40 лет Санкт-Петербургской типологической школе

S. V. Voronin Towards a phonosemantic typology of rl-multiplicatives (a case study of iconicity in grammar)

The universal functional-semantic category of plurality, or multiplicity [Xrakovskij 1989; cf. Dressier 1968; Maslov 1978] is expressed by a variety of lexical and grammatical means.

One of the best known among these is reduplication (alias doubling, duplication, repetition, multiplication), which has been studied at some length (see e. g. [Brandstetter 1917; Gonda 1959; Uhlenbeck 1953; Yelovkov 1977; Alieva 1980; Morev 1991]). Reduplication as an absolute language universal (cf. [Greenberg 1966]) has long been found to be iconic ([Sapir 1921; Gonda 1940; Makarenko 1970; Jakob-son 1971; Gazov-Ginzberg 1974; Long Seam 1975; Ogloblin 1980]).

There is, however, another universal (albeit, it seems, non-absolute) that, like reduplication, expresses plurality. This is what I call «RL-formatives» [Voronin 1980]: (inter alia) the frequentative English end formatives — er, — le, or Bashkir — yr, — yl, or Indonesian infixal — er-, -el-.

I contend that RL-formatives are, in origin, iconic (cf. [Voronin 1982: 118]). I term multiplicative verbs with RL-formatives «RL-multiplicatives».

The workings of iconicity in lexis and text (especially in poetry) have been studied in extense, whereas its workings in grammar can claim only a limited number of studies. Few grammarians, aware of the importance of iconicity, have accorded the problem its due. Of these few, mention should be made here of A. A. Xolodovič [Xolodovič 1954: 19If], conductive to launching G. A. Pak's dissertation [Pak 1958] on Korean onomatopes and sound-symbolic words, V. S. Xrakovskij [Xrakovskij 1989: 26, 28 n. 19—cf. 1997: 28, 63 n. 19], citing some of the findings of phonosemantics, D. M. Nasilov [Nasilov 1989: 129–133], discussing Turkic aspectology and iconic verbs, and I. B. Dolinina [Dolinina 1989, 1997]. Generally the none-too-numerous attempts to pick up the unorthodox hot potatoes of ico-nicity in grammar were met with hostility, suspicion and inept criticism or were high-handedly bypassed in silence.

Special research has shown, however, that cases of iconicity in grammar are numerous, and they deserve serious consideration. It is no freak of fate that when the issue of «natural classification» (i. a. in grammar) arises, the issue of iconism would be lurking there, waiting to be dealt with. So in the «natural classification» of the system of meanings belonging to the universal functional/semantic category of plurality — a classification evolved by V. S. Xrakovskij and his colleagues in the ground-breaking monograph «Typology of Iterative Constructions» (1989 — in Russian; 1997 — in English).

According to G. P. Melnikov [Melnikov 1989: 19], typological conceptions proclaiming the primate of solely formal or solely conten-sive characteristics are aspectuative, and it is approaches aiming at uncovering the laws of «matching», of interdependance, implicative relations in the system that are conducive to synthesis of newly discovered and earlier amassed knowledge. I hold that ignoring possible iconicity we basically ignore implicative relations, we ignore casuality. Exclude probing iconicity — and you largely exclude in-depth understanding, the cognitive retrospective (casuality) and the cognitive perspective (heuristics).

RL-multiplicatives (i. e. iterative verbs with r or / as for-matives) are a graphic illustration of iconism in grammar [Jespersen 1928; Gonda 1940; Gazov-Ginzberg 1965]. In Modem English, for instance, almost three fourths of its RL-verbs are in origin onomatopoeic or sound-symbolic, and — er, — le are not (contrary to the standard opinion) dead suffixes — they are living suffixes, still fairly productive: witness N. Bartko [2001]. As V. S. Xrakovskij [1997: 28] notes, «One of the universal features of lexical multiplicatives (and semelfac-tives)… is that they are predominantly, if not solely, onomatopoeic by origin…The authors approach this problem from grammatical point of view. Earlier I approached this from a general typological point of view [Voronin 1980; 1982], cf. [Voronin, Bartko 1999]. I now approach this specifically from the vantage point of phonosemantic typology.»

Literary sources usually point out the fact that these formatives are connected with the sphere of onomatopoeia and sound symbolism. Wilmanns [1896: 93,98], for instance, states that German verbs in — em chiefly denote repeated, rapid and brief movements, and aural and visual impressions of such movements, and «a large number of them are onomatopoeic formations [plätschem „splash“, stottem „stutter“, glitzem „glitter“)». Kluge [1913: 10] observes that Old Germanic verbs with the suffix — arôn (as in OHG flogarôn «flutter») always denote movement, noise and light.

The significant role of iconicity in RL-formatives is noted i. a. by Paul [1959: 119,121], Schmidt [1964: 122], Fleischer [1983: 321–322] for German, Hummelstedt [1939: 133], Wessén [Wessén 1970: 110] for Swedish, Rijpma, Schuringa [1971: 147] for Dutch. De Vooys [1967: 247], in his study of Dutch onomatopoeic and sound-symbolic expressivism, writes that «frequentatives» (iteratives) «could have been, from the very beginning… a product of what Paul called Uhrschöpfung».

Thus the sphere of Germanic iterative RL-formatives is vocabulary that in origin is iconic (words like those for sound, movement, light, speech, physical and emotional states are a prominent and universally acknowledged part of the iconic lexis), and the stems of RL-formatives are in origin iconic.

However, the iconic nature of the stem in these verbs is not sufficient ground to pass judgement on the nature and origin of the RL-formatives themselves. Some authors speak of their inherent iconicity. Marchand, for instance, observes: «Words in — er are compounds of several symbolic elements, one of which is final — er» [Marchand 1969:

273]; «Like — er, — le is not a derivative suffix proper from existing roots. <…> Many verbs have probably never had a simple root without the /l/ element…» [ibid: 323].

It is usually noted that modem Germanic RL-suffixes go back to West-Germanic and Scandinavian secondary suffixes (a result of metanalysis) with the determinatives — r-, — l-, OS, OHG — arô-, -aiô-;OIcel — ra, — la Guxman [1966: 201]; it is also noted that determinatives that belong to the compound secondary suffix are, in origin, — and this is important — part of the underlying stem — they actually are its final consonant Belyaeva [1965: 128]. We thus have in evidence two facts of the utmost importance: the iterative RL-formative is, in origin, part of the underlying stem; this stem is iconic in nature.

All this brings us to the conclusion: Germanic iterative RL-for-matives are iconic in origin, and their nature is iconic.

Surprisingly enough, this conclusion, so evident for the unbiased — and objectively the only one feasible — had not been formulated earlier, clearly and unambiguously.

Our conclusion re the Germanic RL-formatives is corroborated by «external» data from various other languages.

The cross-linguistic geography of RL-formatives is indeed impressive, all of them honouring one and the same macropattem.

Ramstedt [1952] stresses the fact that «Word formation in Altaic languages evinces a strong preference for onomatopoeic renderings». Ramstedt cites i. a. verbs in — ra, — la, — kira: Turkic jiltire «to glimmer, flicker», bürkä «to bum», titire «to tremble»; Mongolian burla «grumble»; sis-kire «to whistle» [ibid.].

For Turkish, Dmitriev [1962: 64f] discussed ut/ül/~ ït//il, ur//ür ~ïr//ir (e. g. in zïrïl «the purling or murmur of water» and cigir «the crunching of snow») as — again: nota bene — «final syllables of disyllabic mimemes» (i. e. iconic words. — S. V.). Importantly again, Fazy-lov [1958: 41, 70] for Tajik observes: «In origin, — ar//-ir//-ur are undoubtedly part of the iconic stem» as in guldurif) «rumbling» (with no *guld attested).

In general, it seems that Turkic tradition tends to regard verbs ending in r, / as disyllabic, and essentially underived (see e. g. [Xaritonov 1954: 167; Ščerbak 1987:129]).

For Buryat, Tsydendambayev [1958: 143] stresses that «in onomatopoeic words all endings… act as word-formation suffixes». For Nanaian, Kile [1973: 43] points out: «The interesting feature about the final endings of simple-stem iconic words is that they are as it were prototypes of word-formational suffixes. <…> In the word-formational suffixes — r-r, — ria-a, — riok and — riu-u we see the common element r, spawning all these variants».

In extensive RL adventures across world languages I came across a striking case of the R-formative in Karanga (Shona, a Bantu language). Its continuative verb forms take the suffix — ra/-ira/-era_, reduplicated — rara/-irira/-erera: pota «go (in a curve)» — potera «go round» — poter-era «go round and round». The Karanga verb also has a «destructive», or «undoing» form in — ura, — urura: futa «swell» — futura «stretch out», pfura «knock, kick» — pfururura «knock out, scatter». V. Mathesius [1931: 427,432] was of the opinion that intensity may be expressed not only in the force of the action within a given period but also in the duration of the action, whether interrupted or uninterrupted. I would add here this snippet from Marconnes, with his telling examples: «Like the Destructive… the Projective (i. e. Continuative. — S. V.) — aira is intensive, and denotes a very long duration…» (Cf.)pfunda «make a knot» — pfundaira «knit one's brow, frown» — pfundarara «puff out one's cheeks» [Marconnès 1931:198]. The Karanga R-formative — not just the root — thus adopts various guises to suit iconic variation.

Jespersen [1928: 28] paid attention to the extremely important nature of the difference between monosyllabic iconic words, which express single sounds and movements, and disyllabic iconic words, denoting continuous sounds and movements; the latter are very often formed with suffixes — er and — le, employed thus in a multitude of languages, even outside the Aryan world. A similar observation was made, for Yakut, by Xaritonov [1954: 167]: «… in monosyllabic onomatopoeic roots, their very monosyllabism is a form of expression for momentary sounds. <…> Quantative complexity of sound, as well as its arrangement on the time scale, is rendered by augmenting the root». Cf. [Gazov-Ginzberg 1965:159].

Gonda [1940: 20If], in analyzing Malay/Indonesian onomatopoeic and sound-symbolic words with the iterative infixes — er- and — el-, proposes comparison of the latter with English and Dutch formations in, respectively, — er, — le and — eren, — elen.

Ever cautious with regard to the idea of onomatopoeia and sound symbolism, Gonda nevertheless arrives at the conclusion that the Malay/Indonesian — er-, -el- infixes are not grammatical morphemes — they are concomitant to imitating sound or movement, and their source (or at least one of their sources) may be a significant number of iconic words [ibid.].

In Sundanese, RL-formatives are an expression of the category of plurality — for verbs, adjectives, and sometimes nouns: dink «to sit (sg.)» — dariuk «to sit (pi.)», bodo «foolish (sg.)» — barodo «foolish (pi.)», budak «child» — barudak «children».

As I showed earlier, mostly for English, r in the onomotapoeic root is always (no exceptions) iconic, fulfilling onomatopoeic function of rendering «pure dissonance» — vibrating, intermittent sound, i. e. a series of rapid pulses Voronin [1969:1, 394]. A special series of studies on Indonesian onomatopes [Voronin, Bratoes 1976; Bratoes 1976; Bratoes, Voronin 1980] demonstrated i. a. that the same is true for r in the Indonesian root: see the CandPhil by Bratoes [1976: 5] written under my supervision. Data Voronin [1982: 115–118] based i. a. on RL-verb semantics as given in Bratoes [1976], point to the fact that in more than one third of the instances the R-formative fulfils only the above-mentioned one function. E. g. ker(e)tap «report (of a gun), explosion»: one complex sound («vibrant pulse») — the infixal r's function is onomatopoeic, the same function of rendering pure dissonance as that of the root r in e. g. ar «creak; trampling».

In a great number of cases we have the infixal r fulfilling the sound-symbolic function of simple repetition:

Broadening the perspective, it was expedient to gauge the RL situation in some language typologically different from English and Indonesian. Closely linked to a series of typological studies (e. g. [Voronin, Lapkina 1977; Lapkina, Voronin 1979; cf. Voronin, Lapkina 1989]), was the CandPhil by Lapkina [1979], a postgraduate of mine, discussing onomatopoes in Bashkir (as compared to English). As in other Turkic languages, R-formations are a significant part of Bashkir onomatopoeic vocabulary. Usually the R-formative is seen in Turkology as conveying plurality, iteration, intensity (e. g. [Ašmarin 1928; Xaritonov 1954; Sevortian 1962; Xudajkuliev 1962; Išmuxametov 1970; Serebrennikov 1977]), thus imparting to the onomatope only a subsidiary, quantitative characteristic (not unlike the formative in English). Phonosemantic analysis, however, shows that, at least for Bashkir, this sound-symbolic function of r in the formative largely makes way for the qualitative onomatopoeic function of rendering pure dissonance. Consider thus supyr «(dial.) to bubble» denoting essentially an iteration of the instant sound of a stone going plop into the water, the latter rendered by the onomatope sup: the r's function is sound-symbolic; as opposed to this consider typyr in the sense «the rattling sound of machine-gun fire»: the r's function is onomatopoeic (like in tur «vibrant sound», with r part of the root).

Studies in a number of Germanic (English, German, Dutch), Turkic (Bashkir, Kirghiz, Chuvash) languages, as well as Malay/Indonesian, and Samoyed (Selkup) languages demonstrate that these formatives comprise a phonosemantically valid part of iconic word.

The evolution of RL is related to the process of denaturalization (the erosion of iconisity) in RL-formatives. This is best seen in r (the phonosemantically more powerful of the two sonants), discussed in the present paper. In root onomatopoeia, r is an important qualitative feature of the referent; it comes forth as the constituting element of an entire class of onomatopes («frequentatives»), first elicited in Voronin [1969]. It is the qualitative idiosyncrasy/exclusiveness of r that encompasses the very possibility of its development towards an element of nothing more than a quantitative characteristic of the referent: «dissonance, vibration, roughness, staccato nature, intermittence' — „iteration, plurality, prolongation, intensity“. And this possibility is widely used by the most diverse languages. The quantitativeness of the iterative R-affix germinates from the qualitativeness of the r-element in the phonetic structure of the onomatopoeic root word. What happens is the transformation of r from concrete qualitative characteristic of the referent, its „downgrading“ to an abstract quantitative characteristic (a de-qualification of r» s semantics, together with its quantification).

Thus, studies in a typological multeity oflanguages — i.a. Indo-European (notably English, also Tajik), Uralic (Selkup), Turkic (notably Turkish, Chuvash, Bashkir, Yakut), Mongolian (Buryat), Tun-gus-Manchu (Nanaian), Malay/Indonesian (discussed at some length in this paper) — warrant the conclusion that RL-formatives, in origin part of a simple disyllabic iconoc root word, comprise a potent iconic frequentalia in the sphere of expressing verbal plurality (multiplicativity). A detailed phonosemantic typology of RL-formatives is on the agenda.

I now conclude. Typologists have an impressive record of penetrating research in phonetic, semantic, functional-semantic, functional-grammatical typology. I suggest that they no longer turn a blind eye to cross-linguistic grammatical iconicity and phonosemantic typology. Mainstream linguistics will then — I warrant this — encounter a world hitherto unseen — a vast and mysterious world waiting to be unravelled.

Alieva N. F. = Алиева H. Ф. Слова-повторы и их проблематика в языках Юго-Восточной Азии // Языки Юго-Восточной Азии. Проблема повторов. М., 1980.

Ašmarin I. N. = Ашмарин Н. И. Словарь чувашского языка. Казань, 1928–1929.

Bartko N. V = Бартко Н. В. Английские итеративные RL-глаголы и категория глагольной множественности // Категории глагола и структура предложения: Междунар. конф., посвященная 95-летию со дня рождения проф. А. А. Холодовича и 40-летию Лаборатории типологического изучения языков ИЛИ РАН: Тез. докл. СПб., 2001.

Beliayeva Т. М. — Беляева Т. М. Глагольное словообразование в древнеанглийском языке // Исследования по английской филологии. Вып. 3. Л., 1965.

Brandstetter R. Die Reduplikation in den indianischen, indonesischen und indogermanischen Sprachen. Luzern, 1917.

Bratoes I. В. = Братусь И. Б. Акустические ономатопы в индонезийском языке: Автореф. дис…. канд. филол. наук. Л., 1976.

Bratoes I. В., Voronin S. V — Братусь И. Б., Воронин С. В. К проблеме типологии звукоизобразительных систем: Индонезийские и английские континуанты // Вестник Ленингр. ун-та. 1980. № 20. История, яз., лит. Вып. 4.

Dmitriev N. К. = Дмитриев Н. К Исследования по сравнительной грамматике тюркских языков. Ч. 4. Лексика / Ред. Н. К. Дмитриев, Н. А. Баскаков. М., 1962.

Dolinina I. В. = Долинина И. Б. Теоретические аспеты глагольной множественности // Типология итеративных конструкций. Л., 1989.

Dolinina I. В. Theoretical aspects of verbal plurality // Typology of Iterative Constructions. München; Newcastle, 1997.

Dressier W. Studien zur verbalen Pluralität: Iterativum, Distributivum, Dura-tivum, Intensivum in der allgemeinen Grammatik, in Lateinischen and Hethitischen. Vienna, 1968.

Fazylov M. F. — Фазылов М. Ф. изобразительные слова в таджикском языке. Сталинабад, 1958.

Fleischer W. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartsprache. Leipzig, 1983.

Gazov-Ginzberg A. М. = Газов-Гинзберг А. М. Был ли язык изобразителен в своих истоках? (Свидетельство прасемитского запаса корней). М., 1965.

Gazov-Ginzberg А. М. — Газов-Гинзберг А. М. Символизм прасемитской флексии: О безусловной мотивированности знака. М., 1974.

Gonda J. Some Remarks on Onomatopoeia, Sound Symbolism and Word Formation a propos of the Theories of C. N. Maxwell // Tidschrift voor Indische Taal, Land- en Volkenkunde, uitgegeven door het Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschep van Kunsten en W etenschappen 80.1940

Gonda J. Stylistic repetition in the Veda. Amsterdam, 1959.

Greenberg J. H. Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierachies. The Hague; Paris, 1966.

Guxman М. M = Гухман M.M. О единицах сопоставительно-типологического анализа грамматических систем родственных языков // Структурно-типологическое описание современных германских языков. М., 1966.

Hummelstedt Е. Östsvenska verbstudier. Helsingfors, 1939.

Išmuxametov Z. К. = Иишухаметов 3. К. Звуоподражательные слова башкирского языка: Автореф. дис…. канд. филол. наук. Уфа, 1970.

Jakobson R. Why «Mama» and «Papa»? // Selected Writings. 2nd, expanded ed. Vol. 1. Phonological Studies. The Hague, 1971.

Jespersen 0. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London; N. Y., 1928.

Kile N. В. = Киле H. Б. Образные слова нанайского языка. JI., 1973.

Kluge F. Urgermanisch: Vorgeschichte der altgermanischen Dialekte. Strasbourg, 1913.

Lapkina L. Z. = Лапкина Л. 3. Английские и башкирские акустические ономатопы: (Опыт типологического исследования): Автореф. дис…. канд. филол. наук. Л., 1979.

Lapkina L. Z., Voronin S. V. Структурные особенности одного типа английских звукоизображений (в сопоставлении с башкирским) // Структурно-семантические исследования на материале западноевропейских языков. Барнаул, 1979.

Long Seam = Лонг Сеам. Очерки по лексикологии кхмерского языка. М., 1975.

Makarenko V.A. ~ Макаренко В. А. Тагальское словообразование. М., 1970.

Marchand H. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Munich, 1969.

Marconnès F. A Grammar of Central Karanga, the Language of Old Mono-motapa, as at Present Spoken in Central Moshonaland, Southern Rhodesia. Johannesburg, 1931.

Maslov Yu. S. = Маслов Ю. С. К основаниям сопоставительной аспектологии // Вопросы сопоставительной аспектологии. Л., 1978.

Mathesius V. Zum Problem der Belastung- und KombmationsfShigkeit der Phoneme // Travaux de Cercle linguistique de Prague, 4,1931.

Melnikov G. P. = Мельников Г. П. Методология лингвистики. М., 1989.

Morev L. N. = Морев Л. Н. Сопоставительная грамматика тайских языков. М., 1991.

NasilovD. М. =Насилов Д. М. Проблемы тюркской аспектологии. JI., 1989.

Ogloblin А, К. — Оглоблин А. К. Материалы по удвоению в мадурском языке //Языки Юго-Восточной Азии: Проблемы повторов. М., 1980.

Рак G. А. = Пак Г. А. изобразительные слова в корейском языке: Авто-реф. дис…. канд. филол. наук. Л., 1958.

Ramstedt G. J. EinfUhnmg in die altaische Sprachwissenschaft. Helsinki, 1952–1957.

RijpmaE., Schuringa F.G. Nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen, 1971.

SapirE. Language. N. Y., 1921.

Schmidt W. Deutsche Sprachkunde. Berlin, 1964.

Ščerbak A. М. = Щербак А. М. Очерки по сравнительной морфологии тюркских языков: (Наречие, служебные части речи, изобразительные слова). Л., 1987.

Sevortian Е. V = Севортян Э. В. Аффиксы глаголообразования в азербайджанском языке: Опыт сравнительного исследования. М., 1962.

Serebrennikov В. А. = Серебренников Б. А. Номинация и проблема выбора // Языковая номинация: Общие вопросы. М., 1977.

Tsydendambayev Ts. В. = Цыдендамбаев Ц. Б. изобразительные слова в бурятском языке // Филология и история монгольских народов. М., 1958.

Uhlenbeck Е. М. The Study of Worldclasses of Javanese // Lingua, 1953. Vol. III. № 3.

Vooys C. G. N. de. Nederlandse spraakkunst. Herzien door M. Schönfeld. 1967.

Voronin S. V. = Воронин С. В. Английские ономатопы: типы и строение: Автореф. дис…. канд. филол. наук. Л., 1969.

Voronin S. V — Воронин С. В. Основы фоносемантитки: Автореф. дисс…. докт. филол. наук. Л., 1980.

Voronin S. V = Воронин С. В. Основы фоносемантики. Л., 1982.

Voronin S. V, Bartko N. V= Воронин С. В., Бартко Н. В. Английские RL-глаголы в работах исследователей // Вестник СПбГУ. Сер. 2. История, языкознание, литература. 1999. Вып. 4. № 16.

Voronin S. V, Bratoes I. В. = Воронин С. В., Братусь И. Б. Типология континуантов в индонезийском и английском языках // Тезисы дискуссии «Типология как раздел языкознания». М., 1976.

Voronin S. V, Lapkina L. Z.= Воронин С. В., Лапкина Л. 3. Типология тоновых инстантов-континуантов в ангийском и башкирском языках: Деп. от 22.02.1977. № 1201/ИНИОН АН СССР.

Voronin S. V., Lapkina L. Z. = Воронин С. B. Лапкина Л. 3. К типологии ономатопического словообразования (тоновые послеударные инстанты-континуанты) // Проблема статуса деривационных формантов. Владивосток, 1989.

Wessén Е. Schwedische Sprachgeschichte. Svensk sprekhistoria. Berlin, 1970. Vol. 1–2.

Wilmanns W. Deutsche Grammatik. Strasbourg, 1896.

Xaritonov L. N. = Харитонов Л. H. Типы глагольной основы в якутском языке. М.; Л., 1954.

Xolodovič А. А. = Холодович А. А. Очерк грамматики корейского языка. М., 1954.

Xrakovskij V S. = Храковский В. С. Семантические типы множества ситуаций и их естественная классификация // Типология итеративных конструкций. Д., 1989.

Xrakovskij V. S. Semantic types of the plurality of situations and their natural classification // Typology of Iterative Constructions. München; Newcastle, 1997.

Xudajkuliev М. = Худайкулиев М. Подражательные слова в туркменском языке. Ашхабад, 1962.

Yelovkov D. = Еловков Д. И. Очерки по лексикологии языков Юго-Восточной Азии. Л., 1977.