language formation - To what extent do English words sound like what they describe?


Is it true that the way languages develop causes the tonal qualities of the words to have a tendency to match the nature of the thing the word stands for?


I am not talking just about obviously onomatopoieaic words such as "splash" or "murmur". I mean very general everyday words. For example the word "book" has a sort of hard quality to it, whereas the word "water" seems to almost flow like the actual substance itself.


Is there any truth in this theory?


Edit: They discuss this topic on QI. They claim a pointy spiky object is far more likely to be named a "kiki" than a "booba".



Answer



This is an ancient question with much attendant scholarship rejoicing in the name of 'phonosemantics', qv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_symbolism


Friendly introdution with bouba and kiki here: http://www.visiblemantra.org/phonosemantics.html


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

First floor vs ground floor, usage origin

usage - "there doesn't seem" vs. "there don't seem"

pronunciation - Where does the intrusive R come from in “warsh”?

Abbreviation of "Street"

etymology - Since when has "a hot minute" meant a long time?

meaning - What is synonyme of "scale"?