Chapter 4 maps prototypical features of onomatopoeia by means of extensive empirical data on 124 sample languages and bear on the phonological, morphological, syntactic, word-formation, semantic, and sociopragmatic characteristics. The prototypical features are identified primarily, but not exclusively, on the basis of the markedness theory. It is postulated that the defining properties of onomatopoeias are marked relative to the properties of the general non-onomatopoeic word-stock in the sense of aberration from the latter’s properties. This claim does not mean that all onomatopoeias in natural languages or all onomatopoeias in a given language are marked in all the defining characteristics. Their prototypical characteristics should be viewed in the sense that onomatopoeia as a class of words has the capacity to deviate from the characteristics common to the non-onomatopoeic word-stock. It is postulated that these prototypical, defining features of onomatopoeia are marked features in the majority of languages, even if the languages differ in the degree of manifestation of these features at individual levels of language description. The discussion is supported by numerous examples.

This chapter consists of a transcription of a fictitious forum discussion in which a number of fictitious scholars participated, including some very surprising participants. The wide-ranging discussion covers the topics discussed throughout this book, and the chapter ends with the conclusion that the nature–nurture debate is still a vibrant one in which we are seeking to understand the interplay between the nurturing experience and the role of nature, whether in the form of an innate biological endowment or in the form of natural factors that go beyond the realm of the human mind.

Chapter 2 identifies various types of sound-related words in order to define the scope of onomatopoeia and the place of onomatopoeia in the system of language. It argues in favour of its ‘narrow’ definition by reserving this notion exclusively for direct sound imitation to distinguish onomatopoeia from signs based on cross-modal iconicity, from interjections, and from onomatopoeia-based derivatives and semantic shifts. This chapter also illustrates the different status and functions of onomatopoeic words in the sample languages.

In this chapter, we look at a number of disciplines that study human behavior, noting that the nature–nurture issue plays a central role in all of them, albeit leading to divergent views and controversies. I select some key disciplines, making no effort to be complete. My main goal is to show that every study of human behavior inevitably asks what the roles are of innate factors and of a variety of environmental factors, and how they interact. In all cases, we find defenders of more nativist/rationalist and more empiricist approaches. I will reiterate that this debate is not only relevant to academics: Views on the roles of nature and nurture have a direct impact on many aspects of daily human life. All people will sooner or later have to take a stance on issues that concern their own lives or the lives of others, including their children, parents, or friends. It is important to see how views that different people hold with respect to, for example, education and equality, are ultimately dependent on how they think (often subconsciously), or what biases they have, about human nature and human diversity.

In this introductory chapter, I will outline what this book is about and aims to achieve, which is to continue what I started in a prequel book, A Mind for Language: An Introduction to the Innateness Debate (ML). Both books share the same central theme, namely the so-called Innateness Hypothesis for language, which is the conjecture proposed by the linguist Noam Chomsky many decades ago that children acquire language guided by an innate, genetically based mental system that is specifically dedicated to this task. Both ML and this book critically examine the arguments that have been used, or could be used, to support this idea. Where ML considered arguments coming from linguistics proper, the present book delves into arguments from neighboring fields that overlap with linguistics in various ways, including cognitive science and neurolinguistics. The chapter concludes with a review of the linguistic arguments in support of Chomsky’s innateness hypothesis that formed the focus of ML.

In this chapter we discuss a shift in Chomsky’s thinking about the extent to which the acquisition of language is based on a language-domain-specific innate system. The initial idea was that children develop their mental grammar based on two factors: a “richly articulated” innate system, called Universal Grammar (UG), and the language input. Chomsky later decided that the innate language faculty can be reduced to a single operation, “recursive Merge.” This made it necessary to acknowledge a third category of factors that plays a sizeable role in the emergence of mental grammars. These third factors cover a mixed bag, including “general learning systems” (those that empiricists would always have emphasized) and another kind of factor, which Chomsky finds more interesting: “natural laws of form” that are grounded in the laws of physics and perhaps ultimately in mathematical principles. We will discuss this notion of third factors, and I will show that attempts to explain the structure of human mental faculties in terms of principles that determine much, if not everything, in the natural world (both mind-internal and mind-external) are widespread and have a long tradition.

Chapter 3 concentrates on the semiotics of onomatopoeia, mainly the frequently discussed issues of iconicity, arbitrariness, and motivation. It is claimed that rather than opposing terms, arbitrariness and motivation are complementary notions. It introduces the concept of causality into the discussion of the nature of onomatopoeia as linguistic signs. The chapter discusses five basic oppositions: causality versus noncausality; arbitrariness versus nonarbitrariness; iconicity versus non-iconicity; motivation versus lexicalization; and conventionalization versus nonconventionalization. Considerable attention is paid to the views that criticize Saussure’s comprehension of onomatopoeia and his concept of arbitrariness. Arguments are presented in support of Saussure’s position. In addition, Peirce’s triad of hypo-icons (image, diagram, metaphor) is discussed in terms of their relevance to the characterization of onomatopoeias.

For languages that recognize ideophones, it is quite common to discuss onomatopoeia under the umbrella of ideophones, that is, words based on our sensory perception: hearing, seeing, touching, smelling, tasting, and psychological feeling. This chapter examines the similarities and differences between onomatopoeia conceived as causally determined direct sound imitations and cross-modal ideophones to evaluate whether the ‘all-sensory’ approach is justified or whether onomatopoeia represents – from a cross-linguistic point of view – a class of words of their own. While similarities and shared features exist between onomatopoeias and other sensory signs, the available literature offers numerous indications of a different status of ideophones and onomatopoeia. Some of the reasons are of universal nature, and others are language specific. This chapter starts with an overview of the characteristic features of ideophones. Its structure maps the individual points of onomatopoeia description presented in Chapter 3 (semiotic characteristics), Chapter 4 (phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, word-formation, and sociopragmatic characteristics), and Chapter 6 (cross-linguistic similarities), as well as the word-class and open-class criteria. This is followed by a comparison of ideophones as cross-modal sensory words with onomatopoeia as monomodal sensory words. The final sections look at their universal and language-specific similarities and differences.

The final chapter provides a brief summary of the achievements, identifies limitations of the presented research, and indicates the directions of future onomatopoeia exploration.