Many persons believe that phonetic elements, apart from their function in a particular linguistic context, carry with them certain symbolic connotations.' The vowels o and u, for instance, are said to be heavier, gloomier, more ponderous than i and e.Although one might extend indefinitely this type of phonetic interpretation, one cannot escape the conviction that normal individuals would tend to disagree considerably in the specific symbolism associated with any vowel or consonant. However true this suspicion of individual difference may be, it does not follow that phonetic sounds in themselves have no consistent symbolic relation outside of their linguistic associations. The two problems are generally confused, and both are branded with the stigma of being unreliably intuitive. The point is stressed because I found, from speaking to a number of the students acting as subjects in this investigation, that their assurance on this matter was at striking variance with their reactions in the experiments. They seemed to feel that the process disclosing the symbolic implications of phonetic elements was in some way a highly variable and arbitrary intuitive association. And this point of view, I am sure, reflects common opinion.But the practical use of this extra-linguistic function of phonetic sounds is familiar enough in literature. The contemporary minor poet, for example, uses great ingenuity in employing this device to gain his effects. This paper is an attempt to study the patterning of phonetic symbolisms on a non-linguistic plane. For this purpose a schedule was devised employing paired nonsense words. The pairs were so arranged that they would be similar in every respect but for the two vowels or consonants that were to be contrasted, e.g. glupa: glopa. The arbitrary meaning "horse"

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract