Home Linguistics & Semiotics 1 Introduction: Why onomatopoeia?
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

1 Introduction: Why onomatopoeia?

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Explore this Subject How to publish with us
Onomatopoeia in the World’s Languages
This chapter is in the book Onomatopoeia in the World’s Languages
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111053226-001Lívia Körtvélyessy and Pavol Štekauer1 Introduction: Why onomatopoeia?1 GeneralOnce upon a time, there was the fourth session of the twin conferences Word-Formation Theories / Typology and Universals in Word-Formation in Košice, Slovakia. One of the presenters mentioned that bird names in her language are frequently onomatopoeias. “Well, they can’t be; onomatopoeias are interjections, bird names are nouns,” noted another conference participant. These two brief claims indicate the confusion govern-ing the sphere of onomatopoeias. Although it was only a short exchange of views, it put a bee in our bonnets. An idea was born, and it started its own life. At first, it was just a provoking thought that made us look up the keyword ‘onomatopoeia’ in various sources. This search, however, raised more questions than answers. That was the moment when the idea transformed into the project presented in this volume. However, we soon realized that onomatopoeia as a research topic is at the periphery of interest. This was surprising because, as noted by Bredin (1996: 568), “[e]very human language is capable of denoting sounds and of denoting and connoting sound properties, and onomatopoeia is therefore a universal possibility in all languages.” Nevertheless, descriptive grammars of individual languages pay very little  – if any  – attention to onomatopoeias. A number of dictionaries of the sample languages ignore this class of words or assign them to a different class. Literature on this topic is scarce, as illustrated by Bredin, who concluded more than 25 years ago that “[o]nomat-opoeia has rarely, if ever, received the attention that it deserves” (1996: 565). Similarly, Tamori and Schourup (1999: 1) maintain that “onomatopoeia .  .  . is one of the most undeveloped fields at the present day.” Twelve years later, Assaneo, Nichols, and Tre-visan (2011: 1) concluded that “[o]ne of the most natural and unexplored objects for the study of the mimetic elements in language is the onomatopoeia.”Our research data supports the ‘outcast’ position of onomatopoeias: the chapters submitted to this volume comprise the first systematic research into onomatopoeias in 70 of the 88 languages under study! No wonder their nature, definition, scope, and status in the system of vocabulary are still vague and differently assessed in different linguistic descriptions and traditions. Only in recent years have we witnessed a growing interest in this class of words, primarily as part of the general discussion about ideo-phones and related issues like iconicity, arbitrariness, and sound symbolism.It follows from these introductory sentences that, for this project to be imple-mented, a number of fundamental questions had to be considered, including, first and foremost, the definition and scope of onomatopoeias, their place in the vocabulary, and their relation to other classes of words. Given that the objective of this volume is to provide the first cross-linguistic mapping of onomatopoeias, it was crucial to come up
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111053226-001Lívia Körtvélyessy and Pavol Štekauer1 Introduction: Why onomatopoeia?1 GeneralOnce upon a time, there was the fourth session of the twin conferences Word-Formation Theories / Typology and Universals in Word-Formation in Košice, Slovakia. One of the presenters mentioned that bird names in her language are frequently onomatopoeias. “Well, they can’t be; onomatopoeias are interjections, bird names are nouns,” noted another conference participant. These two brief claims indicate the confusion govern-ing the sphere of onomatopoeias. Although it was only a short exchange of views, it put a bee in our bonnets. An idea was born, and it started its own life. At first, it was just a provoking thought that made us look up the keyword ‘onomatopoeia’ in various sources. This search, however, raised more questions than answers. That was the moment when the idea transformed into the project presented in this volume. However, we soon realized that onomatopoeia as a research topic is at the periphery of interest. This was surprising because, as noted by Bredin (1996: 568), “[e]very human language is capable of denoting sounds and of denoting and connoting sound properties, and onomatopoeia is therefore a universal possibility in all languages.” Nevertheless, descriptive grammars of individual languages pay very little  – if any  – attention to onomatopoeias. A number of dictionaries of the sample languages ignore this class of words or assign them to a different class. Literature on this topic is scarce, as illustrated by Bredin, who concluded more than 25 years ago that “[o]nomat-opoeia has rarely, if ever, received the attention that it deserves” (1996: 565). Similarly, Tamori and Schourup (1999: 1) maintain that “onomatopoeia .  .  . is one of the most undeveloped fields at the present day.” Twelve years later, Assaneo, Nichols, and Tre-visan (2011: 1) concluded that “[o]ne of the most natural and unexplored objects for the study of the mimetic elements in language is the onomatopoeia.”Our research data supports the ‘outcast’ position of onomatopoeias: the chapters submitted to this volume comprise the first systematic research into onomatopoeias in 70 of the 88 languages under study! No wonder their nature, definition, scope, and status in the system of vocabulary are still vague and differently assessed in different linguistic descriptions and traditions. Only in recent years have we witnessed a growing interest in this class of words, primarily as part of the general discussion about ideo-phones and related issues like iconicity, arbitrariness, and sound symbolism.It follows from these introductory sentences that, for this project to be imple-mented, a number of fundamental questions had to be considered, including, first and foremost, the definition and scope of onomatopoeias, their place in the vocabulary, and their relation to other classes of words. Given that the objective of this volume is to provide the first cross-linguistic mapping of onomatopoeias, it was crucial to come up
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Chapters in this book

  1. Frontmatter I
  2. Purpose and Aim of the Series V
  3. Preface and acknowledgements VII
  4. Contents IX
  5. List of contributors XV
  6. 1 Introduction: Why onomatopoeia? 1
  7. 2 Questionnaire 23
  8. I Onomatopoeia in Africa
  9. 3 Alagwa 29
  10. 4 Burunge 41
  11. 5 Hausa 53
  12. 6 Iraqw 67
  13. 7 Kambaata 81
  14. 8 Moroccan Arabic 93
  15. 9 Babanki 105
  16. 10 Dza 117
  17. 11 Ewe 129
  18. 12 Igbo 139
  19. 13 Kinyarwanda 151
  20. 14 Nyakyusa 163
  21. 15 Tswana 173
  22. 16 Zulu 183
  23. 17 Glui 197
  24. 18 Ts’ixa 209
  25. 19 Guébie 223
  26. 20 Beria 237
  27. II Onomatopoeia in Australia
  28. 21 Anindilyakwa 251
  29. 22 Kunbarlang 265
  30. 23 Kriol 277
  31. 24 Kaurna 289
  32. 25 Ngarla 297
  33. III Onomatopoeia in Euroasia
  34. 26 Circassian 311
  35. 27 Hebrew 321
  36. 28 Vietnamese 331
  37. 29 Telugu 345
  38. 30 Kalaallisut 357
  39. 31 Albanian 369
  40. 32 Armenian 379
  41. 33 Bengali 389
  42. 34 English 403
  43. 35 Greek 417
  44. 36 Irish 429
  45. 37 Lithuanian 441
  46. 38 Persian 455
  47. 39 Slovak 465
  48. 40 Spanish 477
  49. 41 Basque 489
  50. 42 Nivkh 501
  51. 43 Japanese 513
  52. 44 Georgian 527
  53. 45 Korean 537
  54. 46 Mongolian 551
  55. 47 Mandarin Chinese 563
  56. 48 Tibetan 577
  57. 49 Wutun 591
  58. 50 Sibe 601
  59. 51 Udihe 613
  60. 52 Sakha 627
  61. 53 Tatar 637
  62. 54 Hungarian 649
  63. 55 Ket 661
  64. IV Onomatopoeia in North America
  65. 56 Arapaho 675
  66. 57 Passamaquoddy-Maliseet 685
  67. 58 Kwadacha Tsek’ene 695
  68. 59 Upper Tanana Dene 709
  69. 60 Inuktitut 723
  70. 61 Cabécar 737
  71. 62 Seri 747
  72. 63 Mixean 757
  73. 64 Choctaw 771
  74. 65 Lillooet 781
  75. V Onomatopoeia in Papunesia
  76. 66 Kotos Amarasi 795
  77. 67 Northern Amis 805
  78. 68 Cebuano 817
  79. 69 Fakamae 829
  80. 70 Indonesian 837
  81. 71 Javanese 849
  82. 72 Kubu 861
  83. 73 Lele 869
  84. 74 Nafe 879
  85. 75 Pagu 889
  86. 76 Puyuma 899
  87. 77 Tondano and Tombulu 913
  88. 78 Eibela 925
  89. 79 Nungon 939
  90. 80 Abui 947
  91. VI Onomatopoeia in South America
  92. 81 Baure 963
  93. 82 Qom 973
  94. 83 Kwaza 987
  95. 84 Warao 999
  96. 85 Wichi 1011
  97. 86 Nadëb 1025
  98. 87 Marubo 1037
  99. 88 Pastaza Kichwa 1049
  100. 89 Paraguayan Guarani 1059
  101. 90 Ayoreo 1071
  102. 91 Typological overview 1085
  103. Author index 1115
  104. Language index 1127
Readers are also interested in:
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111053226-001

Chapters in this book

  1. Frontmatter I
  2. Purpose and Aim of the Series V
  3. Preface and acknowledgements VII
  4. Contents IX
  5. List of contributors XV
  6. 1 Introduction: Why onomatopoeia? 1
  7. 2 Questionnaire 23
  8. I Onomatopoeia in Africa
  9. 3 Alagwa 29
  10. 4 Burunge 41
  11. 5 Hausa 53
  12. 6 Iraqw 67
  13. 7 Kambaata 81
  14. 8 Moroccan Arabic 93
  15. 9 Babanki 105
  16. 10 Dza 117
  17. 11 Ewe 129
  18. 12 Igbo 139
  19. 13 Kinyarwanda 151
  20. 14 Nyakyusa 163
  21. 15 Tswana 173
  22. 16 Zulu 183
  23. 17 Glui 197
  24. 18 Ts’ixa 209
  25. 19 Guébie 223
  26. 20 Beria 237
  27. II Onomatopoeia in Australia
  28. 21 Anindilyakwa 251
  29. 22 Kunbarlang 265
  30. 23 Kriol 277
  31. 24 Kaurna 289
  32. 25 Ngarla 297
  33. III Onomatopoeia in Euroasia
  34. 26 Circassian 311
  35. 27 Hebrew 321
  36. 28 Vietnamese 331
  37. 29 Telugu 345
  38. 30 Kalaallisut 357
  39. 31 Albanian 369
  40. 32 Armenian 379
  41. 33 Bengali 389
  42. 34 English 403
  43. 35 Greek 417
  44. 36 Irish 429
  45. 37 Lithuanian 441
  46. 38 Persian 455
  47. 39 Slovak 465
  48. 40 Spanish 477
  49. 41 Basque 489
  50. 42 Nivkh 501
  51. 43 Japanese 513
  52. 44 Georgian 527
  53. 45 Korean 537
  54. 46 Mongolian 551
  55. 47 Mandarin Chinese 563
  56. 48 Tibetan 577
  57. 49 Wutun 591
  58. 50 Sibe 601
  59. 51 Udihe 613
  60. 52 Sakha 627
  61. 53 Tatar 637
  62. 54 Hungarian 649
  63. 55 Ket 661
  64. IV Onomatopoeia in North America
  65. 56 Arapaho 675
  66. 57 Passamaquoddy-Maliseet 685
  67. 58 Kwadacha Tsek’ene 695
  68. 59 Upper Tanana Dene 709
  69. 60 Inuktitut 723
  70. 61 Cabécar 737
  71. 62 Seri 747
  72. 63 Mixean 757
  73. 64 Choctaw 771
  74. 65 Lillooet 781
  75. V Onomatopoeia in Papunesia
  76. 66 Kotos Amarasi 795
  77. 67 Northern Amis 805
  78. 68 Cebuano 817
  79. 69 Fakamae 829
  80. 70 Indonesian 837
  81. 71 Javanese 849
  82. 72 Kubu 861
  83. 73 Lele 869
  84. 74 Nafe 879
  85. 75 Pagu 889
  86. 76 Puyuma 899
  87. 77 Tondano and Tombulu 913
  88. 78 Eibela 925
  89. 79 Nungon 939
  90. 80 Abui 947
  91. VI Onomatopoeia in South America
  92. 81 Baure 963
  93. 82 Qom 973
  94. 83 Kwaza 987
  95. 84 Warao 999
  96. 85 Wichi 1011
  97. 86 Nadëb 1025
  98. 87 Marubo 1037
  99. 88 Pastaza Kichwa 1049
  100. 89 Paraguayan Guarani 1059
  101. 90 Ayoreo 1071
  102. 91 Typological overview 1085
  103. Author index 1115
  104. Language index 1127
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 23.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111053226-001/html?licenseType=restricted&srsltid=AfmBOooSE7_MaeLTlT7F8MjEZjSqSTZ9_HsCik-uRE74Qrz0A6rCkvuf
Scroll to top button