THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHONEMES AND MEANING: AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66345/stj.v3i5.4638Keywords:
phoneme, phonology, sound symbolism, phonestheme, arbitrariness, phonosemantic mapping, bouba/kiki effect, lexical access, cross-linguistic patterns, neurocognitionAbstract
This article offers a comprehensive synthesis of theoretical, experimental, typological, developmental, and neurocognitive evidence on the complex relationship between phonemes and meaning, arguing that the traditional Saussurean notion of pure arbitrariness must be tempered by systematic tendencies that shape lexical structure and lexical access. The first section revisits foundational theory Saussure’s model of the linguistic sign and Jakobson’s work on phonological function while tracing historical observations of phonesthemes and phonosemantic clusters that suggest sub-lexical patterns can bias semantic interpretation. By integrating classical linguistics with contemporary corpus-driven and experimental approaches, the article frames the debate as one between combinatorial convention and perceptually grounded iconicity rather than as an either/or dichotomy.
Downloads
References
1. Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: Sound–shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9(3), 316–322. This empirical study documents the presence of sound–shape mappings in early development, supporting perceptual bases for sound symbolism.
2. Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2016). Sound–meaning association biases reflected in the lexicon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(25), 6837–6842. A large-scale typological analysis showing systematic sound–meaning biases across diverse languages and semantic domains.
3. Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2018). Five mechanisms of sound symbolism. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6), 1619–1643. A contemporary review synthesizing experimental findings and proposing mechanistic pathways by which phonetic features map onto conceptual dimensions.
4. Aliyevna,Y.D. (2023). Study Of Concepts Expressing The Relationship Between New And Old Information (Theme And Rheme) Expressed In A Sentence. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 7(2).
5. Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(5), 393–402. This influential review presents the dual-stream model of speech processing, offering a neurobiological scaffold for understanding phonological–semantic integration.
6. Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(2), 253–336. Pulvermüller argues for distributed, modality-specific representations of word meaning, providing neurophysiological evidence that semantics and sensorimotor systems are tightly coupled.
7. Yuldasheva,D.(2024).THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SUBJECTIVE ATTITUDE SEMANTICS. Академические исследования в современной науке, 3(26), 193-196.
8. Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(7), 576–582. This review synthesizes neuroimaging and electrophysiological data showing how action-related words recruit motor circuits, underscoring embodied aspects of meaning.
