# Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept

Aimée Lahaussois, Julie Marsault, Yvonne Treis

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Aimée Lahaussois, Julie Marsault, Yvonne Treis. Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept. Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads, 4 (1), 2024. halshs-04612053

HAL Id: halshs-04612053

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04612053

Submitted on 17 Jun 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept

Aimée Lahaussois, Julie Marsault, Yvonne Treis

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Aimée Lahaussois, Julie Marsault, Yvonne Treis. Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept. Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads, 4 (1), 2024. halshs-04612053

HAL Id: halshs-04612053

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04612053v1

Submitted on 17 Jun 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
Linguistic Typology
at the Crossroads

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

ISSN 2785-0943

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – 2024

Issue DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/v4-n1-2024

This journal provides immediate and free open access. There is no embargo on the journal's publications. Submission and acceptance dates, along with publication dates, are made available on the PDF format for each paper. The authors of published articles remain the copyright holders and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article according to the [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license agreement. The reviewing process is double-blind.
Ethical policies and indexing information are publicly available on the journal website:
[https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it](https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it)

**Editors**

*Nicola Grandi* (University of Bologna, Editor in chief)

*Caterina Mauri* (University of Bologna, Editor in chief)

*Francesca Di Garbo* (University of Aix-Marseille)

*Andrea Sansò* (University of Insubria)

**Publisher**

*Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies* (University of Bologna)

*Department of Modern Languages, Literatures and Cultures* (University of Bologna)

The journal is hosted and maintained by [AlmaDL](https:// AlmaDL .org)

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
Linguistic Typology
at the Crossroads

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

ISSN 2785-0943

Volume 4 – Issue 1 – 2024

Issue DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/v4-n1-2024

This journal provides immediate and free open access. There is no embargo on the journal's publications. Submission and acceptance dates, along with publication dates, are made available on the PDF format for each paper. The authors of published articles remain the copyright holders and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article according to the [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) license agreement. The reviewing process is double-blind.
Ethical policies and indexing information are publicly available on the journal website:
[https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it](https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it)

**Editors**

*Nicola Grandi* (University of Bologna, Editor in chief)

*Caterina Mauri* (University of Bologna, Editor in chief)

*Francesca Di Garbo* (University of Aix-Marseille)

*Andrea Sansò* (University of Insubria)

**Publisher**

*Department of Classical Philology and Italian Studies* (University of Bologna)

*Department of Modern Languages, Literatures and Cultures* (University of Bologna)

The journal is hosted and maintained by [AlmaDL](https:// AlmaDL .org)

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
# Linguistic Typology
at the Crossroads

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

## Editorial board

Mira Ariel (Tel Aviv University)

Sonia Cristofaro (Sorbonne Université)

Chiara Gianollo (University of Bologna)

Matti Miestamo (University of Helsinki)

Marianne Mithun (University of California Santa Barbara)

## Production editors

Silvia Ballarè (University of Bologna)

Eleonora Zucchini (University of Bologna)

## Scientific Board

Giorgio Francesco Arcodia (Università Ca' Foscari, Venice)

Peter Arkadiev (Johannes-Gutenberg University of Mainz)

Gilles Authier (École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris)

Luisa Brucale (University of Palermo)

Holger Diessel (University of Jena)

Eitan Grossman (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Corinna Handschuh (Universität Regensburg)

Guglielmo Inglese (University of Turin)

Elisabetta Magni (University of Bologna)

Francesca Masini (University of Bologna)

Susanne Maria Michaelis (MPI EVA – Leipzig)

Emanuele Miola (University of Bologna)

Anna Riccio (University of Foggia)

Eva van Lier (University of Amsterdam)

## Assistant production editors

Antonio Bianco (University of Pavia)

Valentina Di Falco (Independent assistant editor)

Sara Gemelli (University of Pavia)

Maria Cristina Lo Baido (University of Cagliari)

Nicola Perugini (University of Bologna)

Antonia Russo (University of Bergamo)

Federica Mauri (Independent assistant editor)

## Responsible Editor

Caterina Mauri, University of Bologna

Department of Modern Languages, Literatures and Cultures, via Cartoleria 5, 40124 Bologna. Email: caterina.mauri@unibo.it

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
# Linguistic Typology
at the Crossroads

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

## Editorial board

Mira Ariel (Tel Aviv University)

Sonia Cristofaro (Sorbonne Université)

Chiara Gianollo (University of Bologna)

Matti Miestamo (University of Helsinki)

Marianne Mithun (University of California Santa Barbara)

## Production editors

Silvia Ballarè (University of Bologna)

Eleonora Zucchini (University of Bologna)

## Scientific Board

Giorgio Francesco Arcodia (Università Ca' Foscari, Venice)

Peter Arkadiev (Johannes-Gutenberg University of Mainz)

Gilles Authier (École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris)

Luisa Brucale (University of Palermo)

Holger Diessel (University of Jena)

Eitan Grossman (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Corinna Handschuh (Universität Regensburg)

Guglielmo Inglese (University of Turin)

Elisabetta Magni (University of Bologna)

Francesca Masini (University of Bologna)

Susanne Maria Michaelis (MPI EVA – Leipzig)

Emanuele Miola (University of Bologna)

Anna Riccio (University of Foggia)

Eva van Lier (University of Amsterdam)

## Assistant production editors

Antonio Bianco (University of Pavia)

Valentina Di Falco (Independent assistant editor)

Sara Gemelli (University of Pavia)

Maria Cristina Lo Baido (University of Cagliari)

Nicola Perugini (University of Bologna)

Antonia Russo (University of Bergamo)

Federica Mauri (Independent assistant editor)

## Responsible Editor

Caterina Mauri, University of Bologna

Department of Modern Languages, Literatures and Cultures, via Cartoleria 5, 40124 Bologna. Email: caterina.mauri@unibo.it

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
Linguistic Typology
at the Crossroads

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

*Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept*

Edited by

Aimée Lahaussois, Julie Marsault and Yvonne Treis

CONTENTS

**Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept** - Editorial paper

Julie Marsault, Aimée Lahaussois, Yvonne Treis------------------------------------------------- 1-13

**Terminological diversity in descriptions of Kiranti ideophonic lexemes**

Aimée Lahaussois ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14-43

**The sound roots of Umónhoⁿ**

Julie Marsault----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44-90

**Teko ideophones: description of a word class**

Françoise Rose----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91-146

**Ideophones in Kambaata (Cushitic): Grammar, meaning and use**

Yvonne Treis ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 147-200

**Ideophones and verbal constructions with the verb ‘say’ in Amharic**

Ronny Meyer----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 201-243

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
Linguistic Typology
at the Crossroads

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

*Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept*

Edited by

Aimée Lahaussois, Julie Marsault and Yvonne Treis

CONTENTS

Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept - Editorial paper

Julie Marsault, Aimée Lahaussois, Yvonne Treis------------------------------------------------- 1-13

Terminological diversity in descriptions of Kiranti ideophonic lexemes

Aimée Lahaussois--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14-43

The sound roots of Umónhoⁿ

Julie Marsault--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44-90

Teko ideophones: description of a word class

Françoise Rose--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91-146

Ideophones in Kambaata (Cushitic): Grammar, meaning and use

Yvonne Treis--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 147-200

Ideophones and verbal constructions with the verb ‘say’ in Amharic

Ronny Meyer--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 201-243

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
Linguistic Typology
at the Crossroads

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Ideophones in Sena (Bantu, Mozambique)

Rozenn Guérois 244 - 288

Ideophones and sound symbolism in Northern Amis (Austronesian)

Isabelle Bril 289 - 324

Ideophonic verb compounds in Archi

Gilles Authier 325 - 380

Ideophones in Upper Guinea Creoles: a comparative study

Nicolas Quint, Noël Bernard Biagui 381 - 444

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
# Linguistic Typology
at the Crossroads

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

## Ideophones in Sena (Bantu, Mozambique)

Rozenn Guérois 244 - 288

## Ideophones and sound symbolism in Northern Amis (Austronesian)

Isabelle Bril 289 - 324

## Ideophonic verb compounds in Archi

Gilles Authier 325 - 380

## Ideophones in Upper Guinea Creoles: a comparative study

Nicolas Quint, Noël Bernard Biagui 381 - 444

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
# Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept

JULIE MARSAULT<fnref n="1" />, AIMÉE LAHAUSSOIS<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, YVONNE TREIS<fnref n="3" />

Submitted: 9/04/2024 Revised version: 14/05/2024

Accepted: 14/05/2024 Published: 12/06/2024

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (The authors remain the copyright holders and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article).

## Abstract

This paper introduces the special issue of *Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads*, entitled “Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept”, edited by Aimée Lahaussois, Julie Marsault and Yvonne Treis. The contributions, which are the result of work by a research group on ideophones and interjections, funded by the Labex EFL in Paris, are mainly descriptive papers with a typological perspective, informed by the more than 20 years of ideophone research following the landmark publication edited by Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz in 2001. After introducing the field and briefly presenting each contribution, we discuss issues in ideophone research that the articles gathered here contribute to, namely whether or not ideophones make up a clear-cut word class in different languages, and how different contributors interpret their relationship with onomatopoeia and interjections. We also present an overview of the primary syntactic uses of ideophones in the different languages and highlight the morphological processes attested for ideophonization and deideophonization, which are still under-investigated.

**Keywords:** ideophones; word classes; descriptive linguistics; typology; onomatopoeia; historiography.

<footnote n="1">¹CNRS, UMR 7597 HISTOIRE DES THÉORIES LINGUISTIQUES</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²UNIVERSITÉ PARIS CITÉ & UNIVERSITÉ SORBONNE NOUVELLE</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³CNRS, UMR 8135 LANGAGE, LANGUES ET CULTURES D'AFRIQUE</footnote>
# Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept

JULIE MARSAULT<fnref n="1" />, AIMÉE LAHAUSSOIS<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, YVONNE TREIS<fnref n="3" />

Submitted: 9/04/2024 Revised version: 14/05/2024

Accepted: 14/05/2024 Published: 12/06/2024

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (The authors remain the copyright holders and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article).

## Abstract

This paper introduces the special issue of *Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads*, entitled “Ideophones: honing in on a descriptive and typological concept”, edited by Aimée Lahaussois, Julie Marsault and Yvonne Treis. The contributions, which are the result of work by a research group on ideophones and interjections, funded by the Labex EFL in Paris, are mainly descriptive papers with a typological perspective, informed by the more than 20 years of ideophone research following the landmark publication edited by Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz in 2001. After introducing the field and briefly presenting each contribution, we discuss issues in ideophone research that the articles gathered here contribute to, namely whether or not ideophones make up a clear-cut word class in different languages, and how different contributors interpret their relationship with onomatopoeia and interjections. We also present an overview of the primary syntactic uses of ideophones in the different languages and highlight the morphological processes attested for ideophonization and deideophonization, which are still under-investigated.

**Keywords:** ideophones; word classes; descriptive linguistics; typology; onomatopoeia; historiography.

<footnote n="1">¹CNRS, UMR 7597 HISTOIRE DES THÉORIES LINGUISTIQUES</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²UNIVERSITÉ PARIS CITÉ & UNIVERSITÉ SORBONNE NOUVELLE</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³CNRS, UMR 8135 LANGAGE, LANGUES ET CULTURES D'AFRIQUE</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

Ideophones have been a topic of research for more than a century, since even before the term “ideophone” was popularized by Doke (1935). Throughout the 20th century, ideophones have been the object of a growing number of descriptive works in individual languages, in linguistic families or in linguistic areas. While the term “ideophone” emerged in the Africanist tradition and is now the most widely used term, the Japonic linguistic tradition tends to use the term “mimetics” (e.g. Hirose 1981), while South Asian linguistics favors “expressives” (e.g. Diffloth 1976; Badenoch & Choksi 2021). For a comprehensive account of the history of research on ideophones, as well as a history of the term “ideophone”, see Dingemanse (2011a: section 2.1 and chapter 3).

Ideophones have been a topic of particular theoretical and typological interest since the turn of the 21st century (e.g. Hinton et al. 1994; Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz 2001; Akita 2009; Dingemanse 2012; Dingemanse 2017; Dingemanse 2019; McLean 2021; Andrason & Heine 2023; among many others), with recent edited volumes and monographs including Barrett et al. (2014), Armoskaite & Koskinen (2017), Haiman (2018), Akita & Pardeshi (2019), Badenoch & Choksi (2021). They have been shaped by interactions with research on sound symbolism and iconicity (e.g. Hinton et al. 1994; Nuckolls 1999; Dingemanse 2011b; Dingemanse & Akita 2016; Thompson & Do 2019; Winter et al. forthcoming).

Attempts at defining “ideophones” as a comparative concept for typological studies go back to the 2010s at least (esp. Dingemanse 2012; Dingemanse 2019; Akita & Pardeshi 2019). The cross-linguistic definition of “ideophones” proposed by Dingemanse (2012, 2019) is a welcome tool for typological work on ideophones, as proven by its nearly ubiquitous presence in articles on the topic (most of our contributions either use it or mention it), as well as for identifying diachronic variations, as he convincingly argues. The initial definition in 2012 was amended in 2019 to “[a] member of an open lexical class of marked words that depict sensory imagery” (Dingemanse 2019: 16). Dingemanse explicitly proposes this five-part definition as the basis for a comparative concept. Furthermore, the implicational hierarchy for the sensory domains depicted by ideophones, as proposed in Dingemanse (2012), has proven itself as a stimulating heuristic tool, as linguists have examined their own data with an eye towards confirming (or disproving) its predictions, which sometimes led to additions to or to minor revisions of the hierarchy
# 1. Introduction

Ideophones have been a topic of research for more than a century, since even before the term “ideophone” was popularized by Doke (1935). Throughout the 20th century, ideophones have been the object of a growing number of descriptive works in individual languages, in linguistic families or in linguistic areas. While the term “ideophone” emerged in the Africanist tradition and is now the most widely used term, the Japonic linguistic tradition tends to use the term “mimetics” (e.g. Hirose 1981), while South Asian linguistics favors “expressives” (e.g. Diffloth 1976; Badenoch & Choksi 2021). For a comprehensive account of the history of research on ideophones, as well as a history of the term “ideophone”, see Dingemanse (2011a: section 2.1 and chapter 3).

Ideophones have been a topic of particular theoretical and typological interest since the turn of the 21st century (e.g. Hinton et al. 1994; Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz 2001; Akita 2009; Dingemanse 2012; Dingemanse 2017; Dingemanse 2019; McLean 2021; Andrason & Heine 2023; among many others), with recent edited volumes and monographs including Barrett et al. (2014), Armoskaite & Koskinen (2017), Haiman (2018), Akita & Pardeshi (2019), Badenoch & Choksi (2021). They have been shaped by interactions with research on sound symbolism and iconicity (e.g. Hinton et al. 1994; Nuckolls 1999; Dingemanse 2011b; Dingemanse & Akita 2016; Thompson & Do 2019; Winter et al. forthcoming).

Attempts at defining “ideophones” as a comparative concept for typological studies go back to the 2010s at least (esp. Dingemanse 2012; Dingemanse 2019; Akita & Pardeshi 2019). The cross-linguistic definition of “ideophones” proposed by Dingemanse (2012, 2019) is a welcome tool for typological work on ideophones, as proven by its nearly ubiquitous presence in articles on the topic (most of our contributions either use it or mention it), as well as for identifying diachronic variations, as he convincingly argues. The initial definition in 2012 was amended in 2019 to “[a] member of an open lexical class of marked words that depict sensory imagery” (Dingemanse 2019: 16). Dingemanse explicitly proposes this five-part definition as the basis for a comparative concept. Furthermore, the implicational hierarchy for the sensory domains depicted by ideophones, as proposed in Dingemanse (2012), has proven itself as a stimulating heuristic tool, as linguists have examined their own data with an eye towards confirming (or disproving) its predictions, which sometimes led to additions to or to minor revisions of the hierarchy
(e.g. McLean 2021, and comments in Rose this volume; for a very recent
transformation of Dingemanse's hierarchy into a semantic map, see Van Hoey 2023).

One question which is not often addressed in the literature is the extent to which
the category of “ideophones” is useful for the description of particular languages,
language families, or areas. The papers collected in this special issue present work
carried out by a research group funded by the Labex EFL, Paris (https://en.labex-
efl.fr/) on “Ideophones and Interjections in a typological, areal and diachronic
perspective”, bringing together researchers in the Paris area and some additional
collaborators. In contrast to edited volumes which focus on specific features of
ideophones or related theoretical issues (Lahti et al. 2014; Armoskaite & Koskinen
2017; Akita & Pardeshi 2019; Badenoch & Choksi 2021), the contributions in the
present volume provide typologically-oriented descriptions of ideophones or
ideophone-like words in under-described languages which are geographically and
phylogenetically varied. In this sense, the volume has a similar approach to Voeltz &
Kilian-Hatz (2001), but is informed by insights in the typological literature on
ideophones of the last 20 years. The result is that the contributions to this volume
describe a wider range of features of ideophones than had been previously taken into
consideration. Additionally, the contributions for the most part include discussions
on the definition and identification of ideophones, and on their status as a word class
in individual languages. For instance, while the identification of a category of
ideophones is straightforward in some languages, in others it presents a
methodological challenge. In this way, the contributions gathered here participate in
defining the boundaries between the “ideophone” as a word-class relevant to
grammatical description and the set of iconic words that can be taken as reflecting
ideophone-like phenomena but not constituting a definable class in a given language
(Dingemanse 2019).

This volume explores ideophones in languages and linguistic areas that have been
less well-represented in ideophone research, such as the Caucasus (Authier), North
America (Marsault) and Creole languages (Quint), in most cases presenting new and
unpublished field data. New aspects of ideophone research presented in this volume
include the prosody of ideophones (Rose); the history of the use of the term
"ideophone" and related terms in a linguistic area (Lahaussois); the presence of
consonant or vowel gradation in ideophones or ideophone-like classes of words
(Marsault, Rose, Bril), and deideophonic and ideophonicizing derivational processes
(Meyer, Treis, Guérois). See also the discussion in section 3.
(e.g. McLean 2021, and comments in Rose this volume; for a very recent
transformation of Dingemanse's hierarchy into a semantic map, see Van Hoey 2023).

One question which is not often addressed in the literature is the extent to which
the category of “ideophones” is useful for the description of particular languages,
language families, or areas. The papers collected in this special issue present work
carried out by a research group funded by the Labex EFL, Paris (https://en.labex-
efl.fr/) on “Ideophones and Interjections in a typological, areal and diachronic
perspective”, bringing together researchers in the Paris area and some additional
collaborators. In contrast to edited volumes which focus on specific features of
ideophones or related theoretical issues (Lahti et al. 2014; Armoskaite & Koskinen
2017; Akita & Pardeshi 2019; Badenoch & Choksi 2021), the contributions in the
present volume provide typologically-oriented descriptions of ideophones or
ideophone-like words in under-described languages which are geographically and
phylogenetically varied. In this sense, the volume has a similar approach to Voeltz &
Kilian-Hatz (2001), but is informed by insights in the typological literature on
ideophones of the last 20 years. The result is that the contributions to this volume
describe a wider range of features of ideophones than had been previously taken into
consideration. Additionally, the contributions for the most part include discussions
on the definition and identification of ideophones, and on their status as a word class
in individual languages. For instance, while the identification of a category of
ideophones is straightforward in some languages, in others it presents a
methodological challenge. In this way, the contributions gathered here participate in
defining the boundaries between the “ideophone” as a word-class relevant to
grammatical description and the set of iconic words that can be taken as reflecting
ideophone-like phenomena but not constituting a definable class in a given language
(Dingemanse 2019).

This volume explores ideophones in languages and linguistic areas that have been
less well-represented in ideophone research, such as the Caucasus (Authier), North
America (Marsault) and Creole languages (Quint), in most cases presenting new and
unpublished field data. New aspects of ideophone research presented in this volume
include the prosody of ideophones (Rose); the history of the use of the term
"ideophone" and related terms in a linguistic area (Lahaussois); the presence of
consonant or vowel gradation in ideophones or ideophone-like classes of words
(Marsault, Rose, Bril), and deideophonic and ideophonicizing derivational processes
(Meyer, Treis, Guérois). See also the discussion in section 3.
## 2. List of contributions

**Aimée Lahaussois** looks at ideophones in descriptions of **Kiranti languages** (Trans-Himalayan/Sino-Tibetan, Nepal), identifying them on the basis of morphophonological templates she has defined for languages on which she has carried out extensive fieldwork. Using these templates, she finds ideophonic lexemes in grammatical descriptions of other languages, and documents the associated terminology and descriptive apparatus. The study is motivated by the small footprint of ideophones in existing descriptions, and the possibility of carrying out areal work on these lexemes and exploring questions of language contact (and notably whether it is the patterns or the matter which are borrowed) if they were more easily identified as such in descriptions.

**Julie Marsault** analyzes sound roots in **Umónho**, a Siouan language of North America, with a philological study based on a closed corpus. Adopting a top-down approach, she tries to determine whether Umónho has a word class of ideophones that corresponds to Dingemanse's comparative concept. She takes as a point of departure a nineteenth century publication listing many so-called “onomatopes” and identifies a group of sound roots with a coherent set of morphological, syntactic and semantic features. She concludes that the sound roots have ideophone-like features, but that there is no basis for identifying a distinct morphosyntactic class of ideophones.

**Françoise Rose** proposes an in-depth description of **Teko** (Tupi, French Guiana) ideophones entirely based on her own field data. In this language, ideophones form a clear-cut, easily identifiable category, and Rose analyzes their features systematically at various levels and compares them to the classes of nouns and verbs. This paper stands out for including a detailed analysis of prosodic features and discourse uses, as well as for providing quantitative data.

In **Kambaata** (Cushitic, Ethiopia) ideophones are an open word class of morphologically invariant lexemes that require the support verbs y- ‘say’ in intransitive clauses and a'- ‘do’ in transitive clauses to be inflected and syntactically integrated into an utterance. Based on lexicographical data and her own fieldnotes, **Yvonne Treis** discusses features of the phonology, phonotactics and stress marking of ideophones, investigates which derivational processes take ideophonic inputs, and shows in which syntactic functions ideophones are used.
## 2. List of contributions

**Aimée Lahaussois** looks at ideophones in descriptions of **Kiranti languages** (Trans-Himalayan/Sino-Tibetan, Nepal), identifying them on the basis of morphophonological templates she has defined for languages on which she has carried out extensive fieldwork. Using these templates, she finds ideophonic lexemes in grammatical descriptions of other languages, and documents the associated terminology and descriptive apparatus. The study is motivated by the small footprint of ideophones in existing descriptions, and the possibility of carrying out areal work on these lexemes and exploring questions of language contact (and notably whether it is the patterns or the matter which are borrowed) if they were more easily identified as such in descriptions.

**Julie Marsault** analyzes sound roots in **Umónho**, a Siouan language of North America, with a philological study based on a closed corpus. Adopting a top-down approach, she tries to determine whether Umónho has a word class of ideophones that corresponds to Dingemanse's comparative concept. She takes as a point of departure a nineteenth century publication listing many so-called “onomatopes” and identifies a group of sound roots with a coherent set of morphological, syntactic and semantic features. She concludes that the sound roots have ideophone-like features, but that there is no basis for identifying a distinct morphosyntactic class of ideophones.

**Françoise Rose** proposes an in-depth description of **Teko** (Tupi, French Guiana) ideophones entirely based on her own field data. In this language, ideophones form a clear-cut, easily identifiable category, and Rose analyzes their features systematically at various levels and compares them to the classes of nouns and verbs. This paper stands out for including a detailed analysis of prosodic features and discourse uses, as well as for providing quantitative data.

In **Kambaata** (Cushitic, Ethiopia) ideophones are an open word class of morphologically invariant lexemes that require the support verbs y- ‘say’ in intransitive clauses and a'- ‘do’ in transitive clauses to be inflected and syntactically integrated into an utterance. Based on lexicographical data and her own fieldnotes, **Yvonne Treis** discusses features of the phonology, phonotactics and stress marking of ideophones, investigates which derivational processes take ideophonic inputs, and shows in which syntactic functions ideophones are used.
**Amharic** (Ethiosemitic, Ethiopia) has complex predicates which consist of an invariant coverb followed by an inflecting light verb. **Ronny Meyer**'s article provides a detailed description of the elements that can function as coverbs in complex predicates and provides a language-internal morphosyntactic definition of ideophones as a word class. It is argued that only ideophonic coverbs can form noncausal/causal complex predicate pairs with the light verbs *alä* 'say' and *adärrägä* 'do'. In addition to a large number of basic ideophonic lexemes, Amharic can also derive ideophones from verbal roots through dedicated templates (non-linear morphology) expressing intensification or attenuation of the event denoted by the root.

Based on a recently collected fieldwork corpus, **Rozenn Guérois**'s paper offers an overview of ideophones in **Sena**, a Bantu language spoken in central Mozambique. By closely examining the different features (phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics) of Sena ideophones, her paper aims to identify the language-internal aspects of ideophones. The claim is that Sena ideophones are best treated as a distinctive word class whose members can be used in a variety of syntactic constructions. A crucial syntactic property is their ability to be used as independent and holophrastic predicates.

**Isabelle Bril** presents a study of ideophones in **Northern Amis** (East Formosan, Taiwan). Starting from Proto-Austronesian (PAn) “onomatopoetic” roots reconstructed by Blust (1988), she documents Amis words associated with sensory experiences, covering depictive to descriptive functions, and existing along a continuum with onomatopoeia on one end (as fully depictive lexemes) and fully grammatically integrated ideophones on the other (as fully descriptive lexemes). Questions regarding the status of ideophones are particularly interesting in light of the acategorial nature of lexemes in Northern Amis.

**Gilles Authier** describes the ideophones of **Archi** (East Caucasian, Dagestan/Russia), which are defined by their occurrence in light verb constructions with the verb *bos* 'say'. Based on data drawn from an online dictionary (Chumakina et al. 2007), Authier proposes a semantic classification of ideophones, which include sound and speech, non-auditory sensations, ingestion, movement and effortful activities, and places Archi ideophones within the larger context of language contact in the area.

**Nicolas Quint** investigates ideophones in **Upper Guinea Creoles** (West Africa), a family of Afro-Portuguese creoles, based on a combination of field data and published documentation. He investigates the inventory of ideophones in all varieties and shows
**Amharic** (Ethiosemitic, Ethiopia) has complex predicates which consist of an invariant coverb followed by an inflecting light verb. **Ronny Meyer**'s article provides a detailed description of the elements that can function as coverbs in complex predicates and provides a language-internal morphosyntactic definition of ideophones as a word class. It is argued that only ideophonic coverbs can form noncausal/causal complex predicate pairs with the light verbs *alä* 'say' and *adärrägä* 'do'. In addition to a large number of basic ideophonic lexemes, Amharic can also derive ideophones from verbal roots through dedicated templates (non-linear morphology) expressing intensification or attenuation of the event denoted by the root.

Based on a recently collected fieldwork corpus, **Rozenn Guérois**'s paper offers an overview of ideophones in **Sena**, a Bantu language spoken in central Mozambique. By closely examining the different features (phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics) of Sena ideophones, her paper aims to identify the language-internal aspects of ideophones. The claim is that Sena ideophones are best treated as a distinctive word class whose members can be used in a variety of syntactic constructions. A crucial syntactic property is their ability to be used as independent and holophrastic predicates.

**Isabelle Bril** presents a study of ideophones in **Northern Amis** (East Formosan, Taiwan). Starting from Proto-Austronesian (PAn) “onomatopoetic” roots reconstructed by Blust (1988), she documents Amis words associated with sensory experiences, covering depictive to descriptive functions, and existing along a continuum with onomatopoeia on one end (as fully depictive lexemes) and fully grammatically integrated ideophones on the other (as fully descriptive lexemes). Questions regarding the status of ideophones are particularly interesting in light of the acategorial nature of lexemes in Northern Amis.

**Gilles Authier** describes the ideophones of **Archi** (East Caucasian, Dagestan/Russia), which are defined by their occurrence in light verb constructions with the verb *bos* 'say'. Based on data drawn from an online dictionary (Chumakina et al. 2007), Authier proposes a semantic classification of ideophones, which include sound and speech, non-auditory sensations, ingestion, movement and effortful activities, and places Archi ideophones within the larger context of language contact in the area.

**Nicolas Quint** investigates ideophones in **Upper Guinea Creoles** (West Africa), a family of Afro-Portuguese creoles, based on a combination of field data and published documentation. He investigates the inventory of ideophones in all varieties and shows
a divide between the continental branch and the insular (Cape Verdean) branch,
which are mainly in contact with Niger-Congo languages and with Portuguese,
respectively. The presence or absence of ideophones in these contact languages has
had an impact on the size of the inventory and on the phonological and morphological
features of ideophones in each branch of Upper Guinea Creoles.

3. Discussion

As mentioned above, one of our initial questions was about the word class status of ideophones and its language-internal usefulness as a descriptive concept. For the languages discussed in almost all the contributions, ideophones clearly constitute a distinct lexical category, based on morphological and/or syntactic criteria. In such cases, the authors can easily and successfully adopt a bottom-up approach to identify ideophones in the language, and then map them onto the comparative concept proposed by Dingemanse (see esp. Treis, Rose, Meyer, Guérois). Other contributions show that although the comparative concept is not a perfect match for their data, the definition of ideophone is nonetheless useful and allows them to capture relationships between word types that might otherwise be overlooked (this is the case for Kiranti languages). A notable exception is the contribution by Marsault, who adopts a top-down approach to determine how well the comparative concept of ideophones fits the available Umó"ho" data, a methodology constrained by sound-imitating verbal roots which cannot be distinguished from other verbal roots in a systematic way.

Connected to the issue of word class status are questions about the boundary with
other word types which tend to be grouped together under hypernyms such as
“interactives” (Heine 2023) or “expressives” (Foolen 2015; “expressive” is
particularly favored in discussing languages of South and Southeast Asia, see
Badenoch & Choksi 2021; Williams 2021; Diffloth 1976). In the contributions to this
volume, this especially concerns onomatopoeia and interjections.

**Ideophones vs. onomatopoeia.** Onomatopoeia are sometimes treated as a subtype
of ideophones, as by Treis in this volume (see also Treis & Deginet 2024). This
approach is also adopted in Haiman (2018: 82), Hamano (1998) for Japanese, and
several contributions in Körtvélyessy & Štekauer (2024: 4). By contrast, Quint and
Meyer specify that although sound-denoting ideophones are onomatopoeia, not all
onomatopoeia are ideophones. Bril (section 2.2) states that onomatopoeia and
ideophones are best described as two distinct categories in Northern Amis, although
a divide between the continental branch and the insular (Cape Verdean) branch,
which are mainly in contact with Niger-Congo languages and with Portuguese,
respectively. The presence or absence of ideophones in these contact languages has
had an impact on the size of the inventory and on the phonological and morphological
features of ideophones in each branch of Upper Guinea Creoles.

3. Discussion

As mentioned above, one of our initial questions was about the word class status of ideophones and its language-internal usefulness as a descriptive concept. For the languages discussed in almost all the contributions, ideophones clearly constitute a distinct lexical category, based on morphological and/or syntactic criteria. In such cases, the authors can easily and successfully adopt a bottom-up approach to identify ideophones in the language, and then map them onto the comparative concept proposed by Dingemanse (see esp. Treis, Rose, Meyer, Guérois). Other contributions show that although the comparative concept is not a perfect match for their data, the definition of ideophone is nonetheless useful and allows them to capture relationships between word types that might otherwise be overlooked (this is the case for Kiranti languages). A notable exception is the contribution by Marsault, who adopts a top-down approach to determine how well the comparative concept of ideophones fits the available Umó"ho" data, a methodology constrained by sound-imitating verbal roots which cannot be distinguished from other verbal roots in a systematic way.

Connected to the issue of word class status are questions about the boundary with
other word types which tend to be grouped together under hypernyms such as
“ interactives” (Heine 2023) or “ expressives” (Foolen 2015; “ expressive” is
particularly favored in discussing languages of South and Southeast Asia, see
Badenoch & Choksi 2021; Williams 2021; Diffloth 1976). In the contributions to this
volume, this especially concerns onomatopoeia and interjections.

**Ideophones vs. onomatopoeia.** Onomatopoeia are sometimes treated as a subtype
of ideophones, as by Treis in this volume (see also Treis & Deginet 2024). This
approach is also adopted in Haiman (2018: 82), Hamano (1998) for Japanese, and
several contributions in Körtvélyessy & Štekauer (2024: 4). By contrast, Quint and
Meyer specify that although sound-denoting ideophones are onomatopoeia, not all
onomatopoeia are ideophones. Bril (section 2.2) states that onomatopoeia and
ideophones are best described as two distinct categories in Northern Amis, although
a few lexemes belong to both categories (i.e., are sometimes used as onomatopoeia and sometimes as ideophones). This suggests that ideophones and onomatopoeia form two distinct but overlapping classes in these languages, in line with Dingemanse (2019: 28). Marsault, for her part, shows that the sound-imitative roots in Umónhoⁿ are completely distinct from onomatopoeia. The different analyses reveal a longstanding difficulty in defining onomatopoeia in typological/comparative terms, due to different definitions and uses of the term, and also due to important cross-linguistic variations concerning their relationship to other word classes. See Körtvélyessy & Štekauer (2024) for a recent handbook on onomatopoeia.

**Ideophones vs. interjections.** In contrast with onomatopoeia, all contributors who mention interjections treat them as a distinct word class from ideophones. This distinction is representative of the literature on the subject. Although ideophones and interjections are often cited together as typical representatives of the expressive or depictive function of language (e.g. Kunene 2001: 189), or for both having irregular phonic patterns (e.g. Ameka 2001: 30; Karani & Andrason 2022: 451), many descriptions make clear that they belong to distinct categories (e.g. Creissels 2001: 75-76; Dingemanse 2011a: 155-157; Karani & Andrason 2022: 455). Some of our contributions, however, mention interjections as adopting ideophonic properties in a specific syntactic environment. In Amharic and Kambaata (Meyer, Treis), ideophones only occur with the light verbs ‘say’ or ‘do’, in what Güldemann (2008) calls quotative constructions, and some interjections undergo semantic shifts when used with ‘say’, leaving them undifferentiated from ideophones. Quotative constructions thus constitute pivot constructions where the same lexeme can be used as an interjection or an ideophone (with distinct semantic results, only the first one being interpretable as reported speech). Authier briefly mentions a couple of conative interjections that can be used in quotative construction with a meaning distinct from direct reported speech (see also Reiter 2011: 478 ff. for interjections used with non-quotative light verbs). To the best of our knowledge, pivot constructions between ideophones and interjections have not been the object of dedicated studies yet.

Our contributions exemplify different systems of ideophones with regard to the ways they are integrated (or not) into the grammar. At the functional and semantic levels, most of the languages described have ideophones with either primarily predicative uses or primarily adverbial uses. This kind of distinction is already widely commented on in the literature, including language-internally. For instance, Güldemann (2008: 282–283) notes that most ideophones, depending on the language,
a few lexemes belong to both categories (i.e., are sometimes used as onomatopoeia and sometimes as ideophones). This suggests that ideophones and onomatopoeia form two distinct but overlapping classes in these languages, in line with Dingemanse (2019: 28). Marsault, for her part, shows that the sound-imitative roots in Umónhoⁿ are completely distinct from onomatopoeia. The different analyses reveal a longstanding difficulty in defining onomatopoeia in typological/comparative terms, due to different definitions and uses of the term, and also due to important cross-linguistic variations concerning their relationship to other word classes. See Körtvélyessy & Štekauer (2024) for a recent handbook on onomatopoeia.

**Ideophones vs. interjections.** In contrast with onomatopoeia, all contributors who mention interjections treat them as a distinct word class from ideophones. This distinction is representative of the literature on the subject. Although ideophones and interjections are often cited together as typical representatives of the expressive or depictive function of language (e.g. Kunene 2001: 189), or for both having irregular phonic patterns (e.g. Ameka 2001: 30; Karani & Andrason 2022: 451), many descriptions make clear that they belong to distinct categories (e.g. Creissels 2001: 75-76; Dingemanse 2011a: 155-157; Karani & Andrason 2022: 455). Some of our contributions, however, mention interjections as adopting ideophonic properties in a specific syntactic environment. In Amharic and Kambaata (Meyer, Treis), ideophones only occur with the light verbs ‘say’ or ‘do’, in what Güldemann (2008) calls quotative constructions, and some interjections undergo semantic shifts when used with ‘say’, leaving them undifferentiated from ideophones. Quotative constructions thus constitute pivot constructions where the same lexeme can be used as an interjection or an ideophone (with distinct semantic results, only the first one being interpretable as reported speech). Authier briefly mentions a couple of conative interjections that can be used in quotative construction with a meaning distinct from direct reported speech (see also Reiter 2011: 478 ff. for interjections used with non-quotative light verbs). To the best of our knowledge, pivot constructions between ideophones and interjections have not been the object of dedicated studies yet.

Our contributions exemplify different systems of ideophones with regard to the ways they are integrated (or not) into the grammar. At the functional and semantic levels, most of the languages described have ideophones with either primarily predicative uses or primarily adverbial uses. This kind of distinction is already widely commented on in the literature, including language-internally. For instance, Güldemann (2008: 282–283) notes that most ideophones, depending on the language,
either occur in regular collocation with another content word to intensify its meaning, or they are semantically and structurally independent. In the second use, he distinguishes between ideophones that “establish [...] an event representation on their own” (2008: 282) and “inserting constructions” (2008: 282) with a ‘say’-verb. For his part, and in parallel to Güldemann, Heine (2023: 153) identifies modifying, free and quotative constructions of ideophones.

We can cite for **primary predicative uses** Teko (Rose), Kambaata (Treis), Amharic (Meyer), Archi (Authier) and Northern Amis (Bril). All of these languages have quotative constructions. Quotative constructions form the only possible syntactic frame for ideophones in Kambaata, Amharic and Archi (and the authors use this as the main criterion for identifying ideophones), while Teko ideophones can also be used as (argument-taking) predicates on their own, and Northern Amis ideophones can be used as (argument-taking) predicates when they take voice markers. By contrast, ideophones in Upper Guinea Creoles (Quint) and the Kiranti languages (Lahaussois) have **adverbial uses**, where they cover different semantic fields but always modify a verb phrase or an adjective. Note that both families have a subcategory of ideophones with an intensifying meaning and that generally combine with only one lexeme. Intensifying ideophones are well-known in the literature (e.g. Newman 1968: 109; Bowler & Gluckman 2018). In Sena (Guérois), ideophones can be used predicatively or adverbially. In their predicative use, they can be used as predicates on their own, or in a complex predicate with a light verb, in which case they are semantically equivalent to nouns or adjectives (in attributive predicate functions). The sound-denoting roots in Umó"ho" (Marsault) are verbal roots, but they are often used in a verb-modifying function in verb series, as Marsault demonstrates.

Finally, both Teko and Sena also feature ideophones in **holophrastic uses**, which are close to predicative uses (we include in this category Rose's "collocational use" of Teko ideophones, where the ideophone forms its own clause but co-expresses an event expressed by a verb in the following clause). In summary, except for the independent uses of ideophones attested in Teko and Sena, all the examples in our contributions show relatively well integrated ideophones, syntactically speaking. (For a recent publication addressing the ambivalent grammatical behavior of ideophones as syntactically detached interactive elements and as fully morphosyntactically integrated constituents, see Andrason & Heine 2023, who view these (and other) uses as different stages in a gradual grammaticalization process).
either occur in regular collocation with another content word to intensify its meaning, or they are semantically and structurally independent. In the second use, he distinguishes between ideophones that “establish [...] an event representation on their own” (2008: 282) and “inserting constructions” (2008: 282) with a ‘say’-verb. For his part, and in parallel to Güldemann, Heine (2023: 153) identifies modifying, free and quotative constructions of ideophones.

We can cite for **primary predicative uses** Teko (Rose), Kambaata (Treis), Amharic (Meyer), Archi (Authier) and Northern Amis (Bril). All of these languages have quotative constructions. Quotative constructions form the only possible syntactic frame for ideophones in Kambaata, Amharic and Archi (and the authors use this as the main criterion for identifying ideophones), while Teko ideophones can also be used as (argument-taking) predicates on their own, and Northern Amis ideophones can be used as (argument-taking) predicates when they take voice markers. By contrast, ideophones in Upper Guinea Creoles (Quint) and the Kiranti languages (Lahaussois) have **adverbial uses**, where they cover different semantic fields but always modify a verb phrase or an adjective. Note that both families have a subcategory of ideophones with an intensifying meaning and that generally combine with only one lexeme. Intensifying ideophones are well-known in the literature (e.g. Newman 1968: 109; Bowler & Gluckman 2018). In Sena (Guérois), ideophones can be used predicatively or adverbially. In their predicative use, they can be used as predicates on their own, or in a complex predicate with a light verb, in which case they are semantically equivalent to nouns or adjectives (in attributive predicate functions). The sound-denoting roots in Umó"ho" (Marsault) are verbal roots, but they are often used in a verb-modifying function in verb series, as Marsault demonstrates.

Finally, both Teko and Sena also feature ideophones in **holophrastic uses**, which are close to predicative uses (we include in this category Rose's "collocational use" of Teko ideophones, where the ideophone forms its own clause but co-expresses an event expressed by a verb in the following clause). In summary, except for the independent uses of ideophones attested in Teko and Sena, all the examples in our contributions show relatively well integrated ideophones, syntactically speaking. (For a recent publication addressing the ambivalent grammatical behavior of ideophones as syntactically detached interactive elements and as fully morphosyntactically integrated constituents, see Andrason & Heine 2023, who view these (and other) uses as different stages in a gradual grammaticalization process).
A still underrepresented issue in the literature is the issue of derivation into or out
of the category of ideophones – although note works on morphological ideo-
phonization processes such as Childs (1989) on Kisi and Le Guen (2014) on Yucatec
Maya; Jacques (2013) describes both word class-preserving ideophonic morphology
as well as the formation of deideophonic verbs and nouns. Most contributions to this
special issue mention cases of **deideophonization through derivation** (and not
merely through syntactic integration and/or semantic shift, resulting in deideophonic
verbs, nouns, or adjectives).<fnref n="1" /> Notably, Treis identifies two productive Kambaata
suffixes dedicated to deriving resultative adjectives and action nouns from ideophones
respectively. Bril discusses the formation of deideophonic nouns, verbs and modifiers
in Northern Amis. Quint shows that a verbalizing suffix is attested on a few
intensifying ideophones of Casamance Upper Guinea Creole, and the resulting verb is
a semantic equivalent to the collocation the ideophone originally occured in. By
contrast, in Archi it is the whole compound <ideophone + ‘say’> that is turned into
an adjective. In the opposite direction, Guérois and Meyer mention productive
**morphological processes of ideophonization**. In the case of Sena, intensifying
ideophones are derived from verbs and are used in collocation with them. In the case
of Amharic, a language with non-linear morphology, two templates for triliteral roots
are used to create ideophones with intensive and attenuative readings from the
corresponding verbs (and are used predicatively with a light verb). These templates
are very productive, as Meyer notes. Moreover, they do not seem to be inherited from
proto-Semitic or proto-Ethiosemitic.

As for the individual details surrounding ideophones in these different languages,
readers are invited to refer to the articles collected here!

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by a public grant overseen by the IdEx Université Paris Cité
(ANR-18-IDEX-0001) as part of the LabEx *Empirical Foundations of Linguistics* (EFL).

<footnote n="1">¹ We are aware that the distinction between derivation and inflection (the latter being analyzable as a consequence of conversion or zero-derivation) can be tricky. Borderline examples in our contributions include Archi's ideophonic compounds (ideophone + verb 'say') turned into adjectives via participle marking.</footnote>
A still underrepresented issue in the literature is the issue of derivation into or out
of the category of ideophones – although note works on morphological ideo-
phonization processes such as Childs (1989) on Kisi and Le Guen (2014) on Yucatec
Maya; Jacques (2013) describes both word class-preserving ideophonic morphology
as well as the formation of deideophonic verbs and nouns. Most contributions to this
special issue mention cases of **deideophonization through derivation** (and not
merely through syntactic integration and/or semantic shift, resulting in deideophonic
verbs, nouns, or adjectives).<fnref n="1" /> Notably, Treis identifies two productive Kambaata
suffixes dedicated to deriving resultative adjectives and action nouns from ideophones
respectively. Bril discusses the formation of deideophonic nouns, verbs and modifiers
in Northern Amis. Quint shows that a verbalizing suffix is attested on a few
intensifying ideophones of Casamance Upper Guinea Creole, and the resulting verb is
a semantic equivalent to the collocation the ideophone originally occured in. By
contrast, in Archi it is the whole compound <ideophone + ‘say’> that is turned into
an adjective. In the opposite direction, Guérois and Meyer mention productive
**morphological processes of ideophonization**. In the case of Sena, intensifying
ideophones are derived from verbs and are used in collocation with them. In the case
of Amharic, a language with non-linear morphology, two templates for triliteral roots
are used to create ideophones with intensive and attenuative readings from the
corresponding verbs (and are used predicatively with a light verb). These templates
are very productive, as Meyer notes. Moreover, they do not seem to be inherited from
proto-Semitic or proto-Ethiosemitic.

As for the individual details surrounding ideophones in these different languages,
readers are invited to refer to the articles collected here!

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by a public grant overseen by the IdEx Université Paris Cité
(ANR-18-IDEX-0001) as part of the LabEx *Empirical Foundations of Linguistics* (EFL).

<footnote n="1">¹ We are aware that the distinction between derivation and inflection (the latter being analyzable as a consequence of conversion or zero-derivation) can be tricky. Borderline examples in our contributions include Archi’s ideophonic compounds (ideophone + verb ‘say’) turned into adjectives via participle marking.</footnote>
References

Akita, Kimi. 2009. *A grammar of sound-symbolic words in Japanese: Theoretical approaches to iconic and lexical properties of Japanese mimetics*. Doctoral dissertation, Kobe University.

Akita, Kimi & Prashant Pardeshi (eds.). 2019. *Ideophones, mimetics and expressives*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.16

Ameka, Felix K. 2001. Ideophones and the nature of the adjective word class in Ewe. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), *Ideophones*, 25–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Andrason, Alexander & Bernd Heine. 2023. On the grammaticalization of ideophones. In Sylvia Hancil & Vittorio Tantucci (eds.), *Different slants on grammaticalization*, 237–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Armoskaite, Solveiga & Päivi Koskinen (eds.). 2017. Structuring sensory imagery: Ideophones across languages and cultures. Special issue of *Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique* 62(2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2017.12

Badenoch, Nathan & Nishaant Choksi (eds.). 2021. *Expressives in the South Asian Linguistic Area*. Leiden: Brill.

Barrett, Rusty & Anthony K. Webster & Tuomas Huumo. 2014. Introduction: Ideophones: Between grammar and poetry. *Pragmatics and Society* 5(3). 335–340.

Blust, Robert. 1988. *Austronesian Root Theory; an essay on the limits of morphology*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bowler, Margit & John Gluckman. 2018. Intensifying ideophones in three Luhya languages. In Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten & Elizabeth Coppock (eds.), *Proceedings of TripleA 4: Fieldwork perspectives on the semantics of African, Asian and Austronesian languages, University of Gothenburg, June 9-11, 2017*, 31–47. Tübingen: Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen.

Childs, G. Tucker. 1989. Where do ideophones come from? *Studies in the Linguistic Sciences* 19(2). 55–76.

Chumakina, Marina & Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett & Harley Quilliam. 2007. *A dictionary of Archi: Archi-Russian-English* (Online edition). University of Surrey. http://dx.doi.org/10.15126/SMG.16/2
## References

Akita, Kimi. 2009. *A grammar of sound-symbolic words in Japanese: Theoretical approaches to iconic and lexical properties of Japanese mimetics*. Doctoral dissertation, Kobe University.

Akita, Kimi & Prashant Pardeshi (eds.). 2019. *Ideophones, mimetics and expressives*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.16

Ameka, Felix K. 2001. Ideophones and the nature of the adjective word class in Ewe. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), *Ideophones*, 25–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Andrason, Alexander & Bernd Heine. 2023. On the grammaticalization of ideophones. In Sylvia Hancil & Vittorio Tantucci (eds.), *Different slants on grammaticalization*, 237–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Armoskaite, Solveiga & Päivi Koskinen (eds.). 2017. Structuring sensory imagery: Ideophones across languages and cultures. Special issue of *Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique* 62(2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2017.12

Badenoch, Nathan & Nishaant Choksi (eds.). 2021. *Expressives in the South Asian Linguistic Area*. Leiden: Brill.

Barrett, Rusty & Anthony K. Webster & Tuomas Huumo. 2014. Introduction: Ideophones: Between grammar and poetry. *Pragmatics and Society* 5(3). 335–340.

Blust, Robert. 1988. *Austronesian Root Theory; an essay on the limits of morphology*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bowler, Margit & John Gluckman. 2018. Intensifying ideophones in three Luhya languages. In Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten & Elizabeth Coppock (eds.), *Proceedings of TripleA 4: Fieldwork perspectives on the semantics of African, Asian and Austronesian languages, University of Gothenburg, June 9-11, 2017*, 31–47. Tübingen: Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen.

Childs, G. Tucker. 1989. Where do ideophones come from? *Studies in the Linguistic Sciences* 19(2). 55–76.

Chumakina, Marina & Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett & Harley Quilliam. 2007. *A dictionary of Archi: Archi-Russian-English* (Online edition). University of Surrey. http://dx.doi.org/10.15126/SMG.16/2
Creissels, Denis. 2001. Setswana ideophones as uninflected predicative lexemes. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), *Ideophones*, 75–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Diffloth, Gérard. 1976. Expressives in Semai. In *Austroasiatic Studies Part 1* (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 13), 249–264. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2011a. *The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu*. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2011b. Ezra Pound among the Mawu: Ideophones and iconicity in Siwu. In Pascal Michelucci & Olga Fischer & Christina Ljungberg (eds.), *Semblance and signification*, 39–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. *Language and Linguistics Compass* 6(10). 654–672.
https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.361

Dingemanse, Mark. 2017. Expressiveness and system integration: On the typology of ideophones, with special reference to Siwu. *Language Typology and Universals* 70(2). 363–384. https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2017-0018

Dingemanse, Mark. 2019. ‘Ideophone’ as a comparative concept. In Kimi Akita & Parshant Pardeshi (eds.), *Ideophones, mimetics and expressives*, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dingemanse, Mark & Kimi Akita. 2016. An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: On the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones, with special reference to Japanese. *Journal of Linguistics* 53(3). 501–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002222671600030X

Doke, Clement M. 1935. *Bantu linguistic terminology*. London: Longmans Green.

Foolen, Ad. 2015. Expressives. In Rick Riemer (ed.), *The Routledge handbook of semantics*, 473–490. London: Routledge.

Güldemann, Tom. 2008. *Quotative indexes in African languages*. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Haiman, John. 2018. *Ideophones and the evolution of language*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hamano, Shoko. 1998. *The sound-symbolic system of Japanese*. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Heine, Bernd. 2023. *The grammar of interactives*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creissels, Denis. 2001. Setswana ideophones as uninflected predicative lexemes. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), *Ideophones*, 75–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Diffloth, Gérard. 1976. Expressives in Semai. In *Austroasiatic Studies Part 1* (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 13), 249–264. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2011a. *The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu*. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2011b. Ezra Pound among the Mawu: Ideophones and iconicity in Siwu. In Pascal Michelucci & Olga Fischer & Christina Ljungberg (eds.), *Semblance and signification*, 39–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. *Language and Linguistics Compass* 6(10). 654–672.
https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.361

Dingemanse, Mark. 2017. Expressiveness and system integration: On the typology of ideophones, with special reference to Siwu. *Language Typology and Universals* 70(2). 363–384. https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2017-0018

Dingemanse, Mark. 2019. ‘Ideophone’ as a comparative concept. In Kimi Akita & Parshant Pardeshi (eds.), *Ideophones, mimetics and expressives*, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dingemanse, Mark & Kimi Akita. 2016. An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: On the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones, with special reference to Japanese. *Journal of Linguistics* 53(3). 501–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002222671600030X

Doke, Clement M. 1935. *Bantu linguistic terminology*. London: Longmans Green.

Foolen, Ad. 2015. Expressives. In Rick Riemer (ed.), *The Routledge handbook of semantics*, 473–490. London: Routledge.

Güldemann, Tom. 2008. *Quotative indexes in African languages*. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Haiman, John. 2018. *Ideophones and the evolution of language*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hamano, Shoko. 1998. *The sound-symbolic system of Japanese*. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Heine, Bernd. 2023. *The grammar of interactives*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hinton, Leanne & Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala (eds.). 1994. *Sound symbolism*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hirose, Masayoshi. 1981. *Japanese and English contrastive lexicology: The role of Japanese “mimetic adverbs”*. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.

Jacques, Guillaume. 2013. Ideophones in Japhug (Rgyalrong). *Anthropological Linguistics* 55(3). 256–287.

Karani, Michael & Alexander Andrason. 2022. Ideophones in Arusa Maasai: Syntax, morphology, and phonetics. *Open Linguistics* 8(1). 440–458.
https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2022-0220

Körtvélyessy, Lívia & Pavol Štekauer (eds.). 2024. *Onomatopoeia in the world's languages*. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111053226

Kunene, Daniel P. 2001. Speaking the act. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), *Ideophones*, 183–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lahti, Katherine & Rusty Barrett & Anthony K. Webster (eds.). 2014. *Ideophones: Between grammar and poetry* (Special issue of *Pragmatics and Society* 5.3).
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.5.3

Le Guen, Olivier. 2014. Expressive morphology in Yucatec Maya. In Jean Léo Léonard & Alain Kihm (eds.), *Patterns in Mesoamerican morphology*, 178–211. Paris: Michel Houdiard.

McLean, Bonnie. 2021. Revising an implicational hierarchy for the meanings of ideophones, with special reference to Japonic. *Linguistic Typology* 25(3). 507–549.
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2063

Newman, Paul. 1968. Ideophones from a syntactic point of view. *Journal of West African languages* 5. 107–117.

Nuckolls, Janis B. 1999. The case for sound symbolism. *Annual Review of Anthropology* 28. 225–252.

Reiter, Sabine. 2011. *Ideophones in Awetí*. Doctoral dissertation, Universität zu Kiel.

Thompson, Arthur Lewis & Youngah Do. 2019. Defining iconicity: An articulation-based methodology for explaining the phonological structure of ideophones. *Glossa: a journal of general linguistics* 4(1):72. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.872

Treis, Yvonne & Deginet Wotango Doyiso. 2024. Onomatopoeia in Kambaata. In Lívia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), *Onomatopoeia in the world's languages*, 81–92 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hinton, Leanne & Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala (eds.). 1994. *Sound symbolism*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hirose, Masayoshi. 1981. *Japanese and English contrastive lexicology: The role of Japanese “mimetic adverbs”*. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.

Jacques, Guillaume. 2013. Ideophones in Japhug (Rgyalrong). *Anthropological Linguistics* 55(3). 256–287.

Karani, Michael & Alexander Andrason. 2022. Ideophones in Arusa Maasai: Syntax, morphology, and phonetics. *Open Linguistics* 8(1). 440–458.
https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2022-0220

Körtvélyessy, Lívia & Pavol Štekauer (eds.). 2024. *Onomatopoeia in the world's languages*. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111053226

Kunene, Daniel P. 2001. Speaking the act. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), *Ideophones*, 183–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lahti, Katherine & Rusty Barrett & Anthony K. Webster (eds.). 2014. *Ideophones: Between grammar and poetry* (Special issue of *Pragmatics and Society* 5.3).
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.5.3

Le Guen, Olivier. 2014. Expressive morphology in Yucatec Maya. In Jean Léo Léonard & Alain Kihm (eds.), *Patterns in Mesoamerican morphology*, 178–211. Paris: Michel Houdiard.

McLean, Bonnie. 2021. Revising an implicational hierarchy for the meanings of ideophones, with special reference to Japonic. *Linguistic Typology* 25(3). 507–549.
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2063

Newman, Paul. 1968. Ideophones from a syntactic point of view. *Journal of West African languages* 5. 107–117.

Nuckolls, Janis B. 1999. The case for sound symbolism. *Annual Review of Anthropology* 28. 225–252.

Reiter, Sabine. 2011. *Ideophones in Awetí*. Doctoral dissertation, Universität zu Kiel.

Thompson, Arthur Lewis & Youngah Do. 2019. Defining iconicity: An articulation-based methodology for explaining the phonological structure of ideophones. *Glossa: a journal of general linguistics* 4(1):72. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.872

Treis, Yvonne & Deginet Wotango Doyiso. 2024. Onomatopoeia in Kambaata. In Lívia Körtvélyessy & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), *Onomatopoeia in the world's languages*, 81–92 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Van Hoey, Thomas. 2023. A semantic map for ideophones. In Thomas Fuyin Li (ed.), *Handbook of cognitive semantics*, vol. 2, 129–175. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/muhpd

Voeltz, F. K. Erhard & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.). 2001. *Ideophones*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Williams, Jeffrey P. (ed.). 2021. *Expressive morphology in the languages of South Asia*. Oxon: Routledge.

Winter, Bodo & Greg Woodin & Marcus Perlman. forthcoming. Defining iconicity for the cognitive sciences. In Olga Fisher & Kimi Akita & Pamela Perniss (eds.), *Oxford handbook of iconicity in language*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CONTACT

julie.marsault@inalco.fr

aimee.lahaussois@cnrs.fr

yvonne.treis@cnrs.fr
Van Hoey, Thomas. 2023. A semantic map for ideophones. In Thomas Fuyin Li (ed.), *Handbook of cognitive semantics*, vol. 2, 129–175. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/muhpd

Voeltz, F. K. Erhard & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.). 2001. *Ideophones*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Williams, Jeffrey P. (ed.). 2021. *Expressive morphology in the languages of South Asia*. Oxon: Routledge.

Winter, Bodo & Greg Woodin & Marcus Perlman. forthcoming. Defining iconicity for the cognitive sciences. In Olga Fisher & Kimi Akita & Pamela Perniss (eds.), *Oxford handbook of iconicity in language*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CONTACT

julie.marsault@inalco.fr

aimee.lahaussois@cnrs.fr

yvonne.treis@cnrs.fr
# Terminological diversity in descriptions of Kiranti ideophonic lexemes

AIMÉE LAHAUSSOIS

UNIVERSITÉ PARIS CITÉ & UNIVERSITÉ SORBONNE NOUVELLE

CNRS, UMR 7597 HISTOIRE DES THÉORIES LINGUISTIQUES

Submitted: 30/01/2023 Revised version: 23/08/2023

Accepted: 09/10/2023 Published: 12/06/2024

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (The authors remain the copyright holders and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article).

## Abstract

In this article, I document terms which have been used for ideophonic lexemes in descriptions of Kiranti (Trans-Himalayan/Sino-Tibetan) languages and their evolution over time. This involves identifying ideophonic lexemes in existing descriptions of these languages, on the basis of morphophonological patterns they tend to share throughout the Kiranti area (Eastern Nepal), collecting all the associated terms, and placing them in the context of the descriptions in which they appear. This analysis of the terminological choices by different authors in descriptive work on these languages is motivated by a desire to make data on ideophones in this linguistic area more accessible to a typologically oriented readership. In so doing, it raises awareness about the difficulties in describing these lexemes before the appearance of a unified comparable framework, something we now have access to through work by researchers such as Dingemanse.

**Keywords:** Nepal; Kiranti grammaticography; ideophones; onomatopoeia; expressives.

## 1. Introduction

Ideophones are an increasingly popular research topic for South Asian languages, judging from the growing number of publications presenting descriptions of
# Terminological diversity in descriptions of Kiranti ideophonic lexemes

AIMÉE LAHAUSSOIS

UNIVERSITÉ PARIS CITÉ & UNIVERSITÉ SORBONNE NOUVELLE

CNRS, UMR 7597 HISTOIRE DES THÉORIES LINGUISTIQUES

Submitted: 30/01/2023 Revised version: 23/08/2023

Accepted: 09/10/2023 Published: 12/06/2024

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (The authors remain the copyright holders and grant third parties the right to use, reproduce, and share the article).

## Abstract

In this article, I document terms which have been used for ideophonic lexemes in descriptions of Kiranti (Trans-Himalayan/Sino-Tibetan) languages and their evolution over time. This involves identifying ideophonic lexemes in existing descriptions of these languages, on the basis of morphophonological patterns they tend to share throughout the Kiranti area (Eastern Nepal), collecting all the associated terms, and placing them in the context of the descriptions in which they appear. This analysis of the terminological choices by different authors in descriptive work on these languages is motivated by a desire to make data on ideophones in this linguistic area more accessible to a typologically oriented readership. In so doing, it raises awareness about the difficulties in describing these lexemes before the appearance of a unified comparable framework, something we now have access to through work by researchers such as Dingemanse.

**Keywords:** Nepal; Kiranti grammaticography; ideophones; onomatopoeia; expressives.

## 1. Introduction

Ideophones are an increasingly popular research topic for South Asian languages, judging from the growing number of publications presenting descriptions of
terminological choices and of what is gained and lost by the choice of a particular
term. Section 5 presents my conclusions.

## 2. Data and methods

The 30-odd Kiranti languages are spoken in Eastern Nepal, and generally considered
to form a subgroup,<fnref n="2" /> belonging to the Trans-Himalayan language family. Their
geographical distribution is shown in Figure 1. For information on the general
characteristics of Kiranti languages, see Michailovsky (2017) and Ebert (1994).

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

CC-BY-SA Sebastian Nordhoff

<caption>**Figure 1:** Map of the Kiranti area, adapted from Schlemmer (2021).</caption>

<footnote n="2">² See, however, Gerber & Grollman (2018) for a discussion of why this is not a given.</footnote>
terminological choices and of what is gained and lost by the choice of a particular
term. Section 5 presents my conclusions.

## 2. Data and methods

The 30-odd Kiranti languages are spoken in Eastern Nepal, and generally considered
to form a subgroup,<fnref n="2" /> belonging to the Trans-Himalayan language family. Their
geographical distribution is shown in Figure 1. For information on the general
characteristics of Kiranti languages, see Michailovsky (2017) and Ebert (1994).

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

CC-BY-SA Sebastian Nordhoff

<caption>**Figure 1:** Map of the Kiranti area, adapted from Schlemmer (2021).</caption>

<footnote n="2">² See, however, Gerber & Grollman (2018) for a discussion of why this is not a given.</footnote>
**2.1. Database**

The Western-metalanguage descriptive tradition for Kiranti languages dates back to the mid-19th century, beginning with two sketches by Hodgson of Vayu (VAY<fnref n="3" />; now usually Hayu or Wayu) and Bahing (BHJ), published in 1857 and 1857-58 respectively (Hodgson 1857a, 1857b, 1858). These are followed by the sketches in the *Linguistic Survey of India* (LSI), with Kiranti materials appearing in Volume 3.1 (Grierson 1909). For the most part, the LSI materials are taken from pre-existing sources, such as Hodgson's aforementioned sketches, and comparative word and phrase lists, and supplemented by specimen texts, including the Parable of the Prodigal Son collected by Grierson's collaborators (Majeed 2019a, 2019b; Lahaussois 2021). Some thirty years after the *Linguistic Survey of India* sketches, sketches of Sangpang (RAV), Khambu (KHAM1300), Kulung (KLE) and Thulung (TDH) were produced by Wolfenden (1933a, 1933b, 1934, 1935) on the basis, again, of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, collected by Wolfenden himself in the four languages. None of the above materials describe or present anything resembling ideophones.

The grammaticography<fnref n="4" /> of Kiranti languages picks up considerably in the 1970's with work on Khaling (KLR) (Toba 1984), Thulung (Allen 1975), Bantawa (BAP) (Rai 1984), Limbu (LIF, Weidert & Subba 1985; van Driem 1987), and Hayu (Michailovsky 1988). There follows a period of intensive activity in the description of these languages, through a large number of dissertations and published grammars: Dumi (DUS) (van Driem 1993; Rai 2016), Camling (RAB) (Ebert 1997a; Rai 2012), Athpare (APH) (Ebert 1997b), Yamphu (YBI) (Rutgers 1998), Wambule (WME) (Opgenort 2004), Jero (JEE) (Opgenort 2005), Kulung (KLE) (Tolsma 2006), Chhatthare Limbu (LIF) (Tumbahang 2007; Tumbahang 2017), Sunwar (SUZ) (Borchers 2008), Bantawa (BAP) (Doornenbal 2009), Puma (PUM) (Sharma 2014), Koyee (KKT) (Rai 2015), Chintang (CTN) (Paudyal 2015), Yakkha (YBH) (Schackow 2015).<fnref n="5" /> The study presented in this article takes as its primary sources these 23 more recent grammatical descriptions, which are supplemented by four articles which focus on ideophones (see Table 3).

<footnote n="3">³ All abbreviations for language names are ISO 639-3; dialects do not have their own code, and the language code is thus reprised for different dialects.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ The term, which is in common use in my research group on the history of linguistics and of linguistic description (Histoire des théories linguistiques, UMR 7597), is defined by Lehman & Maslova (2004: 1857) as follows: “At the object level, grammaticography is (the practice _ experience or art _ of) grammar writing. At the meta-level, it is the investigation of methodological principles that reconcile this practice with linguistic theorizing.” I prefer to adopt the term “metagrammaticography” for the second, ‘meta’ definition, and to reserve “grammaticography” for grammar-writing.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Ongoing work on Kiranti should soon result in grammars of Mewahang and of Nachiring.</footnote>
**2.1. Database**

The Western-metalanguage descriptive tradition for Kiranti languages dates back to the mid-19th century, beginning with two sketches by Hodgson of Vayu (VAY<fnref n="3" />; now usually Hayu or Wayu) and Bahing (BHJ), published in 1857 and 1857-58 respectively (Hodgson 1857a, 1857b, 1858). These are followed by the sketches in the *Linguistic Survey of India* (LSI), with Kiranti materials appearing in Volume 3.1 (Grierson 1909). For the most part, the LSI materials are taken from pre-existing sources, such as Hodgson's aforementioned sketches, and comparative word and phrase lists, and supplemented by specimen texts, including the Parable of the Prodigal Son collected by Grierson's collaborators (Majeed 2019a, 2019b; Lahaussois 2021). Some thirty years after the *Linguistic Survey of India* sketches, sketches of Sangpang (RAV), Khambu (KHAM1300), Kulung (KLE) and Thulung (TDH) were produced by Wolfenden (1933a, 1933b, 1934, 1935) on the basis, again, of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, collected by Wolfenden himself in the four languages. None of the above materials describe or present anything resembling ideophones.

The grammaticography<fnref n="4" /> of Kiranti languages picks up considerably in the 1970's with work on Khaling (KLR) (Toba 1984), Thulung (Allen 1975), Bantawa (BAP) (Rai 1984), Limbu (LIF, Weidert & Subba 1985; van Driem 1987), and Hayu (Michailovsky 1988). There follows a period of intensive activity in the description of these languages, through a large number of dissertations and published grammars: Dumi (DUS) (van Driem 1993; Rai 2016), Camling (RAB) (Ebert 1997a; Rai 2012), Athpare (APH) (Ebert 1997b), Yamphu (YBI) (Rutgers 1998), Wambule (WME) (Opgenort 2004), Jero (JEE) (Opgenort 2005), Kulung (KLE) (Tolsma 2006), Chhatthare Limbu (LIF) (Tumbahang 2007; Tumbahang 2017), Sunwar (SUZ) (Borchers 2008), Bantawa (BAP) (Doornenbal 2009), Puma (PUM) (Sharma 2014), Koyee (KKT) (Rai 2015), Chintang (CTN) (Paudyal 2015), Yakkha (YBH) (Schackow 2015).<fnref n="5" /> The study presented in this article takes as its primary sources these 23 more recent grammatical descriptions, which are supplemented by four articles which focus on ideophones (see Table 3).

<footnote n="3">³ All abbreviations for language names are ISO 639-3; dialects do not have their own code, and the language code is thus reprised for different dialects.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ The term, which is in common use in my research group on the history of linguistics and of linguistic description (Histoire des théories linguistiques, UMR 7597), is defined by Lehman & Maslova (2004: 1857) as follows: “At the object level, grammaticography is (the practice _ experience or art _ of) grammar writing. At the meta-level, it is the investigation of methodological principles that reconcile this practice with linguistic theorizing.” I prefer to adopt the term “metagrammaticography” for the second, ‘meta’ definition, and to reserve “grammaticography” for grammar-writing.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Ongoing work on Kiranti should soon result in grammars of Mewahang and of Nachiring.</footnote>
The sketch descriptions found in Thurgood & LaPolla (2017), some of which are on Kiranti languages, are not taken into account here, nor are theses and dissertations focusing on a specific topic.<fnref n="6" />

## 2.2. Methodology

In this study, I seek to understand how the terms across the sources of the database differ and how they have spread. I do this not with any prescriptive ambitions, but in order to draw attention to the fact that many more Kiranti grammars contain ideophonic material than I had previously suspected (Kelly & Lahaussois 2021) and that the terms chosen by different grammarians may obscure this fact.

The methodology adopted here was to search the descriptions for lexemes conforming to morphophonological patterns identified as ideophonic in Kiranti (Lahaussois 2023) and to document any information relating to their description in the sources: adopted terminology, explanations of the choice of the term, comparisons with other existing terms, and any other patterns or templates associated with these other terms.

The morphophonological patterns I used to identify these lexemes are of four types. The very same or similar patterns are found across multiple Kiranti languages, and associated with an adverbial (and sometimes adjectival) function. The examples illustrating these patterns in (1) - (7) are all from my corpus of Thulung.<fnref n="7" />

a) A preverbal pattern, which tends to be monosyllabic, but can also be bisyllabic; when the latter, it tends strongly to have the same vowel in both syllables, and exists, in many of these cases, as a variant to the monosyllabic version. The ideophonic preverb is bolded in (1):

(1)

bloku-ra
river-LOC
sep
IDEO.PRVB

hojkorma
flood
bʌk-tʊ
sweep-away-3SG > 3SG.PST

jok-ta-lo
come.down-PST-TEMP
person

mʊtsʊ
wo
also

<footnote n="6">⁶ Bickel (1996) on TAM in Belhare is, however, used as a datapoint, as the first work to refer to ideophones by name.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ The corpus consists of more than 10 hours of annotated data, collected over twenty years; a considerable number of the texts are available on the Pangloss archive, https://pangloss.cnrs.fr/corpus/Thulung_Rai?lang=en</footnote>
The sketch descriptions found in Thurgood & LaPolla (2017), some of which are on Kiranti languages, are not taken into account here, nor are theses and dissertations focusing on a specific topic.<fnref n="6" />

## 2.2. Methodology

In this study, I seek to understand how the terms across the sources of the database differ and how they have spread. I do this not with any prescriptive ambitions, but in order to draw attention to the fact that many more Kiranti grammars contain ideophonic material than I had previously suspected (Kelly & Lahaussois 2021) and that the terms chosen by different grammarians may obscure this fact.

The methodology adopted here was to search the descriptions for lexemes conforming to morphophonological patterns identified as ideophonic in Kiranti (Lahaussois 2023) and to document any information relating to their description in the sources: adopted terminology, explanations of the choice of the term, comparisons with other existing terms, and any other patterns or templates associated with these other terms.

The morphophonological patterns I used to identify these lexemes are of four types. The very same or similar patterns are found across multiple Kiranti languages, and associated with an adverbial (and sometimes adjectival) function. The examples illustrating these patterns in (1) - (7) are all from my corpus of Thulung.<fnref n="7" />

a) A preverbal pattern, which tends to be monosyllabic, but can also be bisyllabic; when the latter, it tends strongly to have the same vowel in both syllables, and exists, in many of these cases, as a variant to the monosyllabic version. The ideophonic preverb is bolded in (1):

(1)

bloku-ra
river-LOC
sep
IDEO.PRVB

hojkorma
flood
bʌk-tʊ
sweep-away-3SG > 3SG.PST

jok-ta-lo
come.down-PST-TEMP
person

mʊtsʊ
wo
also

<footnote n="6">⁶ Bickel (1996) on TAM in Belhare is, however, used as a datapoint, as the first work to refer to ideophones by name.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ The corpus consists of more than 10 hours of annotated data, collected over twenty years; a considerable number of the texts are available on the Pangloss archive, https://pangloss.cnrs.fr/corpus/Thulung_Rai?lang=en</footnote>
‘In the river, when the flood came down, it swept away people as well.’ (Field notes, Dec. 2022)

Ideophonic preverbs of this type, in Thulung, have semantics which convey suddenness, abruptness, or thoroughness, and generally collocate with a limited set of action verbs. They cannot host derivational morphology and are inseparable from the collocating verb, with nothing able to be inserted between the two.

b) A reduplicated pattern which is not morphological (i.e. the unreduplicated form is not found). The reduplication can be full or partial. This pattern, illustrated in (2)-(4), includes (adverbial) onomatopoeia, as in (3).

(2) **khurukhuru** mi-dzøpa lapdi mi-lʌk-tsi
IDEO.continuously NEG-good road NEG-go-2DU
‘Do not go continuously on the bad road.’ (Eagle story)

(3) **qhuŋkuŋqhuŋkuŋ** qum-mu
IDEO.drumming.sound beat-INF
‘to make a drum sound.’ (Field notes, Dec. 2022)

(4) **sunjaksunjak** khram-mu
IDEO.soundlessly cry-INF
‘to cry soundlessly.’ (Field notes, Dec. 2022)

This pattern is able to host nominalizing morphology, in which case the lexeme can
be used attributively (or referentially).<fnref n="8" />

c) A triplicated pattern, which results in a three-syllable lexeme; in some languages, the pattern can be fully triplicated, with the same syllable throughout, while in others, it is partially triplicated,<fnref n="9" /> with one initial consonant in the first syllable and a different

<footnote n="8">⁸ For a description of nominalization and its functions, see e.g. Lahaussois (2003; 2017b) for Thulung.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ In the consulted data, only Chintang has both partially and fully triplicated ideophones. Other languages seem to have one or the other type only.</footnote>
‘In the river, when the flood came down, it swept away people as well.’ (Field notes, Dec. 2022)

Ideophonic preverbs of this type, in Thulung, have semantics which convey suddenness, abruptness, or thoroughness, and generally collocate with a limited set of action verbs. They cannot host derivational morphology and are inseparable from the collocating verb, with nothing able to be inserted between the two.

b) A reduplicated pattern which is not morphological (i.e. the unreduplicated form is not found). The reduplication can be full or partial. This pattern, illustrated in (2)-(4), includes (adverbial) onomatopoeia, as in (3).

(2) **khurukhuru** mi-dzøpa lapdi mi-lʌk-tsi
IDEO.continuously NEG-good road NEG-go-2DU
‘Do not go continuously on the bad road.’ (Eagle story)

(3) **qhuŋkuŋqhuŋkuŋ** quŋ-mu
IDEO.drumming.sound beat-INF
‘to make a drum sound.’ (Field notes, Dec. 2022)

(4) **sunjaksunjak** khram-mu
IDEO.soundlessly cry-INF
‘to cry soundlessly.’ (Field notes, Dec. 2022)

This pattern is able to host nominalizing morphology, in which case the lexeme can
be used attributively (or referentially).<fnref n="8" />

c) A triplicated pattern, which results in a three-syllable lexeme; in some languages, the pattern can be fully triplicated, with the same syllable throughout, while in others, it is partially triplicated,<fnref n="9" /> with one initial consonant in the first syllable and a different

<footnote n="8">⁸ For a description of nominalization and its functions, see e.g. Lahaussois (2003; 2017b) for Thulung.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ In the consulted data, only Chintang has both partially and fully triplicated ideophones. Other languages seem to have one or the other type only.</footnote>
initial consonant in the second and third but the same vowel throughout. Thulung
only has partial triplication, illustrated in (5)–(6).

(5) *par-lajka* kʌn **plititi** luk-ta
wound-ABL pus IDEO.oozing come.out-3SG.PST
‘The pus oozed out of the wound.’ (Field notes, Dec. 2022)

(6) *wakha:tam* **sututu** tsar-so-ra
slowly IDEO.sliding drop-DER-2SG > 3SG.IMP
‘Drop it slowly in a sliding motion.’ (Field notes, Dec. 2022)

d) A pattern ending in a geminated consonant followed by ʌ(i) or a(i); this pattern is
well attested in Nepali, and the extent to which these words are loans is not clear
across languages where it is found, despite some examples in Thulung which are not
found in Nepali, such as that in (7).

(7) *u-miksi-ra* memsaka-ŋa suk-tuʔ
3SG.POSS-eye-LOC like.that-INT stick.in-3SG > 3SG.PST ?e
HS

*grwappi* suk-tuʔ
IDEO.forcefully stick.in-3SG > 3SG.PST ?e
HS

‘She stuck it into his eye like that, she **forcefully** stuck it in.’ (Eagle story)

**2.3. Distribution of ideophones across the corpus**

The same patterns have been found across the Kiranti languages, with the dominant patterns being the reduplicated, found in all descriptions, and the triplicated, found in half (7 of 14) of the languages whose descriptions were examined in Lahaussois (2023, Table 6).

Across the sources, we find no descriptions (not even in word lists) of ideophonic lexemes before the 1970's. Once ideophones start appearing in grammars, it is with rather diverse terminology, as will be discussed in § 3, and with different levels of detail. Table 1 shows, for each grammar featuring sections that at least minimally discuss ideophones, how they are presented. Table 1 indicates the title of the section in question, the higher-level chapter that the section belongs to, and the approximate length of the
initial consonant in the second and third but the same vowel throughout. Thulung
only has partial triplication, illustrated in (5)–(6).

(5) *par-lajka* kʌn *plititi* luk-ta
wound-ABL pus IDEO.oozing come.out-3SG.PST
‘The pus oozed out of the wound.’ (Field notes, Dec. 2022)

(6) *wakha:tam* *sututu* tsar-so-ra
slowly IDEO.sliding drop-DER-2SG > 3SG.IMP
‘Drop it slowly in a sliding motion.’ (Field notes, Dec. 2022)

d) A pattern ending in a geminated consonant followed by ʌ(i) or a(i); this pattern is
well attested in Nepali, and the extent to which these words are loans is not clear
across languages where it is found, despite some examples in Thulung which are not
found in Nepali, such as that in (7).

(7) *u-miksi-ra* memsaka-ŋa suk-tuʔ ?e
3SG.POSS-eye-LOC like.that-INT stick.in-3SG > 3SG.PST HS
*grwappʌi* suk-tuʔ ?e
IDEO.forcefully stick.in-3SG > 3SG.PST HS

‘She stuck it into his eye like that, she **forcefully** stuck it in.’ (Eagle story)

**2.3. Distribution of ideophones across the corpus**

The same patterns have been found across the Kiranti languages, with the dominant patterns being the reduplicated, found in all descriptions, and the triplicated, found in half (7 of 14) of the languages whose descriptions were examined in Lahaussois (2023, Table 6).

Across the sources, we find no descriptions (not even in word lists) of ideophonic lexemes before the 1970's. Once ideophones start appearing in grammars, it is with rather diverse terminology, as will be discussed in § 3, and with different levels of detail. Table 1 shows, for each grammar featuring sections that at least minimally discuss ideophones, how they are presented. Table 1 indicates the title of the section in question, the higher-level chapter that the section belongs to, and the approximate length of the
section on ideophones. Except where indicated, glosses for the ideophones are always lexical, and the transcriptions in all these sources are in IPA (or an adaptation of IPA, using c and j for affricates).

<table><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Position within grammar (+ title)</td><td>Length</td><td>Presentation of examples</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Thulung (Allen 1975)</td><td>§ 3.1 Adverbs of abruptness; 3.2 Reduplication; 3.3 With -maksi (all three sections are within chapter on Adverbs)</td><td>2 pages</td><td>lexical glosses or free translation of example with no glossing</td></tr><tr><td>Bantawa (N.K. Rai 1984)</td><td>§ 5.2.4 Onomatopoetic adverbs (within chapter on Adverbs)</td><td>1.5 pages</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hayu (Michailovsky 1988)</td><td>§ 2.6.3 Mots phonésthétiques (within chapter on phonology)</td><td>1 page</td><td>free translation but no glossing</td></tr><tr><td>Limbu (Weidert & Subba 1985)</td><td>§ 4.5 Adverbs and expressives (within chapter on Morphology)</td><td>0.5 page</td><td>no examples</td></tr><tr><td>Wambule (Opgenort 2004)</td><td>§ 5.10 Adverbial proclitics of manner (within chapter on Nominals and adverbials); also in appended glossary, glossed as compound adverbs or adverbs.</td><td>1.5 pages</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chhatthare Limbu (Tumbahang 2007<sup>10</sup>)</td><td>§ 2.2.8 Derivation of adverbs by reduplication and prefixation (within chapter on Morphology of adverbs)</td><td>1 page</td><td>free translation but no glossing</td></tr><tr><td>Bantawa (Doornenbal 2009)</td><td>§ 8.2.4 Reduplication in adverbs (within chapter on Other word classes)</td><td>1.5 pages</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yakkha (Schackow 2015)</td><td>§ 6.4 Reduplication, triplication and ideophones (within chapter on Adjectives and adverbs)</td><td>8.5 pages</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The section dealing with ideophones is quasi-identical to the one (of the same name) in the later (2017) grammar by the same author, and the latter is therefore not entered into this table.</footnote>
section on ideophones. Except where indicated, glosses for the ideophones are always lexical, and the transcriptions in all these sources are in IPA (or an adaptation of IPA, using c and j for affricates).

<table><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Position within grammar (+ title)</td><td>Length</td><td>Presentation of examples</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Thulung (Allen 1975)</td><td>§ 3.1 Adverbs of abruptness; 3.2 Reduplication; 3.3 With -maksi (all three sections are within chapter on Adverbs)</td><td>2 pages</td><td>lexical glosses or free translation of example with no glossing</td></tr><tr><td>Bantawa (N.K. Rai 1984)</td><td>§ 5.2.4 Onomatopoetic adverbs (within chapter on Adverbs)</td><td>1.5 pages</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hayu (Michailovsky 1988)</td><td>§ 2.6.3 Mots phonésthétiques (within chapter on phonology)</td><td>1 page</td><td>free translation but no glossing</td></tr><tr><td>Limbu (Weidert & Subba 1985)</td><td>§ 4.5 Adverbs and expressives (within chapter on Morphology)</td><td>0.5 page</td><td>no examples</td></tr><tr><td>Wambule (Opgenort 2004)</td><td>§ 5.10 Adverbial proclitics of manner (within chapter on Nominals and adverbials); also in appended glossary, glossed as compound adverbs or adverbs.</td><td>1.5 pages</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chhatthare Limbu (Tumbahang 2007¹⁰)</td><td>§ 2.2.8 Derivation of adverbs by reduplication and prefixation (within chapter on Morphology of adverbs)</td><td>1 page</td><td>free translation but no glossing</td></tr><tr><td>Bantawa (Doornenbal 2009)</td><td>§ 8.2.4 Reduplication in adverbs (within chapter on Other word classes)</td><td>1.5 pages</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yakkha (Schackow 2015)</td><td>§ 6.4 Reduplication, triplication and ideophones (within chapter on Adjectives and adverbs)</td><td>8.5 pages</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The section dealing with ideophones is quasi-identical to the one (of the same name) in the later (2017) grammar by the same author, and the latter is therefore not entered into this table.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1:** Grammars with sections on ideophonic lexemes.</caption><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Position within grammar (+ title)</td><td>Length</td><td>Presentation of examples</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Koyee (T.M. Rai 2015)</td><td>§ 11.4 Onomatopoeia (within chapter on Adverbs and other minor word classes)</td><td>1 page</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dumi (N.M. Rai 2016)</td><td>§ 10.2.7 Expressive adverbs (within chapter on Adverbs and postpositions)</td><td>1 page</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

In some other grammars, the data on ideophones are not described in the main body of the grammar, but instead found in accompanying glossaries or in interlinearized examples (either in the text of the grammar or in appended texts), with the accompanying terminology is in the form of a gloss. The grammars of this type are listed in Table 2, along with the part of the grammar where ideophones are found and the glosses they receive.

<table><caption>**Table 2:** Grammars which mention ideophones but do not have dedicated sections.</caption><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Position within grammar</td><td>Presentation of examples</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Limbu (van Driem 1987)</td><td>glossary</td><td>gloss 'onomatopoeia'</td></tr><tr><td>Dumi (van Driem 1993)</td><td>glossary</td><td>gloss 'onomatopoeia'</td></tr><tr><td>Athpare (Ebert 1997)</td><td>glossed examples and texts</td><td>gloss 'IDEO'</td></tr><tr><td>Camling (Ebert 1997, 2000<sup>11</sup>)</td><td>glossed examples and texts</td><td>gloss 'IDEO'</td></tr><tr><td>Yamphu (Rutgers 1998)</td><td>glossary</td><td>gloss 'adv.onom.', 'adj.redup.', 'adv.redup.', 'adv.'</td></tr><tr><td>Puma (Sharma 2014)</td><td>a few scattered mentions</td><td>no examples, but text uses term 'idiophones' [sic]</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ While Ebert (2000) is not a grammar, it is the volume of texts that serves as a companion to the 1997 grammar of Camling, and is thus considered here for the purposes of identifying mentions of ideophones.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1:** Grammars with sections on ideophonic lexemes.</caption><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Position within grammar (+ title)</td><td>Length</td><td>Presentation of examples</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Koyee (T.M. Rai 2015)</td><td>§ 11.4 Onomatopoeia (within chapter on Adverbs and other minor word classes)</td><td>1 page</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dumi (N.M. Rai 2016)</td><td>§ 10.2.7 Expressive adverbs (within chapter on Adverbs and postpositions)</td><td>1 page</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

In some other grammars, the data on ideophones are not described in the main body of the grammar, but instead found in accompanying glossaries or in interlinearized examples (either in the text of the grammar or in appended texts), with the accompanying terminology is in the form of a gloss. The grammars of this type are listed in Table 2, along with the part of the grammar where ideophones are found and the glosses they receive.

<table><caption>**Table 2:** Grammars which mention ideophones but do not have dedicated sections.</caption><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Position within grammar</td><td>Presentation of examples</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Limbu (van Driem 1987)</td><td>glossary</td><td>gloss 'onomatopoeia'</td></tr><tr><td>Dumi (van Driem 1993)</td><td>glossary</td><td>gloss 'onomatopoeia'</td></tr><tr><td>Athpare (Ebert 1997)</td><td>glossed examples and texts</td><td>gloss 'IDEO'</td></tr><tr><td>Camling (Ebert 1997, 2000<sup>11</sup>)</td><td>glossed examples and texts</td><td>gloss 'IDEO'</td></tr><tr><td>Yamphu (Rutgers 1998)</td><td>glossary</td><td>gloss 'adv.onom.', 'adj.redup.', 'adv.redup.', 'adv.'</td></tr><tr><td>Puma (Sharma 2014)</td><td>a few scattered mentions</td><td>no examples, but text uses term 'idiophones' [sic]</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ While Ebert (2000) is not a grammar, it is the volume of texts that serves as a companion to the 1997 grammar of Camling, and is thus considered here for the purposes of identifying mentions of ideophones.</footnote>
The description of Belhare (BYW) by Bickel (1996) deserves mention, even though it is not a grammar per se and therefore not included in Table 2. It focuses on a specific feature, namely tense, aspect and mood in Belhare. Some examples, which are interlinearized, contain ideophonic lexemes, which are glossed ‘IDEOPH’. This is in fact the earliest instance of “ideophone” as a term in the database.

Another set of sources which were explored are dedicated articles, specifically focusing on ideophones. They are listed in Table 3, as they are presumably important in potentially shaping the descriptions of ideophones appearing in successive grammars.

<table><caption>**Table 3:** Dedicated articles on ideophones in Kiranti.</caption><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Main term</td><td>Subclasses</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bantawa<br>(N.K.Rai &amp; Winter 1997)</td><td>paralexeme</td><td>triplicated verbal adjunct<sup>12</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Chintang<br>(N.K.Rai et al. 2005)</td><td>ideophone</td><td>2 subclasses: reduplicated form;<br>triplicated form<sup>13</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Khaling<br>(Lahaussois 2017a)</td><td>ideophone</td><td>3 subclasses (based on<br>morphophonological pattern)<sup>14</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Thulung<br>(Lahaussois 2023)</td><td>ideophone</td><td>4 subclasses (based on<br>morphophonological pattern)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Other grammars, listed in § 2.1. as part of the corpus of Kiranti grammars, do not contain any material that I am able to identify as pertaining to ideophones: this is the case, in addition to the pre-1970's grammars, for descriptions of Khaling (Toba 1984); Jero (Opgenort 2005), Kulung (Tolsma 2006), Sunwar (Borchers 2008) and Chamling (Rai 2012), regardless of the terminology.

### 3. Terminology found in the corpus

The material presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 gives us a set of terms associated with ideophones across the grammars of the corpus:

<footnote n="12">¹² This subclass is related (but not identical) to Thulung type c illustrated in § 2.2.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ These subclasses are related (but not identical) to Thulung type b and c respectively, illustrated in § 2.2.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ These are the equivalents of Thulung subtypes a, b, and c.</footnote>
The description of Belhare (BYW) by Bickel (1996) deserves mention, even though it is not a grammar per se and therefore not included in Table 2. It focuses on a specific feature, namely tense, aspect and mood in Belhare. Some examples, which are interlinearized, contain ideophonic lexemes, which are glossed ‘IDEOPH’. This is in fact the earliest instance of “ideophone” as a term in the database.

Another set of sources which were explored are dedicated articles, specifically focusing on ideophones. They are listed in Table 3, as they are presumably important in potentially shaping the descriptions of ideophones appearing in successive grammars.

<table><caption>**Table 3:** Dedicated articles on ideophones in Kiranti.</caption><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Main term</td><td>Subclasses</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bantawa (N.K.Rai &amp; Winter 1997)</td><td>paralexeme</td><td>triplicated verbal adjunct<sup>12</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Chintang (N.K.Rai et al. 2005)</td><td>ideophone</td><td>2 subclasses: reduplicated form; triplicated form<sup>13</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Khaling (Lahaussois 2017a)</td><td>ideophone</td><td>3 subclasses (based on morphophonological pattern)<sup>14</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Thulung (Lahaussois 2023)</td><td>ideophone</td><td>4 subclasses (based on morphophonological pattern)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Other grammars, listed in § 2.1. as part of the corpus of Kiranti grammars, do not contain any material that I am able to identify as pertaining to ideophones: this is the case, in addition to the pre-1970’s grammars, for descriptions of Khaling (Toba 1984); Jero (Opgenort 2005), Kulung (Tolsma 2006), Sunwar (Borchers 2008) and Chamling (Rai 2012), regardless of the terminology.

### 3. Terminology found in the corpus

The material presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3 gives us a set of terms associated with ideophones across the grammars of the corpus:

<footnote n="12">¹² This subclass is related (but not identical) to Thulung type c illustrated in § 2.2.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ These subclasses are related (but not identical) to Thulung type b and c respectively, illustrated in § 2.2.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ These are the equivalents of Thulung subtypes a, b, and c.</footnote>
adverb, reduplication, onomatopoeia/onomatopoetic, phonesthetic,
expressive, adverbial proclitics, triplication, ideophone, paralexeme<fnref n="15" />

Note that some of the terms are nouns and other adjectives. One consequence of the presence of adjectival forms is that “adverb”, treated in § 3.6., can occur in combination with the other, more specialized terms from the list above.

Another point deserving mention is that other terms also surface in the grammars, often used as synonyms or comparanda for ideophonic materials and accompanying the main term adopted by the linguist; while other traditional parts of speech rarely get explained by means of alternative terms, ideophones do, suggesting that the main term is felt to be insufficiently well-defined to stand alone.

The subsections which follow explore the use in the individual grammars of the various labels for ideophonic lexemes. The lexemes covered by these terms map onto the morphophonological patterns presented for Thulung in § 2.2., regardless of the label they are assigned.

**3.1. Expressive**

Three grammars in the database use the term “expressive”, usually as an adjective, although in one of the grammars, a nominal form is also found.

Allen, writing on Thulung, uses an umbrella category of “expressive resources” (Allen 1975: 107) for the various subclasses of adverbs which have ideophonic characteristics. The labels given to the three subclasses are the following: “adverbs of abruptness” (Allen 1975: 107), which correspond to the ideophonic preverbs described in § 2 above; “reduplicate adverbs and adjectives” (Allen 1975: 106), which correspond to the reduplicated pattern; and those corresponding to the triplicated pattern, which are not given an explicit label but appear under the heading “Reduplication” (Allen 1975: 108). Allen makes an explicit connection with ideophones in other languages and the Thulung material: “Like the ideophones of many African languages, the expressive adverbs seem to be regarded by native speakers as marginal to the language proper” (Allen 1975: 107).

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ A reviewer wondered whether ‘verbal classifier’, matching the preverbal pattern exemplified for Thulung in § 2.2., was found; it appears in none of the grammars making up the database used here.</footnote>
adverb, reduplication, onomatopoeia/onomatopoetic, phonesthetic,
expressive, adverbial proclitics, triplication, ideophone, paralexeme<fnref n="15" />

Note that some of the terms are nouns and other adjectives. One consequence of the presence of adjectival forms is that “adverb”, treated in § 3.6., can occur in combination with the other, more specialized terms from the list above.

Another point deserving mention is that other terms also surface in the grammars, often used as synonyms or comparanda for ideophonic materials and accompanying the main term adopted by the linguist; while other traditional parts of speech rarely get explained by means of alternative terms, ideophones do, suggesting that the main term is felt to be insufficiently well-defined to stand alone.

The subsections which follow explore the use in the individual grammars of the
various labels for ideophonic lexemes. The lexemes covered by these terms map onto
the morphophonological patterns presented for Thulung in § 2.2., regardless of the
label they are assigned.

**3.1. Expressive**

Three grammars in the database use the term “expressive”, usually as an adjective, although in one of the grammars, a nominal form is also found.

Allen, writing on Thulung, uses an umbrella category of “expressive resources” (Allen 1975: 107) for the various subclasses of adverbs which have ideophonic characteristics. The labels given to the three subclasses are the following: “adverbs of abruptness” (Allen 1975: 107), which correspond to the ideophonic preverbs described in § 2 above; “reduplicate adverbs and adjectives” (Allen 1975: 106), which correspond to the reduplicated pattern; and those corresponding to the triplicated pattern, which are not given an explicit label but appear under the heading “Reduplication” (Allen 1975: 108). Allen makes an explicit connection with ideophones in other languages and the Thulung material: “Like the ideophones of many African languages, the expressive adverbs seem to be regarded by native speakers as marginal to the language proper” (Allen 1975: 107).

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ A reviewer wondered whether ‘verbal classifier’, matching the preverbal pattern exemplified for Thulung in § 2.2., was found; it appears in none of the grammars making up the database used here.</footnote>
In the grammar of Limbu (Weidert & Subba 1985), the first occurrence of
“expressive” in the grammar is accompanied by a paraphrase (“In the case of
expressive or phonaesthetic adverbs” (Weidert & Subba 1985: 15)). It is said of
“expressive adverbs” that they “are not exactly a homogeneous word class because
there is no coherent marking system. But many of them are easily recognized due to
the repetition or near-repetition of the verb syllable with which they get connected
morphosyntactically” (Weidert & Subba 1985: 53-54). The Limbu dictionary which
follows the grammar in the same volume presents quite a number of lexemes, glossed
as expressives: some of them map onto the monosyllabic ideophonic preverbal pattern
(illustrated for Thulung in (1) above); others show a reduplicated pattern.

In N.M. Rai's (2016) grammar of Dumi, the language is described as having a subclass of adverbs called “expressive adverbs” (Rai 2016: 300). They include reduplicated and triplicated forms. Some of the reduplicated adverbs are said to have verbal roots, but others, including some triplicated adverbs, are said to have “onomatopoeic sources” (Rai 2016: 301). Other ideophonic lexemes are found under the label “onomatopoeic nouns” (Rai 2016: 178), although their glosses suggest an adverbial function.<fnref n="16" /> This suggests that “expressive adverbs” are a word class corresponding to ideophones, of which a subclass is sound-imitative, for which the label “onomatopoeic” (see § 3.2.) is used.

The terms “expressive” as a modifier was popular among Prague School linguists
(Diffloth 2021: vii). The nominal form is said to have been coined by Diffloth, as a
calque of the French “impressif” (Diffloth 2021: vii), with the sense that the nominal
form refers to a word class, and is seen as a “technical term” (Diffloth 2021: ix). The
titles of two recent volumes focusing on South Asia (Expressives in the South Asian
Linguistic Area, Badenoch & Choksi eds. 2021; Expressive morphology in the languages
of South Asia, Williams ed. 2021) suggest that both forms of “expressive” are still in
use for descriptions of languages of the larger linguistic area.

**3.2. Onomatopoetic, onomatopoeia**

The terms “onomatopoeia” (as a substantive) and “onomatopoetic” (and variants, as an adjective) are both found in the descriptions. There are two patterns found: a) the

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ These include *dʰiriri* ‘shouting loudly’, *suk-suk* ‘weeping with voice controlled’, *rinini* ‘insects’ sound’, *sʌnʌna* ‘sound of water flowing’.</footnote>
In the grammar of Limbu (Weidert & Subba 1985), the first occurrence of
“expressive” in the grammar is accompanied by a paraphrase (“In the case of
expressive or phonaesthetic adverbs” (Weidert & Subba 1985: 15)). It is said of
“expressive adverbs” that they “are not exactly a homogeneous word class because
there is no coherent marking system. But many of them are easily recognized due to
the repetition or near-repetition of the verb syllable with which they get connected
morphosyntactically” (Weidert & Subba 1985: 53-54). The Limbu dictionary which
follows the grammar in the same volume presents quite a number of lexemes, glossed
as expressives: some of them map onto the monosyllabic ideophonic preverbal pattern
(illustrated for Thulung in (1) above); others show a reduplicated pattern.

In N.M. Rai's (2016) grammar of Dumi, the language is described as having a subclass of adverbs called “expressive adverbs” (Rai 2016: 300). They include reduplicated and triplicated forms. Some of the reduplicated adverbs are said to have verbal roots, but others, including some triplicated adverbs, are said to have “onomatopoeic sources” (Rai 2016: 301). Other ideophonic lexemes are found under the label “onomatopoeic nouns” (Rai 2016: 178), although their glosses suggest an adverbial function.<fnref n="16" /> This suggests that “expressive adverbs” are a word class corresponding to ideophones, of which a subclass is sound-imitative, for which the label “onomatopoeic” (see § 3.2.) is used.

The terms “expressive” as a modifier was popular among Prague School linguists
(Diffloth 2021: vii). The nominal form is said to have been coined by Diffloth, as a
calque of the French “impressif” (Diffloth 2021: vii), with the sense that the nominal
form refers to a word class, and is seen as a “technical term” (Diffloth 2021: ix). The
titles of two recent volumes focusing on South Asia (Expressives in the South Asian
Linguistic Area, Badenoch & Choksi eds. 2021; Expressive morphology in the languages
of South Asia, Williams ed. 2021) suggest that both forms of “expressive” are still in
use for descriptions of languages of the larger linguistic area.

**3.2. Onomatopoetic, onomatopoeia**

The terms “onomatopoeia” (as a substantive) and “onomatopoetic” (and variants, as an adjective) are both found in the descriptions. There are two patterns found: a) the

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ These include *dʰiriri* ‘shouting loudly’, *suk-suk* ‘weeping with voice controlled’, *rinini* ‘insects’ sound’, *sʌnʌna* ‘sound of water flowing’.</footnote>
term is applied to sound-imitative words, conforming to the traditional definition; b) the term is extended beyond sound to other sensory inputs.

As an example of the first situation, van Driem uses the term, as a fully spelled out category label (“onomatopoeia”) in the glossaries appended to his Limbu (van Driem 1987) and Dumi (van Driem 1993) grammars. Because the material is found in the glossary, there is no accompanying text explaining the intent behind its use. The lexemes classified as such do give us a sense of the patterns, such as *pətslək-pətslək* ‘slosh-slosh’ (van Driem 1987: 489), *pyak* ‘slap’ (van Driem 1987: 494), *ya.rrrrr* ‘grrr’ (van Driem 1987: 545), and their glosses show that they are sound imitations.

In the description of Wambule (Opgenort 2004), the term “onomatopoetic” appears in the glossary: lexemes classified as nouns or interjections are occasionally qualified as onomatopoetic, as in the following: “**cikul n** onomatopoetic sound associated with the dashing of an egg, slosh” (Opgenort 2004: 580) and “**hui interj** onomatopoetic cry” (Opgenort 2004: 618).

Four grammars use “onomatopoetic” (and variants) for more than just sound.

The Bantawa grammar by N.K. Rai (1984), which is the earliest Kiranti grammar to use the term “onomatopoetic”, is one of them. It describes a subclass of complex nouns (“onomatopoetic nouns”, Rai 1984: 64) and adverbs (“onomatopoetic adverbs”, Rai 1984: 153), of which a subtype are “triplicated onomatopoetic adverbs”. Of the onomatopoetic nouns, it is said that “[t]he sound, manner or an action of any object is imitated in this type of nouns” (Rai 1984: 64). The list of examples is mostly made up of natural sounds and the names of certain insects.

In the same grammar, “onomatopoetic adverbs” are described as follows: “Manners of some actions are realized through imitation” (Rai 1984: 153). Some examples are *suiyapni* ‘abruptly’, *bhorakni* ‘very loudly.’<fnref n="17" /> An interesting subtype of “onomatopoetic adverbs” are those called “triplicated onomatopoetic adverbs”. Of these, it is said that “the whole triplicated adverb is an imitation of some action, object or feeling, etc.” (Rai 1984: 154). Triplicated onomatopoetic adverbs use the same pattern as triplicated adverbs based on nominal and verbal roots, but are formed from onomatopoeic stems which do not occur independently.

In the body of the grammar of Yamphu (Rutgers 1998), Rutgers devotes no discussion to ideophonic lexemes, apart from two comments about the phonotactics

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Thulung does not have, to my knowledge, any equivalent ideophones or adverbs, and these cannot therefore be related to a type in § 2.2.</footnote>
term is applied to sound-imitative words, conforming to the traditional definition; b) the term is extended beyond sound to other sensory inputs.

As an example of the first situation, van Driem uses the term, as a fully spelled out category label (“onomatopoeia”) in the glossaries appended to his Limbu (van Driem 1987) and Dumi (van Driem 1993) grammars. Because the material is found in the glossary, there is no accompanying text explaining the intent behind its use. The lexemes classified as such do give us a sense of the patterns, such as *pətslək-pətslək* ‘slosh-slosh’ (van Driem 1987: 489), *pyak* ‘slap’ (van Driem 1987: 494), *ya.rrrrr* ‘grrr’ (van Driem 1987: 545), and their glosses show that they are sound imitations.

In the description of Wambule (Opgenort 2004), the term “onomatopoetic” appears in the glossary: lexemes classified as nouns or interjections are occasionally qualified as onomatopoetic, as in the following: “**cikul n** onomatopoetic sound associated with the dashing of an egg, slosh” (Opgenort 2004: 580) and “**hui interj** onomatopoetic cry” (Opgenort 2004: 618).

Four grammars use “onomatopoetic” (and variants) for more than just sound.

The Bantawa grammar by N.K. Rai (1984), which is the earliest Kiranti grammar to use the term “onomatopoetic”, is one of them. It describes a subclass of complex nouns (“onomatopoetic nouns”, Rai 1984: 64) and adverbs (“onomatopoetic adverbs”, Rai 1984: 153), of which a subtype are “triplicated onomatopoetic adverbs”. Of the onomatopoetic nouns, it is said that “[t]he sound, manner or an action of any object is imitated in this type of nouns” (Rai 1984: 64). The list of examples is mostly made up of natural sounds and the names of certain insects.

In the same grammar, “onomatopoetic adverbs” are described as follows: “Manners of some actions are realized through imitation” (Rai 1984: 153). Some examples are *suiyapni* ‘abruptly’, *bhorakni* ‘very loudly.’<fnref n="17" /> An interesting subtype of “onomatopoetic adverbs” are those called “triplicated onomatopoetic adverbs”. Of these, it is said that “the whole triplicated adverb is an imitation of some action, object or feeling, etc.” (Rai 1984: 154). Triplicated onomatopoetic adverbs use the same pattern as triplicated adverbs based on nominal and verbal roots, but are formed from onomatopoeic stems which do not occur independently.

In the body of the grammar of Yamphu (Rutgers 1998), Rutgers devotes no discussion to ideophonic lexemes, apart from two comments about the phonotactics

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Thulung does not have, to my knowledge, any equivalent ideophones or adverbs, and these cannot therefore be related to a type in § 2.2.</footnote>
of onomatopoeic words, with gujiguji 'dark, dusk-like' given as one example (Rutgers 1998: 20). The gloss for this example makes clear that "onomatopoeic" here is used for more than just sound-imitative words. By contrast, we find 'adv. onom' in the glossary, where all the examples are for sound.

T.M. Rai's grammar of Koyee (2015) uses the term "onomatopoeia" for lexemes which, given their glosses, clearly extend beyond the sensory domain of sound: the list provided (Rai 2015: 243–244) includes glosses such as 'way one smells', 'way one licks', 'way something shines', in addition to words that evoke the sense of sound.

There is a strong areal precedent for this extended usage: Emeneau used the term "onomatopoetics" to refer to iconic patterns found across the South Asian linguistic area (Emeneau 1969), and made clear that the sensory scope extends beyond sound:

> Semantic identification of the class is more tentative even than formal identification. We are dealing only in the most marginal way with blatantly sound-imitative forms (like English choo-choo or the like). Perhaps it would be more just to say that the class denotes varied types of sensation, the impingement of the material world, outside or within the person, upon the senses-not merely the five conventionally identified senses, but all the feelings, both external and internal.
> (Emeneau 1969: 284)

His use of the term, associated with patterns, some of which are also found in Kiranti, may explain the term's endurance for ideophones, despite its traditional limitation to sound.

Masica (1991), in his survey of Indo-Aryan languages, uses the term "onomatopoeia" as well, making clear that he considers it too limited, as these lexemes extend beyond sound "to sensations of many other kinds - visual and tactile" (Masica 1991: 79). Note that in a 1980 re-edition of formerly published essays, including that of 1969, Emeneau prefers the term "expressive" to "onomatopoetic" (of which ideophones are a "subclass in which the symbolism is phonological"), presumably reflecting the fact that "onomatopoetics" seems too limited in scope (Emeneau 1980: 7).

### 3.3. *Phonesthetic*

In his grammar of Hayu, Michailovsky (1988) uses the term "phonesthetic words" (in the French text, "mots phonésthétiques"). For the most part these lexemes have an
of onomatopoeic words, with gujiguji 'dark, dusk-like' given as one example (Rutgers 1998: 20). The gloss for this example makes clear that "onomatopoeic" here is used for more than just sound-imitative words. By contrast, we find 'adv. onom' in the glossary, where all the examples are for sound.

T.M. Rai's grammar of Koyee (2015) uses the term "onomatopoeia" for lexemes which, given their glosses, clearly extend beyond the sensory domain of sound: the list provided (Rai 2015: 243–244) includes glosses such as 'way one smells', 'way one licks', 'way something shines', in addition to words that evoke the sense of sound.

There is a strong areal precedent for this extended usage: Emeneau used the term "onomatopoetics" to refer to iconic patterns found across the South Asian linguistic area (Emeneau 1969), and made clear that the sensory scope extends beyond sound:

> Semantic identification of the class is more tentative even than formal identification. We are dealing only in the most marginal way with blatantly sound-imitative forms (like English choo-choo or the like). Perhaps it would be more just to say that the class denotes varied types of sensation, the impingement of the material world, outside or within the person, upon the senses-not merely the five conventionally identified senses, but all the feelings, both external and internal.
> (Emeneau 1969: 284)

His use of the term, associated with patterns, some of which are also found in Kiranti, may explain the term's endurance for ideophones, despite its traditional limitation to sound.

Masica (1991), in his survey of Indo-Aryan languages, uses the term "onomatopoeia" as well, making clear that he considers it too limited, as these lexemes extend beyond sound "to sensations of many other kinds - visual and tactile" (Masica 1991: 79). Note that in a 1980 re-edition of formerly published essays, including that of 1969, Emeneau prefers the term "expressive" to "onomatopoetic" (of which ideophones are a "subclass in which the symbolism is phonological"), presumably reflecting the fact that "onomatopoetics" seems too limited in scope (Emeneau 1980: 7).

### 3.3. *Phonesthetic*

In his grammar of Hayu, Michailovsky (1988) uses the term "phonesthetic words" (in the French text, "mots phonésthétiques"). For the most part these lexemes have an
adverbial use and show total or partial reduplication, such as *gramgram* “(eat) with big mouthfuls” and *krap-krup* “(eat) voraciously”. Michailovsky writes that “phonesthetic” is [my trans.] “preferable to onomatopoetic for a class of words which are characterized by their use of their phonic nature, which is often but not always unusual, to reinforce their meaning” (1988: 72). These words are “phonologically anomalous” (Michailovsky 1988: 72), with a high frequency of consonant clusters, and pronounced with a bit of emphasis or an interruption in the intonational curve. The section on Hayu phonesthetic words is only a page long, but the description makes an explicit connection with sound symbolism, via the reference to onomatopoeia and the term “phonesthetic” itself, as well as the accompanying explanation of the unusual phonological features which are exploited for the expression and support of the lexemes’ meaning.

This is the only occurrence in the database examined of the term “phonesthetic” as a primary term; as seen above, Weidert & Subba (1985) use it as a paraphrase for “expressive” in their Limbu grammar upon their introduction of the latter.

### 3.4. Paralexeme

The term “paralexeme” is first introduced for Kiranti in an article on Bantawa (Rai & Winter 1997), referring to “items whose phonological shape differs from forms in the basic lexicon” (Rai & Winter 1997: 130). In their article, the term is applied to a type of triplicated verbal adjuncts. These are adverbial structures with a nucleus (which they label K) which can be nominal, verbal, or paralexemic, yielding a KKK form followed by an additional “deverbative” suffix -wa. The paralexemic nuclei can be recognized by their characteristic phonotactic constraints.

Although the focus of the article is triplicated forms, other words, on the basis of their morphophonological, phonological and phonotactic features, are also considered by the authors to be paralexemic: the authors write of “some twenty configurations characterized by onsets C₁C₂a- followed by a sequence -C₃C₃-; only the continuants -l-, -y- and -w- can fill the position -C₂-. For -C₃-, -y-, -p-, -t-, -k-, -m- and -ng- are attested” (Rai & Winter 1997: 131).<fnref n="18" />

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Although for Thulung, I have resorted to subtyping ideophones on the basis of their morphophonological templates, I do not find any evidence for any particular ideophonic root templates; the paralexemic syllable types presented for Bantawa by Rai & Winter (1997) and by Doornenbal (2009, see following paragraphs) have not to my knowledge been posited for other Kiranti languages.</footnote>
adverbial use and show total or partial reduplication, such as *gramgram* “(eat) with big mouthfuls” and *krap-krup* “(eat) voraciously”. Michailovsky writes that “phonesthetic” is [my trans.] “preferable to onomatopoetic for a class of words which are characterized by their use of their phonic nature, which is often but not always unusual, to reinforce their meaning” (1988: 72). These words are “phonologically anomalous” (Michailovsky 1988: 72), with a high frequency of consonant clusters, and pronounced with a bit of emphasis or an interruption in the intonational curve. The section on Hayu phonesthetic words is only a page long, but the description makes an explicit connection with sound symbolism, via the reference to onomatopoeia and the term “phonesthetic” itself, as well as the accompanying explanation of the unusual phonological features which are exploited for the expression and support of the lexemes’ meaning.

This is the only occurrence in the database examined of the term “phonesthetic” as a primary term; as seen above, Weidert & Subba (1985) use it as a paraphrase for “expressive” in their Limbu grammar upon their introduction of the latter.

**3.4. Paralexeme**

The term “paralexeme” is first introduced for Kiranti in an article on Bantawa (Rai &
Winter 1997), referring to “items whose phonological shape differs from forms in the
basic lexicon” (Rai & Winter 1997: 130). In their article, the term is applied to a type
of triplicated verbal adjuncts. These are adverbial structures with a nucleus (which
they label K) which can be nominal, verbal, or paralexemic, yielding a KKK form
followed by an additional “deverbative” suffix -wa. The paralexemic nuclei can be
recognized by their characteristic phonotactic constraints.

Although the focus of the article is triplicated forms, other words, on the basis of
their morphophonological, phonological and phonotactic features, are also
considered by the authors to be paralexemic: the authors write of “some twenty
configurations characterized by onsets C₁C₂a- followed by a sequence -C₃C₃-; only the
continuants -l-, -y- and -w- can fill the position -C₂-. For -C₃-, -y-, -p-, -t-, -k-, -m- and
-ng- are attested” (Rai & Winter 1997: 131).<fnref n="18" />

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Although for Thulung, I have resorted to subtyping ideophones on the basis of their morphophonological templates, I do not find any evidence for any particular ideophonic root templates; the paralexemic syllable types presented for Bantawa by Rai & Winter (1997) and by Doornenbal (2009, see following paragraphs) have not to my knowledge been posited for other Kiranti languages.</footnote>
As far as the scope of the term is concerned, it is used in a way that suggests it refers to both the roots which show special constraints, and also to the output of the triplicated structure. This can be seen in the following citation: “[F]orms may be transferred from one component of the opposition ‘lexemes — paralexemes’ to the other, which makes it possible that a lexemic nucleus may be expanded into a paralexemic triplet” (Rai & Winter 1997: 132), in other words, some elements are paralexemic by virtue of their phonology and phonotactics, but others can become paralexemic when inserted into a distinctive template.

Doornenbal, in his (2009) grammar of the same language, reprises the term “paralexeme”. He proposes two syllable types – C<sub>o</sub>C<sub>a</sub>V and C<sub>o</sub>C<sub>a</sub>VC<sub>f</sub> (for which C<sub>o</sub> is an onset consonant, C<sub>a</sub>, an approximant, and C<sub>f</sub>, a final consonant) – which can be used to classify (non-borrowed) words as “paralexemes that often have an ideophonic or onomatopoeic aspect to their meaning” (2009: 43).

While “paralexeme” is the dominant term used to refer to these Bantawa elements, Doornenbal (2009) uses a number of other terms, in adjectival form, in connection with the same lexemes. This is seen in the citation in the previous paragraph, where “ideophonic” and “onomatopoeic” are used to complete the interpretation of “paralexeme”. We find the following terms in the grammar: “ideophonic” (collocating with “association”, “usage”, “aspect”, “value”); “onomatopoeic” (collocating with “association”, “aspect”, “qualities”); “expressive” (collocating with “adverbs”, “qualities”). We additionally find references to “mimetics”: “The term ‘paralexemes’ corresponds to ‘mimetics’” (Doornenbal 2009: 36); “The paralexemic class of words typologically are on par with mimetics, as described by Ito & Mester (1995)” (Doornenbal 2009: 303).

As can be seen from the various citations provided, these terms are often found in the same sentences, serving as paraphrases of each other (cf. “expressive adverbs that are onomatopoeic or mimetic” (Doornenbal 2009: 298)). The coupling of terms has a bridging effect, associating lexemes which are identified as having a certain number of significant and marked characteristics with a wide range of terminology, ensuring that this will trigger recognition regardless of readers’ terminological backgrounds and stances.

The use of the term “paralexeme” does not occur elsewhere in my corpus of Kiranti materials, not even in an article on Chintang co-authored by N.K. Rai (Rai et al. 2005), author of the Rai & Winter (1997) study. The term essentially captures the fact that certain words (and roots) have characteristics which do not concord with the prosaic lexicon – in the case of Bantawa, it is made clear that this is on account of a syllable type which confers an iconic value to words which share it.
As far as the scope of the term is concerned, it is used in a way that suggests it refers to both the roots which show special constraints, and also to the output of the triplicated structure. This can be seen in the following citation: “[F]orms may be transferred from one component of the opposition ‘lexemes — paralexemes’ to the other, which makes it possible that a lexemic nucleus may be expanded into a paralexemic triplet” (Rai & Winter 1997: 132), in other words, some elements are paralexemic by virtue of their phonology and phonotactics, but others can become paralexemic when inserted into a distinctive template.

Doornenbal, in his (2009) grammar of the same language, reprises the term “paralexeme”. He proposes two syllable types – C₀CₐV and C₀CₐVCf (for which C₀ is an onset consonant, Cₐ, an approximant, and Cf, a final consonant) – which can be used to classify (non-borrowed) words as “paralexemes that often have an ideophonic or onomatopoeic aspect to their meaning” (2009: 43).

While “paralexeme” is the dominant term used to refer to these Bantawa elements, Doornenbal (2009) uses a number of other terms, in adjectival form, in connection with the same lexemes. This is seen in the citation in the previous paragraph, where “ideophonic” and “onomatopoeic” are used to complete the interpretation of “paralexeme”. We find the following terms in the grammar: “ideophonic” (collocating with “association”, “usage”, “aspect”, “value”); “onomatopoeic” (collocating with “association”, “aspect”, “qualities”); “expressive” (collocating with “adverbs”, “qualities”). We additionally find references to “mimetics”: “The term ‘paralexemes’ corresponds to ‘mimetics’” (Doornenbal 2009: 36); “The paralexemic class of words typologically are on par with mimetics, as described by Ito & Mester (1995)” (Doornenbal 2009: 303).

As can be seen from the various citations provided, these terms are often found in the same sentences, serving as paraphrases of each other (cf. “expressive adverbs that are onomatopoeic or mimetic” (Doornenbal 2009: 298)). The coupling of terms has a bridging effect, associating lexemes which are identified as having a certain number of significant and marked characteristics with a wide range of terminology, ensuring that this will trigger recognition regardless of readers’ terminological backgrounds and stances.

The use of the term “paralexeme” does not occur elsewhere in my corpus of Kiranti materials, not even in an article on Chintang co-authored by N.K. Rai (Rai et al. 2005), author of the Rai & Winter (1997) study. The term essentially captures the fact that certain words (and roots) have characteristics which do not concord with the prosaic lexicon – in the case of Bantawa, it is made clear that this is on account of a syllable type which confers an iconic value to words which share it.
3.5. Ideophone

The first occurrence of ideophone in the corpus used here is in the form of a gloss in examples in Bickel (1996) on Belhare. An example is reproduced in what follows: in (8), a lexical gloss follows the abbreviation “IDEOPH”, but sometimes “IDEOPH” occurs alone.

(8) Belhare (Kiranti; Bickel 1996: 222)

u-niūa u-phokg-ep-phu bhutbhuti-bu lis-e. <KP28b>

3POSS-mind 3POSS-belly-LOC-REP IDEOPH(strange)-REP be-PT

‘He felt strange in (both) mind and stomach.’

The abbreviation in examples (and in the abbreviations list) is the only use of “ideophone” in the work, and it is not accompanied by any further description.

Ideophone in the form of a gloss abbreviation is also found in work by Ebert (Ebert 1997a, 1997b, 2000) on Athpare and Camling. It features in the examples illustrating the two grammatical descriptions, as well as in the Camling texts. Interestingly, ideophones are not included in the glossaries provided for both languages, suggesting Ebert considers them to have a different status from the prosaic lexicon which makes up the glossaries.

For Kiranti descriptions, “ideophone” first appears as a full term in an article by Rai et al. (2005), on Chintang triplicated ideophones. “Ideophone” here is firmly anchored in the typological literature, accompanied by definitions by Doke (1935) and Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz (2001). For Chintang, the term refers to one possible type of root (the others are nouns and verbs) which is the input of triplication, and the output is treated as a member of the class of adverbs. It is interesting, from a terminological point of view, that when the term is first used in the introduction of the article, it is as “ideophonic (onomatopoetic) roots” (Rai et al. 2005: 205). This parenthetical addition is in line with the novelty of the term in descriptions of Kiranti languages and the need to provide context for the concept.

Following the publication of the Rai et al. (2005) article, the term “ideophone” (or “ideophonic”) is found as the main term for Puma (Sharma 2014), Yakkha (Schackow 2015), Chintang (Paudyal 2015), Khaling (Lahaussois 2017a) and Thulung (Lahaussois 2023).
**3.5. Ideophone**

The first occurrence of ideophone in the corpus used here is in the form of a gloss in examples in Bickel (1996) on Belhare. An example is reproduced in what follows: in (8), a lexical gloss follows the abbreviation “IDEOPH”, but sometimes “IDEOPH” occurs alone.

(8) Belhare (Kiranti; Bickel 1996: 222)

u-niūa u-phokg-ep-phu bhutbhuti-bu lis-e. <KP28b>

3POSS-mind 3POSS-belly-LOC-REP IDEOPH(strange)-REP be-PT

‘He felt strange in (both) mind and stomach.’

The abbreviation in examples (and in the abbreviations list) is the only use of “ideophone” in the work, and it is not accompanied by any further description.

Ideophone in the form of a gloss abbreviation is also found in work by Ebert (Ebert 1997a, 1997b, 2000) on Athpare and Camling. It features in the examples illustrating the two grammatical descriptions, as well as in the Camling texts. Interestingly, ideophones are not included in the glossaries provided for both languages, suggesting Ebert considers them to have a different status from the prosaic lexicon which makes up the glossaries.

For Kiranti descriptions, “ideophone” first appears as a full term in an article by Rai et al. (2005), on Chintang triplicated ideophones. “Ideophone” here is firmly anchored in the typological literature, accompanied by definitions by Doke (1935) and Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz (2001). For Chintang, the term refers to one possible type of root (the others are nouns and verbs) which is the input of triplication, and the output is treated as a member of the class of adverbs. It is interesting, from a terminological point of view, that when the term is first used in the introduction of the article, it is as “ideophonic (onomatopoetic) roots” (Rai et al. 2005: 205). This parenthetical addition is in line with the novelty of the term in descriptions of Kiranti languages and the need to provide context for the concept.

Following the publication of the Rai et al. (2005) article, the term “ideophone” (or “ideophonic”) is found as the main term for Puma (Sharma 2014), Yakkha (Schackow 2015), Chintang (Paudyal 2015), Khaling (Lahaussois 2017a) and Thulung (Lahaussois 2023).
In many of the descriptions which use the term “ideophone”, it is made clear that the ideophonic element is the base, often as an alternative to nominal and verbal bases, which is found in a specific pattern (the descriptions frequently focus on the marked triplicated pattern). The descriptions which make an explicit claim along these lines, using the term “ideophone” or “ideophonic”, are those of Chintang (Rai et al. 2005; Paudyal 2015), Bantawa (2009) and Yakkha (Schackow 2015). Other descriptions using the term do not make any explicit claims about which element is ideophonic, although the grammar of Puma lists ideophone as a type of “grammatical category”, a term which Sharma opposes to the lexical word classes of nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, pronouns and numerals (Sharma 2014: 100).

Noteworthy are two articles by Caughley on ideophones in Chepang, a related language of Nepal outside the Kiranti subgroup: the first (Caughley 1997) uses “ideophone” in the article, which compares the characteristics of vowel gradation in Chepang with data from Sunwar (a Kiranti language); the second (Caughley 2002) focuses on the ideophones of Chepang. Caughley writes of the previous use of the term onomatopeia for these lexemes that “[h]owever an examination of the data shows that, while many roots in this subclass are indeed sound-imitative, a considerable number have no reference at all to sounds” (Caughley 1997: 96). He continues a little further with “I will henceforth use the term ‘ideophone’ for this special subset of adverbs which includes both sound-imitative and non-sound imitative roots.” While neither article by Caughley is cited with any frequency<fnref n="19" /> in the materials in my database, it may have had an influence on linguists working in Nepal.

## 3.6. Adverb

In some grammars, ideophones are placed in the class of adverbs,<fnref n="20" /> where they may or may not be further sorted into subclasses.

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ The exceptions are Doornenbal (2009) and Schackow (2015), both of whom cite Caughley’s 1997 article.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ There is a long precedent for this: ‘adverb’ has been used as a catch-all term throughout the history of linguistic description for misfit classes (see e.g. Odoul 2019) such as interjections (Lahaussois 2019a).</footnote>
In many of the descriptions which use the term “ideophone”, it is made clear that the ideophonic element is the base, often as an alternative to nominal and verbal bases, which is found in a specific pattern (the descriptions frequently focus on the marked triplicated pattern). The descriptions which make an explicit claim along these lines, using the term “ideophone” or “ideophonic”, are those of Chintang (Rai et al. 2005; Paudyal 2015), Bantawa (2009) and Yakkha (Schackow 2015). Other descriptions using the term do not make any explicit claims about which element is ideophonic, although the grammar of Puma lists ideophone as a type of “grammatical category”, a term which Sharma opposes to the lexical word classes of nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, pronouns and numerals (Sharma 2014: 100).

Noteworthy are two articles by Caughley on ideophones in Chepang, a related language of Nepal outside the Kiranti subgroup: the first (Caughley 1997) uses “ideophone” in the article, which compares the characteristics of vowel gradation in Chepang with data from Sunwar (a Kiranti language); the second (Caughley 2002) focuses on the ideophones of Chepang. Caughley writes of the previous use of the term onomatopeia for these lexemes that “[h]owever an examination of the data shows that, while many roots in this subclass are indeed sound-imitative, a considerable number have no reference at all to sounds” (Caughley 1997: 96). He continues a little further with “I will henceforth use the term ‘ideophone’ for this special subset of adverbs which includes both sound-imitative and non-sound imitative roots.” While neither article by Caughley is cited with any frequency<fnref n="19" /> in the materials in my database, it may have had an influence on linguists working in Nepal.

## 3.6. Adverb

In some grammars, ideophones are placed in the class of adverbs,<fnref n="20" /> where they may or may not be further sorted into subclasses.

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ The exceptions are Doornenbal (2009) and Schackow (2015), both of whom cite Caughley’s 1997 article.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ There is a long precedent for this: ‘adverb’ has been used as a catch-all term throughout the history of linguistic description for misfit classes (see e.g. Odoul 2019) such as interjections (Lahaussois 2019a).</footnote>
Allen's (1975) Thulung grammar has a large category of "expressive resources", within which the different subclasses of ideophones are labeled as different types of "adverb".

Opgenort's (2004) Wambule grammar contains ideophones of several patterns, one subtype of which is labeled "adverbial proclitics of manner" (corresponding to the Thulung ideophonic preverbs in § 2.2. above). His grammar provides a list of these (Opgenort 2004: 243), but additional lexemes fitting the same pattern (both in terms of morphophonology and semantics) are found in the glossary, where they are glossed simply as "adverb". Other lexemes which map onto other patterns receive the gloss *adv*, such as the partially triplicated<sup>21</sup> and reduplicated forms, which are glossed *adv cmp* and *adj cmp* ("compounded adverb" and "adjective", respectively). Opgenort thus uses the term "adverb" (either alone, as "compounded adverb", or as "adverbial proclitics") for all the lexemes that map onto ideophonic patterns in other languages.

Tumbahang's grammar of Chhatthare Limbu labels "manner adverbs" lexemes which are "formed by reduplication of the first syllable" (2017: 45).<sup>22</sup> Both the form, which matches the reduplicated pattern found throughout Kiranti, and the sensory domains in the glosses suggest that these are ideophonic lexemes.

In other grammars, the main term “adverb” is modified by a term which points to ideophonic properties. This is the case of “expressive adverbs” (Weidert & Subba 1985; Rai 2016) and “onomatopoetic adverbs” (Rai 1984; Rutgers 1998).

**3.7. Evolution of terminology**

The terms presented in the sections above can be summed up as follows: The earliest
term we find in the database of descriptions is “expressive”, as an adjective modifying
“resources” (Allen 1975); the term is used ten years later as both an adjective and a
substantive (Weidert & Subba 1985). “Onomatopoetic” first comes up in N.K. Rai
(1984), in adjectival form; in substantival form, it is first found in work by van Driem
(1987, 1993). Two other authors in the database use it after this as their primary
term: Rutgers (1998) and T.M. Rai (2016). Michailovsky’s “phonesthetic words”
(1988), which first appears as an alternative to “expressive” in Weidert & Subba

<footnote n="21">²¹ An example is “brwakwakwak [attested with kakcam] *adv* manner of breaking open like popcorn” (Opgenort 2004: 560).</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² Examples are *yaŋyaŋ* ‘lightly’, *tɔktɔk* ‘straight’, *pɛkpɛk* ‘disorderly manner’.</footnote>
Allen's (1975) Thulung grammar has a large category of "expressive resources", within which the different subclasses of ideophones are labeled as different types of "adverb".

Opgenort's (2004) Wambule grammar contains ideophones of several patterns, one subtype of which is labeled "adverbial proclitics of manner" (corresponding to the Thulung ideophonic preverbs in § 2.2. above). His grammar provides a list of these (Opgenort 2004: 243), but additional lexemes fitting the same pattern (both in terms of morphophonology and semantics) are found in the glossary, where they are glossed simply as "adverb". Other lexemes which map onto other patterns receive the gloss *adv*, such as the partially triplicated<sup>21</sup> and reduplicated forms, which are glossed *adv cmp* and *adj cmp* ("compounded adverb" and "adjective", respectively). Opgenort thus uses the term "adverb" (either alone, as "compounded adverb", or as "adverbial proclitics") for all the lexemes that map onto ideophonic patterns in other languages.

Tumbahang's grammar of Chhatthare Limbu labels "manner adverbs" lexemes which are "formed by reduplication of the first syllable" (2017: 45).<sup>22</sup> Both the form, which matches the reduplicated pattern found throughout Kiranti, and the sensory domains in the glosses suggest that these are ideophonic lexemes.

In other grammars, the main term “adverb” is modified by a term which points to ideophonic properties. This is the case of “expressive adverbs” (Weidert & Subba 1985; Rai 2016) and “onomatopoetic adverbs” (Rai 1984; Rutgers 1998).

**3.7. Evolution of terminology**

The terms presented in the sections above can be summed up as follows: The earliest
term we find in the database of descriptions is “expressive”, as an adjective modifying
“resources” (Allen 1975); the term is used ten years later as both an adjective and a
substantive (Weidert & Subba 1985). “Onomatopoetic” first comes up in N.K. Rai
(1984), in adjectival form; in substantival form, it is first found in work by van Driem
(1987, 1993). Two other authors in the database use it after this as their primary
term: Rutgers (1998) and T.M. Rai (2016). Michailovsky’s “phonesthetic words”
(1988), which first appears as an alternative to “expressive” in Weidert & Subba

<footnote n="21">²¹ An example is “brwakwakwak [attested with kakcam] *adv* manner of breaking open like popcorn” (Opgenort 2004: 560).</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² Examples are *yaŋyaŋ* ‘lightly’, *tɔktɔk* ‘straight’, *pɛkpɛk* ‘disorderly manner’.</footnote>
(1985), does not get recirculated as a primary term in this database. “Paralexeme” is introduced by Rai & Winter (1997), taken up by Doornenbal (2009) for the same language, Bantawa, and is linked to a syllable type, which can appear as the root in certain marked patterns. Finally, “ideophone” appears as a gloss (Bickel 1996) then as full term (Rai et al. 2005), and becomes the most common term thereafter.

An interesting find in looking through the Kiranti materials is that most of the grammarians accompany the main term for ideophonic lexemes with other related terms, something which does not occur with other word classes. The use of the primary term is followed by alternative terms, paraphrases, and sometimes a negative comparison. The authors who use such a comparative or paraphrasing strategy are listed below, along with the terms:

* Allen (1975) makes an explicit connection between the “expressive resources” of Thulung and ideophones;

* Weidert & Subba (1985) provide clarification upon first using the term “expressive” by segueing with the term “phonaesthetic” (“expressive or phonaesthetic adverbs”, Weidert & Subba 1985: 15);

* Michailovsky (1988) states that his chosen term “phonesthetic words” is a preferable term to “onomatopoeic”, which is inadequate;

* N.K. Rai & Winter (1997) mention the iconicity inherent in “paralexemes”, and refer to onomatopoeic as a term which “does not do much good: what is it that is imitated by these forms?” (Rai & Winter 1997: 132);

* N.K. Rai et al. (2005) add onomatopoetic in parentheses, as a clarification, upon the first use of ideophonic in their article’s introduction;

* Doornenbal (2009) uses a wide range of terminology to clarify the term “paralexemic” and the words it describes: “ideophonic”, “onomatopoeic”, “expressive”, “mimetic”, creating a semantic web linking these terms;

* Schackow (2015) clarifies some uses of “ideophonic” but specifying that they involve an “ideophonic component (i.e., an iconic relationship between the concept expressed and the phonological form)” (Schackow 2015: 179).

The presence of such paraphrases and comparisons suggests that individual terms are not felt to be sufficiently well-defined or -described in order to convey the markedness and unique characteristics of these words. The use of multiple equivalent terms helps fine-tune the description, triangulate the properties of these words, and ensure that
(1985), does not get recirculated as a primary term in this database. “Paralexeme” is introduced by Rai & Winter (1997), taken up by Doornenbal (2009) for the same language, Bantawa, and is linked to a syllable type, which can appear as the root in certain marked patterns. Finally, “ideophone” appears as a gloss (Bickel 1996) then as full term (Rai et al. 2005), and becomes the most common term thereafter.

An interesting find in looking through the Kiranti materials is that most of the grammarians accompany the main term for ideophonic lexemes with other related terms, something which does not occur with other word classes. The use of the primary term is followed by alternative terms, paraphrases, and sometimes a negative comparison. The authors who use such a comparative or paraphrasing strategy are listed below, along with the terms:

* Allen (1975) makes an explicit connection between the “expressive resources” of Thulung and ideophones;

* Weidert & Subba (1985) provide clarification upon first using the term “expressive” by segueing with the term “phonaesthetic” (“expressive or phonaesthetic adverbs”, Weidert & Subba 1985: 15);

* Michailovsky (1988) states that his chosen term “phonesthetic words” is a preferable term to “onomatopoeic”, which is inadequate;

* N.K. Rai & Winter (1997) mention the iconicity inherent in “paralexemes”, and refer to onomatopoeic as a term which “does not do much good: what is it that is imitated by these forms?” (Rai & Winter 1997: 132);

* N.K. Rai et al. (2005) add onomatopoetic in parentheses, as a clarification, upon the first use of ideophonic in their article's introduction;

* Doornenbal (2009) uses a wide range of terminology to clarify the term “paralexemic” and the words it describes: “ideophonic”, “onomatopoeic”, “expressive”, “mimetic”, creating a semantic web linking these terms;

* Schackow (2015) clarifies some uses of “ideophonic” but specifying that they involve an “ideophonic component (i.e., an iconic relationship between the concept expressed and the phonological form)” (Schackow 2015: 179).

The presence of such paraphrases and comparisons suggests that individual terms are not felt to be sufficiently well-defined or -described in order to convey the markedness and unique characteristics of these words. The use of multiple equivalent terms helps fine-tune the description, triangulate the properties of these words, and ensure that
the reader can map the features onto alternative terminology which may be more
familiar. The overall sense is that a single term is not enough to convey the whole
picture, something likely to change with the apparatus that now surrounds the term
"ideophone" and which includes not only solid definitions (Dingemanse 2019;
Dingemanse 2023) but also the heuristic tool of the implicational hierarchy
(Dingemanse 2012; McLean 2021).

4. Discussion

Section 3 has provided discussion for the use of terms for ideophones. As we saw, apart from synonyms and comparanda, which are useful in clarifying what authors of a description mean by the use of a specialized term, there is very little material in the descriptions that explicitly discusses the terminological choices. I attempt here to map out some of the advantages and disadvantages of the most frequent terms found in our corpus. Because of their low frequency, used for a single language and not having been adopted by subsequent linguists working on different languages of the subgroup, I do not discuss “phonesthetic words” or “paralexemes”.

As far as “expressive” is concerned, there is a contrast between adjectival and
nominal uses. Diffloth (1976: 263–44, fn 2) offers the following definition of
“expressives” (in the nominal form),<fnref n="23" /> in contrast with onomatopoeia and ideophones:

[O]nomatopoetic forms are those displaying acoustic symbolism and having syntactic and
morphological properties totally different from those of verbs and nouns. Ideophones are
words displaying phonological symbolism of any kind (acoustic, articulatory, structural)
and having distinct morphosyntactic properties; ideophones include onomatopoetic forms
as a subclass. Expressives have the same morphosyntactic properties as ideophones, but
their symbolism, if such exists, is not necessarily phonological; expressives contain
ideophones as a subclass.

It is not clear from the contrastive definition how far the class of “expressive” is meant
to extend, and whether the elaborate expressions and psycho-collocations (Matisoff
1986) of Mainland Southeast Asia are included, as they seem to be in some of the
contributions to a volume edited by Williams (2013). Even though Diffloth’s term is

<footnote n="23"><sup>23</sup> This can be contrasted with Jakobson's description of *expressive function*, which “aims a direct expression of the speaker's attitude toward what he is speaking about. It tends to produce an impression of a certain emotion whether true or feigned” (Jakobson 1960: 354).</footnote>
the reader can map the features onto alternative terminology which may be more
familiar. The overall sense is that a single term is not enough to convey the whole
picture, something likely to change with the apparatus that now surrounds the term
"ideophone" and which includes not only solid definitions (Dingemanse 2019;
Dingemanse 2023) but also the heuristic tool of the implicational hierarchy
(Dingemanse 2012; McLean 2021).

4. Discussion

Section 3 has provided discussion for the use of terms for ideophones. As we saw, apart from synonyms and comparanda, which are useful in clarifying what authors of a description mean by the use of a specialized term, there is very little material in the descriptions that explicitly discusses the terminological choices. I attempt here to map out some of the advantages and disadvantages of the most frequent terms found in our corpus. Because of their low frequency, used for a single language and not having been adopted by subsequent linguists working on different languages of the subgroup, I do not discuss “phonesthetic words” or “paralexemes”.

As far as “expressive” is concerned, there is a contrast between adjectival and
nominal uses. Diffloth (1976: 263–44, fn 2) offers the following definition of
“expressives” (in the nominal form),<fnref n="23" /> in contrast with onomatopoeia and ideophones:

[O]nomatopoetic forms are those displaying acoustic symbolism and having syntactic and morphological properties totally different from those of verbs and nouns. Ideophones are words displaying phonological symbolism of any kind (acoustic, articulatory, structural) and having distinct morphosyntactic properties; ideophones include onomatopoetic forms as a subclass. Expressives have the same morphosyntactic properties as ideophones, but their symbolism, if such exists, is not necessarily phonological; expressives contain ideophones as a subclass.

It is not clear from the contrastive definition how far the class of “expressive” is meant
to extend, and whether the elaborate expressions and psycho-collocations (Matisoff
1986) of Mainland Southeast Asia are included, as they seem to be in some of the
contributions to a volume edited by Williams (2013). Even though Diffloth’s term is

<footnote n="23"><sup>23</sup> This can be contrasted with Jakobson's description of *expressive function*, which “aims a direct expression of the speaker's attitude toward what he is speaking about. It tends to produce an impression of a certain emotion whether true or feigned” (Jakobson 1960: 354).</footnote>
intended to point to a word class, it is one with fairly loose boundaries, able to
accommodate a range of material.

“Onomatopoeia” as a term has the advantage of being linked with traditional (and school) grammar, where it signals a non-arbitrary connection between the sound of a word and its meaning.<fnref n="24" /> This is the use which is applied in some of the grammars we have seen. The problem is that it is a category that can encompass words of different syntactic functions, so that nominal forms (like onomatopoetic names of animals, as in N.K. Rai’s (1984) Bantawa grammar) and adverbial forms (in many cases, sound ideophones) are given the same label. An additional problem is that some grammars extend the term “onomatopoeia” to non-sound ideophones, and as a result the term is used with different interpretations, even within the same subgroup.

When “adverb” is used in grammars in the corpus to refer to ideophones, they constitute one or more subclasses with specific properties. The subclasses’ properties are generally conveyed by the modifier that accompanies the term, which can focus on various features: the form of the word (“reduplicated”, “with -maksi”, etc.), on their semantic properties (“expressive adverbs”), or other attributes. Unlike languages for which ideophones form a clear word class, as is the case in many African languages (see the contributions by Guérois, Meyer, Quint and Treis, this volume), Kiranti ideophones are probably at best a word class made up of a number of rather different subclasses. Using the term “adverb” (+ modifier) is a convenient way to focus first on their shared morphosyntactic properties,<fnref n="25" /> and then to specify what characteristics define the various subclasses, through the use the modifier. The disadvantage of labeling ideophones as “adverbs” is that they can get lost in a fairly large super-category and not be given their proper due, in terms of their special morphophonological patterns, semantic properties, and the like.

An advantage for more recent grammars which use “ideophone” is that the term inscribes those descriptions directly into a cross-linguistic landscape of research into similar phenomena. With an ever-increasing number of descriptions of ideophones around the world, being able to participate in the wider discussion is also tied to the choice of terminology, for the simple reason that using a widely-accepted term makes one’s work easier to identify and relate to. Choosing a term such as “ideophone” suggests an acceptance of pre-existing tools for carrying out ideophone research: this can be engaging with implicational hierarchies for sensory domains targeted by ideophones (Dingemanse 2012; McLean 2021), taking as a starting point existing definitions (Doke 1935; Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz 2001; Dingemanse 2019), and deriving

<footnote n="24">²⁴ See Moore (2015) for a history of use of the term in English prior to the 20th century.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ See Dingemanse (2018: 2) on the mapping between characteristics of ideophones and the terms applied to them.</footnote>
intended to point to a word class, it is one with fairly loose boundaries, able to
accommodate a range of material.

“Onomatopoeia” as a term has the advantage of being linked with traditional (and school) grammar, where it signals a non-arbitrary connection between the sound of a word and its meaning.<fnref n="24" /> This is the use which is applied in some of the grammars we have seen. The problem is that it is a category that can encompass words of different syntactic functions, so that nominal forms (like onomatopoetic names of animals, as in N.K. Rai’s (1984) Bantawa grammar) and adverbial forms (in many cases, sound ideophones) are given the same label. An additional problem is that some grammars extend the term “onomatopoeia” to non-sound ideophones, and as a result the term is used with different interpretations, even within the same subgroup.

When “adverb” is used in grammars in the corpus to refer to ideophones, they constitute one or more subclasses with specific properties. The subclasses’ properties are generally conveyed by the modifier that accompanies the term, which can focus on various features: the form of the word (“reduplicated”, “with -maksi”, etc.), on their semantic properties (“expressive adverbs”), or other attributes. Unlike languages for which ideophones form a clear word class, as is the case in many African languages (see the contributions by Guérois, Meyer, Quint and Treis, this volume), Kiranti ideophones are probably at best a word class made up of a number of rather different subclasses. Using the term “adverb” (+ modifier) is a convenient way to focus first on their shared morphosyntactic properties,<fnref n="25" /> and then to specify what characteristics define the various subclasses, through the use the modifier. The disadvantage of labeling ideophones as “adverbs” is that they can get lost in a fairly large super-category and not be given their proper due, in terms of their special morphophonological patterns, semantic properties, and the like.

An advantage for more recent grammars which use “ideophone” is that the term inscribes those descriptions directly into a cross-linguistic landscape of research into similar phenomena. With an ever-increasing number of descriptions of ideophones around the world, being able to participate in the wider discussion is also tied to the choice of terminology, for the simple reason that using a widely-accepted term makes one’s work easier to identify and relate to. Choosing a term such as “ideophone” suggests an acceptance of pre-existing tools for carrying out ideophone research: this can be engaging with implicational hierarchies for sensory domains targeted by ideophones (Dingemanse 2012; McLean 2021), taking as a starting point existing definitions (Doke 1935; Voeltz & Kilian-Hatz 2001; Dingemanse 2019), and deriving

<footnote n="24">²⁴ See Moore (2015) for a history of use of the term in English prior to the 20th century.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ See Dingemanse (2018: 2) on the mapping between characteristics of ideophones and the terms applied to them.</footnote>
ideas for what interesting behaviors to report on from what is described in other languages. An example of the latter is the patterns of consonant and vowel gradation in ideophones in some languages (see Marsault, this issue, for the same phenomenon in Omaha), which is found within the domain of Trans-Himalayan languages of Nepal (Caughley 1997)), but not described for Kiranti. Although adopting a comparative term may carry the risk of superficially overlooking specificities of patterns in a specific language, it also carries significant advantages.

## 5. Conclusion

This article has provided a documentation of the diverse terminology used for ideophonic lexemes in Kiranti language descriptions. The starting point for the investigation was a number of morphophonological patterns shown by lexemes, generally but not always with an adverbial function, with ideophonic properties in Kiranti languages (Lahaussois 2023), which were used to identify similar material in grammars and to collect the associated terminology.

This study revealed a wide range of terminology, in some cases accompanied by alternative terms and paraphrases in order to clarify a term which might seem opaque or marginal. Apart from these synonyms and comparanda, terms were rarely accompanied by explanations of what was meant by the term.

The introduction to this article mentioned that one of the difficulties in comparing ideophones in Kiranti languages is due to the profusion of terminology and difficulty in identifying materials to compare. Another difficulty was methodological: grammars generally try to provide appended glossaries which are relatively complete, as far as nouns, verbs and other major parts of speech are concerned (this is aided by the use of word lists of the non-Swadesh variety),<fnref n="26" /> but not for ideophones. Because of the translational difficulties associated with ideophones (e.g. Msimang & Poulos 2001: 235), it would be difficult to devise a list which could be used for their elicitation. Furthermore, even if such a word list could be produced for elicitation, the glosses would need to be precise enough to allow comparison, which is a tall order given the nature of ideophones.<fnref n="27" /> A corollary of this appears to be that when ideophonic

<footnote n="26">²⁶ An example is the Living Tongues *Language Sustainability Toolkit* (Daigneault et al. 2022); others, with regional orientations, can be found in the TULQuest archive (Lahaussois 2019b).</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ The glosses given for some Koyee ‘onomatopoeia’ are impossible to use for any study of possible cognacy, as they are semantically quite vague: see examples in § 3.2. above, as well as glosses such as</footnote>
ideas for what interesting behaviors to report on from what is described in other
languages. An example of the latter is the patterns of consonant and vowel gradation
in ideophones in some languages (see Marsault, this issue, for the same phenomenon
in Omaha), which is found within the domain of Trans-Himalayan languages of Nepal
(Caughley 1997)), but not described for Kiranti. Although adopting a comparative
term may carry the risk of superficially overlooking specificities of patterns in a
specific language, it also carries significant advantages.

5. Conclusion

This article has provided a documentation of the diverse terminology used for ideophonic lexemes in Kiranti language descriptions. The starting point for the investigation was a number of morphophonological patterns shown by lexemes, generally but not always with an adverbial function, with ideophonic properties in Kiranti languages (Lahaussois 2023), which were used to identify similar material in grammars and to collect the associated terminology.

This study revealed a wide range of terminology, in some cases accompanied by
alternative terms and paraphrases in order to clarify a term which might seem opaque
or marginal. Apart from these synonyms and comparanda, terms were rarely
accompanied by explanations of what was meant by the term.

The introduction to this article mentioned that one of the difficulties in comparing
ideophones in Kiranti languages is due to the profusion of terminology and difficulty
in identifying materials to compare. Another difficulty was methodological: grammars
generally try to provide appended glossaries which are relatively complete, as far as
nouns, verbs and other major parts of speech are concerned (this is aided by the use
of word lists of the non-Swadesh variety),<fnref n="26" /> but not for ideophones. Because of the
translational difficulties associated with ideophones (e.g. Msimang & Poulos 2001:
235), it would be difficult to devise a list which could be used for their elicitation.
Furthermore, even if such a word list could be produced for elicitation, the glosses
would need to be precise enough to allow comparison, which is a tall order given the
nature of ideophones.<fnref n="27" /> A corollary of this appears to be that when ideophonic

<footnote n="26">²⁶ An example is the Living Tongues *Language Sustainability Toolkit* (Daigneault et al. 2022); others, with regional orientations, can be found in the TULQuest archive (Lahaussois 2019b).</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ The glosses given for some Koyee ‘onomatopoeia’ are impossible to use for any study of possible cognacy, as they are semantically quite vague: see examples in § 3.2. above, as well as glosses such as</footnote>
lexemes are provided (the same goes for interjections), it is in the form of a sampling
and presumably far from complete. This suggests a real need for better
methodological tools for the collection of Kiranti ideophones: one potential venue is
to create a list of ideophonic materials assembled from all existing descriptions of
Kiranti languages, which can be used to trigger associations in consultants on the
basis of either phonology or semantics.<fnref n="28" /> The collection of new materials must of
course be coupled with good examples, which provide as many contexts for use as
possible.

An ulterior motive for the study presented here, and for that in Lahaussois (2023),
is to determine whether there is any shared matter, beyond the attested shared
patterns, for Kiranti ideophonic lexemes, and if so (there is distinct evidence of this
already), whether the shared matter is a result of cognacy or borrowing. The
examination of the terms used and the types of patterns they are associated with has
generated a larger collection of Kiranti ideophones that I previously had access to,
and has set the groundwork for a study of their actual forms with a view to better
understanding their diachrony.

Acknowledgments

I thank two anonymous reviewers as well as the co-editors of this special issue for
their insightful comments on this contribution. I would also like to thank organizers
and audience members of the combined LSN-43/SALA-36 conferences, held in
Kathmandu, in November, 2022, where I presented some of this material. This work
is supported by a public grant overseen by the IdEx Université Paris Cité (ANR-18-
IDEX-0001) as part of the Labex Empirical Foundations of Linguistics - EFL.

<footnote>‘manner of something falling’, ‘manner someone beats something’, ‘when everything is finished/disposed of’ (Rai 2015: 243–244).</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ I have experimented with this technique successfully in increasing my list of Thulung ideophones in December 2022: a spreadsheet of ideophones, sorted by subclass, from 9 different languages was used as a prompt and allowed me to collect many new ideophones, either because they triggered a sound connection, or because the semantics elicited a Thulung form.</footnote>
lexemes are provided (the same goes for interjections), it is in the form of a sampling and presumably far from complete. This suggests a real need for better methodological tools for the collection of Kiranti ideophones: one potential venue is to create a list of ideophonic materials assembled from all existing descriptions of Kiranti languages, which can be used to trigger associations in consultants on the basis of either phonology or semantics.<fnref n="28" /> The collection of new materials must of course be coupled with good examples, which provide as many contexts for use as possible.

An ulterior motive for the study presented here, and for that in Lahaussois (2023), is to determine whether there is any shared matter, beyond the attested shared patterns, for Kiranti ideophonic lexemes, and if so (there is distinct evidence of this already), whether the shared matter is a result of cognacy or borrowing. The examination of the terms used and the types of patterns they are associated with has generated a larger collection of Kiranti ideophones that I previously had access to, and has set the groundwork for a study of their actual forms with a view to better understanding their diachrony.

## Acknowledgments

I thank two anonymous reviewers as well as the co-editors of this special issue for their insightful comments on this contribution. I would also like to thank organizers and audience members of the combined LSN-43/SALA-36 conferences, held in Kathmandu, in November, 2022, where I presented some of this material. This work is supported by a public grant overseen by the IdEx Université Paris Cité (ANR-18-IDEX-0001) as part of the Labex Empirical Foundations of Linguistics - EFL.

<footnote>‘manner of something falling’, ‘manner someone beats something’, ‘when everything is finished/disposed of’ (Rai 2015: 243–244).</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ I have experimented with this technique successfully in increasing my list of Thulung ideophones in December 2022: a spreadsheet of ideophones, sorted by subclass, from 9 different languages was used as a prompt and allowed me to collect many new ideophones, either because they triggered a sound connection, or because the semantics elicited a Thulung form.</footnote>
## Abbreviations

2 = 2nd person

3 = 3rd person

ABL = ablative

DER = derivational marker

DU = dual

HS = hearsay marker

IDEO = ideophone

IDEPH = ideophone

IDEO.PRVB = ideophonic preverb

IMP = imperative

INF = infinitive

INT = intensifier

LOC = locative

NEG = negative

POSS = possessive

PST = past

PT = past

REP = report marker

SG = singular

TEMP = temporal sequencer

## References

Abbi, Anvita. 2018. Echo formations and expressives in South Asian languages. A probe into significant areal phenomena. In Aina Urdze (ed.), *Non-prototypical reduplication*, 1–34. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Allen, Nicholas J. 1975. *Sketch of Thulung grammar*. Ithaca, NY: China-Japan Program, Cornell University.

Bickel, Balthasar. 1996. *Aspect, mood, and time in Belhare*. Zurich: University of Zurich.

Borchers, Dörte. 2008. *A grammar of Sunwar: descriptive grammar, paradigms, texts and glossary*. Leiden: Brill.

Caughley, Ross. 1997. Semantically related vowel gradation in Sunwar and Chepang. *Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics* 14. 95–101.

Caughley, Ross. 2002. Ideophones in Chepang: Their nature and subcategorization. *Gipan: Tribhuvan University Papers in Linguistics* 2 (May). 16–24.

Chelliah, Shobhana & Mary Burke & Marty Heaton. 2021. Using interlinear gloss texts to facilitate cross-language comparison and improve language description. *Indian Linguistics* 82(1–2). 1–24.

Dahal, Ballabh Mani. 1999. Phonesthetic elements in Nepali. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds.), *Topics in Nepalese linguistics*, 90–102. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.

Daigneault, Anna Luisa & D. Bögre Udell & K. Tcherneshoff & Gregory D. S. Anderson. 2022. The language sustainability toolkit. Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages and Wikitongues. https://livingtongues.org/language-sustainability-toolkit/. (Accessed 2023.01.19).

Diffloth, Gérard. 2021. Foreword. In Nathan Badenoch & Nishant Choksi (eds.), *Expressives in the South Asian linguistic area*, vii–x. Leiden: Brill.
## Abbreviations

2 = 2nd person

3 = 3rd person

ABL = ablative

DER = derivational marker

DU = dual

HS = hearsay marker

IDEO = ideophone

IDEPH = ideophone

IDEO.PRVB = ideophonic preverb

IMP = imperative

INF = infinitive

INT = intensifier

LOC = locative

NEG = negative

POSS = possessive

PST = past

PT = past

REP = report marker

SG = singular

TEMP = temporal sequencer

## References

Abbi, Anvita. 2018. Echo formations and expressives in South Asian languages. A probe into significant areal phenomena. In Aina Urdze (ed.), *Non-prototypical reduplication*, 1–34. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Allen, Nicholas J. 1975. *Sketch of Thulung grammar*. Ithaca, NY: China-Japan Program, Cornell University.

Bickel, Balthasar. 1996. *Aspect, mood, and time in Belhare*. Zurich: University of Zurich.

Borchers, Dörte. 2008. *A grammar of Sunwar: descriptive grammar, paradigms, texts and glossary*. Leiden: Brill.

Caughley, Ross. 1997. Semantically related vowel gradation in Sunwar and Chepang. *Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics* 14. 95–101.

Caughley, Ross. 2002. Ideophones in Chepang: Their nature and subcategorization. *Gipan: Tribhuvan University Papers in Linguistics* 2 (May). 16–24.

Chelliah, Shobhana & Mary Burke & Marty Heaton. 2021. Using interlinear gloss texts to facilitate cross-language comparison and improve language description. *Indian Linguistics* 82(1–2). 1–24.

Dahal, Ballabh Mani. 1999. Phonesthetic elements in Nepali. In Yogendra P. Yadava & Warren W. Glover (eds.), *Topics in Nepalese linguistics*, 90–102. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.

Daigneault, Anna Luisa & D. Bögre Udell & K. Tcherneshoff & Gregory D. S. Anderson. 2022. The language sustainability toolkit. Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages and Wikitongues. https://livingtongues.org/language-sustainability-toolkit/. (Accessed 2023.01.19).

Diffloth, Gérard. 2021. Foreword. In Nathan Badenoch & Nishant Choksi (eds.), *Expressives in the South Asian linguistic area*, vii–x. Leiden: Brill.
Diffloth, Gérard. 1976. Expressives in Semai. In *Austroasiatic Studies Part I*, vol. 13, 249–264. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. *Language and Linguistics Compass* 6(10). 654–672.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2018. Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. *Glossa: a journal of general linguistics* 3(1). 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.444.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2019. “Ideophone” as a comparative concept. In Kimi Akita & Prashant Pardeshi (eds.), *Ideophones, mimetics and expressives*, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2023. Ideophones. In Eva van Lier (ed.), *Oxford handbook of word classes*. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 466–476.

Doke, Clement Martyn. 1935. *Bantu linguistic terminology*. London: Longmans.

Doornenbal, Marius. 2009. *A grammar of Bantawa: Grammar, paradigm tables, glossary and texts of a Rai language of Eastern Nepal*. Utrecht: LOT.

Ebert, Karen. 1994. *The structure of Kiranti languages*. Zurich: University of Zurich.

Ebert, Karen. 1997a. *Camling (Chamling)*. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Ebert, Karen. 1997b. *A grammar of Athpare*. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Ebert, Karen. 2000. *Camling texts and glossary*. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Emeneau, Murray. 1969. Onomatopoetics in the Indian Linguistic Area. *Language* 45(2.1). 274–299.

Emeneau, Murray. 1980. *Language and linguistic area: essays*. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.

Gerber, Pascal & Selin Grollman. 2018. What is Kiranti? *Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics* 11. 99–152.

Grierson, George A. (ed.). 1909. *Linguistic survey of India*. Vol. III.1: *Tibeto-Burman family: General introduction, specimen of the Tibetan dialects, the Himalayan dialects, and the North Assam group*. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Hodgson, Brian H. 1857a. Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken tribes of Nepal [Vocabulary and grammar of the Vayu tribe]. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 26. 317–522 [372–485].

Hodgson, Brian H. 1857b. Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken tribes of Nepal [Vocabulary of the Bahing tribe]. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 26. 317–522 [486–522].

Hodgson, Brian H. 1858. Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken
Diffloth, Gérard. 1976. Expressives in Semai. In *Austroasiatic Studies Part I*, vol. 13, 249–264. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. *Language and Linguistics Compass* 6(10). 654–672.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2018. Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. *Glossa: a journal of general linguistics* 3(1). 1–30. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.444.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2019. “Ideophone” as a comparative concept. In Kimi Akita & Prashant Pardeshi (eds.), *Ideophones, mimetics and expressives*, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dingemanse, Mark. 2023. Ideophones. In Eva van Lier (ed.), *Oxford handbook of word classes*. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 466–476.

Doke, Clement Martyn. 1935. *Bantu linguistic terminology*. London: Longmans.

Doornenbal, Marius. 2009. *A grammar of Bantawa: Grammar, paradigm tables, glossary and texts of a Rai language of Eastern Nepal*. Utrecht: LOT.

Ebert, Karen. 1994. *The structure of Kiranti languages*. Zurich: University of Zurich.

Ebert, Karen. 1997a. *Camling (Chamling)*. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Ebert, Karen. 1997b. *A grammar of Athpare*. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Ebert, Karen. 2000. *Camling texts and glossary*. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Emeneau, Murray. 1969. Onomatopoetics in the Indian Linguistic Area. *Language* 45(2.1). 274–299.

Emeneau, Murray. 1980. *Language and linguistic area: essays*. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.

Gerber, Pascal & Selin Grollman. 2018. What is Kiranti? *Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics* 11. 99–152.

Grierson, George A. (ed.). 1909. *Linguistic survey of India*. Vol. III.1: *Tibeto-Burman family: General introduction, specimen of the Tibetan dialects, the Himalayan dialects, and the North Assam group*. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Hodgson, Brian H. 1857a. Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken tribes of Nepal [Vocabulary and grammar of the Vayu tribe]. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 26. 317–522 [372–485].

Hodgson, Brian H. 1857b. Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken tribes of Nepal [Vocabulary of the Bahing tribe]. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 26. 317–522 [486–522].

Hodgson, Brian H. 1858. Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken
tribes of Nepal (continued from vol 26) [Grammar of the Bahing tribe]. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 27. 393–456 [393–442].

Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), *Style in language*, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Kelly, Barbara & Aimée Lahaussois. 2021. Chains of influence in Himalayan grammars: models and interrelations shaping descriptions of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal. *Linguistics* 59(1). 207–245. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0255.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2003. Nominalization and its various uses in Thulung Rai. *Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area* 26(1). 33–57.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2017a. Ideophones in Khaling Rai. *Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area* 40(2). 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.17005.lah.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2017b. Relativization strategies and alignment in Thulung Rai. *Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale* 46(1). 73–100. https://doi.org/10.1163/19606028-04601003.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2019a. Interjection. In Bernard Colombat & Aimée Lahaussois (eds.), *Histoire des parties du discours*, 455–473. Leuven: Peeters.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2019b. The TULQuest linguistic questionnaire archive. In Aimée Lahaussois & Marine Vuillermet (eds.), *Methodological tools for linguistic description and typology*, 31–44. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2021. Glossing in the Linguistic Survey of India: Some insights into early 20th century practices. *Historiographia Linguistica* 48(1). 25–59.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2023. Ideophonic patterns in Kiranti languages and beyond. *Folia Linguistica*.

Lehmann, Christian & Elena Maslova. 2004. Grammaticography. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), *Morphologie: Ein Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung*, 1857–1882. Berlin / New York: W. de Gruyter.

Majeed, Javed. 2019a. *Colonialism and knowledge in Grierson's Linguistic Survey of India*. London / New York: Routledge.

Majeed, Javed. 2019b. *Nation and region in Grierson's Linguistic Survey of India*. London / New York: Routledge.

Masica, Colin. 1976. *Defining a linguistic area: South Asia*. Chicago: University of
tribes of Nepal (continued from vol 26) [Grammar of the Bahing tribe]. *Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal* 27. 393–456 [393–442].

Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), *Style in language*, 350–377. Cambridge, MA: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Kelly, Barbara & Aimée Lahaussois. 2021. Chains of influence in Himalayan grammars: models and interrelations shaping descriptions of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal. *Linguistics* 59(1). 207–245. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0255.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2003. Nominalization and its various uses in Thulung Rai. *Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area* 26(1). 33–57.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2017a. Ideophones in Khaling Rai. *Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area* 40(2). 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.17005.lah.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2017b. Relativization strategies and alignment in Thulung Rai. *Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale* 46(1). 73–100. https://doi.org/10.1163/19606028-04601003.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2019a. Interjection. In Bernard Colombat & Aimée Lahaussois (eds.), *Histoire des parties du discours*, 455–473. Leuven: Peeters.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2019b. The TULQuest linguistic questionnaire archive. In Aimée Lahaussois & Marine Vuillermet (eds.), *Methodological tools for linguistic description and typology*, 31–44. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2021. Glossing in the Linguistic Survey of India: Some insights into early 20th century practices. *Historiographia Linguistica* 48(1). 25–59.

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2023. Ideophonic patterns in Kiranti languages and beyond. *Folia Linguistica*.

Lehmann, Christian & Elena Maslova. 2004. Grammaticography. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), *Morphologie: Ein Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung*, 1857–1882. Berlin / New York: W. de Gruyter.

Majeed, Javed. 2019a. *Colonialism and knowledge in Grierson's Linguistic Survey of India*. London / New York: Routledge.

Majeed, Javed. 2019b. *Nation and region in Grierson's Linguistic Survey of India*. London / New York: Routledge.

Masica, Colin. 1976. *Defining a linguistic area: South Asia*. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Masica, Colin. 1991. *The Indo-Aryan languages*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matisoff, James. 1986. Hearts and minds in South-East Asian languages and English: An essay in the comparative lexical semantics of psycho-collocations. *Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale* 15(1). 5–57.

McLean, Bonnie. 2021. Revising an implicational hierarchy for the meanings of ideophones, with special reference to Japonic. *Linguistic Typology* 25(3). 507–549.

Michailovsky, Boyd. 1988. *La langue hayu*. Paris: Editions du CNRS.

Michailovsky, Boyd. 2017. Kiranti languages. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), *The Sino-Tibetan languages*, 646–679. 2nd edn. Oxford / New York: Routledge.

Moore, Colette. 2015. An ideological history of the English term onomatopoeia. In Michael Adams, Laurel J. Brinton & R. D. Fulk (eds.), *Studies in the history of the English language*. VI: *Evidence and method in histories of English*, 307–321. Berlin/Munich/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Msimang, Christian T. & George Poulos. 2001. The ideophone in Zulu: A re-examination of conceptual and descriptive notions. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), *Ideophones*, 235–249. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Odoul, Marie. 2019. Adverbe. In Bernard Colombat & Aimée Lahaussois (eds.), *Histoire des parties du discours*, 365–386. Leuven: Peeters.

Opgenort, Jean Robert. 2004. *A grammar of Wambule: Grammar, lexicon, texts and cultural survey of a Kiranti Tribe of Eastern Nepal*. Leiden: Brill.

Opgenort, Jean Robert. 2005. *A grammar of Jero, with a historical comparative study of the Kiranti languages*. Leiden / Boston: Brill.

Paudyal, Netra Prasad. 2015. *Aspects of Chintang syntax*. University of Zurich.

Pokharel, Madav P. 1993. The grammar of onomatopoeia in Nepali. *Nepalese Linguistics* 10. 10–34.

Rai, Netra Mani. 2016. *A grammar of Dumi*. Kathmandu, Nepal: Tribhuvan University (PhD dissertation).

Rai, Novel Kishore. 1984. *A descriptive study of Bantawa*. Poona: Deccan College.

Rai, Novel Kishore, Balthasar Bickel, Martin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Netra Prasad Paudyal, Ichchha Purna Rai, Manoj Rai & Sabine Stoll. 2005. Triplication and ideophones in Chintang. In Yogendra P. Yadava (ed.), *Current issues in Nepalese linguistics*, 205–209. Kirtipur: Linguistic Society of Nepal.
Chicago Press.

Masica, Colin. 1991. *The Indo-Aryan languages*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matisoff, James. 1986. Hearts and minds in South-East Asian languages and English: An essay in the comparative lexical semantics of psycho-collocations. *Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale* 15(1). 5–57.

McLean, Bonnie. 2021. Revising an implicational hierarchy for the meanings of ideophones, with special reference to Japonic. *Linguistic Typology* 25(3). 507–549.

Michailovsky, Boyd. 1988. *La langue hayu*. Paris: Editions du CNRS.

Michailovsky, Boyd. 2017. Kiranti languages. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), *The Sino-Tibetan languages*, 646–679. 2nd edn. Oxford / New York: Routledge.

Moore, Colette. 2015. An ideological history of the English term onomatopoeia. In Michael Adams, Laurel J. Brinton & R. D. Fulk (eds.), *Studies in the history of the English language*. VI: *Evidence and method in histories of English*, 307–321. Berlin/Munich/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Msimang, Christian T. & George Poulos. 2001. The ideophone in Zulu: A re-examination of conceptual and descriptive notions. In F. K. Erhard Voeltz & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.), *Ideophones*, 235–249. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Odoul, Marie. 2019. Adverbe. In Bernard Colombat & Aimée Lahaussois (eds.), *Histoire des parties du discours*, 365–386. Leuven: Peeters.

Opgenort, Jean Robert. 2004. *A grammar of Wambule: Grammar, lexicon, texts and cultural survey of a Kiranti Tribe of Eastern Nepal*. Leiden: Brill.

Opgenort, Jean Robert. 2005. *A grammar of Jero, with a historical comparative study of the Kiranti languages*. Leiden / Boston: Brill.

Paudyal, Netra Prasad. 2015. *Aspects of Chintang syntax*. University of Zurich.

Pokharel, Madav P. 1993. The grammar of onomatopoeia in Nepali. *Nepalese Linguistics* 10. 10–34.

Rai, Netra Mani. 2016. *A grammar of Dumi*. Kathmandu, Nepal: Tribhuvan University (PhD dissertation).

Rai, Novel Kishore. 1984. *A descriptive study of Bantawa*. Poona: Deccan College.

Rai, Novel Kishore, Balthasar Bickel, Martin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Netra Prasad Paudyal, Ichchha Purna Rai, Manoj Rai & Sabine Stoll. 2005. Triplication and ideophones in Chintang. In Yogendra P. Yadava (ed.), *Current issues in Nepalese linguistics*, 205–209. Kirtipur: Linguistic Society of Nepal.
Rai, Novel Kishore & Werner Winter. 1997. Triplicated verbal adjuncts in Bantawa. In David Bradley (ed.), *Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas*, 119–134. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Rai, Tara Mani. 2015. *A grammar of Koyee*. Tribhuvan University.

Rai, Vishnu Singh. 2012. *A grammar of Chamling*. Bern: University of Bern.

Rutgers, Roland. 1998. *Yamphu: Grammar, texts, lexicon*. Leiden: Research School CNWS.

Schackow, Diana. 2015. *A grammar of Yakkha*. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Schlemmer, Grégoire. 2021. Rai: Following the ancestors and managing the otherness. In Marine Carrin (ed.), *Encyclopedia of the religions of indigenous people of South Asia*, 785–792. Leiden / Boston: Brill.

Sharma, Narayan Prasad. 2014. *Morphosyntax of Puma, a Tibeto-Burman language of Nepal*. London: SOAS, University of London.

Thurgood, Graham & Randy LaPolla (eds.). 2017. *The Sino-Tibetan languages*. 2nd edn. Oxon: Routledge.

Toba, Sueyoshi. 1984. *Khaling*. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.

Tolsma, Gerard. 2006. *A grammar of Kulung*. Leiden: Brill.

Tumbahang, Govinda Bahadur. 2007. *A descriptive grammar of Chhatthare Limbu*. Kathmandu, Nepal: Tribhuvan University.

Tumbahang, Govinda Bahadur. 2017. *A grammar of Chhatthare Limbu*. Munich: Lincom.

van Driem, George. 1987. *A grammar of Limbu*. Berlin / New York, Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.

van Driem, George. 1993. *A grammar of Dumi*. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

van Driem, George. 2018. Linguistic history and historical linguistics. *Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area* 41(1). 106–127. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.18005.dri.

Voeltz, F. K. Erhard & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.). 2001. *Ideophones*. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Weidert, A. & B. Subba. 1985. *Concise Limbu grammar and dictionary*. Amsterdam: Lobster Publications.

Williams, Jeffrey P. (ed.). 2013. *The aesthetics of grammar. Sound and meaning in the languages of Mainland Southeast Asia*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wolfenden, Stuart. 1933a. A specimen of the Sāngpāng Dialect. *Acta Orientalia* 12.