Onomatopoeic vocabulary: morphological features (based on the material of the Russian, English, and French languages)

Alekseeva Tatiana Nikolaevna PhD in Philology Associate Professor; Department B5 'Theoretical and Applied Linguistics'; Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education 'D.F. Ustinov Baltic State Technical University 'VOENMEH' 1 1st Krasnoarmeyskaya str., Saint Petersburg, 190005, Russia alekseeva_tn@voenmeh.ru Alekseeva Irina Nikolaevna Senior lecturer; Department B5 'Theoretical and Applied Linguistics'; Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education 'D.F. Ustinov Baltic State Technical University 'VOENMEH' 1 1st Krasnoarmeyskaya str., Saint Petersburg, 190005, Russia alekseeva_in@voenmeh.ru

Dunaevskaya Marina Anatolievna Senior lecturer; Department B5 'Theoretical and Applied Linguistics'; Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education 'D.F. Ustinov Baltic State Technical University 'VOENMEH' 1 1st Krasnoarmeyskaya str., Saint Petersburg, 190005, Russia dunaevskaia_ma@voenmeh.ru

The place of onomatopoeic vocabulary in the language system

The motivation of a linguistic sign is one of the fundamental problems of modern linguistics and has its roots far back in the past. Scientists are still arguing about the motivation of the linguistic sign. Some argue that these units are motivated, i.e. there is an inherent connection between sound and meaning. (E. Benveniste, A.M. Gazov Ginsberg, R. O. Jacobson). Others are inclined to deny this motivation, arguing that the signs of language are completely arbitrary. (F. de Saussure, Tsv. Todorov, F. F. Fortunatov).

It should be noted that especially onomatopoeic words (in a broader sense, sound-imaginative) are an ambiguous phenomenon in linguistics, since this is the only category of words in which the connection between the denotation and the form of the sign is clearly traced.

The first mentions of the problem of the connection between sound and meaning were recorded in Ancient Greece, namely in Plato's dialogue "Cratylus", which is rightfully considered the first widely known philosophical work on this topic. In his work, Plato offers a kind of compromise to resolve the dispute over whether language originates "by establishment" (the theory of Theseus) or "by nature" (the theory of Fusei). He introduces the concept of "name setter" or "onomatotet", which gives names to objects and phenomena, taking into account their nature. An onomatotet was understood as a certain supreme being – a god, or a skilled man, a sage^[1]. So, the word "onomatopoeia" originates from the Greek. onomatopoieia – "production of names", which meant naming things, word-making.

The Stoics denied the origin of the words "by definition", because they believed that the first words were onomatopoeic. They also own the theory of onomatopoeia or onomatopic theory, according to which language appeared due to the fact that man, imitating the sounds of the surrounding nature, gradually gave them a schematic and conditional appearance.

In the Middle Ages, a divine theory of the origin of language existed everywhere, and therefore interest in this problem was almost lost. However, in Modern times, the problem has again received wide coverage in the writings of J. Rousseau, R. Descartes, G. Leibniz, S. de Brossa, E. Condillac.

G. Leibniz prepared a certain base, which served as the basis for further research of onomatopoeic theory. It was on his writings that the French researcher S. de Brosse based his conclusions, who, studying the peoples of Africa and Australia, and in particular observing how they gave names to objects unfamiliar to them, proved in his "Treatise on the mechanical formation of languages" that in the language of primitive society the sound fully corresponded to the meaning of words^[2].

In Russia, the issue of phonosemantics was first considered in the 12th century. The Russian monk Efimy proposed a classification of the phenomena of sound semantics, on the basis of which all sounds were divided into six groups: "rude" (all vowels), "rude" (b, c, d, e), "loud" (k, p, r, t), "strained" (l), "dumb" (n, m), "whispery" (s, z). He was guided by the impression that sounds make on a person^[3]. M. V. Lomonosov also dealt with the issue of the motivation of the linguistic sign in Russia.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the Course of General Linguistics was published by F. de Saussure. In his work, he denies any motivation of the linguistic sign, postulating its fundamental arbitrariness. This thesis has become one of the main provisions of modern linguistics. Due to this, the interest in onomatopoeic vocabulary increases many times, since onomatopoeic units are undoubtedly motivated and involuntary signs. In turn, Tsv. Todorov pointed out that the fundamental characteristic of a linguistic sign is its arbitrariness and lack of motivation. Also, F. F. Fortunatov denied the connection between the sign and the meaning, noting the small number of words that have this connection. He attributed onomatopoeia and interjections to such words.

Despite the widespread idea of the lack of motivation of a linguistic sign among linguists, there are those who insisted on the opposite. Thus, R. Jacobson and E. Benveniste disputed F.'s statement. de Saussure, recognizing the close connection between the denotation and the form of the word. A.M. Gazov-Ginsberg defended the point of view regarding the natural connection of sound and meaning^[4].

With the advent of such a science as psycholinguistics in the second half of the twentieth century, sound perception gained a new lease of life, as experimental and statistical methods were used in psycholinguistics to study it. The problem has also become widespread in works devoted to anthropogenesis and the development of language in general.

In the field of sound perception in Russian linguistics, S. V. Voronin should be singled out, who created an independent discipline dedicated to the study of sound perception – phonosemantics, the purpose of which was to study the connection between sound and meaning in a word. The main problem of phonosemantics is still the denial by many linguists of the idea of the motivation of a linguistic sign. However, according to S. V. Voronin: "... the unitary principle of F. de Saussure's “the linguistic sign is arbitrary” has exhausted itself as an all-encompassing fundamental principle. We see that it is being replaced by a new binary principle: "a linguistic sign is both involuntary and arbitrary" ^{[5, p. 130]}.

Sound-forming vocabulary has come a long way from simply describing words to shaping them into a separate complex discipline.

In all languages of the world, there are words for animal cries, birds, sounds of nature, and sounds made by humans. All of them have a certain structural property similar to the sounds they denote, which distinguishes them from other words of the language. This is not the name of objects or their actions, but an approximate representation of the action of an object, a process with a sound characteristic of it (rhythm, melody, sometimes timbre)^[6].

The essence of onomatopoeia is determined by the presence of a direct connection between the sounds of words and their meaning. In an independent form, onomatopoeia can be found in folk folklore, poetry, and in the speech of children.

A native speaker of any language learns the sound of the surrounding world in his own way, since the transmission of sounds is subject to different linguistic traditions and depends on different linguistic capabilities, which explains the phonetic variants for denoting the same onomatopoeia in different languages.

Any language unit changes over time, and onomatopoeia is no exception, changing beyond recognition under the influence of phonetic changes or metaphorical or metonymic reinterpretations of meaning. For example, the French word pigeon (pigeon) goes back to the Latin onomatopoeia pipio, which lost its original meaning and lost its primary motivation.

In modern linguistics, an onomatopoeic word can also be defined as pictorial or onomatopoietic. However, pictorial vocabulary is used in a broader sense, and covers both onomatopoeic and sonorous or ideophonic words, which are created on the basis of figurative associations and are included in a broader concept – sound symbolism. Sound-symbolic words, as well as onomatopoeic words, are included in the visual system of the language.

At the moment, there is no clear distinction between different kinds of sound symbolism, since sound-imaginative vocabulary is not limited to direct imitation of an audible sound. The following types of imitation can be distinguished^[7]:

1. Acoustic imitation based on the reproduction of audible sounds. These words include onomatopoeia or onomatopes. For example: soisoi "peek-a-boo, cuckoo".

2. Visual imitation based on articulatory imitation. Such words are sound symbols. For example, pumpkin (iconic transfer of the shape of an object).

3. Sensory imitations based on the reproduction of sensations (taste, smell, touch). These words can be both sound-symbolic and onomatopoeic.

4. Acoustic-articulatory imitation. For example, the sound of coughing, sneezing (sounds of human physiological processes). Such words are given an intermediate position between onomatopoeias and sound symbols.

Thus, imitations of sounds and images in the language are transmitted by two types of words: sound-symbolic and onomatopoeic. This article deals exclusively with onomatopoeic vocabulary.

Onomatopoeic words can represent different parts of speech. In many languages, onomatopoeias initially appear as official parts of speech, in particular interjections. Later they are transformed into other parts of speech, for example: clap-clap-clap.

To date, there is no clear distinction between interjections and onomatopes, so the question of the relationship between interjections and onomatopoeic words remains open. Over time, the onomatopoeic unit is lexicalized in the language system, which is implemented through certain word-formation models. For example, in Russian, the most frequent and productive is the addition of the suffix -to- (growl, kick, roar, kick). Or the suffix -nu-, which forms the perfect form: clap–clap, stomp–stomp, scratch-scratch. Neoplasms perform various functions in the language, organically enter the language system and enrich it.

Onomatopoeia as a category of words is constantly evolving, due to the replenishment of the composition of onomatopoeias, their interaction with other categories of vocabulary, as well as the expansion of the scope of their functioning. In Russian, onomatopoeic verbs mostly prevail. There are much fewer nouns, which is also explained by the fact that many of them have an onomatopoeic origin obscured, for example: rook, bee, bell and others. The multiplicity of verbs with onomatopoeic features can be explained by the fact that the actions of any living being are usually accompanied by certain sounds. For example: a) sounds made by humans: gasp, hiccup, roar, sniff, stomp, snort, laugh, slurp, cough, grunt, laugh, giggle, whisper, hum, mumble, snore, lisp; b) sounds made by animals, birds, insects: bark, caw, quack, cackle, meow, purr, grunt, chirp, buzz; c) sounds produced by objects: bang, gurgle, rumble, rattle, clink, drip, clank, creak, click, click, tick, crunch, etc.

The signified for onomatopoeic words is the sound side of the world, therefore, the phonetic side is the most important part of onomatopoeia. However, it is important to understand that onomatopoeic verbs only approximately convey the original sounds of nature. All sounds in onomatopoeic words can be divided into types. So, among the vowel sounds, one can distinguish: a) i-shaped (vowels i, e are the narrowest and least labialized sounds): squeal, whistle, roar, etc. b) u-shaped (the vowels u, o, s are the widest and most labialized sounds): mumble, laugh, grumble, gurgle, knock, mumble, growl, etc. c) a-shaped (the vowel a is the widest and most non–gabialized sound): bark, croak, croak, etc. Among the consonants: a) back–lingual k, g, x - transmission of guttural sounds: cackle, swallow, hiccup, cough, laugh, giggle, etc. b) labial consonants – the transmission of harsh popping and squelching sounds: bang, bang, gurgle, flop, puff, etc. c) hissing – transmission of more muffled sounds: whispering, rustling, shuffling, buzzing, etc. d) affricate c – the transmission of a sharp sound: clack, clack, etc. e) consonant h – transmission of a chomping sound: chomping, chomping, etc. f) consonant r – transmission of a rough rattling sound: rumble, neigh, growl, roar, etc. Repetitions are also used to inflate sound symbols: cackling, chattering, laughing, whispering, etc.^[8]

The meaning of each sound is arbitrary and approximate, because the more complex a natural sound is, the more difficult it is to reproduce it through language; conversely, the simpler the sound, the more accurate its reproduction. That is why some onomatopoeic words are so similar to each other in different languages, while others are so very different.

When classifying onomatopoeic elements according to the source of the reproduced sound set, the following groups of words are distinguished: linguophonation (sounds associated with speech activity), zoophonation (sounds made by animals, birds, insects), anthropophonation (physiology, work, human movement), naturophonation (sounds of the surrounding nature), technophonation (sounds of mechanisms, instruments, tools of labor)^[9]. For example, such onomatopoeic words as mumble, lisp, whisper can be attributed to linguophonation; zoophonation – meow, chirp, hoot; anthropophonation – sneeze, cough, hiccup; naturphonation – rustle, gurgle; technophonation – rattle, knock, vibrate.

French linguists Pierre Ancel and Pierre Rezo classified onomatopoeic vocabulary according to thematic and spelling principles, their fundamental work was presented in the form of a dictionary of onomatopes. The dictionary contains the following thematic sections: "Noises of nature", "Music and dance", "Means of communication", "Noises of mechanisms", "Noises of everyday life". Each section contains various subsections, which can be constantly expanded and updated.

The orthographic classification of onomatopes makes it possible to clarify the spelling of words. As a rule, onomatopic words are formed by reduplication. So, in French, the classification is as follows: simple reduplication (cricri, crincrin), hyphenation (crow-crow, pan-pan), separation of words by a space (cot cot, oua oua); tripling of the consonant that makes up the onomatope (mmm, rrr), doubling of the second consonant in a word consisting of three consonants (brr, grr), doubling of the second consonant, in particular r, if the word consists of three consonants (frrt, vrrt)^[10].

According to I. R. Galperin's classification, onomatopoeia is divided into direct and indirect^[11]. Direct onomatopoeia includes words that directly imitate natural sounds, for example: crowing – crowing, kwa-kwa – croaking, clap – clap. Indirect onomatopoeia includes a combination of words that create a certain sound image, an echo of meaning; however, to understand this onomatopoeia, it is necessary to indicate the source of the sound. For example, "the reeds rustle in silence." The listener creates a sound image resembling a rustle due to the repeated consonant sound "sh". So, in English, due to the sound of s, the listener represents the rustling of the curtain: "And the silken, sad, uncertain, rustling of each purple curtain." This technique is commonly called eco-writing.

S. V. Voronin, in his structural classification of onomatopoeic words, identifies five universal classes of onomatopes: instants, continuants, fractuatives, continuant instants, and quasi-constant continuants^[12]. This classification is based on a comparison of the acoustic parameters of phonemes with the main types of sounds: pitch, volume, time, regularity, dissonance. Based on them, the main types of sound were identified: percussion, tonal non-percussion, pure noise non-percussion, high-noise non-percussion, quasi-percussion, pure dissonance, tonal quasi-percussion, pure noise quasi-percussion, high-noise quasi-percussion.

Onomatopoeic words still cause controversy among many scientists regarding their linguistic affiliation. The determination of the status of sound-forming words in a language determines the solution of many linguistic problems, for example, the question of the origin of language, the motivation and unmotivation of a linguistic sign, as well as many others.

Morphological features of onomatopoeic vocabulary

Let's consider the onomatopoeic vocabulary of Russian, English and French from the point of view of its morphological features, namely, we will determine its partial affiliation and productivity of words.

Electronic dictionaries of Russian, English and French languages served as the main sources of research material. Namely: dictionaries of the Russian language by Ozhegov, Dahl, Ushakov; dictionaries of the English language by Oxford Dictionary of English, Multitran; dictionaries of the French language by LaRousse and Multitran.

For additional information, we use the Araneum web corpus of texts, in particular the corpus of French texts Araneum Francogallicum, the corpus of Russian texts Araneum Russicum and the corpus of texts in English Araneum Anglicum.

As a result of the work, tables were obtained indicating the partial affiliation of words in three languages. For example, we see that the onomatope "gurgle" is represented by an interjection, verb, and noun in all languages, and there is also no adverb in all languages. In English and French, however, there is an adjective.

Consider, for example, the onomatopoeia "gurgle" in Russian, English, and French (Table 1).

Table 1 — Onomatopoeia "gurgle" in Russian, English and French

As a result of the analysis of 150 onomatopoeias (50 in each language), it was found:

There are 259 English words that are distributed among the parts of speech as follows: 33 onomatopoeic interjections (cock-a-doodle-doo, oink, click, ding-dong), 50 verbs (twang, drum, crack, quack), 113 nouns (drum → drummer, drum → drum-stick, drum → drum-beat), 43 adjectives (gluggable, boomy, burbling), 20 adverbs (sobbingly, croackily, improariously).

There are 235 words in the French language, of which 29 interjections (groin-groin, cot-cot, tic-tac), 48 verbs (renifler, claquer, grogner), 120 nouns (pépie → pépie-ment, pépie → pépi-age), 38 adjectives (zézay-ant(e), chuchot-ant(e), chuchot-é) and not a single adverb.

690 words were identified in the Russian language: 32 interjections (woof-woof, click, clap, knock-knock), 322 verbs (bark → bark → bark → bark → bark → bark → bark), 306 nouns (drum → drummer, drum → drum), 19 adjectives (grumpy, shrill, crispy), 10 adverbs (grumpy, cracking, roaring).

The quantitative ratio of parts of speech in different languages differs significantly, this can be explained by the grammatical structure of the language. Thus, the Russian verb and the noun formed from it attach a huge number of affixes, which explains the predominant number of onomatopoeic verbs and nouns in the language. At the same time, in both English and French, only the noun attaches the largest number of affixes and is predominant among other parts of speech.

In English and French, the formation of adjectives occurs almost according to the same pattern. As a rule, this is the suffix -y in English and the suffix -ant(e) in French. When they are added to the verb, in most cases an adjective is formed. In Russian, however, everything is a little more complicated, and not every noun can be used to form an adjective. So, among the selected vocabulary, there are about forty adjectives in both English and French, while in Russian their number is twice as small.

Regarding adverbs, there are an overwhelming minority of them in all three languages. There are 20 adverbs in the English language (some onomatopoeic words formed several adverbs), there are only 10 in the Russian material, and none in French.

Interjections were recorded in only half of the selected onomatopoeic words.

It can be concluded that onomatopoeic nouns (30.12%), verbs (29.52%) and interjections (18.88%) are more present in all three languages, which is explained by their semantics. Interjections denote the sound itself, verbs, respectively, imply an action that becomes the source of the sound, and nouns indicate the process of the occurrence of this sound or the one who produces this sound.

As for word formation analysis, English and French are more similar to each other, since both of these languages are analytical. Russian belongs to the class of synthetic languages.

Known methods of word formation are affixal (suffixal, prefixal, prefix-suffixal) and suffixless methods; as well as addition and conversion.

So, in English, the most productive way of word formation is conversion, i.e. the transition from one part of speech to another.: hiss (hiss) → hiss (hiss), lips (lisp) → lisp (lisp), crunch (crunch) → crunch (crunch).

Most of the English onomatopes consist of a single root, or they add a relatively small number of affixes. For example, howl (howl) → howl-er (howler) → howl-et (owl). As a rule, there are mainly suffixes, but among the analyzed words a prefix was found: roar (roar) → up-roar (noise, uproar, excitement) → up-roarious (noisy) → up-roariously (noisy).

English onomatopoeic nouns are formed by conversion or by using suffixes. The most frequent suffix is -er, denoting a figure, for example: bark (bark) → bark-er (pustolaika, rude), squal (squeal) → squeal-er (squealer, pig), whistle (whistle) → whistl-er (whistler). A verbal noun with the ending -ing: bang (bang) is often found → bang-ing (banging), buzz (buzzing) → buzz-ing (buzzing), crash (crash) → crash- ing.

There are also nouns formed from adjectives using the -ness suffix: sniffy (sarcastic, arrogant) → snifi-ness (sarcasm), chirpy (cheerful) → chirpi-ness (gaiety, energy), chopy (changeable, impetuous) → chopi-ness (variability). It can be noted that both adjectives and nouns formed from them have lost their original meaning in this case. Due to linguistic evolution, the adjective, in turn, acquired certain qualities, that is, it turned into a qualitative adjective, and, accordingly, the noun formed from it calls this quality.

Onomatopoeic adjectives in English are formed, as a rule, using the suffix -y, indicating the presence of signs, properties or qualities expressed by the base: growl (grumble) → growl-y (grumpy), whisper (whisper) → whisper-y (whispering, full of rustling, rustling), crackle (crackle) → crackl-y (crackling). Adjectives can also be formed using the ending - ing, they describe the qualities or properties of an object or person. For example, howl (howl) → howl-ing (howling), whimper (whining) → whimper-ing (whining, whimpering), buzz (buzzing) → buzz-ing (buzzing).

The suffix -able was also discovered, which indicates the ability of an object or object to perform a particular action: glug (gurgle, pour with a gurgling sound) → glugg-able (pleasant to drink), click (click) → click-able (the one that is clicked on). Interestingly, the word "clickable" is also widely used in Russian, which came to us from English.

Onomatopoeic adverbs are much more common in English than in the other two languages. The most productive suffix for the formation of English adverbs is the suffix -ly, denoting the quality expressed by the base: cocky → cocky (cocky), squeaky (squeaky) → squeaky-ly (squeaky), sobbing (sobbing, sobbing) → sobbing-ly (with sobs, sobbing). However, some words were transferred to the adverb class without any changes, that is, through conversion. For example, crash → crash (with an unexpectedly loud sound), ding-dong (ding-dong) → ding-dong (with a ringing sound), bang → bang (right on time).

It is important to note that some onomatopoeic words in English add additional roots, acquiring a new meaning, but with an obvious reference to the original. For example, a drum + stick → drumstick, drum + beat (beat) → drumbeat, click + bait → clickbait, crash + worthy (suitable, suitable) → crash-worthy (shock-resistant) → crash-worthiness (shock-resistance, emergency resistance).

The suffixal mode of education prevails in French. Conversion is rare. Most onomatopoeic verbs form nouns using the suffix –ment, which has the meaning of an action, state, or indicates the result of an action: bêl-er (bleating) → bêle-ment (bleating), gémir (whining) → gémisse-ment (whining), ronron-er (purring) → ronronne-ment (purring). No less frequent is the suffix -eur(-euse), which gives nouns the meaning of a person: balbuti-er (mutter) → balbuti-eur(-euse) (mumbler, mumbler), hurl-er (howl) → hurl-eur(-euse) (the one who howls; howler, loudmouth). Nouns are also formed from verbs using the suffix -oir(-oire), which gives nouns a substantive meaning: hacher (to chop, chop) → hach- oir (chopping board, meat grinder), claquer (clapping) → claqu-oir (clapper).

The suffix -age is often found, which forms nouns from verbs, giving them the meaning of an action or result: caqueter → caquet-age (cackling), siffler (whistling) → siffl-age (whistling), hacher (chopping, cutting) → hach-age (chopping, chopping).

The suffix -ard indicates the performer of the action.: Grogner (grunt, grunt) → grogn-ard (grouch, grumbler), renifler (snort, sniff) → renifl-ard (sniff); the suffix -ier(-ière) indicates the type of activity, less often implies some kind of adaptation: cancaner (quack, gossip) → cancan-ier(ière) (gossip, gossip girl); the suffix -tion is added to indicate an action, state: déglutir (to swallow) → déglutition (swallowing), crépiter (crackling, crackling) → crépita-tion (crackling, crackling); the suffix -aire, indicating the figure, was found only once: tambouriner (drumming) → tambourin-aire (drummer, herald). In addition, nouns are formed using the suffix -is. Among the selected onomatopoeias, only two words with a similar suffix were found: chuchoter (to whisper) → chuchot-is (whispering, whispering), hacher (chopping, chopping) → hach-is (chopped meat, fish, vegetables; a hodgepodge).

Nouns can also be formed from other nouns. In this case, suffixes such as - ette are often used, adding a diminutive, sometimes pejorative meaning: claque (clap, slap) → claqu-ette (firecracker, ratchet), hache (axe) → hach- ette (hatchet), ronfle (sleep) → ronfl-ette (short sleep, nap); as well as the suffix -et: siffle (whistle) → siffl-et (whistle, whistle).

Onomatopoeic adjectives in French are more often formed using suffixes such as -ant(-ante) and -eux(-euse). For example, balbuti-er (mumble) → balbuti-ant(-ante) (muttering, muttering), hurler (howling) → hurl-ant (howling), aboyer (barking) → aboy-ant (barking); grincher (grumbling) → grinch-eux(-euse) (grumpy, grumpy), aboyer(bark) → aboy-eux(-euse) (barking, barking).

The suffixes -ard and -able are much less common. -Ard indicates the properties of the object expressed by the verb. For example, nasiller (nasalize) → nasill-ard (nasal, nasal), grogner (grumble) → grogn-ard (grumpy, peevish). The suffix -able denotes the passive possibility of performing the action indicated by the verb: cliquer (to click) → cliaqu-able (clickable), siffler → siffl-able (something that can be booed).

Some adjectives are formed by adding the end of the participle to the verb base. For example, claquer (clapping) → claqu-é (clapping), toquer (knocking) → toque-é (crazy, crazy).

French onomatopoeic words can also attach additional roots to themselves: hacher (to cut, chop) + légumes (vegetables) → hache-légumes (vegetable slicer), claquer (clap, knock) + dent (tooth) → claquedent (ragamuffin, poor man).

No adverbs were found in the French language among the onomatopic words studied.

The grammatical structure of the Russian language differs significantly from English and French in its flexibility and expressiveness. New words are formed through suffixes and prefixes, which in most cases give the words additional shades of meaning. It is rare, but there is also a conversion, for example, a click (interjection) → click (noun), tick-tock (interjection) → tick (noun), crunch (interjection) → crunch (noun), clap (interjection) → clap (noun).

The formation of verbs occurs using various affixation methods. It was noticed that it is in the Russian language that the predominant number of onomatopoeic verbs, because they attach a large number of prefixes and suffixes.

So, most often words are formed from onomatopoeias using the suffix -ka- or -a-: meow → meow-ka-t, woof → woof-ka-t, cuckoo → kukare-ka-t, buzz → buzz-a-t, bang → bang-a-t.

The main verbal suffixes are the suffixes -a-, -i-, -e-, -I-: bang-a-th, mumble-a-th, tick-a-th, click-a-th, crow-a-th, drum-I-th, skool-i-you, burl-I-you, lisp-I-you; whistle-e-you, sop-e-you, roar-e-you; blee-I-you, cough-I-you.

One of the most frequent verb suffixes, which is found in almost all selected onomatopoeic words, is the suffix -nu-. It forms perfect verbs and indicates a single action. For example, cough → cough-well, bark → bark-well, hiccup → ik-well, meow → mk-well, clap → clap-well, whisper → shep-well, gurgle → gurgle-well, snort → snort-well, quack → quack-well, crunch → crunch-well.

The imperfect form of the verb is often formed using such suffixes as -yva-/-willow-, -va- or-ova-: snore → snore-yva-th, whistle → whistle-yva-th, crack → crackle-willow-th, cough → cough-willow-th, howl → howl, cook, sob.

Prefixes in Russian allow you to form new words that contain a variety of shades of meaning. Thus, the prefixes for-, on-, on-, pro-, raz-(ras-) are most often found among the selected material. However, you can also find such prefixes as c-, o-(ob-), from-, to-, under-, vz- (vs-), you-, at-, over-.

Thus, the prefix for- is used to denote the beginning, excess, direction of action, achievement of results, orientation inward, etc. For example, mumble → mumble, bark → bark, hiss → hiss, snort → snort, whistle →whistle. On- indicates the completeness of the action, some direction of the action being performed: whistle → on-whistle, chat → on-chat, bang → on-bang, smash → on-smash, swallow → on-swallow. Po- indicates the commission of an action for some time, its completion, and may also give the word a disparaging connotation. So, chatter → chatter, gurgle → gurgle, cackle → cackle, mumble → mumble, croak → croak, grumble → grumble. Pro- indicates the limitation of the action in time, it can also attach importance to completeness or singleness: whisper → pro-whisper, tweet → pro-tweet, squeak → pro-squeak, mumble → pro-mumble.

Verbs formed using the prefix raz-/ras- acquire the meaning of increasing intensity: cough → cough → hiccup → hiccup → buzz → buzz → grumble → grumble. Before- indicates the completion of an action or, together with the postfix, indicates a completed action, the result of which turned out to be negative. For example, clap → do-clap, knock → do-knock, whistle → do-whistle, snort → do-snort, cough → do-cough. Ob- gives words a high degree of intensity: cough → cough → bark → bark → crumble → crumble → clap → clap.

O– adds a touch of effectiveness, completeness of action:

whistle → o-whistle.

Vz-(vs-) indicates an upward movement or gives importance to suddenness, sharpness: snore → vs-snore, howl → vz-howl, squeal → vz-squeal.

Prefix under- it means to repeat after someone, to copy.

For example, it occurs in the word howl → howl.

C– gives verbs the meaning of a single action: crack → c-crack, burp → c-burp, swallow → c-swallow.

Re– denotes some sequence of actions: whisper → re-whisper, whistle → re-whistle, knock → re-knock.

In the word whistle, there is a prefix pri-, which has the meaning of incompleteness of action – to whistle.

Prefixes usually play the same role in nouns as in the verbs from which these nouns are derived. For example, to-whistle → to-whistle, to-knock → to-knock, to-clap → to-clap, to-clap → to-clap.

Most onomatopoeic nouns are formed from verbs or from other nouns using suffixes. The most common suffixes are -ni-(-ny-), -eni-. It is with the help of these suffixes that a noun can be formed from a verb, the noun in this case acquires the meaning of an action. For example, gurgle → gurgle → cackle → cackle → mumble → bark → bark → tick → tick → bleat → bleat → cough → cough → knock → banging-ni-e; bubbling → berl-eni-e, whining → skul-eni-e, snuffling → sop-eni-e, crashing → crashing-eni-e.

The suffix -l-, when added to the verb base, forms nouns that have the meaning of the person who performs the action called the verb. For example, squeak → squeak-l-ya.

The suffix -k-, added to the base of the verb in the past tense, forms a feminine noun, sometimes with a touch of disparagement: sopel → sopel-k-a, swallowed → glot-k-a, buzzed → buzzed-k-a, barked → gaval-k-a, bibical → bibical-k- Ah.

When the suffix -ok- is added to the verb base, a masculine noun is formed, denoting an adaptation or action that defines the verb: whistle → whistle-ok, slap → slap-ok, swallow → swallow-ok, whisper → whisper-ok.

The suffix -from- indicates the consequences of an action indicated by the verb: hiccup → hiccup-from-a

The suffix -shik-(-shits-) denotes a figure by his occupation, is formed, as a rule, from verb bases or from single-root nouns: drum → drum-shik → drum-shits-a, shink → shinkov-shik → shinkov-shits-a. The figure can also be conveyed by the suffix -tel-: destroy → violate-tel → destroy-tel. And also the suffix -un- forms nouns denoting a figure who is characterized by qualities or properties named by the original words: sniff → sop-un, whistle → whistle-un, snore → snore-un, grumble → grumble-un.

The suffixes -chick-, -ear- give nouns a diminutive meaning or some kind of assessment: drum → drum-chick; clap → clap-ear.

-Awn- forms nouns with an abstract meaning. For example, shrill → shrill-sharp, grumpy → grumpy-sharp, lispy → lisp-sharp, nasal → nasal-sharp.

The feminine gender is formed using the suffixes -shk- or -sh-, which form nouns denoting actions called

verbs, or those who perform them: cook → cook-shk, croak → croak-sh, croak → croak-sh.

Like nouns, adjectives are formed in Russian with the help of suffixes and gender-appropriate endings -i, -i, -oe.

Adjectives with the meaning of a property or state are formed using the suffix -liv-: squeal → squeal-liv, grumble → grumble-liv, whisper → whisper-liv, mutter. As a rule, nouns with the addition of the suffix - awn and adverbs with the suffix -o are formed from adjectives with this suffix. For example, screech-liv-o → screech-liv-o → screech-liv-o, grunt-liv-o → grunt-liv-o → grunt-liv-o.

The signs and properties named by the source word are also indicated by an adjective formed using the suffix -n-: drum → drum-n, crumble → crumble-n, clap → exhaust-n. The onomatopoeic word click, borrowed from English, has also adopted the English suffix -abel- (-able), i.e. capable of performing some kind of action. Thus, from the word click we get click-bel-n, which in the process of assimilation acquired the adjective suffix -n-.

The properties of an object can also be conveyed using the suffixes -esk- and -uch-: snitch → snitch-esk-i.

Adverbs in Russian can be formed in various ways. However, among the selected material, the suffix method is almost exclusively found, namely, in most cases, onomatopoeic adverbs are formed from adjectives using the suffix -o-and-e-. For example, grumpy → grumpy-oh, nasal → nasal-oh, squeaky → squeaky-oh, lispy → lispy-oh, crackly → crackly → fizzy.

Among the selected onomatopoeias, there is also an adverb formed by moving from one part of speech to another: from a noun in the creative case, in a whisper.

In the Russian language, only one word was found, formed using two roots. However, it is important to note that this word was originally borrowed from English: clickbait.

Conclusion

Russian Russian, English and French have their own peculiarities: new words are formed in Russian using suffixes and prefixes, in English this function is performed by both affixes and conversion; in French, the affixal method of word formation prevails, but words can also pass from one part of speech to another without anyor changes, as in English.

The study analyzed the morphological features of onomatopoeic vocabulary in Russian, English and French. It is established that the partial affiliation of onomatopoeic vocabulary is determined by the number of parts of speech that fall on one onomatopoeic basis. Onomatopoeic nouns, verbs, and interjections predominate in all the languages compared, which is explained by their semantics.

The word-formation features of onomatopoeic vocabulary are directly related to the grammatical structure of the language.

The article is published in the version approved by the reviewers (after receiving a positive review recommending the manuscript for publication) with corrections made by the author (after receiving the editor’s comments, if any).
Read all reviews on this article