PHONOSEMANTIC UNIVERSALS IN L2 VOCABULARY ACQUISITION: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE ODAM TILI FRAMEWORK AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING
Keywords:
Keywords: phono-signosemantic framework; L2 vocabulary acquisition; sound symbolism; phonosemantic universals; Odam Tili theory; cross-linguistic transfer; L2 teaching methodology; SIGN–PHONE–SENSE; phonological awareness; Eurasian EFL contextAbstract
Abstract
Second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition has long been treated as a process
of arbitrary form-meaning mapping, following the Saussurean principle of the
arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. This article challenges that assumption by presenting
empirical and cross-linguistic evidence from the Odam Tili (Human Language) theory
developed by Dr. Mahmudjon Kuchkarov. Drawing on a longitudinal multi-site
experimental dataset collected from 26 volunteers of diverse racial, gender, and age
backgrounds across three phases — Fergana, Uzbekistan (2003); New York, USA
(2011); and Orlando, Florida, USA (2017) — and applying a phono-signosemantic
analytical framework, the study demonstrates that specific phonemes emerge
systematically under defined biomechanical and environmental stimuli: /h/ as an index
of physical load and hand agency (76% consistency across sites); /a/ as the universal
phoneme of pain, distress, and biological origin; /o/ as the phoneme of long-distance
projection (18% predominance over /a/ in competitive shouting trials); /t/ as the index
of large-object impact (81%); /tʃ/ as the index of small-object impact (78%); and /s/-/ʃ/
as sibilant indices of smooth, sliding movement (63%/37% in snake-association
surveys). Cross-linguistic analysis demonstrates that these phonosemantic mappings
are preserved in the lexicons of typologically distinct languages — including English,
Uzbek, Russian, Hebrew, and Arabic — and in the visual forms and sequencing of
major world writing systems. The article argues that these findings have direct and
significant implications for L2 vocabulary teaching, phonological awareness
instruction, cross-linguistic transfer facilitation, and the design of phonosemantically-
informed L2 curricula, particularly for Eurasian learners of English.
References
References
1. Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F., & Christiansen, M.
H. (2016). Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of
languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(39), 10818–
10823. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605782113
2. Cook, V. J. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 57(3), 402–423.
3. Corballis, M. C. (2002). From hand to mouth: The origins of language. Princeton
University Press.
4. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in
multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240.
5. Cwiek, A., Fuchs, S., Draxler, C., Asu, E. L., Dediu, D., Hiovain, K., Kawahara, S.,
Koutalidis, S., Krifka, M., Lippus, P., Lupyan, G., Oh, G. E., Paul, J., Petrone, C.,
Ridouane, R., Reiter, S., Schümchen, N., Szalontai, Á., Ünal-Logacev, Ö., Zygis,
M., & Winter, B. (2022). The bouba/kiki effect is robust across cultures and writing
systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 377(1841), 20200390.
6. de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Payot.
7. Dingemanse, M. (2012). Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones.
Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 654–672.
8. Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P.
(2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 19(10), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
9. Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. J. (Eds.). (1994). Sound symbolism. Cambridge
University Press.
10. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2007). Crosslinguistic influence in language and
cognition. Routledge.
11. Kantartzis, K., Imai, M., & Kita, S. (2011). Japanese sound-symbolism facilitates
word learning in English-speaking children. Cognitive Science, 35(3), 575–586.
12. Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. Liveright.
13. Kuchkarov, M., Kuchkarov, M., & Sobirjonova, M. (2026). Archaeology of
language: Phonosemantic foundations and the universal water code. Journal of
Applied Science and Social Science, 16(03), 417–421.
14. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge
University Press.
15. Nielsen, A., & Rendall, D. (2011). The sound of round: Evaluating the sound-
symbolic role of consonants in the classic Takete-Maluma phenomenon. Canadian
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(2), 115–124.
16. Nygaard, L. C., Cook, A. E., & Namy, L. L. (2009). Sound to meaning
correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition, 112(1), 181–186.
17. Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language
learning. Cambridge University Press.
18. Parault, S. J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2006). Sound-symbolism: A piece in the
puzzle of word learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(4), 329–351.
19. Perniss, P., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). The bridge of iconicity: From a world of
experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B, 369(1651), 20130300.
20. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia: A window into
perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3–34.
21. Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual.
Palgrave Macmillan.
22. Wierzbicka, A. (1992). The semantics of interjection. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2–
3), 159–192.
