Author Topic: Phonosemantics  (Read 37117 times)

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #45 on: April 29, 2014, 07:54:59 AM »
You're telling stories again, not doing science.

I think #6 is the first point where I completely disagree. There is no "meaning".
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #46 on: April 29, 2014, 08:34:11 AM »
Getting to the point:

5. Sound is a vocal gesture.
6. Gesture is made of identity (shape) of gesture and meaning of gesture.
7. Different sounds are made of different vocal gestures.
8. Hence different sounds have different meanings.

5. No, a sound is a sound; a gesture is an expression through motion.
6. Makes no sense; a sound is made of sound.
7. More nonsense; different sounds are different
8. Hence sounds are different.

You are making circular and redundant arguments; none of which is any proof whatsoever for any of your fragile hypothesis.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2014, 08:35:44 AM by freknu »

Offline Pramod Kumar Agrawal

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #47 on: April 29, 2014, 11:46:48 AM »
I said it before and I'll say it again: It's easy to debunk this idea. I'll give you a word in a language with which you are completely unfamiliar and you give me the "meaning" based on your analysis.

Ready? Here goes:

thixthintti

So, if you can give me even the SLIGHTEST idea of the meaning of this word, I'll reconsider everything and side with you.
Respected Mr. Zaba
My theory predicts semantic values of sounds and phonemes, not the meanings of words. A word is made of multiple phonemes and phonemes do not have any fixed literate meaning. For example /k/ is an interaction between vision and dissimilarities. This interaction can be physical, biological or psychological. There may be different types of dissimilarities and different types of vision. Alone 'consciousness' cannot serve our purpose. Apart from it, word never discloses a full appearance of the object. For example, in Chinese, /pa/ = father. By definition semantic value of /pa/ is "any entity who is providing protection or bond or restriction". It never says that the entity is human. It can be stick (protection from animals), goggles (protection from sun rays), lock (restriction to enter).
The word given by you is a long word, made of 8 consonants and 3 vowels. If it is in IPA, the last four phonemes denote "exposing spacious/active occupation/activation of ... . I do not know the meaning of /X/. Meaning of /th/ is confusing, it has multiple meanings.
It seems to be a very difficult task. if I reach to a reasonable meaning, that will be by chance. Do not give any credit to me. Because my theory does not allow it.

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #48 on: April 29, 2014, 11:58:33 AM »
My hypothesis predicts semantic values of sounds and phonemes, not the meanings of words.

Then it is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #49 on: April 29, 2014, 01:05:56 PM »
Quote
It seems to be a very difficult task. if I reach to a reasonable meaning, that will be by chance. Do not give any credit to me. Because my theory does not allow it.
That's precisely the problem. And that is why other linguists agree that there is nothing to be gained by studying phonosemantics: sounds do not have meanings*. However, you insist that you have a theory and that your theory gives the meaning of sounds. You must understand: this is a contradiction.

Quote
My theory predicts semantic values of sounds and phonemes, not the meanings of words.
Then what's the point, and why do you keep giving examples using words??



(*The exceptions, if there are any, are in very small pockets of the lexicon, such as the 'gl' sequence in English mentioned by MalFet earlier.)
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline MalFet

  • Global Moderator
  • Serious Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 282
  • Country: us
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #50 on: April 30, 2014, 01:52:08 AM »
My theory predicts semantic values of sounds and phonemes

No, it doesn't. It postulates semantic values for sounds and phonemes.

This conversation has been going in circles for *literally* years now. To be very blunt, I'm not sure what you want from us. You will not find professional linguists willing to support you on this.

Your methodology is fundamentally unscientific and incompatible with modern linguistics. You have been told that in dozens of different ways. What you choose do with that information now is your choice. There's really very little more that any of us can say at this point.

Offline Pramod Kumar Agrawal

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #51 on: April 30, 2014, 02:47:03 AM »
You're telling stories again, not doing science.

I think #6 is the first point where I completely disagree. There is no "meaning".
O.K. Let us elaborate #6.
(6a). We can recognize the different sounds.
(6b). Animals can recognize and interact with different sounds. (I have already given a proof)
(6c). Animals can understand the different sounds during interaction.
(6d). Animal interactions are psychological (not intellectual) interaction.
(6e). Different sounds (barking, roaring etc) possess different psychological meanings.
(6f). Human as an animal can understand psychological meanings (crying, laughing etc).
(6g). Different sounds have different psychological meanings.
Still I am not talking about language. Give me point no, where you have objection.

Offline Pramod Kumar Agrawal

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #52 on: April 30, 2014, 02:48:32 AM »
Respected MalFet
If you intellectuals are not interested in the discussion, I will close the discussion. Please let me answer to the pending queries.

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #53 on: April 30, 2014, 07:29:25 AM »
Quote
(6e). Different sounds (barking, roaring etc) possess different psychological meanings.
No. Sounds do not possess meanings. Sounds are sounds. Sometimes, certain sounds relate to certain meanings. But there is no inherent relationship.
(In some animal species, there may be genetically determined sound behaviors and therefore a sound-meaning relationship. But this is not true for all species, and it is not how language works for humans.)
Quote
(6g). Different sounds have different psychological meanings.
No. Different sounds sometimes relate to different psychological meanings. But this is not part of language.

The problem with your theory is this: sounds do not have meanings in language.

The "point" where your theory falls apart is where you try to claim that sounds have meaning: sounds do NOT have meaning.



Quote
If you intellectuals are not interested in the discussion, I will close the discussion. Please let me answer to the pending queries.
Yes, that's basically where we are. We disagree with your conclusions, and we do not accept your methodology. We, as linguists, do science. Your methodology is not scientific. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same arguments.

We would be happy to discuss science and linguistics. But you are not doing either. Now, we are trying to tell you why.

But I think that all viewpoints have been expressed. Do you agree?
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline Pramod Kumar Agrawal

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #54 on: April 30, 2014, 01:21:03 PM »

As Corybobory said, “the sound 'dog' is arbitrary in that it has nothing to do with the concept of dog, other than a speech community has agreed that this sound represents that conceptual meaning”. I know that ‘concept of dog’ cannot be defined, but we can explain as how the speech community has agreed that “this sound represents that conceptual meaning”. When we say that “this sound represents that conceptual meaning”, we are acknowledging the relationship between sound and meanings. You do not agree with it. O.K. But I am agree with it.
I have a theory by which we can convert biological electric impulses of sounds into feelings. This is what our psychological mind is doing. I make out a model, which is capable to represent all types of feelings. I allot different groups of phonemes to different parts of model.  I divided each group in three parts. Nasal sounds for desire and the future, voiced sounds for the past, and the unvoiced sounds for the present. What is the proof of correct allotment? I have a long list of circumstantial evidences, but related to psychology and philosophy; it was no sense to discuss the same in this forum. There are many things which can be proved with spectrograms, but all are related with philosophy.
Now why do I keep giving the examples using words?
 (1). this is the only way to check the correctness of semantic values assigned. 
(2). I am just explaining that WHY “a speech community has agreed that this sound represents that conceptual meaning”. I was trying to explain the ‘conceptual meaning’, which has been agreed by the speech community at the time of formation of the word. The selection of word is not fully ‘arbitrary’, it has association of feelings of speech community. And the feelings are governed by phonosemantics. I was trying to clarify that if you apply the semantic values assigned by me, you can easily achieve that ‘conceptual meaning’ of the word.
I do not agree that my hypothesis contradicts current ideas about historical linguistic that are well evidenced and explored. I have checked it up to large extent.
One more thing I want to add here that the sequence ‘gl’ as mentioned by you as exception, I have explained more than 50 sequences in my new book.
This is my last post. I thank you all for interest shown in my subject.

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #55 on: April 30, 2014, 02:31:57 PM »
Quote
When we say that “this sound represents that conceptual meaning”, we are acknowledging the relationship between sound and meanings.
The WHOLE WORD is ARBITRARILY associated with a meaning. The individual phonemes are irrelevant. This is what we have been saying.
As evidence, consider the following:
DOG: a canine animal, a pet
BOG: a body of water
TOG: a unit of thermodynamic measurement
DOCK: a place to leave a boat
DOB: to absorb/clean liquid in small amounts

There is an arbitrary pairing of form and meaning at the level of words and morphemes. There is NO relationship at the level of phonemes.

Quote
The selection of word is not fully ‘arbitrary’, it has association of feelings of speech community.
Arbitrary does not mean random. It means non-deterministic. It is possible in English that the word "dog" could be something else. For example, it could be "hound" or "canine" with the same meaning. It is not random (we do not use a new series of sounds every time) because it is conventional, but there is no inherent reason why we would use one sound or another, and the proof is in language change and language variation. Consider also synonyms like "couch" and "sofa".

Quote
This is my last post. I thank you all for interest shown in my subject.
Good luck.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline zaba

  • Serious Linguist
  • ****
  • Posts: 272
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #56 on: April 30, 2014, 10:40:14 PM »
Quote
My theory predicts semantic values of sounds and phonemes, not the meanings of words.

OK, now I see the theory. What evidence would be required to falsify it? If it is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific theory.

Offline Pramod Kumar Agrawal

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #57 on: May 04, 2014, 01:33:50 AM »
Mr. drj33
I am not willing to discuss my theory again, but out of curiosity I have a question.
Please explain me that how we have reached to the conclusion that at the time of formation of the words, the speech community had agreed on sound  /bɒg/, to represent  “a body of water”, but not to represent  “clarity of acceptability of resistance / bond” (this explanation supports all dictionary meanings of BOG). 
As you said that “the WHOLE WORD is ARBITRARILY associated with a meaning”, and “arbitrary does not mean random. It means non-deterministic”, what will happen if a word is made of single sound. Will it carry a meaning or not?
In place of arguing “but there is no inherent reason .....”,  I will prefer to say that “we do not know the inherent reason .......”. In place of ‘non-deterministic’, why we are not using the word ‘still not determined’. In my view, the STOPPING of possibilities is a largest obstruction in development.
Mr. Zaba
You said that “If it is not falsifiable, it IS not a scientific theory”. With your permission, I want to make a correction. In my view “If it is not falsifiable, it MAY not a scientific theory”. We cannot deny the possibility.
The mistakes of the hypothesis can be checked by applying the semantic values to different words of different languages. If nothing is explained, the hypothesis is false. Hence the hypothesis is not fully un-falsifiable. If this argument is not satisfactory, please suggest me a way to check the hypothesis.

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #58 on: May 04, 2014, 01:53:58 AM »
Quote
Please explain me that how we have reached to the conclusion that at the time of formation of the words, the speech community had agreed on sound  /bɒg/, to represent  “a body of water”, but not to represent  “clarity of acceptability of resistance / bond” (this explanation supports all dictionary meanings of BOG). 
Because dictionaries and English speakers would say "body of water" or "thing that is like a pond" or "wet place", but NOT your abstract (and I think inaccurate) meaning. Your "meanings" are like fortune cookies-- they apply to any word if you look at it the right way.

Quote
what will happen if a word is made of single sound. Will it carry a meaning or not?
Yes. Morphemes (including or building words) have meanings. For example, /z/ in English means plural, as in "dogs", but onlyn in that one particular usage, not more generally in the language. Morphemes, whether one sound or more, have meanings. The sounds themselves do not. And those particular morphemes are not just sounds-- consider also /z/ used in 3SG present verbs-- "jogs" and "dogs" sound alike, but they have very different suffixes!

Quote
With your permission, I want to make a correction. In my view “If it is not falsifiable, it MAY not a scientific theory”. We cannot deny the possibility.
Hahaha. That's hilarious. Please look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Quote
If nothing is explained, the hypothesis is false.
We have told you: nothing is explained. You don't agree, but we believe this is true. There are two possibilities: 1) your theory is unfalsifiable (because you deny the evidence against it), or 2) your theory is false. Time to move on.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline Pramod Kumar Agrawal

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #59 on: August 08, 2016, 03:55:36 AM »
Dear members,

 I would like to thank the Linguist Forum community for their cooperation and constructive criticism towards my research.

 I’ve come up with a theory called “Meaningfulness of Sounds” which suggests that each individual sound represents a natural and specific psychological feeling. And these psychological feelings are used for intellectual purposes which has led to the evolution of different languages.

 The theory also explains the specific and individual psychological representation of usable IPA sounds and how pragmatic meanings can be deduced from them.

 To support my work, I have compiled more than 1100 words from 21 languages on the basis of their IPA pronunciation.

 The summary of the theory is available at https://goo.gl/3R9Jtp

 Would love to hear your views on the subject.
 Website: http://soundmeanings.xyz

 Regards,
 Pramod