘(sound ofbuzzing)’, for example: Englishmorpheme-initialvoicedinterdentalfricative/ consonant alternationstoverb,asopposednominal,infl non-foreign vocabulary),andrestrictionsontheshapesofgrammaticaldesinences;restriction the palate. gestures, inourcasethevolumeoftongueinsteadsizeairpassagebetweenitand need todoisfocusupondifferentpartsoftherichsensationpackageprovidedbyarticulatory sensations (size),andcomeupwithexactlyoppositesolutions,bothbeingequallyiconic;allthey languages mayeasilyusethesamephoneticvariable(vowelheight)toconveyrangeof .]Inthisperspective,twodifferent . probably necessarytoachieveaprecisearticulatorygesture.[. contact betweenthesidesoftongueanduppermolars,isavailabletoallspeakers does forthelowvowels.Theproprioceptivesensationduetothis,reinforcedbyamountof In thearticulationofhighvowels,tongueoccupiesamuchlargervolumeinmouththanit fi inMandarinChinese,onomatopoeic(iconic)vocabulary isinvariablyassociatedwiththe (2) h Russianmorpheme-initialnon-highfront/e/anddeixis(the (1) though passing, thatmostofYip’sexamplesalsoexhibitalliterationorrhyme. rst tone: rst /); , and , 3rdedn,Berlin,2002(hereafter 39 . ) standalone;contrastnon-deictic 36 InthisessayIrestrictmyuseoftheterm páo symbolic 35 gua oth, ‘i: , allglossed‘roar’,asifbydefi , Paris,1976,p.487,note2. ¯&gua chóuchú The ChineseLexicon:AComprehensiveSurvey isthereforeinfelicitous,sincethroughthethinkingofPeirce,Bühler, andLacan ¯ ‘croak’, big ‘shilly-shally’, 40 , a: whileindexicalfi small wa 38 ,’ in ¯ng&wa gitaigo Sound Symbolism liàngqiàng ¯ng Sound Shape Daniel Abondolo ‘imitateattitudewords’;seeJamesA.Matisoff,‘Tone,Intonation ‘bark’, t offormandfunctionhasnosuchprosodicassociation, nition, fromthecategoryof onomatopoeia(anditshouldbe thick ‘stagger’, , giseigo yı thin ¯ ), p.58. &ya , pp.107–14(hereafter‘i: , ¯ ‘squeak’, thigh , giongo yo sound-symbolic ¯ngzho , Sound Symbolism ection; d thaw / anddeixis: ‘imitatesoundwords’)versus , London,2000(hereafterYip, ˇ ng , with/ he ¯ng ‘toofattomove’. é-- ‘(soundofhumming)’, 37 of d toreferallinstancesof /’s voicelessanalogue,/ , pp.115–29(119). éto this thattherethou ‘this’standsalonein big ’). Whilebothsolutions hangutánzó The SoundShapeof sound-symbolic 41 Notice,in Mimologiques: big hangulatfest ‘onomato- we ’, p.108, (and Lexicon ¯ng symbol
or ), o ˝
Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited ( survey ofphonosemantics the iconic.MargaretMagnus,whosedoctoralthesisisaparticularlydetailedandfar-reaching variable. Thecategoriescancoexist,astheNivkhdataamplyshow. numerals, kinshipterms,birdnames);allbeingindexedbythesettingofaphonological trismegistos.com/Dissertation/dissertation.pdf> [accessedJanuary72007]. Technical andNaturalSciencesUniversity, Trondheim,2001),(hereafter‘Phonosemantics’), See EdwinG.Pulleyblank, Margaret Magnus,‘What’sinaWord? StudiesinPhonosemantics’,NTNU(doctoralthesis,Norwegian See WilliamCowan,‘ReduplicatedBirdNamesinAlgonquian’, Source: fi ‘Finnish’ (seenote8). Samuel Martin, See PierreChantraine, ‘grandmother’; and tramp, tramp’and their iconicorindexical)status.ThuswehaveMandariniconic-phonomimetic MandarinandHungarianreduplicativecompoundsindextheirsound-symbolic(specifi bears anelementofmeaningwhichisabsentinwordsnotcontainingthisphoneme. within semanticclasses.Onefi defi tics whichcanbeidentifi Individual phonemesandphoneticfeaturesaremeaning-bearing.Theyeachhaveauniqueseman- names. inproto-Algonquian,reduplicationwasfrequentbird-names,butnotfi and classifi occurred inonlythreeareasofthelexicon:clause-fi Apartfromafewaffectivewords( Finnishgivennamesdeviatefromothernounsinbothphonologyandmorphology; Japaneselongvowelsoccurinkinshiptermssuchas suffi (3) ‘grumble, growl’and (entangled) weeds’and ned classesofwordsandthentheconverse—measuringphonologicaldisproportions x Fifty-Five T’angPoems:Atextinthereadingandunderstandingof poetry , 38,October1972,4,pp.229–30. mò&mò o- =no- 47 gradeoccurredinAncientGreekreligiousvocabularydenotingartefactsderivedwiththe passim eldnotesofRobertAusterlitz. catorynumerals,forexample ; 43 ‘affectionate,loving,amorous’,andHungarianiconic-phonomimetic . ForHungarianthetreatmentbyJohnLotz( 44 ), namely The JapaneseLanguagethroughTime da ¯&da locs&pocs La Formationdesnomsengrecancien dúl&fúl ¯ Phonosemantic SubsetsintheLexicon ‘clatterofhorses’hoofs’versusindexical ed byfi 48 sound symbolism , oftenusestheword Outline ofClassicalChineseGrammar nds inthisway thateverywordwhichcontainsagivenphoneme ‘slush,sludge,squashymud’versusindexical ‘fumewithrage’. rst measuringthesemantic disproportionswithinphonologically tii&r ˇiy mix ‘bat’, ‘two(smallroundobjects’), , and(3)semanticdomains(religiousterminology, zoosq- 42 , NewHaven,CT,1987,p.71. nalscalarparticles( d iconic / indexesanindex),(2)awayofsignifying ‘break’)South-SakhalinNivkhlongvowels , Paris,1933,p.198. Das ungarischeSprachsystem (o)-nee-(saN) metaphorically,tomeanindexicalor , Vancouver,1995,p.9;andHughM. máng&máng ‘oldersister’, International JournalofAmerican -ii miix ‘n’est-cepas?’),deictics, ‘two(days)’; giz&gaz , NewHaven,CT,1976, ‘vastandindistinct’ chua sh ormammal ¯&chua dirmeg&dörmög , Stockholm,1939, ‘allkindsof (o)-baa-(saN) 45 ¯ ‘tramp, 46 cally: 11 Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited Richard Rhodes’sdiscussionofwhatheterms‘wildvocabulary’ishelpful. are purerformsofonomatopoeia,whichcanborderontheextra-linguistic:inthisregard animal’). the vocaltractandnotnecessarilyevocativeofsoundsormovementscausing(‘an kinetic features,metaphorically,ontootherkindsofmotion,thatis,onesnotspecifi nasal-plus-stop codawithabrupt,voicelessending.Butshethenextendsthesearticulatory- position withintheword(andmorpheme). has experimentstovalidateherinductions.Shepointsperspicaciouslytheimportanceof are ofinterest. adjectives andConcreteNounsdisplay theeffectleastofall’;‘Phonosemantics’,p.31. of thereferent:whereshewrites:‘Nounsdisplay[iconic] effect muchmoreweaklythanverbsor At fi word like Richard Rhodes,‘AuralImages’, in Magnus’s useofpseudo-orthography heremustmeanthatitistheconsonantsandnotvowels that Ibid., p.9. And fornotingthatsalienceoficonicity,notindexicality,isinversely proportionaltotheconcreteness Derek Cooke, Ibid rst fl rst phonetic featurealsohaveacommonelementofmeaning. phoneme bearswithinthesyllable.Inaddition,onefi One fi forceful conclusion. verb ofmotion,itwillinvolveaninitialbreachingsomekindimpedimentandasudden, whether thewordreferstoasoundorananimalverbofmotion.Butif‘brump’ is, butwhatitis word is.Thesounddoesnotdirectlyaffectwhatadenotes,butit part arbitraryandinpredictablefromtheirform.Specifi Since nowordcanfunctionwithoutallthesecomponents,itfollowsthatmeaningsarein . , p.7. ush, thissoundslikeDerekCooke’sideasaboutsemiosisinmusic, nds furtherthattheeffectofphoneme-meaningvarieswithposition Meaning inMusic like 53 52 . Thatis,justbyhearingthesound‘brump’inalanguage,onecannotpredict stoppagereleasedthroughanenergetictransitionalglide(/r/)intoa , andofsynchronicallyunobviousderivateslike , Oxford,1959. Sound Symbolism Daniel Abondolo 51 y lexicalandthereforemanifold,nebulous, and , pp.276–92;seeparticularlyp.279 ff. nds thatallphonemeswhichhaveacommon 49 cally, thereferentdetermineswhat grammatical levelwe connotes 54 Atthephono- shovel , notwhatit 50 butMagnus [compare cally of cally Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited shove stuff asSwedish Inhalt kündetan,daßdieeineoder andereGestaltungzuerwartenist’(‘Säugetiernamen’,p.1.) Schlüsse überBedeutung,Etymologie undKulturziehenlassen,umgekehrt:semantischer(kultureller) sich vonderArchitektonikher,d.h. vonderschlichtenphono-morphologischenGestaltungeiner Vokabel, pp. 29–64,47. English ‘race’). Oftenthenamesremainidentical(homophony)whilesensesdivergeconsiderably: phonolexical canon. culturally lesscanonicconceptsareexpressedbyword-shapeswhichcleavetothe canonic conceptsareexpressedbyphonolexicallyword-shapes,andconversely, is amorepervasivecorrelationbetweensenseandform.Statedbaldly,itthis:culturally nez example, amongHungariannominalrootsoftheshape CVCVCinwhichboththemedial features tendtooutweighothersinlexicalfrequency,textual frequency,orboth.Thus,for We maycharacterizethe (1851–87) andGeorgvonderGabelentz(1840–93)throughHugoSchuchardt(1842–1927): For example,thereisonlyonemonosyllabicnounendinginashortvowel: Nouns (andadjectives)aremoreheterogeneousinshape,buthere,too,thererestrictions. and morphonologicalrules—allHungarianverbstemsmaybeseenasendinginaconsonant. monosyllabic. Underonekindofanalysis—withtheapplicationasetmildassumptions mono- orbisyllabic;pronominalandotherdeicticroots,interjections,arepredominantly as follows.Hungarianmonomorphemiccoredenotativevocabularyisoverwhelmingly Assoziation wegen,lautlichbeeinfl Menzerath, compare Otto Jespersen. lesser degree,insense,name,orboth;anglophoniclinguisticstheideawasintroducedby in alanguage,whetheroncerelatedornot,cometoresembleoneanother,greater convergent forceof a setofassumptionsandmorphonologicalrules,theymaybeseensotocorrelate. 60 59 58 57 56 55 Within certaingrossformalsubsectionsofthelexicon,prosodicandsegmental In themodernliterature,thinkingalongtheselinesmaybetracedfromMikołajKruszewski The oppositeandcomplementaryprocess,muchlessregularstudied,isthe Nominal infl , from In chapter20ofhis Largely replacingolder opr utriz h xmndJpns amlnmsi h ih f‘...]dieFeststellung,daß . Compare Austerlitz,whoexamined Japanesemammalnamesinthelightof‘[. See Abondolo, See JakobsonandWaugh, See PierreHardouin,‘Essaid’uneSémantiquedesJeuxdel’Orgue’, ( community. Wordslinkedtogetherbybothsoundandmeaningmanifestelectiveaffi synchron[ically] validetymologies,whicharebasedonmassagreementwithinagivenspeech Gabelentz, followedbySchuchardt,detected‘afruitfulconcept’inthesehistorically‘false’but ], Wahl handle gate te verwandtschaften nacaire Architektonik ‘secondpersonsingularpronoun’, : [ gait tvål ection typescorrelate,byandlarge,withofstemauslaut,orrather:given hand 56 . , isisolatedinthelexicon. , AnegregiousexampleistheFrenchorgan-stopterm 57 HIM fl our :fl ower ], orSwedish 60 paronymic attraction , p.127:‘begriffl , pp.17–20. ), abletomodifytheshapeandcontentofvocablesinvolved. Language: itsNature,Development,andOrigin två Phonosemantic SubsetsintheLexicon architectonics ‘towash’.NotethatEnglish Sound Shape ussen.’ ; Swedish tvål ihzsmeghrg ötr[ .]könnensichzwar,derengen . ich zusammengehörigeWörter [. , orrelevantformalpropertiesoftheHungarianlexicon , ‘soap’: pp. 182–83. . Thisisakindofpopularetymologyinwhichwords fria ‘proposemarriageto’: le tvätta ‘down’, ‘towash’, towel , madeultimatelyofthesameetymological na ‘(so)there!’, 55 orHungarian , London,1922.Comparealso Acta Musicologica fria ‘acquit’. nasard ne ‘don’t!’. fa , distorted,via ‘tree,wood’; fi ú , 34,1962,½, 59 58 ‘son’: Butthere nities 13 faj Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited counts, thanthefi to Hungarianarchitectoniccanon,withthemedialvoicedfricative in thechangeofpatternfrom*lososto mókus it couldbearguedthat ‘box’, vowels alternatingwithzero,forexample: szëm ian lexiconasawhole,arerareamongbody-partnames:wehaveonly are notrandomlydistributed. lenis and fi head-hair’, impressive proportionofthecorebody-partnomenclature: kind ofstem,thoughtextuallyfrequent,islexicallyrareinHungarian.Butitmakesupan infl distribution innon-foreign fricative inforeign ‘waist’, Hungarian, andsinceitisofthelexicon,allowsampleexceptions. and ‘foot/leg’, ‘saliva’ (twenty-fourofeightyterms=30percent).Thusinthedomainbodypartswehave fi variety ofhumanconceptsfi the fi Language investigation seeMichaelMaratsos,reviewofPaulBloom, paribus hover betweenthefricativesandstops.Criss-crossingthisstricture-basedhierarchyisoneofvoice affricates isnotentirelyclear:atleastfortheformalsubset(CVCVC)weareconsideringhere,theyseemto and nasals)torelativelyfortisones(stops),withthefricativesbetweentheseextremes.Thestatusof by allowingcombinationsofwordstoencodemoreconceptsout ofthisinitialstock)’,p.497. Terms’, Terms’, 14 typhoid’ ‘leaven’. Bothfricativesarevoicedorunvoicedonlyinforeign vocabulary: ‘egg’, even terms designatingpartsofnon-human bodies,forexample, nal fricatives,forexample: 66 65 64 63 62 61 Examination ofatestcorpus ectional) classandthusdonotalignsquarelywithwordslike Only corenon-compoundvocabularywasincluded.Thus The lenis-fortiscanonisobservedinallHungarianCVCVCnon-foreign nominalswithbothmedialand On thecomplexityoflexiconandcorrespondingapproachrequiredforits For ourpurposeswemayassumeforHungarianascalerangingfromrelativelylenisconsonants(liquids Termed hereafter For non-arbitrarinessinbody-part termsseeRussellUltan,‘DescriptivityGradingofFinnishBody-part rst placeforbeingahedgehog problem.Vocabularyprovidesthechiefpointatwhichenormous fészek 61 ‘eye’, szemölcs nal consonantareobstruents,thereisatendencyforthemedialobstruenttobemore farok avoicedsegmentisdefi locateitattheperipheryofanaffectiveandtaboolexicalnetwork.Inparallelfashion, thanthefi koboz , dizo Arbeiten desKölnerUniversalien-Projekts , 81,June2005,2,pp.495–98,especially:‘vocabularyacquisition wasneveragoodcandidatein Arbeiten desKölnerUniversalien-Projekts fenék ‘nest’.Thisphonolexicalpatternisonesmallfacetoftheoverallarchitectonics ‘tail’ wereincluded).Thecorpusofeightytermsincludedthehypernym méh ˝z ‘mole’and háj ‘lute’, comb ‘bottom/buttocks’, ‘femalecafé/cabaretsinger’. ‘uterus’, ‘fat’, nal obstruentinnon-foreignvocabulary.Thuswehavemedialstopandfi ‘thigh’, nalvoicelessaffricate toboz fókusz sesquisyllabic máj felhám száj koboz ‘pine-cone’,and ‘liver’, tavasz rst receivestranslationintopubliclyavailableform(grammarfi ‘focus, test nedasmorelenisthanitsvoicelesscounterpart. fazék ‘mouth’, ‘cuticle’ wereexcluded,alongwithobscenitiesandeuphemisms, but 65 ‘body’.Farbetterrepresentedarestem-typeswithfi and ‘spring’, stems. TheshapesCVCandCVCC,thoughfrequentintheHungar- 64 ‘pot’, ofHungarianbody-partnamesrevealsthatformalproperties mell lótusz bél toboz ‘gut’, ‘breast’, Daniel Abondolo szív ravasz küszöb ‘lotus’, belongtoadistinct(alternating)stem(andtherefore -c , 24,1976. lazac ‘heart’, , 16,1975,and‘Descriptivityin theDomainofBody-part . mókus 63 ‘cunning’, hát fej ‘threshold’, wemaydescryamove,howeverslight,closer váll ‘head’,accusative ‘back’, topáz ‘squirrel’arenotforeign.Ontheotherhand szárny ‘shoulder’, szárny ‘topaz’and kuvasz How ChildrenLearntheMeaningsofWords ín ‘wing’, kéz+fej ‘sinew’, ‘wing’. kuvik ‘Hungarianbreedofsheep-dog’, toll fej hand+head ‘thescopsowl árny ‘head’, ‘feather’, tubus fókusz feje-t íny ‘shadow’, hasis ‘gums’, -z- (andnot ‘tube’,buttheinverse kar ; andthesemanticsof ‘hashish’, 62 fül ‘backofthehand’and Forexample: more lenis,ontwo ‘arm’, test ‘ear’, szarv ‘body’,andafew (Athene noctua térd kéz ‘horn’, nishes thejob, *fej-t tífusz nyak ‘knee’, ‘hand’, haj ‘human nl low nal ). ‘neck’, ‘typhus/ 66 : ceteris doboz kovász This derék nyál nal tojás láb )’, , Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited c ing frequenciesinthemonomorphemiclexiconoverall, where thecorrespondingfi Animalium EuropaeSeptemLinguisRedactum 1993] byIanDawson;hereafter per cent)endinthesequence ninety birdnamesinourcorecorpus,nine( stems areextremelycommon. lexically commonCVCandCVCCscarcelyrepresented,whileraresesquisyllabic in whichbothC Hungarian language],Budapest, 1994. screened fromFerencPapp(ed.), connexions itmaybeseenasperipheral. in general,asmentionedabove. Insomeconnexionsagivenbirdnamemaybeseenascore, inother Wothe, ease ofreference,subsequentcitationsanamebeartheirnumberincurvedbrackets. fi corvid isinmanywaysemblematicofHungarianornithonymsgeneral.Oftheroughly from anearliertime,predatingthechangeofinitial body-part termswilltendnottohaveinitial retained ratherthanbeingreplacedbyborrowings. intact. Forexample,corekinshiptermsandnamesoftheprincipalbodypartstendtobe vocabulary itemsaremorelikelytoberetainedwiththematchofnamesenserelatively cal) classesofwordarelesslikelytobeborrowedthanothers,and,asacorollary,certain change isbyandlargeregular.SoforexampleifinagivenlanguageXword-initial Two principlesofdiachroniclinguisticsoperatehereconjointly.Onetheonehand,sound all stemsofthe Phonological Change lish ian arelanguagesinwhich to change to internal tothisessay,theform(inboldface),Englishgloss,Linnaeanbinomen, ing. Theformatoffi tions ofmammalsandpartsthebody. names asaphonolexicalset,contrastingthem,appropriate,withichthyonymsanddesigna- synchronic perspective.AttheendofsectionIsketchanoverviewHungarianbird begin with . 3.9percentand rst sureattestationasan ornithonym(asopposedtouseaspersonalnameortoponym).For 71 70 69 68 67 [1] Taking thesetwoprinciplestogether,wecandeducethatinlanguageXcorekinshipand On theotherhand,incertainlanguage-contactsituationssemantic(andgrammati- This strikingskewinsynchronicdistributionislargelytheconsequenceofhistory.Nearly The orderinwhichthetermsareconsideredisdeterminedpartlybyform,mean- In theremainderofthisessayIsurveycoreHungarianornithonyms,mainlyfroma f- For theory,data,andliteratureonlexicaldiffusion,seeWilliam S.-Y.Wang(ed.), The wordshapeCVCVCconsideredaboveinconnexionwithoverall Hungarianlexicalarchitectonics, These countsarebasedonacorpus ofmonomorphemic4,415nouns,basedprimarilyonthe data ‘roughly’ becauseoftheopenapproachadoptedheretonotion ofcorpusandtoquantitativemethod These arefromKiss father , providedthesoundchangerunsitscourse,workingwaythroughlexicon csóka Birds ofBritain&Europe , foot f- f- inallwords,sothateventuallythewordsusedtobeginwith (jackdaw, . 68 andHungarian 2 andC fej , TheHague,1977. typeareold,andnearlyallCVCCVCCstemsrelativelyyoung. c. 3 rst presentation is:number(insquarebrackets)forcross-referencing areobstruents,isalsoscarcelyattestedinthissemanticsubset. 3.25percent. Madárnevek Corvus monedula Phonosemantic SubsetsintheLexicon p- , London,1994(translatedandadaptedfromtheGermanedition [Munich, A magyarnyelvszóvégmutatószótára haschangedto -ka férj 67 Birds ; theywerecheckedagainstJürgenNicolai,Detfl ; thesefi ‘husband’, ), andtheexhaustiveLászlóGozmány, 71 , 2vols,Budapest,1979. Theprosodicmake-upofthenameasawholealso ), gures takeonsignifi c . 1395.TheHungariannameofthismedium-sized fej c f- . 10percent)haveinitial p- ‘head’. , wecanciteconcreteexamples,namelyEng- , sinceallormostsuchtermsareretentions p- to f- [Reverse-alphabetizeddictionary ofthe . SincebothEnglishandHungar- cance inlightofthecorrespond- cs- Vocabularium Nominum ef Singer,andKonrad , andseven( 69 The Lexiconin anddateof p- p- gures are cometo changes p- c. will 7.7 15 70 Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited cankó attraction awayfrom(4) [13] patterning withother,non-derived birdnames. ‘puffi coda). Thusalongside back-vocalic bisyllableswithaheavyfi few birdnamesdatebacktoFinno-Ugric(letaloneUralic)times. avian designations,whilesesquisyllabicwordstendoverwhelminglytobequiteold,andvery the language.Wordshapesofkinds(1a)and(1b)aretypicalvocabularymorerecentthan names do),(2)itisnotsesquisyllabic(fewbirdare).Allthesefactsrefl it doesnotendinageminateconsonant,or(1b)beginwithconsonantcluster(fewbird whole, with197(thatis,only4.4percent). c shape CvCCV:(7) renders theformmoretypicalofabirdname:inmycorecorpussixothertermsare the specifi If thefi Schematically: the shapeCVCv; conforms wellwiththeaviancanon:ofninetycorebirdnames,seven(7.8percent)have considerable self-similarity,chiefl — (7) CvCV: (59) szaja crow, [9] fi c shape, withtheexceptionof(11) 16 . 1395,and[11] . 1395,[7] rst-syllable prosodyarenamesofcorvids. 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 Finally, weshouldnotethattheHungariannamesforallcorvidsare Just asstriking,andstatisticallymorecogent,arethefeatureslackingfromthisname:(1a) It isstrikingthatfi TESz EWU cankó Supposedly derivedfrom There arenodedicatedphilological datafor Excluded fromthecorecorpusasbirdsnotnativeto,oroccurring in, Hungarywere Etymologically identicalwith(67) Whereby lower-case Upupa epops á r á , rst-syllable prosody(longvowel, orshortvowelplus Dendrocopos ‘pelican’,discussedbelow. , refertoaquaticbirds:[6] a a a a k tt y ú y tt szajkó EWU ˝ (magpie, szerko , etymologicallyaderiveddoubletto n n hattyú All theotherornithonymswithnamesofthis Corvux corax vak ˝ 1332),butincludedherebecause ofitsparonymic bagoly cs k k cs in (jay, ‘blind’, , (5) Tringa ), 1702.Withinthissub-group a ó ó a ó EWU ), Pica pica , anothernocturnalbird.Thegeneric(9) ), 1820,[8] cs c . 1560,[14] Garrulus glandarius holló or ), 1898,[10] a 75 g ), TESz wemightreckonwithparonymic , (4) ), ?1217, c. 1395. . SeeKiss, kócsag varjú sirály szárcsa cakó hattyú c , (2) . 1395,[4] (egret, ‘stork’. 78 ), Madárnevek (gulls, szajkó c (coot, . 1525(underived ect thehistoryof 73 rst-syllable coda, rst-syllable batla szajkó (swan, Egretta 76 ‘ibis’,and ; onlyoneis varjú Larus Noticethat csér Fulica atra , p.179. : (2) 74 thereis Cygnus ‘tern’, ), 1793. ), 1528, (rook/ szajkó lunda 77 ), ), Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited medium-sized strigiformowls), and itsfi name, ofTurkicorigin,isunusualinhavinginitial Birds (‘Vokalharmonischer Umschlag’, EWU (chaffi and English Rallus aquaticus Athene noctua of the The followingtermsclusteraroundthepresenceofalabialfollowedbyhigh(or,incase self-similarity: [18] the soleexceptionof(1) The initial A thirdclustercentreson(8) dialect namesforthelark:seeKiss, Refl high frontvowel,tojudgefromtheunproblematiccognatesVakh Khanty gébics nisus 82 81 80 79 The Hungarianwordsfor‘crane’,‘sparrowhawk’,‘partridge’and‘owl’exhibitmild exesofphonomimetic*piinHungarianavianvocabularyinclude notonlytheitemslistedherebutalso This istherenownedphonomimetic*pı We mayaddhere Kiss, Assumed tohavedevelopedfrom anon-standardform( , pp.176and178). ), pp.439and452.Theshiftfrom backtofrontprosodyrequiredexplainthevocalismof nch,brambling, é nal c 81 of . 1395,[20] Madárnevek (variousshrikes, l pigeon gébics alsoaccordswellwithotherbirdnames. k- ), (fromearlier ), c ; historically,(20) , non-low)frontvowel: . 1795(butwithinitialhushingaffricate: a k e pi pi ar bi fü r cs ly fürj rk r appearstobedueparonymicattraction:with va ), v v a goly j goly pityer r k n k t r j a a ik u -, butitsoverallshapeisreminiscentofthe cs o cs ty c ty a g t (&) c bíbic ly . 1395,[19] (stork, ó Perdix perdix ó ály er ály (quail, ˝ (variouspipits, (lapwing, Gáborján Ciconia Coturnix coturnix cs- or arefront-vocalic. ), karvaly ), 1585,[16] c Gábos Vanellus vanellus . 1395,[21] pe turul n Anthus k ) ofthepersonalname rst-syllable , Estonian (sparrowhawk, , fi ), rst attested ), 1772, c . 1395: guvat kuvik bagoly püü o ), wasoriginallya , 82 pı c (waterrail, (scopsowl, EWU ¯ . 1430,[23] pio [25] c . 1282.This ¯ daru (various >French Accipter p.403. pinty group Gábor gébics 17 , Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited belong totwoclustersequally: 1568, giving: [30] hirundo with anichthyonym tridactyla Eight birdnamesseemtoclusteraspairs:[32] locking patternsofrecurringpartials.Notethatcertainnames,forexample(7) An overviewofthesevenclusterssketchedabovewillassistreaderingraspinginter- name bustards,andbotharebisyllabicswithmedial pair [33] bird isback-vocalicandthatofthesmaller,front-vocalic(phonometaphoriciconicity).In front vowel:[27] In parallelfashion,thenextgroupingischaracterizedbypresenceofsequence reznek (from c exotic (and mammalandfi here itisjustaslikelythatacontributingfactorwasthecomplete absenceof from whichthiswordisostensiblyborrowed.Howeverintheparonymic contextIamtryingtoelaborate ‘blackbird’ (1838);see 18 as ascoreofnon-standardforms, maybefoundin . 1395(notincorecorpus)wehavetwoformswhichare derived,thelattertransparentlyso 86 85 84 83 In thepair[34] EWU Earlier andlaterattestationsof this nameareassociatedwithdifferentsenses:‘bee-eater’( Detailed discussionofthisform, and ofitshistoricalconnexionswith(14) The pacsirta zsiráf vér ), 1860,[29] EWU ), 1793,(adialectword,notincorecorpus)theornithonym (little bustard, , p.1622. ‘blood’;= szárcsa ‘giraffe’,andnotethereduplication (p.221)explainsthefi (variouslarks,forexample, sh) names,withthesoleexceptionofreduplicative(50) (coot, küllo csíz EWU csicsörke cse küllo [~= ˝ ( 83 Tetrax tetrax Fulica atra , p.857. (siskin, b b a b green woodpecker, b sz sza sz c i s h szark h ˝ a usedtorefervariousgudgeons( ank ank ár ar e a k k rk r csa j t ú tty k k cs k ó s c cs o a (serin, ] isadenominalnoun-formingsuffi ó ály ály a a ó k ó ó nal ˝ cs Carduelis spinus ), a -z g b ), c Daniel Abondolo . 1395,and of c Serinus serinus . 1600(dialectword;notincorecorpus).Theseboth csíz Alauda arvensis cs a p asdissimilationfromthe i d k fo cs cs cs cs cs tengel Madárnevek a a a stigl í r ö é i ž i Picus viridis y l o g goly cs z r kó va g gu har r bí r r r oftheinsectname e (&) ke u ke ó ta u túzok b ly cs cs ly vércse va ), 1538,[28] v ic ic i ic a a ik s g gé t (e) ; notethereduplicationandsuffi bíbi bíbi -z- , pp.178–79. (greatbustard, ), 1525,[31] andfi (red-footedfalcon, ), 1533,and bi pi pi fü nal pa csér n i rj zsizsik ž cs cs cs c cs ty ty cs knownfromtheSlavonicforms -k er ö i i é í csirke Gobio x). ž r z r r r in(standard)Hungarianbird 84 ke ta ke . Thenameofthelarger zsezse sirály ‘weevil’. (commontern, csüllo Otis tarda 85 küllo ). Thefi and(12) (domesticchicken), ‘redpoll’.Contrastthe ˝ ˝ 86 (kittiwake, Falco vespertinus ishomophonic bakcsó ), sh nameis szerko c . 1395and , seemto xation), c ˝ . 1405), aswell cs Sterna Rissa plus ), Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited frequent occurrenceofvelars. 1822, (21) a partofthefi on thebasisoflocalpractice:fi relatively recent.ItwasincorporatedintoHungarianpiscinenomen along phonometaphoriclines( (40) suggests, itmusthavedesignatedadifferent,presumablyaquatic, bird. initial not seemtofi colchicus fülemüle this bird’srelativelylargesize;thesecond-syllable scops phonometaphoric, and profi (warbler, alakfesto the wheelspoke-likeappearanceoftheirpectoralfi ‘sable’. (20) batla resembles thefi membra ‘hoopoe’ aspivotalinthesensethateachhasphonemesequencesreappear (19) (generic barnyardterm), the usualwordfordomesticbirdis(48) the vowelprofi is ofobscureorigin. others arerelativelyold—astheirinitial form foundintheworksofBessenyei. rio connect thesenameswithoneanotherand Larus ridibundus 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 ), The threeowltermsshowiconicityforrelativesize: We maythinkofbirdnamessuchas[44] The - There isalargishclusterof TESz 88 Ullmann, whendiscussingtheemotiveandaestheticeffectsof collaboration ofsoundandsense,cites This wordislabelledasobsolescentbythe See JánosRácz, I wasunabletofi Thought tohavebeeninfl No body-parttermhasfi Compare alsotheFinnishdesignations fecske les . ThoughalearnedcreationofthenaturalistOttóHermann, ), fogoly karvaly ba- c c. ˝ . 1395,[38] inotherbirdnames.The ), or 1795.Thevowelsinthenameoflargestowl, a—a aslacking‘phoneticexpressiveness’.Hiswordingisfarfromclear, butheappearstobethinking ank- shape-painting; , p.593. Hippolais c. ‘partridge’,(26) (nightingale, bagoly ma- 1395.Ofthese,only , (13) tanykindofsize-iconicpattern. of(11) and sh isseenasresemblingsomethingelse. ( le nalsof(80) ), 1901,andin(9) mamlasz harkály é—e e—e A magyarnyelvhalnevei ndanyphilologicalrecordforthis word. ) (various owls, 94 fajd 89 banka , and[50] of[35] : [46] , mafl a bagoly (ptarmigans,grouse,capercaillie, , (14) Luscinia megarhynchos c Phonosemantic SubsetsintheLexicon intheframeworkadoptedhereitismetonymic-metaphoric,since nal . 1395,[48] occursalsoin[45] uenced bywordsmeaning‘stupid,silly’or‘clumsy’, nearlyallofwhichhave Principles fürj stiglic , galamb bamba takesupintermediateposition.Thefi réce ly ‘quail’,[40] sirály f- zsezse shermen referredtothesefi ; amongmammaldesignationswehaveonly initial birdnames:[37] , (79) Tyto cankó , p.103). , ‘duck’, fácán balek , (20) har- (variousdoves, , Budapest,1996,p.90. (redpoll, , huuhkaja kacsa tengelic(e) Asio , anditsinitial and , of(44) balga 93 f- fogoly EWU Finally,fi (indexically)indicates—saveperhaps c fecske . 1395—thisisthegeneric,butmorefolksyword; , haris kacsa Nyctea ‘duck’(genericbarnyardterm),1548,[49] , fülemüle : ), compare also danka (p.425).IfitisasolditsKhantycognate(Vakh , pöllö. , (22) and (39) Carduelis fl ammea c. , seebelow—and[36] (corncrake, haris vércse (swallows, ns. Hermanncalledthismannerofnaming 1395, and[42] i ), ofthenamesmallestowl, ve birdnamesclusteraroundthevowel The correspondingSwedishpair areloans(fromItalianandLatin).The (usually Columba c. ba- bíbic occursalsoin(13) , citedabove. 1395,and(16) 87 fú 92 Finally,theaffricate turul 90 , and(23) ostoba occursin(21) [43] Lagopus, Tetrao,Tetrastes (purple gallinule, sh as‘spoke(s)’( uhu . Crex crex danka+sirály ), 91 Hirundo, Delichon , buta c , arekinomorphomimeticof uhu . 1165,[47] ), 1894.Notealso,again,the danka fácán , mulya gébics nal clature byOttóHermann (eagle owl, ), kuvik derivesfromadialect bivaly jérce c ly (pheasant, bagoly . . 1395and(11) ). , black-headedgull, of harkály EWU ‘buffalo’and (scopsowl, küllo kakas Porphyrio porphy- ‘pullet’, bagoly c , (7) , thetrill ), , p.78. ˝ fecske uv c. ) becauseof , andits Bubo bubo bakcsó ‘cockerel’ : linksitto 1395, [41] ), Phasianus uggla kuvik c , which c . 1395, . 1533, disiecta banka geze r , and coboly Otus does and pa , is 19 -is ¯j ), ) Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited c ‘chicken’, 1568,[52] ticated animals.Thegoosename(53) ([old] obliquestem liquids. Theresidualcorpusincludesthefollowingdesignationsofdomesticfowl:[51] prime domesticatedanimals 1627. Inform—bisyllabicnon-alternatingstemsthesenamesaresimilartothoseofthe (especially goat)’and ‘male animal,especiallypig’,(47) oriole’) [74] clearly, ifirregularly,derivedfrom Aquila bird name. 1799; several familiarfeaturessuchasthesequence formally self-similaronlytoaveryslightdegree,thoughthereaderwillrecognizebynow szalonka Buteo 1786, [56] alternating stems folksy wordfor‘goose’.Thenames[57] 1533) to[78] Note also is thoughttobeFinno-Ugric,withcognatesinObUgrianandKomi(accusative: names arerare,butwedofi ‘stallion’, We havethemildlyself-similartrio[70] as attestedrelativelylate:only‘vulture’and‘turtledove’appearbeforethesixteenthcentury. Pelecanus 1697, showasubmorphemicfi c quite new:[62] is fromSlavonic(accusative: name forthevariousherons,[63] assaults. 20 . 1525;andthesomewhatisolated[76] . 1525,adoublet 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 Three trisyllabicbirdnameshavebisyllabicdoublets:[77] Of theresidualmonosyllabicnamessomearequiteold,namely[60] We maynowswiftlysurveytheremainderofcorpus.Asagroupthesebirdnamesare There areonlytenpolysyllabicbirdnamesinmycorecorpus.Asagrouptheystandout TESz EWU EWU Ibid., p.207. Kiss, Compare German Most Hungariannamesforthemalesofanimalsendin- bölömbika , 98 , Pernis thevaguelyreduplicativetrio[73] 96 97 Hieraaetus Madárnevek ), 1620,thelastbeingadoubletto(10) iswithoutetymology.Aswehaveseen,itsshapenotprototypicallyindexicalofa , p.887. , pp.172–73. , p.453. OfTurkicorginare[64] (snipe,woodcock, ökör lappantyú lilik ), cinke ‘ox’, c . 1395,[66] sneff (white-frontedgoose, (bittern, 101 ), ló , p.217. kos (obliquestem diszna- to[80] c kandúr (various tits, Amsel . 1525,and[61] ‘ram’. (fi (nightjar, csibe rst attested1678,asynonym for(71) and ‘tomcat’. ) ‘pig’,whichdesignatelargerand,asitwere,moreseriousdomes- sólyom Botaurus ‘chick’,1757,[53] nd[68] stiglic verebe-t kutya Goldamsel Gallinago kakas nal - nal Caprimulgus Parus gém (fi ‘dog’and lova- lappan(g)- ‘cockerel’, ), 1643,and[75] (variousfalcons, ), and[69] 95 tyúk veréb rst attested1695),and[81] Daniel Abondolo r liba Thename[59] lúd elementpresentalsointhemaleanimalnames . ), 1787,[79] , ( ) ‘horse’, keselyu Scolopax Ardea resemblesboth[55] Anser albifrons ‘hen’,fi (greylaggoose, poszáta kárókatona gúnár (varioussparrows, ), 1799 ‘beinhiding’. ba bika , macska vöcsök ˝ , initial Ardeola liba (vultures, ), 1742,and[72] ‘bull’andperhapseventheparonymic tehén hattyú ‘gander’, rst attestedafter1372,[65] (whitethroats,warblers, tengelic(e) 99 ‘goose’,1565,and[54] Falco whichisnotinmycorecorpusbecause ‘cat’.Theyarenot,however,likethe gyurgyalag (obliquestem r ), rigó , containthesequence ), after1795,and(61) g- ‘swan’.Alternatingstemsamongbird (various grebes, (cormorant, c , andalargenumberofaffricates . 1395,hasresistedalletymologizing ), Anser anser Gyps ( c . 1395,and[67] c cinege szalonka c . 1795,and[58] lile . 1395‘blackbird’,1702‘golden Passer (goldfi , gerlice (variousplovers, Gypaetus (beeeater, szalakóta , , ‘woodcock,snipe’).The Phalacrocorax carbo a doublet ), Petronia tehene- nch, c Podiceps (turtledove,collared . 1395,andsomeare , sas Neophron ka Carduelis carduelis Sylvia ) ‘cow’,or gödény (roller, pulyka ), , orboth:note Merops apiaster ölyv gácsér 100 (various eagles, c ), 1519,which lúd . 1395,which (fi ), 1590,[71] Charadrius , themore rst attested vöcsk-öt (buzzards, ), ‘turkey’, Coracias (pelican, ‘drake’, bak ), 1519, c . 1395. csirke disznó ‘male cso ˝dör ). kan ), ), ), ), Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited accepted etymology,andtojudgefromitsshape(alternatingstem potential contactdonors(Turkic,Indo-Iranian). quite old.Investigatorshavesoughtinvainboththecognatelanguages(Uralic)and index pointingtothefactthathistorically Hungarian birdnamesinhavinganinitialnasal.Wemayinterpretthisformaldevianceas sequences, alignsratherwellwithotherbirdnamesontheindexicalplaneaswell. phonomimetic qualitiesinwesternEurasiaandelsewhere,butwhich,withits dove, attested from1536. toj compound consistingofelementsknownasthepresent-dayHungarianwords turn, promptsustoreconstructaform*mVntVr(V),inwhichitisnotdiffi origin, thatis,itisamotivated,non-arbitraryform.Thissetofassumptions,in refl of the haris pp. 109–16. in ErhardF.Schiefer(ed.), ancestry. Fordiscussionofother possiblecompoundsintheproto-languageseeHartmutKatz, ‘kainalo’, when oneacceptsthatthepresent-day verbisprobablyan Budapest, 1988(hereafter compendious Uralicetymologicaldictionary,KárolyRédei (ed), are lesssoandcompetingeventually—inthecaseof attraction, formswhicharemoreindexicalofaviansensegraduallyarisingoutthat the shorterformisoneattestedlater.Wemayseehereanotherexampleofparonymic century. SeeJózsefMolnárandGyörgyiSimon, century partialcopyofamanuscriptthoughttohavebeenwritten inthelastquarteroffourteenth the] [86] Recurvirostra avosetta status of[83] with bustlingmotion( both motivated vocabulary: refl other thanthroughtheirinitial Similarly [87] busy’). Sturnus 107 106 105 104 103 102 - ‘tolayeggs’,bothwithcognatesthroughoutUralic;thesyntagm I havementionedabovethatthelife-formtaxonterm The nameofthewhimbrel, The CVCvprosodyofthetwobirdnames[85] ex ofacompound,derivedform,orboth.WhatIproposeisthatitHungarian ection ofthefactthattheyareallhistoricallynon-monomorphemic,is, EWU TESz See See Kiss, Based onfrequencycountsgiven Kiss, Magyar értelmezo above,inthatitsinitial kánya seregély Streptopelia 105 ), EWU li Madárnevek - of(53) , p.1525;comparealsothecognateEstonianexpression , p.809.Thewordisfi Finally,wehave[90] c . 1395,and[89] Madárnevek and (various kites, ss.vv. goda sármány ), after1372,adoubletto[82] ˝ kéziszótár ˝ , p.193. szorgalom sordély liba 107 ), forwhichnophilologicaldatawereavailable. (black-tailedgodwit, Wemayspecifyourcompoundmorecloselyasataboocircumlocution: , p.152,ontheexiguousphilologicalrecordforthisword. and(56) sereg sármány Explanationes EtTractationesFenno-Ugricas InHonoremHansFromm UEW (bunting,yellowhammer, arederivatesofthemes(orrootsbuiltonthemes)havingtodo Phonosemantic SubsetsintheLexicon and ‘host,army’, [ExplanatorydeskdictionaryofHungarian],Budapest,2003. Milvus rst attestedasacommonnounintheJókaiCodex,whichismid-fi sordély ), p.529.Doubtsabouttheappurtenance ofHungarian pó- szorog ishistoricallyacompoundwiththesense šVr póling isreminiscentofthe lilik ss.vv. ), 1470,isaboutallthereindexicallyavianthem. kakukk sequence.Theirrelativelylowprototypicalityisperhapsa (p.450), (cornbunting, . The inFerencPusztaiandSzilviaCsábi(eds),[electronicversionof (notincorecorpus)maybeseenaspivotal,like(44) sürög Magyar nyelvemlékek Limosa limosa madár (cuckoo, sereg go ‘bustle’,andthenowobsolete -, gerle (p.1320),and gu 106 isnotabirdnameatall.Thiswordhasno etymologie croisée - areperhapsgentleindicesoftheavian Ifitisold,givenitslengthmustbethe Emberiza héja (attestedfrom1830only). Miliaria Cuculus canorus po ), 1898, (goshawk, - of(70) gerle , Budapest,1980,pp.67–71. muna too sürög ), 1685,[88] ), Uralisches etymologischesWörterbuch madár and , involvingbothUralicandTurkic 104 c (p.1374). . 1395,arenotprototypical and[84] madár poszáta ‘layseggs’,citedbythemost cinke ‘bird’deviatesfromall Accipiter gentilis ), monyt tojik : yellow+breast c — prevailing. . 1395,anameof , anditsmedial- madara- seregély szorog gulipán cult todivinea mony 102 , Munich,1979, ‘layseggs’is Ineachcase ) itcouldbe ‘isworried, toj ka ), ‘egg’and (starling, (avocet, - dissolve and c . 1395, fteenth 103 , and 21 ku li - , Published by Maney Publishing (c) W. S. Maney & Son Limited would expectofasemanticsubset, *tu (orthographic