1 / 18

Lexical Typology : Sounds

Lexical Typology : Sounds. Ekaterina Rakhilina Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow rakhilina@gmail.com. Types of sounds. Human beings ( including ‘tramp’ or ‘patter’, ‘grinding of teeth’, ‘handclap’, etc. ) Musical instruments Animals (including ‘thud of hoofs’)

kedem
Download Presentation

Lexical Typology : Sounds

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lexical Typology: Sounds Ekaterina Rakhilina Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow rakhilina@gmail.com Stockholm 2010

  2. Types of sounds • Human beings (including ‘tramp’ or ‘patter’, ‘grinding of teeth’, ‘handclap’, etc.) • Musical instruments • Animals (including ‘thud of hoofs’) • Natural objects (water, stones, pieces of wood, thunder, leaves, wind, forest, etc.) • Artifacts (iron + glass: vessels, transport, etc.) Stockholm 2010

  3. SOUNDS It is well known that animal sounds can be applied to people metaphorically MY QUESTION: What “human” sounds are conceptualized as those of animals, birds or insects? A SIMPLE ANSWER: INARTICULATE Stockholm 2010

  4. I. NON-SPEECH: I.1. UNCONTROLLED I.2. CONTROLLED II. SPEECH INARTICULATE SOUNDS Stockholm 2010

  5. A. PHYSIOLOGICAL To groan, to sneeze, to wheeze, to snore… B. SPONTANIOUS REACTIONS Negative (= «crying») Positive (= «laughing») I.1. NON-SPEECH, UNCONTROLLED Stockholm 2010

  6. I.1.A. PHYSIOLOGICAL • Russ.:určat’(stomach rumbles) = Engl.growl(dogs&bears, *wolves) • Czech:hrochtat- pigs groan(raising something heavy) = “to hippopotamus”:hroch– hippopotamus NB! Frogs & ducks in Czech and Norwegian Arm.:‘grunt’ = to wheeze before dying Kalmyk.:‘grunt’ = to snore[=to purr (about cats)] Komi: furskyny ‘to spit (about horses)’ = ‘to slurp’ + ‘to sniff’ ONOMATOPOEIA Stockholm 2010

  7. I.1.B. «CRYING» & «LAUGHING» • «Crying» Rus.:bear, dog, wolf, chicken / mice; Arm.cow • «Laughing» Rus.:horse, goose[Engl. honk –about cars] Arm.: cicadato laugh; sheep +abrupt Engl.: hoot(owl)to laugh loudlythat was a real hoot • BOTH Rus.:vizžat’(pain, happiness) NB! Engl.: to squeal on smb. – to inform against smb. Engl.: howl (wolf)to cry / laugh very loudly roar(only lion)a lot of pain / laugh; cf. Rus.revet’(subject: adultor group of people) Stockholm 2010

  8. I.1.Uncontrolled Physiological Spontaneous reactions («crying» & «laughing») I.2.Controlled: singingwithout words Rus.: murlykat’ without music talking to oneself (cf.Rus. bormotat’ Engl. mutter) I.NON-SPEECH Stockholm 2010

  9. I.2.MURMURING & MUTTERING • Norw.:a special verb(nynne)‘to sing for himself’ Engl.: hum (mosquito, fly, *bee)the way Winnie-the-Pooh sang (the mouth being closed) + hummingbird French:bourdonner (+ fly, bug); similarly in German • + words only Engl.: cluck(hen) ‘mutter’ Norw.:klukke(hen)‘to laugh silently, to chuckle’ Germ.: (bear) ‘mutter’ • + without music Arm.‘meow’ bad singing (high-pitched voice) Engl.: squeak(mice, doors, brakes)  a bad violin Stockholm 2010

  10. II. SPEECH • Inarticulatespeech (babies or adults)– II.1 • Approving / disapproving – II.2 • “Speaking groups” – II.3 • Special meaningII.4 Stockholm 2010

  11. II. 1. Inarticulate speech • Babies(cf. Rus. gulit’): Engl.:coo(pigeons) • Adults:incomprehensibleconfused speech (1) Slowly / interrupted / disconnectedly Rus.: sheep,goat, cow Nor.breke(sheep) unpleasantmasculinevoice (2) Quickly anddisconnectedly (jabber– about women) Rus.: strekotat’‘chirr’ (cicada + sewing machine / typewriter) Engl.:yapmuch, quickly, disconnectedly: they were just yapping away the whole night Komi ‘chirr’: voshkyny (magpie+ frog +sandpiper) NB!: bargyny(sheep, goat) Crimean Tatar: ‘Knock / acute sound (zurna) / counting frame’ ‘jabber’ Stockholm 2010

  12. II.2. Disapproval • Very weak resistance: (1) Rus.:fyrkat’snort (dogs, horses), veresčat’ (pigs) Engl.:grunt(only with the sound) (2) Rus.:šipet’ hiss(being in a fume); Czech: syčet (snake) Norw.:frese (lemmingmouse; without tail, yellow, angry, does not bite, migrates)  ≈ angry, but cannot do nothing Arm.:‘whirr’(cat) mutter, being angry ‘to overcome[over-whirr]our melancholy’ Stockholm 2010

  13. II.2. Dog-like reactions Rus.:vjakat’, ogryzat’sja, rychat’ Engl.: growl & snarl I told him we need to leave and he just growled at me If they snarl at each other they are really fighting Nor.: knurre(dog, wolf, *bear) snerre more aggressively: if I propose and the interlocutor knurre, we’ll do it (though he’s not willing), but if the interlocutorsnerre, it’s impossible Stockholm 2010

  14. II.2. Reactions • approval=Rus.:krjakat’ (ducks), mychat’ (cows krjakat’ ) Speech reactions: • We don’t know the content, but we know how it was said (and can guess the content) • Not only the sound is important but also the animal  it’s not simply ONOMATOPOEIA Stockholm 2010

  15. II.3. Multiple subject • lovers and enemies: Rus. vorkovat’VS. lajat’sja • mindless women Rus.:sčebetat’, Engl.: tweet women’s talk and giggling Norw.: kakle ‘cackle’ loud, meaningless talk or laugh of women • crowd Rus.:galdet’, revet’, gudet’ Engl.:buzz(bee, mosquitos)people discuss ideas • collective disapproval Engl.:hissa big group of people express their indignation – e.g. in the theater or on the stands, cf. Rus.:šikat’ Stockholm 2010

  16. II.4. Semiotically relevant speech Rus.:zudet’(mosquito), Hindi: (‘fly’)bother Rus.:brexat’‘bark’ tell a lie Rus.:karkat’ (crow), Arm. ‘frog’ put a whammy on Hindi:‘crow’repeat the same things Hindi:‘horse’affected pathos (cf. declaim, perorate) Hindi: ‘sheep’to ask plaintively, to cajole Engl.:cackletake care of Germ.:‘turkey’to speak angrily Engl.:barkto bark commands + you are barking up the wrong tree NB!Rus.:rjavkat’, not * lajat’ Stockholm 2010

  17. Sound quantum • Food quantum: ne mog s”est’ ni kroški (lit. a crumb); cf.: He couldn’t eat another mouthful • Liquid quantum:ne prolil ni kapli – lit.:didn’t spill a drop (cf. a bit) • [emotions = liquids]: ‘drops’ –ne bojalsja / ne ljubil ni kapli lit.:was not frightened / did not fall in love + not a bit (lit. for a drop) • Didn’t make a sound – whichsound? Rus.:ne piknul(electronic device / chicken) Engl.: she didn’t make a peep(chicken) Norw.:han sa ikke et kvekk(quack = duck) did not say a word Stockholm 2010

  18. LINGUISTICALLY IMPORTANT • sounds can be structured differently (iterativesVS. singulatives) • different languages cluster sounds («human», «animal» and «inanimate») differently – against lexical typology • languages tend to lexicalize similar “sound situations” or their parameters – with the help of «animal» sounds, or in some other way • such situations / parameters are relevant for speakersof any languages and cultures~universal – for lexical typology Stockholm 2010

More Related