Onomatopoeia

[Kevin]

During Tuesday's presentation, Olin raised the interesting question of
onomatopoeias. Whereas Ferdinand de Saussure made the influential
claim that the connection between the phonological sound-image and its
conceptual signification is arbitrary (i.e. the relation between the
sounds "tree" and our actual notion of a tree is not naturally
caused), onomatopoeias seem to indicate that at least some of these
signs are naturally influenced. And perhaps we can ground the birth of
language in the attempt to mimic natural relations. On page 69 of his
"Course in General Linguistics," Saussure addresses the issue of hte
onomatopoeia:

"/Onomatopoeia/ might be used to prove that the choice of the
signifier is not always arbitrary. But onomatopoeic formations are
never organic elements of a linguistic system. Besides, their number
is much smaller than is generally supposed. Words like french /fouet/
'whip' or /glas/ 'knell' may strike certain ears with suggestive
sonority, but to see that they have not always had this property we
need only examine their Latin forms (/fouet/ is derived from /fâgus/
'beech-tree,' /glas/ from /classicum/ sound of trumpet'). The quality
of their present sounds, or rather the quality that is attributed to
them, is a fortuitous result of phonetic evolution.

"As for authentic onomatopoeic words (e.g. /glug-glug/, /tick-tock/,
etc.), not only are they limited in number, but also they are chosen
somewhat arbitrarily, for they are only approximate and more or less
conventional imitations of certain sounds (cf. English /bow-wow/ and
french /ouaoua/). In addition, since these words have been introduced
into the language, they are to a certain extent subjected to the same
evolution--phonetic, morphological, etc.--that other words undergo
(cf. /pigeon/, ultimately from Vulgar Latin /pîpiô/, derived in turn
from an onomatopoeic formation): obvious proof that they lose
something of their original character in order to assume that of the
linguistic sign in general, which is unmotivated."

Now, while I agree for the most part with Saussure's point, I think he
does not spend enough time on the topic. Of course language and signs
are grounded in our perception of nature and our attempt to be attuned
to natural patterns. But I think it would be a mistake to reproduce a
nature/culture distinction when addressing onomatopoeias. I take it
that nature itself is always interpreted by us. There is simply no way
to make sense of a "brute fact" as Searle would have it. This does not
deny objectivity or nature, but recognizes that we are always engaged
with nature. So, the sounds of nature insofar as we mimic them will
always be subject to something like the contours of "cultural laws" of
meaning. So, to try and found meaning purely in onomatopoeias, as
brutely mimicing natural sounds, seems to me to beg the question. For
we must already have certain meaningful patterns in place in order to
interpret and reform the sounds to match how our body has been
habituated.

So I agree with both Olin and Saussure. I think there is something of
a false distinction being made between language as "cultural" and
language as "natural." After all, natural, biological behavior
"creates meanings which are transcendent in relation to the anatomical
apparatus, and yet immanent to the behaviour as such, since it
communicates itself and is understood" (Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology
of Perception, p. 220). In other words, nature and meaning (which we
can associate with culture) cannot be distinguished in our basic
behavior.