Constraints on the semantic extension of onomatopoeia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes three constraints on the complex polysemy patterns of onomatopoeia. Onomatopoeic forms for thirty types of sounds were collected from Japanese, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, and English, and examined in terms of their semantic extensibility and extension types. It was found that 1) Chinese onomatopoeia is generally resistant to semantic extension, 2) onomatopoeic forms for voice in Japanese and Korean are less likely to be polysemous than those for noise, many of which show metonymical extension, and 3) many onomatopoeic verbs in English have metaphorical meanings. These three patterns can be accounted for by generalizations that associate high semantic extensibility with referential specificity, event-structural complexity, and syntactic coreness, respectively. Each of these generalizations finds some independent support, and is compatible with or complementary to a frame-semantic approach to polysemous onomatopoeic forms, which has been taken to discuss existing, rather than non-existing, cases in each language. This study is, thus, an attempt to locate sound symbolism research in the center of cognitive studies of language.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it