Linguist Forum

Specializations => Phonetics and Phonology => Topic started by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on March 04, 2014, 11:27:54 PM

Title: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on March 04, 2014, 11:27:54 PM
There is a paper on phonosemantics. http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijl/article/view/5131/
Please look at it. I would like to discuss this paper in the forum.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Daniel on March 04, 2014, 11:49:00 PM
What did the reviewers think of this paper? Personally I find it challenging to read and (at best) very controversial, against many basic working hypotheses in Linguistics. Did you benefit from any of their comments?
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: zaba on March 05, 2014, 07:20:16 AM
(also this journal is pay-to-publish)
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 05, 2014, 03:45:58 AM
Mr. djr33
The comments of the reviewers were highly positive. They did not point out any weakness in the paper.
You said that "Personally I find it challenging to read and (at best) very controversial, against many basic working hypotheses in Linguistics".
I think, it is because I am trying to define the image in terms of observation and perception, not in terms of its construction.
Mr. Zaba,
Thanks for your important remark.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: zaba on April 11, 2014, 12:58:21 PM
Quote
Thanks for your important remark.

You're welcome! Pay to publish is sometimes (but not always) corrupt. (Macrothink is unquestionably a vanity press -- let's not pretend it's anything else. It certainly isn't an "institute".)
http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/06/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2013/

Quote
They did not point out any weakness in the paper.

No surprise there. It's a vanity press.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 16, 2014, 07:21:20 AM
I am trying to communicate the site given by you. In the today's material world, everything is possible. Searching of a proper journal is a difficult task. Many journals do not demand the publication fees, but demand membership fees for one year. Some of them have very strict copyright provisions. I am working on it.
I will need one more favor from your side. For a while, please forget about the theory. Look at the 'experimental results'. Kindly let me know if these results are convincing or not. Whether the semantic values assigned by me satisfy the meaning of the words or not. If yes ! up to what extend.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: freknu on April 16, 2014, 08:16:43 AM
*cough* http://www.linguisticsociety.org/

And no, the experiments are not convincing in the least — because these are not experiments, and neither provide nor are based on any methodology.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 16, 2014, 10:25:15 PM
In pera no 6, I have clearly explained the method of deriving the meaning of any word. The semantic values are taken from pera no 5. Which are derived from the theory explained in pera no 2, 3, and 4.
I feel convincing with the result of the experiment “ It /ɪt/ = visible /ɪ/ occupying /t/ {occupying the visible}”. Are you not?
According to the phonosemantics, languages are made of vocal gestures and every word (composition of gestures) has some philosophical meaning. All gestures support some specific universal meaning, which can be understood without learning. Laughing and crying are examples. These meanings are allotted by nature and nature can be analysed in terms of phonemes as shown in the theory.

Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: freknu on April 16, 2014, 10:41:29 PM
HOW and FROM WHAT did you derive the semantic values? You have merely plucked arbitrary values from thin air, providing NO methology whatsoever.

Chapter 2-4 is nothing but nonsense, and is neither methodology nor evidence for anything. Arbitrary values that cannot be taken seriously.

*cough* http://www.linguisticsociety.org/

According to the phonosemantics, languages are made of vocal gestures and every word (composition of gestures) has some philosophical meaning. All gestures support some specific universal meaning, which can be understood without learning. Laughing and crying are examples. These meanings are allotted by nature and nature can be analysed in terms of phonemes as shown in the theory.

Then your "hypothesis" is not scientific.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 17, 2014, 12:54:00 PM
I was not intending to discuss the theory. I have already written ... “For a while, please forget about the theory”. I was just asking whether the example {It /ɪt/ = visible /ɪ/ occupying /t/ (occupying the visible)} is convincing or not? If you say no, It is OK for me.
I believe that while discussing anything, the word ‘nonsense’ should be avoided.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: lx on April 17, 2014, 04:06:39 PM
Quote
I was just asking whether the example {It /ɪt/ = visible /ɪ/ occupying /t/ (occupying the visible)} is convincing or not?
But surely you have to admit that it's not possible to accept a result that is devoid of a theory that explains where it came from, right? I mean, many statements that I'm sure we can all agree on are accepted, but if we were asked to judge them while disregarding the motivation, these uncontroversial things would also become impossible to accept. That's not just a case here, but in general.

In the context of your question specifically (putting aside the fact that even considering the purported theory, I would feel the same) I do not understand what it is you're saying with this example. What does it mean? That the word 'it' at some level devolves down to something that occupies space and is visible? What about the hundreds of languages that have words to express the exact same thing? How can that be rationalised if the specific phonetic makeup of the word must be accounted for in a totally different way in nearly every language, while the meaning overall is considered to be a standard translation? That doesn't add up to me. We know how sound changes work in languages and this would seem to suggest that as a sound change happens, the whole lexical element undergoes some sort of change as well? What about numbers? How would a phonosemantic account of numbers across cognates work? Twe/twa/tvö/two/zwei/to/dos/due/dwa/? They all mean the exactly the same thing. When PIE split up into satem/centum languages, did the fundamental nature of 'hundred' change?

I would welcome an answer to such a challenge to the theory.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: MalFet on April 17, 2014, 07:51:38 PM
I was not intending to discuss the theory. I have already written ... “For a while, please forget about the theory”. I was just asking whether the example {It /ɪt/ = visible /ɪ/ occupying /t/ (occupying the visible)} is convincing or not?

As we've talked about many times, you will have a very hard time finding linguists who find your argument here convincing because you break one of the fundamental tenets of scientific analysis: all of your explanations are post-hoc. You take an already known relationship, and then construct an explanation to justify it. That is fundamentally in conflict with the scientific method.

If your technique is valid, you should be able to do what I've been asking you to do from the very first time you posted:
1) Assemble a "blind" pool of words from a wide assortment of languages (words you don't know the meaning of).
2) Predict the semantics of these words using your method.
3) Have an objective third-party evaluate your predictions to see if they are more frequently correct than would be expected by chance.

It's that simple. Until you do that, I'm sorry to tell you that you're not doing science.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Corybobory on April 18, 2014, 01:43:18 AM
Quote
I was just asking whether the example {It /ɪt/ = visible /ɪ/ occupying /t/ (occupying the visible)} is convincing or not?
But surely you have to admit that it's not possible to accept a result that is devoid of a theory that explains where it came from, right? I mean, many statements that I'm sure we can all agree on are accepted, but if we were asked to judge them while disregarding the motivation, these uncontroversial things would also become impossible to accept. That's not just a case here, but in general.

In the context of your question specifically (putting aside the fact that even considering the purported theory, I would feel the same) I do not understand what it is you're saying with this example. What does it mean? That the word 'it' at some level devolves down to something that occupies space and is visible? What about the hundreds of languages that have words to express the exact same thing? How can that be rationalised if the specific phonetic makeup of the word must be accounted for in a totally different way in nearly every language, while the meaning overall is considered to be a standard translation? That doesn't add up to me. We know how sound changes work in languages and this would seem to suggest that as a sound change happens, the whole lexical element undergoes some sort of change as well? What about numbers? How would a phonosemantic account of numbers across cognates work? Twe/twa/tvö/two/zwei/to/dos/due/dwa/? They all mean the exactly the same thing. When PIE split up into satem/centum languages, did the fundamental nature of 'hundred' change?

I would welcome an answer to such a challenge to the theory.

I don't find this convincing at all.

What sort of new evidence could you find in your exploration of phonosemantic that would convince you that you have made any errors?  Or that the meaning judgements you have made are wrong? Or even that some examples you find are more likely right then others?  Your hypotheses are unfalsifiable, and unscientific. You have no way of checking if you are wrong. Your hypotheses are post-hoc explanations to fit your observations, and make no predictions, which is unscientific.  Your hypotheses fundamentally contradict current ideas about historical linguistics that are well evidenced and explored, and you offer no reason why your hypotheses should replace any of those well founded principles.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 18, 2014, 11:42:07 PM
Mr. Lx
I agree that without an appropriate theory nothing can be explained. My purpose of insisting on a simple example was just to explain myself step by step. Now a question came out from your post.
“That the word 'it' at some level devolves down to something that occupies space and is visible? What about the hundreds of languages that have words to express the exact same thing?”
The theory suggests that you cannot find any word of “exact same thing”. For example: The Hindi translation of the word is /jǝhǝ/. The semantic value of /jǝhǝ/ is “physical existent /hǝ/ of visible existence /jǝ/” (physically visible). The semantic value of /lo/ (Spanish) is “in the direction /o/ of expanded appearance /l/”. In this way you can see that the practical meaning of the word ‘it’ is the same, but phonosemantic meanings are different. Even if the words are different, they are indicating the same image. In English ‘occupation’ is important, in Spanish ‘appearance’ is important, and in Hindi ‘physical’ is important. The importance is depends on the environment and social values of the country. 
We can take one more example. The psychological meaning of ‘father’ is “the person who provides approval / security with condition or without any condition”.
(1) Chinese [fuxin] /fʊʃɪn/ - accepting unconditional approval /fʊ/ psychological strength /ʃ/ towards /ɪ/ act /n/ {act towards psychological strength of encouragement (acceptance with unconditional approval)}.
(2) English [father] /fɑ:ðər/ -  unconditionally approvable entity /fɑ:/ submission /ðə/ involvement /r/ {involvement in submission of encouragement (unconditionally approvable entity) }.
(3) French [père] /pɛʀ/ - approval with conditions (bonding / protecting) /p/ visibly available /ɛ/ involvement /ʀ/ {involvement in visibly available approval with conditions (bonding/protecting)}.
(4) German [vater] /fatər/ - unconditionally approvable entity /fa/ activating /tə/ involvement /r/ {involvement in activating the encouragement (unconditionally approvable entity }.
(5) Hindi [pitā] /pɪt̪ɑ/ - towards conditional approval /pɪ/ offering entity /t̪ɑ/ {offering entity towards conditional courage (approval)}.
(6) Italian and Spanish [padre] /padre/ - conditionally approvable entity /pa/ specific submission involvement /dre/ {specific submission involvement in conditionally encouragement (approvable entity)}.
(7) Japanese [chichi] /ʧɪʧɪ/ - liveliness /ʧ/ towards /ɪ/ liveliness /ʧ/ towards /ɪ/ {towards adding liveliness regularly; providing liveliness to the child}.
This phenomenon can be understood by considering two different objects each having 100 different parameters for their naming. Now an observer cannot observe all parameters. There are within three possibilities.
(1) If he perceives the common parameters from both of them, he can give them same name. (Same name for different objects)
(2) If he perceives different parameters from both of them, he can give them different names. (Different names for different objects)
(3) If he perceives the different parameters form a same object, he can give different names to same object. This possibility relates to the above example.
The basic theme of the theory is that nature assigns specific semantic values to different phonemes. But nature NEVER assigns any name to any object. Because every object contains infinite number of parameters, these cannot be converted into name. It is the observer who observes the image, and perceives it by filtering out his physical, biological, psychological, and intellectual needs and availabilities. Out of the filtered image he selects a minimum possible name under phonosemantics. A lot of confusion is created because the process of developing ‘words’ was taken place before 70000-100000 years from today. Although there are lot of changes in the original words, but these changes are took place within a specified limit (same group of sounds; refer groups in the theory; refer Grimm’s Law). And this changing has taken place because of change in physical, biological, psychological, and intellectual needs and availabilities.
As regards the ‘numbering’ is concerned, I am still in confusion.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: freknu on April 19, 2014, 12:22:44 AM
... and what METHODOLOGY was used to DERIVE said VALUES?
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: mallu on April 19, 2014, 02:03:22 AM
Can u make any prediction based on your theory?
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 20, 2014, 04:42:34 AM
Respected Mr. Malfet
Phonosemantics says that every sound has specific meaning assigned by nature. But it never says that every word has specific meaning. It is to be understood that the words are not the true representation of any object. Out of infinite identifications of the object, we select some of them, convert them into vocal gestures and speak out with air. The flow of multiple vocal gestures forms a word. In this way the word has incomplete identification of the object. The object having infinite number of identifications cannot be described within incomplete identifications. For example take a word ‘father’. Father is person; male; can be animal or human; has a biological, psychological, and intellectual entity; has more power relative to female; approves, protects and restricts the children; provides liveliness to the children; provides half of his DNA to the children. We can have a long list expressing properties of father. In Chinese we call /pa/ for father. The semantic value of this /pa/ is “the entity providing approval”. They have selected only one property out of infinite properties. You can explain as why in China father is called /pa/. But you cannot say that the meaning /pa/ is always ‘father’. Any entity which provides approval to anything will be called /pa/. We have long list of entities that provide approval, protection, and bond to any other entity (living and non-living). This list can have many names including elder brother, mother, police, door, arms, cloths, doctor, advocate, night, 100, watchman, medicine, warheads,  ....etc
In this way we cannot make out the entity by its name (composition of phonemes). We can only explain as why the Chinese says /pa/ to father. We cannot say that translation of /pa/ is father.
We have infinite number of images in universe. Nature devises these infinite numbers into finite number of groups. Nature assigns specific phonemes to each group. Once the image is converted into phoneme; it loses its original existence. While reconverting the phoneme into the image, it can represent the properties of its group only, not its original property. Hence the word itself cannot express the originating image of the object.
If you ask me to define any name. It seems still difficult. For example a word /komba/ can be defined like this- Entity of + adjective of /m/ + noun of /b/ + adjective of /o/ + noun of /k/. The semantic values of /m/, /b/, /o/, and /k/ are to be taken from chapter no 5 of the paper. I think there will be no fruitful result will come out. All /m/, /b/, /o/, and /k/ have large number of images. The selection of the image can only be done if you already know the meaning of the word.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Daniel on April 20, 2014, 04:46:16 AM
Quote
The selection of the image can only be done if you already know the meaning of the word.
Then this is not science or useful. You're just telling stories, not making predictions or describing linguistic knowledge. In fact, you just told us that your methodology is not reliable!
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: lx on April 20, 2014, 09:34:09 AM
Quote
The selection of the image can only be done if you already know the meaning of the word.
And so the final death blow has been dealt. There's no coming back from this, unfortunately. Never possible to test, always making the hypothesis fit the evidence. Never a chance to be wrong. I had my suspicions anyway, but I never thought the OP would be the one to completely close the deal on this one.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 20, 2014, 10:51:31 AM
Corybobory
I am agree with your point. The question raised by you belongs to the philosophy of logic. I have only one way to prove the hypothesis wrong. I have to check it by examples.  I have more than 3000 examples in my stock. Some examples I find are more likely right then others. I face approximately 15% completely unfit examples.
I agree with the fact that if my hypothesis contradict current ideas about historical linguistic that are well evidenced and explored; there may be loopholes in my theory. I believe that there must be no contradiction. Please give me some examples so that I can understand my mistake.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: lx on April 20, 2014, 11:01:56 AM
I have some questions.

(1) Do humans possess this information on phonosemantics somewhere in their minds? If a person's semantic modules (providing we have them, for this example) were switched off, and he was listening to words, would this person, according to your idea, have a subconscious representation of the phonosemantic nature of meaning of the word being said, without knowing what the word means?

(2) What about homophonous words in different languages? If I have my representations for a word in English, and I learn a second language that has a totally different word but happens to sound exactly the same, how can both these words have exactly the same phonosemantic reading? Does anything change when someone learns a word already in their lexicon? Does it unite with the other one? Is a separate yet related mental storage place set up for it?

(3) If these things are something that don't really clearly exist in the human mind (rendering the previous two questions inapplicable) then how is it you have managed to decipher the system?
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: lx on April 21, 2014, 03:00:37 AM
I would like to re-ask the questions that I asked in my last post, namely, at what level of representation does this representation exist, according to you? Did you wake up one day and decide these things exist, or is there any external motivation for such an idea? Phonemes don't exist without a language system, so this correlation must exist within the human mind. If this exists without the human mind, without relying on the semantics of knowing the meaning of a word, these fundamental basis meanings (which you pulled from... actually I can't see how you arrived at specifically these basis meanings) should be registerable as we hear words, right? Is there a way to test this?

You seem to be providing an extra layer of complexity onto something that doesn't need explaining, which falls down pretty hard when faced with some fundamental questions. I can appreciate it's nice to have an idea, but this one seems really badly thought out. I can't see any motivation for why these connections might exist between phonemes and fundamental semantic categories. If I gave you a word, you'd start with a test case, you know the meaning of the word so you know what conclusion you want to arrive at, and you have an astonishingly broad way to connect the dots to always somehow get to the answer, which makes your approach totally unfalsifiable. The fact that you don't see this is quite worrying.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 22, 2014, 11:50:06 AM
(1) Do humans possess this information on phonosemantics somewhere in their minds? If a person's semantic modules (providing we have them, for this example) were switched off, and he was listening to words, would this person, according to your idea, have a subconscious representation of the phonosemantic nature of meaning of the word being said, without knowing what the word means?
It is a known fact that “the overwhelming majority of animals are born knowing how to speak their species’s language. It doesn’t really matter where those animals are born or raised, because their speech seems to be mostly imprinted in their genetic code.” [Palmer, Brain. June 26 2012. Health Science & Environment. Do animals from geographically distant areas speak the same language ?] It proves that there must be some universal relationship between sounds and their meanings. The humans are also animals and hence they also possess the phonosemantics somewhere in their existence.
There is no basic difference between animals and humans. The animal interaction is a pure psychological interaction. And in case of humans, they frame up their interaction in such a way so that an intellectual listener can understand the intellectual message.
Phonosemantic is a mechanism by which we convert physical sounds into psychological meanings. In case we switch off the phonosemantics, our hearing and speech both will shut down. Hence there will be no question about the “meaning of word without knowing that”. Here the word ‘knowing’ is not limited to intellectual knowing. It includes ‘psychological knowing’ too. If you hear a sound, it will give you psychological impact. If you say that you are feeling a sound, it means that you are psychologically hearing the sound. 
(2) What about homophonous words in different languages? If I have my representations for a word in English, and I learn a second language that has a totally different word but happens to sound exactly the same, how can both these words have exactly the same phonosemantic reading? Does anything change when someone learns a word already in their lexicon? Does it unite with the other one? Is a separate yet related mental storage place set up for it?
I have number of words in my list, but all in English. Here I am taking a word /bæŋk/ . The phonosemantic meaning of this word is “lively consciousness /ŋk/ of visibility of bond/protection in existence /bæ/”. Now if the existence is ‘water’, the meaning will be ‘river bank’, and if existence is ‘money’, it will be ‘money bank’.  In fact the word ‘bank’ does not denote the ‘money bank’ or ‘river bank’, it denotes “an existence which protects something with alertness”. In this way you can have two entirely different meaning of same word. It is to be understood that while naming any object, we indicate it with shortest possible description or utility.
Please forgive me for my poor English.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 22, 2014, 11:57:54 AM
Sorry for one or two posts I have deleted by mistake
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: lx on April 22, 2014, 12:01:11 PM
Quote
It proves that there must be some universal relationship between sounds and their meanings. The human is also an animal and hence they also possess the phonosemantics somewhere in their existence.
You're concluding in a way that no one with a background in scientific methodology would ever conclude. This is speculative conjecturing at best.
Quote
Phonosemantic is a mechanism by which we convert physical sounds into psychological meanings.
Well, no. Not really. The mechanism by which we convert sound into meaning can be - and has been - explained by processes that have no recourse to any phonosemanic account. This is a statement that would need to be backed up somehow, not used as evidence to back up another point.
Quote
The phonosemantic meaning of this word is “lively consciousness /ŋk/ of visibility of bond/protection in existence /bæ/”.
Lively consciousness? That doesn't seem like a reasonable/likely category. What rationale do you have for this? Never in a million years would I see that word and come to that conclusion. Is my phonosemantic machine turned off?
Quote
In fact the word ‘bank’ does not denote the ‘money bank’ or ‘river bank’, it denotes “an existence which protects something with alertness”.
Does it? I don't think it does. You'd need to convince me of this.

You might want to check out Hockett's Design Features of Language (very famous piece of work in Linguistics) and his categorisation of the different systems of communication between animals and humans.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Daniel on April 22, 2014, 01:34:05 PM
Quote
It is a known fact that “the overwhelming majority of animals are born knowing how to speak their species’s language. It doesn’t really matter where those animals are born or raised, because their speech seems to be mostly imprinted in their genetic code.” [Palmer, Brain. June 26 2012. Health Science & Environment. Do animals from geographically distant areas speak the same language ?] It proves that there must be some universal relationship between sounds and their meanings. The humans are also animals and hence they also possess the phonosemantics somewhere in their existence.
There is no basic difference between animals and humans.
So, why then can you NOT predict the meaning of a word from its sounds but only "explain" the meaning of those sounds AFTER you already know the meaning?

If your theory has no predictive power, it is entirely useless.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: MalFet on April 22, 2014, 04:04:10 PM
In this way we cannot make out the entity by its name (composition of phonemes). We can only explain as why the Chinese says /pa/ to father. We cannot say that translation of /pa/ is father.

What you are describing is a word game. If it brings you pleasure, I hope you will continue to play it. However, if you wish to be understood as participating in science (and, specifically, if you wish to be taken seriously by Euro-American linguists), you will have to reformulate things in the manner I described.

Whichever you decide, good luck!
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 23, 2014, 01:08:31 PM

Quote
It proves that there must be some universal relationship between sounds and their meanings. The human is also an animal and hence they also possess the phonosemantics somewhere in their existence.
You're concluding in a way that no one with a background in scientific methodology would ever conclude. This is speculative conjecturing at best.
If two animals are interacting with each other, it seems to be obvious that they are understanding each other. And understanding is only possible if there is a universal relationship between sounds and meanings. I do not see any confusion here. I do not find any difference between animal and human in case of psychological interaction. One can easily understand the laughing and crying of other human without learning any language.
Quote
Phonosemantic is a mechanism by which we convert physical sounds into psychological meanings.
Well, no. Not really. The mechanism by which we convert sound into meaning can be - and has been - explained by processes that have no recourse to any phonosemanic account. This is a statement that would need to be backed up somehow, not used as evidence to back up another point.
As regards the ‘mechanism’ is concern, I do not find any literature which explains the process of conversion from biological electric impulse into psychological feelings. Yes, this cannot be used as evidence, because it is my own theory and it is not a proven theory.
Quote
The phonosemantic meaning of this word is “lively consciousness /ŋk/ of visibility of bond/protection in existence /bæ/”.
Lively consciousness? That doesn't seem like a reasonable/likely category. What rationale do you have for this? Never in a million years would I see that word and come to that conclusion. Is my phonosemantic machine turned off?
‘Lively’  is a maximum usable word for the phoneme /ŋ/. You can use alive consciousness in place of lively consciousness. grammar is not important here.
Quote
In fact the word ‘bank’ does not denote the ‘money bank’ or ‘river bank’, it denotes “an existence which protects something with alertness”.
Does it? I don't think it does. You'd need to convince me of this.
Bank = An existence which protects water (in case of river bank) or money (in case of money bank) with alertness (alive consciousness). While naming any object, we cannot describe the object with its full description, so we use the minimum possible description. “An existence which protects something with alertness” is a sufficient description. This can be used for anything covering this definition. Hence the word bank is very near to store, treasury, reservoir, safe and vault.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Daniel on April 23, 2014, 01:45:26 PM
Isn't an army or soldier or bomb a better example of something that protects something with alertness? Why are these not pronounced as "bank"?

You are very clearly telling stories rather than doing science. Stories are great. But they don't explain how languages work.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Corybobory on April 23, 2014, 02:44:04 PM
I can tell you the colour of any word in the world.  Give me any word - I'll tell you its colour! But it's completely random and arbitrary and depends on my subjective feeling about the word; and my methods have no predictive value and don't actually 'mean' anything in real life.

"phonosemantics" - a dull yellowish green

This is what I am hearing.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: mallu on April 24, 2014, 12:29:45 AM
I can tell you the colour of any word in the world.  Give me any word - I'll tell you its colour! But it's completely random and arbitrary and depends on my subjective feeling about the word; and my methods have no predictive value and don't actually 'mean' anything in real life.

"phonosemantics" - a dull yellowish green

This is what I am hearing.

So what is the point of your argument? Sorry to be blunt,a theory not built on any evidence and without any predictive power cannot be called a scientific theory.
Had it been built on facts and evidences using scientific method the theory would have been useful,even if it lacks any predictive power.

But here it seems that you arbitrarily assumes some sort of rules related to the semantics of the languages and present it as a science.So don't hope  it would get acceptance in Linguistic community.I suggest you to re-examine your theory using accepted methods of scientific inquiry and decide whether your theory is defendable scientifically.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: freknu on April 24, 2014, 05:30:39 AM
::)
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 24, 2014, 12:31:42 PM
I can tell you the colour of any word in the world.  Give me any word - I'll tell you its colour! But it's completely random and arbitrary and depends on my subjective feeling about the word; and my methods have no predictive value and don't actually 'mean' anything in real life.
So you acknowledge that you will have different feeling for different words. I give you two words /nǝ/ and /mǝ/. Will you have same feeing for both. Why there is a difference in feeling if sounds have no association with meanings.
Isn't an army or soldier or bomb a better example of something that protects something with alertness? Why are these not pronounced as "bank"?
Just for word game, why don't you try the word 'bunker' =  /bʌŋkər/ = Involvement /r/of alive consciousness /ŋkə/of evolved protection /bʌ/.
So what is the point of your argument? Sorry to be blunt,a theory not built on any evidence and without any predictive power cannot be called a scientific theory.
Had it been built on facts and evidences using scientific method the theory would have been useful,even if it lacks any predictive power.
But here it seems that you arbitrarily assumes some sort of rules related to the semantics of the languages and present it as a science.So don't hope  it would get acceptance in Linguistic community.I suggest you to re-examine your theory using accepted methods of scientific inquiry and decide whether your theory is defendable scientifically.
I have many times requested that my theory simply predicts the semantic values of sounds NOT of words. Our listening process starts from physical sound, converts into biological electric impulse, converts into psychological feelings and at last intellectual mind read these feelings in intellectual format. Now the phonosemantics lies in between biological mind and the psychological mind. The sounds are converted into feelings. Different types of sounds convert into different types of feelings. And every sound has specific feeling. And I have predicted these feelings. I do not think that there is any thing which is not scientific.
Now two questions arrive. One is method of prediction and second is correctness of predictions. These two things can be discussed only if the definition of  phonosemantics is acceptable.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Corybobory on April 24, 2014, 02:24:13 PM
I can tell you the colour of any word in the world.  Give me any word - I'll tell you its colour! But it's completely random and arbitrary and depends on my subjective feeling about the word; and my methods have no predictive value and don't actually 'mean' anything in real life.

"phonosemantics" - a dull yellowish green

This is what I am hearing.

So what is the point of your argument? Sorry to be blunt,a theory not built on any evidence and without any predictive power cannot be called a scientific theory.
Had it been built on facts and evidences using scientific method the theory would have been useful,even if it lacks any predictive power.

But here it seems that you arbitrarily assumes some sort of rules related to the semantics of the languages and present it as a science.So don't hope  it would get acceptance in Linguistic community.I suggest you to re-examine your theory using accepted methods of scientific inquiry and decide whether your theory is defendable scientifically.

Ohhhhh!  I get it.  I see, my idea was totally flawed... I see where it went wrong now. Totally bogus.  Got it. Thanks!

PS It might not be accepted by the scientific community, but it might get accepted to that journal...
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 26, 2014, 03:18:15 AM
But here it seems that you arbitrarily assumes some sort of rules related to the semantics of the languages and present it as a science.So don't hope  it would get acceptance in Linguistic community.I suggest you to re-examine your theory using accepted methods of scientific inquiry and decide whether your theory is defendable scientifically.
My theory is scientifically correct or not is a secondary issue. Primary issue is that whether the different sounds give the different feeling or not. If you are not agreeing on this primary issue, there is no fun to discuss the science behind it. Discussion is always fruitful if you move step by step.

Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: freknu on April 26, 2014, 03:28:14 AM
[Whether] my theory is scientifically correct or not is a secondary issue.

So very wrong. It is the primary issue.

If you are not agreeing on this primary issue, there is no fun to discuss the science behind it.

There is no science behind your hypothesis.

Discussion is always fruitful if you move step by step.

Eric Hovind would beg to differ.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 26, 2014, 04:12:03 AM
[Whether] my theory is scientifically correct or not is a secondary issue.

So very wrong. It is the primary issue.

If you are not agreeing on this primary issue, there is no fun to discuss the science behind it.

There is no science behind your hypothesis.

Discussion is always fruitful if you move step by step.

Eric Hovind would beg to differ.
1. So you want to discuss the science of gravitation without accepting that an apple falls towards earth.
2. 'sound has a feeling' is not a hypothesis, it is a fact.
3. No comments.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Daniel on April 26, 2014, 08:45:29 AM
Let's discuss why language is actually a secret government conspiracy to make the population buy vegetables.

...you see, there's a good reason why theories are evaluated scientifically before and during discussion, rather than afterwards. Would you really want to take every idea seriously even if there is absolutely no scientific evidence/support whatsoever, including the crazy theory I just wrote above?

This is entirely backwards:
Quote
My theory is scientifically correct or not is a secondary issue. Primary issue is that whether the different sounds give the different feeling or not. If you are not agreeing on this primary issue, there is no fun to discuss the science behind it. Discussion is always fruitful if you move step by step.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: freknu on April 26, 2014, 09:41:42 PM
1. So you want to discuss the science of gravitation without accepting that an apple falls towards earth.
2. 'sound has a feeling' is not a hypothesis, it is a fact.
3. No comments.

1. an apple falling due to gravity is a verifiable and testable phenomenon. Your claims are not. Besides, to put your claims on par with a falling apple is laughable, your claims are more akin to an apple falling upwards.

2. "sound has feeling" is not scientific.

3. your loss.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 27, 2014, 05:18:23 AM
1. So you want to discuss the science of gravitation without accepting that an apple falls towards earth.
2. 'sound has a feeling' is not a hypothesis, it is a fact.
3. No comments.

1. an apple falling due to gravity is a verifiable and testable phenomenon. Your claims are not. Besides, to put your claims on par with a falling apple is laughable, your claims are more akin to an apple falling upwards.

2. "sound has feeling" is not scientific.

3. your loss.

So how can one hear a sound without feel it?
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: freknu on April 27, 2014, 06:45:13 AM
So how can one hear a sound without feel it?

*facepalm*

If you have a great enough sound pressure you can physically feel the sound, and the hair cells responding to sound pressure is also physical sensation.

What you are talking about is arbitrary, psychological, emotional "feeling". Everything has "feeling", because as humans we give everything "feeling". These "feelings" are different for every individual. To try and forcibly wring this into a scientific theory is absolutely absurd.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 27, 2014, 07:34:22 AM
...you see, there's a good reason why theories are evaluated scientifically before and during discussion, rather than afterwards. Would you really want to take every idea seriously even if there is absolutely no scientific evidence/support whatsoever, including the crazy theory I just wrote above?
I can understand it. There may be mistake in my English. But first of all we have to acknowledge that we can 'hear' a sound. When I say 'feel of sound', It is just for hearing (a physical feeling of sound), NOT for specific feeling for specific sound. When I will talk about the specific meanings of different sounds, that will be well supported by scientific reasoning.

Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Daniel on April 27, 2014, 08:05:20 AM
Quote
When I will talk about the specific meanings of different sounds, that will be well supported by scientific reasoning.
That is precisely the problem: no, it is not. Your reasoning is not scientific, as we have told you multiple times. Repeating a nonscientific argument does not make it more correct.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: zaba on April 28, 2014, 05:45:11 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on April 29, 2014, 07:06:03 AM
Quote
When I will talk about the specific meanings of different sounds, that will be well supported by scientific reasoning.
That is precisely the problem: no, it is not. Your reasoning is not scientific, as we have told you multiple times. Repeating a nonscientific argument does not make it more correct.
I do not understand that what is unscientific in this statement.
Let us start again.
1. We are not deaf.
2. We can hear different sounds.
3. We can recognize different sounds.
4. We can memorize different sounds.
We are not talking about the human languages. I think ..... we do not need any scientific proof up till now.
5. Sound is a vocal gesture. (Animal interaction is a proof)
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.
Still we are not talking about human languages. If you are not agree with these above 8 points please give me point no, and if you are agree, I will move further.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Daniel 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".
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: freknu 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: freknu 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Daniel 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.)
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: MalFet 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Daniel 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?
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Daniel 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: zaba 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Daniel 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal 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
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: jerryoverlock on October 20, 2016, 04:32:49 PM
I find phonemes to possess semantic features which each language  choosesfrom to form words
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal on October 26, 2016, 11:53:04 AM
Mr. jerryoverlock
Please explain in detail.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: vox on October 29, 2016, 01:40:11 PM
Pramod Kumar Agrawal,
Have you found any research related to your hypothesis ?
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal 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.
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Audiendus 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?
Title: Re: Phonosemantics
Post by: Pramod Kumar Agrawal 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.