Semantic Correspondences of Vowel Sounds in the Kazakh Language: An Experimental Analysis of Sound Symbolism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1601.04Keywords:
sound symbolism, Kazakh language, vowel sounds, semantic correspondence, experimentAbstract
This paper explores the semantic-symbolic correspondences of vowel sounds in the Kazakh language. The aim of the study is to identify manifestations of sound symbolism in Kazakh through experimental and statistical methods. Associations between the vowel sounds A, Ä, İ, O, and Ū and ten semantic oppositions (large–small, white–black, light–dark, male–female, strong–weak) were assessed. A total of 67 Kazakh-speaking participants took part in a survey conducted via Google Forms using the semantic differential method. The data were processed in Jamovi software, calculating mean, standard deviation, and median values. The results indicate that the correspondence between sounds and meanings is non-random. For instance, the sounds “O” and “Ū” are associated with concepts such as “large”, “strong”, and “male”, while “İ” and “Ä” are linked to “small”, “weak”, and “female”. The sound “A” was rated highly for opposing meanings, revealing its universal nature. These findings demonstrate that sound symbolism in Kazakh is grounded in phonetic, cognitive, and cultural dimensions. The results offer deeper insight into the phonosemantic system of the Kazakh language and provide new empirical data illustrating the natural connection between language and thought.
References
Auracher, J. (2017). Sound iconicity of abstract concepts: Place of articulation is implicitly associated with abstract concepts of size and social dominance. PLOS One, 12(11), e0187196. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187196
Barton, D. N., & Halberstadt, J. (2018). A social Bouba/Kiki effect: A bias for people whose names match their faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 1013–1020.
Cuskley, C., Simner, J., & Kirby, S. (2017). Phonological and orthographic influences in the bouba–kiki effect. Psychological Research, 81, 119–130.
de Varda, A. G., & Marelli, M. (2025). Cracking arbitrariness: A data-driven study of auditory iconicity in spoken English. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02346-z
Elsen, H. (2017). The two meanings of sound symbolism. Open Linguistics, 3(1), 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0032
Feist, J. (2013). “Sound symbolism” in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), 104–118.
Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M., & Okada, H. (2008). Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition, 109(1), 54–65.
Imai, M., Kita, S., Akita, K., Saji, N., Ohba, M., & Namatame, M. (2025). Does sound symbolism need sound? The role of articulatory movement in detecting iconicity between sound and meaning. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 157(1), 137–148.
Johansson, E., Anikin, N., Carling, A., & Holmer, A. (2020). The typology of sound symbolism: Defining macro-concepts via their semantic and phonetic features. Linguistic Typology, 24(2), 253–310.
Kawahara, S. (2020). Sound symbolism and theoretical phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 14(8), e12372. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12372
Kawahara, S. (2021). Phonetic bases of sound symbolism: A review. PsyArXiv Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wq7um
Khassenov, B., Adilova, A., & Rapisheva, Z. (2022). Colour symbolism in Turkic culture: A new look in the reconstruction of colour designation. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 30(4), 1753–1766.
Khassenov, B. (2021). Archetypal features of Kazakh speech sounds. Karaganda.
Khusainov, K. S. (1988). Sound iconicity in the Kazakh language. Almaty.
Knoeferle, K., Li, J., Maggioni, E., & Spence, C. (2017). What drives sound symbolism? Different acoustic cues underlie sound-size and sound-shape mappings. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 5562. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05932-6
Kornilov, G. E. (1979). The theory of imitatives and Chuvash dialect data. In Dialects and Toponymy of the Volga Region (pp. 23–66).
Ngai, C. H., Kilpatrick, A. J., & Ćwiek, A. (2024). Sound symbolism in Japanese names: Machine learning approaches to gender classification. PLOS One, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297440
Rovnaya, T. V. (2018). The influence of linguistic shock and phonosemantics on the perception of a foreign language. Moscow.
Sapir, E. (1929). A study in phonetic symbolism. J Exp Psychol., 12, 225–239.
Sartkozhauly, Q. (2007). The genesis of ancient Turkic script. Astana.
Shinohara, K., & Kawahara, S. (2010, August). A cross-linguistic study of sound symbolism: The images of size. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 396–410).
Shinohara, K., Yamauchi, N., Kawahara, S., & Tanaka, H. (2016). Takete and maluma in action: A cross-modal relationship between gestures and sounds. PLOS One, 11(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163525
Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2019). The sound symbolism of names. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 398–402.
Sidorov-Dorso, A. V. (2013). Modern research on naturally developing. Voprosy Psikhologii, 4, 147–158.
Styles, S. J., & Gawne, L. (2017). When does maluma/takete fail? Two key failures and a meta-analysis suggest that phonology and phonotactics matter. i-Perception, 8(4), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517724807
Svantesson, J. O. (2017). Sound symbolism: The role of word sound in meaning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1441
Wichmann, S., Holman, E. W., & Brown, C. H. (2010). Sound symbolism in basic vocabulary. Entropy, 12(4), 844–858.
Winter, B., & Perlman, M. (2021). Size sound symbolism in the English lexicon. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 6(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1646
