N.B. Want to cite this definition? Don’t cite this page — it could change or disappear, making your reference look funny. Here’s a good peer-reviewed publication in which the definition was published:
I keep this page online for historical reasons. In my published work, I define ideophones as follows:
Ideophones are marked words that depict sensory imagery (Dingemanse 2012:655)
This definition is general by design, capturing the fundamental cross-linguistic characteristics of ideophones while leaving room for the details to be spelled out for individual languages (see Dingemanse 2011:21-32 for extensive discussion and comparison with other definitions).
Ideophones are MARKED in the sense that they stand out from other words. Claims about the marked nature of ideophones abound in the literature: ideophones are “very striking” (Vidal 1852:15 on Yoruba), “distinguished by their aberrant phonology” (Kruspe 2004:102 on Semelai), “structurally marked” (Klamer 2002:263 on Kambera), “phonologically peculiar” (Newman 1968:107 on Hausa), and show “distinctive phonology, involving special rules of length, tone, and stress” (Epps 2005:869 on Hup), to take just five typologically divergent languages. Of course, what is marked in one phonological system may not be marked in another. Exactly how the structural markedness of ideophones works out in a given language is a fact that belongs to the description of that language.
Ideophones are WORDS, that is, conventionalised minimal free forms with specifiable meanings. As such, they have been documented in dictionaries from early on (Crowther 1852; Westermann 1905; Doke and Vilakazi 1953; Blanchard and Noss 1982; Asano 1978), and although their meanings are notoriously difficult to describe, they have been successfully studied using a variety of methods (Samarin 1967; 1970; Diffloth 1972; Nuckolls 1996; Dingemanse 2010).
Ideophones are DEPICTIONS, that is, they are special in the way they signify their referents. This property can best be illustrated by comparing two ways of representing a certain way of walking. Consider the description “be walking unevenly and out of balance” and the ideophone gbadara-gbadara, with roughly the same meaning. The former DESCRIBES the gait whereas the latter DEPICTS it. The description consists of arbitrary signs, interpreted according to a conventional symbol system. The depiction gbadara-gbadara —an existing Siwu ideophone— is a little performance, inviting us to “look” in such a way that we make believe we are actually experiencing the scene depicted. In depictive signs, In the ideophone literature, the special mode of signification of ideophones has been captured by many terms, the most prominent of which are “expressive” (Diffloth 1972), “affecto-imagistic” (Kita 1997), “performative” (Nuckolls 1995), and “mimesis” (Güldemann 2008). The term depiction is adopted here as it is used in wide range of approaches, including studies of visual arts (Goodman 1968), philosophy (Walton 1973; Zemach 1975), psychology (Kosslyn 1980; Bloom and Markson 1998) and linguistics (Clark and Gerrig 1990).
Ideophones depict SENSORY IMAGERY. “Sensory imagery” is perceptual knowledge that derives from sensory perception of the environment and the body (Paivio 1986; Barsalou 1999). That ideophones have close ties sensory perception has been recognised commonly and from early on in ideophone research (Koelle 1854:283; Junod 1896:196; Westermann 1907:129; Fortune 1962:5; Noss 1986:243; Nuckolls 1995:146; Kita 1997:381). It is worth dwelling briefly on the range of sensory imagery evoked by ideophones. A common Western folk model of sensory perception has it that perception is about taking in information from the outside world through sensory modalities, of which (in this model) there are five: vision, hearing, touch, taste and smell. Twentieth century scientific taxonomies are more inclusive, including not just extero-receptors (the traditional five) but also intero-receptors and proprio-receptors (Geurts 2002 and references therein). The semantic range covered by ideophones points to this more inclusive view of perception: they evoke not just perceptions of the external world, but also kinaesthetic sensations, interoceptive experience and balance. “Sensory imagery” is intended to capture all of this.
A note on terminology: “ideophone” is the most widespread name for this type of words, in use both within and outside African linguistics since Doke (1935). Two other common terms are “expressive” (e.g. Carr 1966; Diffloth 1972; Wayland 1996) and “mimetic” (e.g. Mester and Itô 1989; Kita 1997; Akita 2009), which have their roots in the prolific research traditions of South-East Asian and Japanese linguistics, resprectively. The first world congress on ideophones (Köln, 1999) and the subsequent publication of an edited volume bringing together research traditions from all continents (Voeltz and Kilian-Hatz 2001) established “ideophone” as the de facto cross-linguistic designation of the phenomenon.
- Akita, Kimi. 2009. A Grammar of Sound-Symbolic Words in Japanese: Theoretical Approaches to Iconic and Lexical Properties of Japanese Mimetics. PhD dissertation, Kobe University. http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/handle_gakui/D1004724.
- Alpher, Barry. 1994. Yir-Yoront Ideophones. In Sound Symbolism, ed. Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols, and John J. Ohala, 161-177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Asano, Turuko, ed. 1978. Giongo gitaigo ziten [A Dictionary of Sound Manner Mimetics]. Tokyo: Kadokawa.
- Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. “Perceptual symbol systems.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (04): 577-660.
- Blanchard, Yves, and Philip A. Noss. 1982. Dictionnaire Gbaya-Français: Dialecte Yaayuwee. Meiganga: Centre de traduction gbaya.
- Bloom, Paul, and Lori Markson. 1998. “Intention and Analogy in Childrens Naming of Pictorial Representations.” Psychological Science (May): 200-204.
- Carr, Denzel. 1966. “Homorganicity in Malay/Indonesian in Expressives and Quasi Expressives.” Language 42 (2) (June): 370-377.
- Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language 66 (4) (December): 764-805.
- Crowther, Samuel Ajayi. 1852. A Vocabulary of the Yoruba language, Together with Introductory Remarks by the Rev. O. E. Vidal, M. A. London: Seeleys.
- DeCamp, David. 1974. Neutralization, Iteratives, and Ideophones: the locus of language in Jamaica. In Pidgins and Creoles: Current Trends and Prospects, ed. David DeCamp and Ian F. Hancock, 46-60. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
- Diffloth, Gérard. 1972. “Notes on expressive meaning.” Chicago Linguistic Society 8: 440–447.
- Dingemanse, Mark. 2010. Folk definitions of ideophones. In Field Manual Volume 13, ed. Elisabeth Norcliffe and N.J. Enfield, 24-29. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
- ———. 2011. The Meaning and Use of Ideophones in Siwu. PhD dissertation, Nijmegen: Radboud University.
- Doke, Clement Martyn. 1935. Bantu Linguistic Terminology. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
- Doke, Clement Martyn, and Benedict Wallet Vilakazi. 1953. Zulu-English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
- Enfield, N. J. 2007. A Grammar of Lao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Epps, Patience. 2005. A Grammar of Hup. PhD dissertation, University of Virginia, August.
- Fortune, G. 1962. Ideophones in Shona: An Inaugural Lecture Given in the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland on 28 April 1961. London / New York: Oxford University Press.
- Geurts, Kathryn Linn. 2002. Culture and the Senses: Bodily ways of knowing in an African community. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Goodman, Nelson. 1968. Languages of art: An approach to the theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
- Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative Indexes in African languages: a synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Hamano, Shoko Saito. 1986. The sound-symbolic system of Japanese (ideophones, onomatopoeia, expressives, iconicity). PhD dissertation, University of Florida.
- Junod, Henri A. 1896. Grammaire Ronga. Lausanne: Imprimerie Georges Bridel & Cie.
- Kita, Sotaro. 1997. “Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics.” Linguistics 35: 379-415.
- Klamer, Marian. 2002. “Semantically Motivated Lexical Patterns: A Study of Dutch and Kambera Expressives.” Language 78 (2): 258-86.
- Koelle, Sigismund Wilhelm. 1854. Grammar of the Bórnu or Kānurī language. London: Church Missionary House.
- Kosslyn, Stephen M. 1980. Image and Mind. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
- Kruspe, Nicole. 2004. A grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Lee, Jin-Seong. 1992. Phonology and sound symbolism of Korean ideophones. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.
- Mester, R. Armin, and Junko Itô. 1989. “Feature Predictability and Underspecification: Palatal Prosody in Japanese Mimetics.” Language 65 (2) (June): 258-293. doi:10.2307/415333.
- Newman, Paul. 1968. “Ideophones from a syntactic point of view.” Journal of West African Languages 5: 107-117.
- Noss, Philip A. 1986. The Ideophone in Gbaya Syntax. In Current Approaches to African Linguistics, ed. Gerrit J. Dimmendaal, 3:241-255. Dordrecht: Foris.
- Nuckolls, Janis B. 1995. “Quechua texts of perception.” Semiotica 103 (1/2): 145-169.
- ———. 1996. Sounds Like Life: Sound-Symbolic Grammar, Performance, and Cognition in Pastaza Quechua. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Paivio, Allan. 1986. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Patent, Jason D. 1998. “A Willy-Nilly Look at Lai Ideophones.” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 21 (1): 155-200.
- Samarin, William J. 1967. “Determining the meaning of ideophones.” Journal of West African Languages 4 (2): 35-41.
- ———. 1970. “Field procedures in ideophone research.” Journal of African Languages 9 (1): 27-30.
- Sien, Nam-Cheol. 1997. An autosegmental analysis of ideophones in Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Washington.
- Smithers, Geoffrey Victor. 1954. “Some English Ideophones.” Archivum Linguisticum 6 (2): 73–111.
- Vidal, Owen Emeric. 1852. Introductory Remarks. In A Vocabulary of the Yoruba language, ed. Samuel Ajayi Crowther. London: Seeleys.
- Voeltz, F. K. Erhard, and Christa Kilian-Hatz, eds. 2001. Ideophones. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Walton, Kendall L. 1973. “Pictures and Make-Believe.” The Philosophical Review 82 (3) (July): 283-319.
- Wayland, Ratree. 1996. “Lao Expressives.” Mon-Khmer Studies 26: 217-231.
- Wescott, Roger W. 1977. “Ideophones in Bini and English.” Forum Linguisticum 2 (1): 1-13.
- Westermann, Diedrich Hermann. 1905. Wörterbuch der Ewe-Sprache. Vol. I. Teil: Ewe-Deutsches Wörterbuch. II vols. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen).
- ———. 1907. Grammatik der Ewe-Sprache. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
- Zemach, Eddy M. 1975. “Description and Depiction.” Mind 84 (336) (October): 567-578.