I think that systematic phonosemantics is the first level of phonogrammar. Morphonology as a second level of phonogrammar is the connecting ling between language levels in suggested phonogrammatical system. I would be so grateful to those who can present works in the field of systematic phonosemantics or phonogrammar in English and Russian languages, and those who express their scientific opinions about this phenomenon.
Otto Jespersen suggests that: Sound symbolism, we may say, makes some words more fit to survive. Dwight Bolinger of Harvard University was the primary proponent of phonosemantics through the late 40s and the 50s. In 1949, he published The Sign is Not Arbitrary. He concluded that morphemes cannot be defined as the minimal meaning-bearing units, in part because meaning is so ill-defined, and in part because there are obvious situations in which smaller units are meaning-bearing.
source: http://www.jamesoftheword.com/TECHNICAL_WRITINGS_Link_Page_files/sound_symbolism.html
Hello!
I have not a referable work actually. However, in my opinion, phonogrammar, as regards Chomsky's competence - performance theory and language meaning (semantics) precedency to morphonology, I would suggest that systematic phonosemantics is a matter of competence that would generate meaningfil phones and/or phone meaning and morphonology, its second manifestation, would stand for performance or phone manifestation in actual use of language.
Otto Jespersen suggests that: Sound symbolism, we may say, makes some words more fit to survive. Dwight Bolinger of Harvard University was the primary proponent of phonosemantics through the late 40s and the 50s. In 1949, he published The Sign is Not Arbitrary. He concluded that morphemes cannot be defined as the minimal meaning-bearing units, in part because meaning is so ill-defined, and in part because there are obvious situations in which smaller units are meaning-bearing.
source: http://www.jamesoftheword.com/TECHNICAL_WRITINGS_Link_Page_files/sound_symbolism.html
A good detailed answer. Agree with Marwah Firas Abdullah Al- Rawe.
Marwah Firas Abdullah Al-Rawe
Thank you for your answer, but I didn't take in to consideration the sound symbolism which can't be able to have systematic, well-organized rules. I wanted to know, if there is a work dealing with the sound quantity changes causing the grammatical categorization changes by sound waves that have a meaning in different word syllables. Exactly, I mean minimal meaning-bearing phonemes as smallest language meaningful units. May be it needs a highly organized theory measured by new technologies?
Thank you again for your answer.
Thank you for your answer and useful information you gave. I think that morphemes aren't minimal meaning-bearing units. There is a smaller meaning-bearing unit – phoneme. It is able to bear the meaning. Maybe it looks strange, but it is so in fact, especially in Arabic.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Language
- English