Urschöpfung is a term (Paul 1891) used to refer to “primary creation”, that is, creation of words of a hypothetical common language of human ancestors and is thus opposed to Neuschöpfung, novel coinage of (imitative, onomatopoeic, ideophonic) words in contemporary languages. The key difference between these two categories is that words of the emerging human language were appearing “out of nothing” into “nothing”, whereas modern imitative words are coined into an already existing (arbitrary) language system. However, modern imitative words still are the only class of words created “out of nothing”, that is, not from the already pre-existing linguistic material. Therefore, their study opens a window into the evolution of the human language which cannot be researched even by methods of historical-comparative linguistics.

Imitative words (ideophones, onomatopoeic words, mimetic words, etc.) are encountered in (possibly) all documented languages across the globe (see Hinton et al. 1994; Voeltz et al. 2001; Körtvélyessy & Štekauer 2024). They exhibit a certain degree of cross-linguistic similarity (cf. E. meow, Rus. мяу [ˈmʲaʊ], Vietnamese meo, Slovak mňau, Chinese miāo) determined by use of similar linguistic means (here: sonorants + vowels differing in pitch) for imitating similar phenomena (here: a cat’s call). Such cross-linguistic similarity of imitative words is based on their iconicity, which is “a relationship of resemblance between sign and its object” (after Peirce 1940). The linguistic sign is arbitrary (Saussure 1966 [1916]); imitative words, however, have a dual (iconic-arbitrary) nature: they are (1) arbitrary as they (as all Neuschöpfungen) are elements of a conventional, arbitrary language system (and their coinage is governed by inventory and phonotactic restrictions of a particular language) and (2) iconic as they share similar features with their denotata (in case of onomatopoeia – acoustic features).

It is argued (Flaksman 2024: 34-37) that phonemes in imitative words have an additional, imitative function, that is, a function of reference to the imitated features of denotata. This reference is based on similarity of these features of denotata to the acoustic (or articulatory) features of speech sounds selected for their depiction (thus, high-pitched sounds are imitated by high-pitched vowels – peep, bleep; hissing sounds – by fricatives – hiss, sizzle). This means that not-entirely-arbitrary imitative words are comprised of not-entirely-meaningless segments (which partly contradicts two of Hockett’s (1966) design features of the human language – “arbitrariness” and “duality of patterning”). Moreover, application of the minimal pair test (Flaksman 2024: 35) to imitative words yields interesting results – segment substitution in imitative words does not cause the loss of their meanings but results in their (iconic) modification – cf. ding and dong, cling and clang, flop and flob, etc. Such a failure to exhibit typical traits of (arbitrary) linguistic signs makes imitative words a valuable object of research, as it provides an insight into how lexical items might have functioned before human language became a complex hierarchical system of signs.

The aim of this workshop is to demonstrate the diversity of novel (iconic) word-coinage from languages across the globe while crystalizing the universal, language-overarching nature of lexical iconicity. We invite talks on onomatopoeia, ideophones, and other types of imitative words from languages of different families. Especially welcome is the comparative research on imitative vocabularies of two and more languages.

Workshop topics:

•   imitative words / ideophones in ancient and reconstructed languages

•   diachronic research on onomatopoeia and ideophones

•   comparative research on onomatopoeia / ideophones in world languages

•   recurrent patterns in (sound)imitation in spoken languages

•   universal and language-specific in imitative vocabularies in world languages

•   parallels in iconic (imitative) coinage in spoken and signed languages

References

Flaksman, M. 2024. An Etymological Dictionary of English Imitative Words. Berlin: Peter Lang.

Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala J. J. (eds.). 1994. Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hockett, C.F. 1966. The problem of universals in language. In Greenberg J, editor. Universals of language. Cambridge: The MIT Press. P. 1–29.

Körtvélyessy, L. and P. Štekauer (eds.) 2024. Onomatopoeia in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook, de Gruyter.

Paul, H. 1891. Principles of the History of Language. London: Longman, Greens, and Co.

Peirce, Ch. S. 1940. The Philosophy of Peirce: Selected Writings (ed. by J. Buchler). New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Saussure, F. de 1966 [1916]. Course in General Linguistics. New York Toronto London: McGraw-Hill.

Voeltz, E.F.K. & Kilian-Hatz, Ch. (eds.). 2001. Ideophones [Typological Studies in Language 44]. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.