[III]. Syntagmatic onomasiology.
Prosodic signs can form isotopic relationships with each other, and with verbal signs, i.e. they can actualize identical semantic features on either side to form chains of meaning. For our application, these include both domain semantic features and specific semantic features.
[III.1]. Imitative connection defined as opposed to metaphorical connection (based on levels of relations between semantic features).
[III.2]. Inherence vs. contextual afference in the actualization of isotopic semantic features (according to the different types of semantic features, for both the imitated verbal sign and the imitating prosodic sign).
[III.3]. Tension between the imitation and intensification functions, for prosodic and verbal content in an isotopic relation. The prosodic sign may strongly resemble the verbal sign, more in order to reinforce the latter’s (grammatical or modal) value (i.e. intensively modify it), or on the contrary, more in order to imitate it (the problem of the stereotypical image is reminiscent of nature epithets, defined by Delente as “indices of generality” rather than intensification). The interpretation of an occurrence’s place on this continuum between these two extremes can be approached by taking into account the problems of prosodic allomorphs (more or less exaggerated), the incidence regime of the verbal sign in question (noun, adjective), and, for the noun, its determination. [III.4.]. Prosodic intervention to actualize potential segmental phonosymbolism. Prosody can reveal these segmental values by emphasizing them, or by actualizing the same imitative concept itself.