Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 203-4):
This raises a question of how we might position onomatopœia (e.g. animal noises such as meow, woof, neigh, baa) and phonæsthesia (e.g. slinky, slimey, slinky, slippery, slither, slurp, slushy) were we to further develop our description of language and paralanguage. This would involve bringing relevant dimensions of voice quality (outlined in Chapter 5) to bear, as well as exploring the potential for human articulatory resources to imitate sounds (arguably an ideational resource) and attitudinally ‘colour’ phonæsthetic series (arguably an interpersonal one). Our expectation is that these resources could be brought into a model of paralanguage based on further research (cf. Chapter 5, Section 5.5, on voice quality differentiation between miserable and angry meows).
Blogger Comments:
This misunderstands language as paralanguage. To be clear, words, including those classified as onomatopœic or phonæsthetic, are of the lexicogrammar of language, and so are not part of paralanguage. Onomatopœic words that imitate the meaningful vocalisations of other animals are linguistic representations of non-human protolanguage. Phonæsthetic words are those whose phonetic realisations imitate the perceptual qualities of material order phenomena.
No comments:
Post a Comment