XX.—§ 2. Instinctive Feeling.
Yes, of course it would be absurd to maintain that all words at all times in all languages had a signification corresponding exactly to their sounds, each sound having a definite meaning once for all. But is there really much more logic in the opposite extreme, which denies any kind of sound symbolism[100] (apart from the small class of evident echoisms or ‘onomatopœia’) and sees in our words only a collection of wholly accidental and irrational associations of sound and meaning? It seems to me that the conclusion in this case is as false as if you were to infer that because on one occasion X told a lie, he therefore never tells the truth. The correct conclusion would be: as he has told a lie once, we cannot always trust him; we must be on our guard with him—but sometimes he may tell the truth. Thus, also, sounds may in some cases be symbolic of their sense, even if they are not so in all words. If linguistic historians are averse to admitting sound symbolism, this is a natural consequence of their being chiefly occupied with words which have undergone regular changes in sound and sense; and most of the words which form the staple of linguistic books are outside the domain of sound symbolism.
There is no denying, however, that there are words which we feel instinctively to be adequate to express the ideas they stand for, and others the sounds of which are felt to be more or less incongruous with their signification. Future linguists will have to find out in detail what domains of human thought admit, and what domains do not admit, of congruous expression through speech sounds, and further what sounds are suitable to express such and such a notion, for though it is clear—to take only a few examples—that there is little to choose between apple and pomme, or between window and fenster, as there is no sound or sound group that has any natural affinity with such thoroughly concrete and composite ideas as those expressed by these words, yet on the other hand everybody must feel that the word roll, rouler, rulle, rollen is more adequate than the corresponding Russian word katat’, katit’.
It would be an interesting task to examine in detail and systematically what ideas lend themselves to symbolic presentation and what sounds are chosen for them in different languages. That, however, could only be done on the basis of many more examples than I can find space for in this work, and I shall, therefore, only attempt to give a preliminary enumeration of the most obvious classes, with a small fraction of the examples I have collected.[101]
XX.—§ 3. Direct Imitation.
The simplest case is the direct imitation of the sound, thus clink, clank, ting, tinkle of various metallic sounds, splash, bubble, sizz, sizzle of sounds produced by water, bow-wow, bleat, roar of sounds produced by animals, and snort, sneeze, snigger, smack, whisper, grunt, grumble of sounds produced by human beings. Examples might easily be multiplied of such ‘echoisms’ or ‘onomatopœia’ proper. But, as our speech-organs are not capable of giving a perfect imitation of all ‘unarticulated’ sounds, the choice of speech-sounds is to a certain extent accidental, and different nations have chosen different combinations, more or less conventionalized, for the same sounds; thus cock-a-doodle-doo, Dan. kykeliky, Sw. kukeliku, G. kikeriki, Fr. coquelico, for the sound of a cock; and for whisper: Dan. hviske, ON. kvisa, G. flüstern, Fr. chuchoter, Sp. susurar. The continuity of a sound is frequently indicated by l or r after a stopped consonant: rattle, rumble, jingle, clatter, chatter, jabber, etc.
XX.—§ 4. Originator of the Sound.
Next, the echoic word designates the being that produces the sound, thus the birds cuckoo and peeweet (Dan. vibe, G. kibitz, Fr. pop. dix-huit).