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.

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.

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.