FIRST RESEARCH PROPOSITION PROTOTYPE
"The Sound of Feeling"
The Challenge of Japanese Onomatopoeia and Mimesis in
the Context of Semiology, Structuralism, and Cultural Studies
By Daniel Kanemitsu
People are dependent on language to communicate with one
another. But language is much more than a common protocol for the exchange
of communication. Language determines how we perceive the world around
us. It filters as well as exaggerates information. Language shapes our
thoughts and conceptualizations. Ultimately, language is the means with
which we grasp reality. Language is reality. Does this mean that people
who speak different languages live in different worlds?
Daring as these assertions may be, these are not empty proclamations.
We interact with the world around us by relying on the information provided
to us through our senses. But these stimuli must be organized and processed
first before it means anything to us. Stimuli by itself are loud sounds
and shapes of light and color. Stimuli must be differentiated, categorized,
and conceptual associations must be made before we can decipher the information.
This process is very quick, for most of us dont even realize that this
is taking place in our minds. We tend to believe we hear people talking,
but in fact we "listen" to people make audio sounds. The audio sounds are
converted into words within our minds. Stimuli become concepts and tangible
descriptions based on the language because language is what attaches meaning
to individual stimuli. People are only capable of conceptualizing the world
around them in terms of language at that person's disposal. We cannot describe
to others what a rainbow is without using words. We cannot communicate
our feelings to one another without expressing them in some tangible form.
Language is the means with which we communicate. And therefore, it can
be said that language is reality, or at least it is the only means with
which we can perceive reality in our minds.
The argument made above is largely based on the research
of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. In the course of his pioneering
research of semiology and linguistics Saussure established the fundamental
principles regarding the relationship between language, conceptualization,
and association of meaning necessary in order for language to operate.
Saussure theorized that language, in its most basic form,
was comprised of two separate elements. First there are the representations
of objects (such as the word "dog") and then are the objects themselves
(the four legged creature that constantly demand attention from its owner.)
This representation is the "signifier" and the object of the representation
is referred to as the "signified". Together, signifiers and signified constitute
a "sign", or in the most basic sense, a word. For in each word, there exists
a representation and the object of representation. Signs are the smallest
building blocks in our language.
Furthermore, Saussure hypothesized that the relationship
between the signified and signifier is completely arbitrary. There is no
inherit reason behind associating the signifier "dog" with the signified
four legged canine creature. (Page 86, Storey) What logic is there in my
name? There is no inherit reason why I should have the name Daniel. I only
have this name because my parents gave it to me. What is important is that
I am Daniel and not Bob. I have a unique identity to which I can associate
specific meanings. I can be Dan instead of Bob. This focus on difference
is very important. Saussure ultimately contended that signs only work because
they provide the means with which to differentiate. Signs demarcate and
distinguish differences between objects. Objects are defined by what it
is not as oppose what it is.
Saussure also believed that language was ultimately a vocal
vehicle in the exchange of information. People communicate with one another
through the medium of sound, and as such, individually distinct "sound
patterns" is the vehicle that is utilized in the exchange of information.
Saussure's contention of the "sound pattern as the common denominator"
is closely linked to his argument that the associations of signifiers and
signified are arbitrary.
One source of dispute was the nature of onomatopoeia. Onomatopoeic
words (words that imitate specific sets of sounds) imply a relationship
between words that are not arbitrary. Saussure dismissed these words are
insignificant because "...(they) are never organic elements of a linguistic
system." (Page 69, Saussure) Furthermore he asserts that "genuine onomatopoeia"
are rare and that "... onomatopoeic words themselves may lose their original
character and take that of the linguistic sign in general, which is unmotivated."
(Page 69, Saussure)
Later work by Claude Levi-Stauss, Roland Barthes, and Jacques
Lancan among other will expand on the pioneering work by Saussure and establish
Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, and beyond. With the coming of Post-Structuralism,
the nature of the arbitrary relationship between the signifier and the
signified started to change. Jacques Derrida called into question the relationship
that Saussure described as being unilateral between the signified and the
signifier. Derrida observed that the signifier can strongly influence the
how the signified is perceived. The relationship that constitutes a sign
was now thought to be more multilateral. This was only a natural progression
from Barthes' discourse that emphasized the multi-dimensional aspects of
signs and language. What is relevant here is that the later researchers
themselves have called into question of the arbitrary relationship as asserted
originally by Saussure.
Applying the research conducted by these European researchers
to the Japanese language provides us with substantial insight as to the
nature of the sign as conceptualized by semiology.
The Japanese language provides the Japanese speaker and writers
with tools that are radically different from that of the English language.
One of the most pronounced contrasts between Japanese and English language
is the vast difference in the size and structure of onomatopoeic words
and mimetic words (words that imitate certain actions and phenomena). While
onomatopoeia and mimesis exists in both languages, the nature of these
words are so radically different, they should be considered to be close
relatives to one another as opposed to twins.
While Saussure may have had the liberty to disregard onomatopoeic
words and the challenge it poses to his theory because there are relatively
few of these words in the European languages (or so he claims), to ignore
onomatopoeia and mimesis would mean disregarding an integral segment in
the Japanese language.
Onomatopoeia and mimesis are every where in the Japanese
linguistic and cultural landscape. Corporate marketing of products commonly
incorporates these words as part of the name of their products. Traditional
poetry relies upon them to enrich the songs and prose. They have become
an integral and complex part of the Japanese comic book medium, as new
words are invented everyday by that medium, allowing its vocabulary to
grow ever richer. Celebrities boast of creating new ones from time to time.
You see them every day in what you read. You use them all the time to describe
things to people. You think and feel in those terms. Onomatopoeia and mimesis
have been with the Japanese for a long time and they will probably continue
to be with them for a long time.
Some fundamental differences between English and Japanese
must be established before we go any further on this subject. In its written
form, Japanese is essentially an ideographic language. While Japanese does
have a phonetic alphabet and it is possible to write out entire Japanese
sentences in this phonetic form, few dare to. The reason is because many
Japanese words are phonetically identical, making it very difficult to
communicate long, complex concepts with only sounds. The sound pattern
"Ueno" could signify a geographical location, a surname, or describe a
vertical relationship between objects. Furthermore, the written Japanese
language does not rely on the use of spaces between words to distinguish
the end and beginning of separate words. Without the ideograms providing
some sort of context to the sentence, it would be very difficult to distinguish
separate words.
Another unique aspect of the Japanese language is the availability
of three separate alphabets. The Japanese writer has the choice between
the Hiragana (the standard, default phonetic alphabet), Katakana (the alternate
phonetic alphabet), and Kanji. Kanji are comprised of thousands of Chinese
ideographic characters that were imported from China nearly one thousand
years ago and have changed little since then. The kanji characters are
comprised of simple ideograms that have meaning on their own but combined
with others will take on different meanings as well. The availability of
three alphabets adds credence to my contention that Japanese is an essentially
an ideographic written language because the use of one set of alphabet
over another provides the reader with important contextual information.
For example, foreign names and onomatopoeia are common written out using
the alternate alphabet, Katakana.
One more relevant issue is the high context nature of the
Japanese language. Suzuki, Gudykunst, and many others have characterized
the Japanese language and culture as being "high-context" communication
orientated. This means that the listener or the reader of Japanese must
be more alert to the context of the speech conducted. Not everything is
spelled out and the statements may appear uselessly vague when in fact
it is actually quite specific. One element which makes high-context communication
possible is the sharing of a wide cultural / knowledge database. Confidence
in sharing a specific and large cultural referent system allows the speaker
to speak in complex and vague terms.
With these elements in mind, let us turn our attention back
to the unique problem that faces the translator of Japanese onomatopoeia
into English. As stated previously, the two languages differ significantly
in language structure and onomatopoeia and mimesis is no exception to this.
One very unique language is that there is an internal logic
at work behind the phonetic association of onomatopoeia to specific sounds.
Certain groups of sounds are associated together and onomatopoeia that
represents those sounds is correspondingly similar. Let us examine two
groups of Japanese onomatopoeia to illustrate; Sounds that are associated
to pumping of fluids and sounds that are associated with metallic sounds
that are produced during the operation of machinery.
Doku Doku signifies the pumping motion and sound of fluids.
You would use doku doku to describe the pumping of the blood by the heart,
the operation of a mechanical pump, and/or the flow of fluids that resulted
from the pumping action. What is significant is not whether or not the
heart actually makes those sounds, but that fact that many Japanese onomatopoeia
that represent similar pumping and fluid movement description incorporate
the doku doku core root sounds. The thumping of the heart can also be described
with doki doki. Sudden surprises that makes one feel as if their heart
was about to jump out of their mouths are described with doh-king (single
thump.) Do Do Do describes the heart racing. The onomatopoeia for drinking
is goku goku. The discharging of fluids in separate intervals is described
with dopyu dopyu. Notice that all these sounds are fairly similar. One
could argue that even if you did not know the meaning of goku goku, if
you knew what doku doku meant, you might be able to make a educated guess
as to ascertain that the sound was related to the pumping action of fluids.
This also holds true in the case of metallic sounds. Metallic
sounds are characterized by sharp, distinct high frequency sounds. The
clashing of metal against metal is described as kin or kan. This kin /
kan sound forms the core root sound for many other sounds. The pumping
action of a shotgun: zya-kin. The cracking sound of a trigger: kaki. The
twisting / spinning sound of machinery: kiri kiri. The clicking sound when
a switch is pressed: kachi. The ticking of the clock: kachi kochi or chiki
chiki. The sound of a can rattling about as it falls down a flight of stairs:
karan kachan kakin kara kara kara. (Could you tell that the sound at the
very end signified the sound of a can wobbling about on a flat surface
spinning faster and faster until it finally comes to rest?) All these similar
words are share the same core root sounds.
One can almost say that Japanese onomatopoeia, however crudely,
tries to "re-create" sounds as they are created in our environment. The
samples are limited in representation by the 50 plus available basic Japanese
phonetic alphabet but the clear emphasis is on re-creation not re-wording
the sounds. These core root sounds may be crude but the words they build
are certainly a far cry from being arbitrary associations.
Japanese core root sounds are expanded upon but are rarely
over turned. New words may be created to differentiate the sounds even
further, i.e. the pumping action of thick fluids as opposed to less dense
liquids, but all the new words must incorporate the core root sound for
it to be recognizable as being part of that family of sounds. These and
many other conventions and rules maintain structure and consistency in
the ever-expanding world of Japanese onomatopoeia.
These observations undoubtedly undermine the "sound pattern
arbitrary" element of Saussure's theory. Japanese onomatopoeia seem to
represent a structure of language where the associations of the words and
the sound patterns are not entirely arbitrary and in fact strives to "re-create"
the sounds with the phonetic alphabet that is available.
Furthermore, these same principles that apply to Japanese
onomatopoeia are also at work behind the structure of mimetic words. Now
mimetic words should be prime examples of the arbitrary nature of language,
after all we talking about words that are not associated to non-audio concepts.
But in Japanese mimesis, sound associations are governed by a complex set
of rules similar to those that oversee onomatopoeia, and these rules prevent
straight forward arbitrary association of words to actions and states of
being. Take for example the Japanese mimetic words that are associated
with thick liquids. Now liquids, by itself, does not produce sounds, so
the association of the core root sound "doro~" is unquestionably arbitrary.
But once this association is established, all other mimesis that incorporate
elements of thick liquid in its meaning stubbornly retain association to
this core sound. The pouring action of liquids is described in the terms
of Dorori. Surfaces covered with thick goo are Doro Doro. Slick surfaces
are Nuro Nuro / Nuru Nuru. Doku Doku and Doro Doro go hand in hand as they
usually are employed to describe thick fluids. As you can tell, these conventions
retain surprising consistency across the board in Japanese language.
In conclusion I believe it is safe to say that certain phonetic
sounds have loose associations to certain concepts, and these "core sounds"
are employed to construct more elaborate and diverse descriptions of concepts.
Comic books provide the analyst a unique opportunity to see
the onomatopoeia and mimesis structure at work. As comic books became more
sophisticated and complex conventions were formed, comic book authors began
to expand the breath and scope of their vocabulary by building on top of
the core root sounds that were available to them.
But what of the differences in perception?
When a European gazes at a snowscape, he or she sees snow.
An Eskimo looking at the same snowscape would see much more, the reason
being that Eskimos have over fifty words to describe snow. Therefore an
Eskimo and a (sic) European standing together surveying the snowscape would
be in fact be seeing two quite different conceptual scenes. (Page 71, Storey)
Differences in the perception of reality is one of the hardest
gaps to bridge and translators of Japanese comic books into English cope
with this issue every day that they work. Translating onomatopoeia and
mimesis in Japanese comics is extraordinary frustrating. Translating involves
identifying and associating the equivalents between languages in order
to re-create the original text in another language. The key question here
is finding equivalents. Are English onomatopoeia close equivalents to the
Japanese onomatopoeia? Can the existing English onomatopoeia and mimesis
structure (or lack there of) be expected to satisfactorily accommodate
the subtle differences between specific words? Are there equivalents in
English language that corresponds with Japanese mimesis at all? Differences
in the approaches of translators compel different answers to these questions.
What is clear is that any translations conducted will involve the stretching
the envelope on one side or another. Either the original Japanese text
will have to be stretched in order for it to be more easily understood
by their new readers, or the English audience will have stretch themselves
to accept conceptualizations that are not common in their language at this
time yet.
I prefer the later approach because I feel that the translation
will remain more faithful to the original text that way. But faithfulness
is only one criterion in evaluating the appropriate methodology to employ.
Mass appeal and marketability must remain an issue. The translation must
be re-produced in a form that is accessible for the new audience, or else
there is no meaning behind conducting the translation to begin with. Even
taking this into account, I still argue that the audience should push themselves
closer to the text rather then the other way around. Many college level
textbooks are written in a form that alienates the general public. Those
that mean that those books are utter failures? On the contrary, those books
are difficult because the content itself is difficult. They are designed
so that those that aspire to further their knowledge may find them to be
meaningful. Obscure technical jargon maybe frustrating but the alternative
is to have text books that are two to three times as long because they
must make itself easily understood to even the most novice of readers.
The lesson is clear. Books should be written in a form appropriate
for its audience and provide it with knowledge that it can uniquely and
effectively provide. The distinctive onomatopoeia and mimesis in Japanese
comic books can be made into a leverage instead of a liability. If there
was someway to allow the English speaking audience to appreciate the nuisances
of the Japanese onomatopoeia and mimesis, the very cultural hindrance could
be touted as a sophisticated literary tool unique to itself which sets
it apart from others. For these reason and more, I firmly believe that
devising an onomatopoeia and mimesis system unique to English is advantageous.
There is no reason why the English language could be made richer in scope
and vocabulary.
One needs not disregard the conventions that have been established
already in the English language. Systemic organization and devising basic
principles that guide the use and the development of English onomatopoeia
and mimesis can take into account the previous vocabulary. What is more
important is those that employ the new "pseudo-sounds" to recognize and
properly understand the principle that govern language in general. This
will both guide and give structure to his or her work.
So what is the sound of feeling? It is Geen (for heart-warming
sensations.) It is Zoku Zoku (for sensations of excitement, i.e. the shivers.)
The question is: what is it in English?
Bibliography:
-"An Introductory Guide to Cultural Theory and Popular
Culture" by John Storey, published in 1993 by The University of Georgia
Press
-"A Practical Guide to Japanese-English Onomatopoeia
& Mimesis" by Hidekazu Ono, published in 1984 by Hokuseido Shoten
-Class Course Packet
-"Tozasareta Gengo / Nihongo no Sekai (The Closed Language
/ The World of Japanese)" by Takao Suzuki, published by Shinchosha in 1975
Back to Translations Menu
Back to Main Menu
This page was last revised on November 7th,
1997.