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.