Author Topic: Phonosemantics  (Read 17465 times)

Offline jerryoverlock

  • New Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #60 on: October 20, 2016, 04:32:49 PM »
I find phonemes to possess semantic features which each language  choosesfrom to form words

Offline Pramod Kumar Agrawal

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #61 on: October 25, 2016, 12:46:23 PM »
I am waiting for some remarks on my theory explained at
  Website: http://soundmeanings.xyz
In near future I will add to it a phonosemantic dictionary with 3000 words of English, Hindi, French, and German.

Offline Pramod Kumar Agrawal

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #62 on: October 26, 2016, 11:53:04 AM »
Mr. jerryoverlock
Please explain in detail.

Offline vox

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 14
  • Country: fr
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #63 on: October 29, 2016, 01:40:11 PM »
Pramod Kumar Agrawal,
Have you found any research related to your hypothesis ?

Offline Pramod Kumar Agrawal

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #64 on: November 02, 2016, 02:29:35 AM »
Phonosemantics is not an unknown subject. We have a number of philosophers like Panini (400BC), Socrates (500BS), Hermogenes, and Plato (stated that the letter ‘L’ symbolizes softness), who gave their view for the subject. In the modern age, we have  John Wallis (1653), John Locke (1689),  Gottfried Wilhem Leibniz,  Charles de Brosses (1765), Antoine Court de Gébelin (1775),  Charles Nodier (1808), Dwight Bolinger (1949), Ivan Fónagy (1963),  Hans Marchand  and Margaret Magnus (2001) are some of the important philosophers who have done a lot of work in the field.
Most of the work has been done on phonesthemes, phonosemantic matching, and correlation between different languages. There was a wide difference between philosophers. Even after the long discussions, the fight between ‘natural’ and ‘arbitrary’ could not be concluded. There was a basic drawback in the discussion. They all had tried to correlate the object and the sound. This was an impossible task. Our hypothesis suggests a bridge in between the sound and the object. This bridge is a platform for ‘psychological perception’. Without psychological perception nothing can be perceived or expressed. The platform provides defined places for different sentiments as well as different sounds. And we have inter-converted the sentiments and the sounds. The conversion of visuals into sentiments into sound depends on the observer to observer.
The hypothesis is a result of root natural reasoning. The model suggested in the hypothesis quite resembles with the ‘model of existence’ explained in ancient Indian literature. It is a new innovative hypothesis for modern psycholinguists, and hence it is difficult to find any research relating to the above hypothesis.

Offline Audiendus

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 6
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #65 on: November 03, 2016, 09:19:20 PM »
Pramod Kumar Agrawal,

I am not a linguist, but I would be interested to know how your theory of phonosemantics explains cases in which the same speaker pronounces the same word differently at different times for non-semantic reasons.

For example, I sometimes pronounce the 't' in the word 'often' and sometimes do not. I am more likely to pronounce it if I am speaking slowly, or if I have to slow down at that point in the sentence. But this has nothing to do with any difference of psychological attitude towards the word's meaning or associations.

Another example: my father used to pronounce the word 'graph' with a short 'a', but my schoolteachers tended to pronounce it with a long 'a', so when I was growing up I pronounced it either way, depending on whom I had been recently listening to (I now pronounce it consistently with the standard Southern English long 'a'). But if you had asked me for my thoughts about graphs, I am sure they would not have varied according to my pronunciation.

Have you considered possible non-semantic reasons for historical changes of pronunciation of particular words, e.g. (a) simplification for convenience, especially for common words, (b) modification to avoid confusion with other words, (c) the influence of migration?

Does your theory apply only to the original phonemes of a word, or does it claim a continuing semantic correlation through subsequent changes of pronunciation?

Offline Pramod Kumar Agrawal

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: Phonosemantics
« Reply #66 on: November 05, 2016, 01:09:26 PM »
1. There is a difference between /ɒftən/ and /ɒfən/. The additional ‘t’ in the word indicates an additional impression of activation/presence in the psychological feelings evolved due to the pronunciation of ‘often’. /ɒfən/ denotes the ‘unaware frequent act’, but /ɒftən/ denotes the ‘aware frequent act’. First one is a casual act, and the second one is ‘knowingly’ act. Therefore, it is wrong to say that “there is no difference in psychological attitude”. The ‘knowingly’ provokes an attitude of awareness as well as confidence. This attitude is reflected in our body gesture. As regards the ‘body language’ is concerned, the ‘slow down’ of the speech conveys the psychological expression of awareness and confidence.
2. There is a difference between /græf/, /grɑf/, and /ɡrɑːf/. /æ/ (visibility) denotes logical aspects of the information (/gr/ - clarifying involvement) in the graph. /ɑ/ (entity) denotes established aspects of the in the graph. /ɑː/ (by the entity) denotes that the operating aspects of the information in the graph. In this way, the same word has three different pronunciations have three different meanings.
As on today, we are not evolving a language. We are just learning the evolved languages. Please keep the things in mind that the formation of the words has a long history of around 70000 years. All psychological perceptions are based on the prevailing environmental conditions and social values. Words were continuously changed according to the changed conditions. After the phenomenon of ‘writing’ come into existence, the pronunciations were frozen. Due to the fixation of pronunciations, even we have faced a lot environmental changes and cultural migrations; the changes in pronunciation are very little.
The theory believes that all the languages in the world are small segments of a basic universal language. Hence acquiring a word from another language is just natural and scientific; Hindi has imported many English, Sindhi, Urdu, words, which are now treated as a part of Hindi only. As regards your question about the “for historical changes of pronunciation”, I have explained the Grimm’s law in my book.