Concepts or semantic features organized into signs, or rather categories of signs, potentially available in linguistic competence. We classify prosodic signs in general, and prosodic signs in particular, according to different levels of paradigmatic generality. These levels are taken from Rastier (1987), who designed them for the paradigms of verbal signs (and for the analysis of the cohesion of an utterance by isotopy). These levels are called dimensions (major grammatical or modal dimensions), domains (thematic fields) and taxemes (levels of minimal interdefinition of signs: those that appear immediately commutable, and are coded using distinctive semantic features within the paradigm).
– [II.1]. The various prosodic taxemes: prosodic categories as they are generally listed (for French), without looking, in this first stage, at more complex paradigmatic organizations (prosodic signs classified in different taxemes but sharing certain features of meaning, and possibly features of expression).
– [II.2]. Prosodic signs belonging to the same dimension. After a typology of verbal dimensions (which all general linguistics or morphosyntax makes explicit in its own way), we propose a typology of prosodic dimensions. Prosodic signs that are minimally interdefined in different taxemes can nevertheless be classified in the same dimension (e.g. /+intense/). The fact that prosodic signs are motivated by biological codes (cf. above) means that this isosemy (part of the semantic features in common) can be correlated with an isophony (part of the features, if not phonological, at least phonetic [according to certain allomorphs] in common).
– [II.3]. Domain paradigms: verbal (thematic) and prosodic (thematic in a function of imitation of the verbal meaning). The inherent or contextual nature of the semantic features of signs classified in domains, their relationship to morphosemantics, and the actualization of the same sign, or even signs of the same taxemes, in several domains or dimensions are discussed in other sections.
– [II.4. Movement domain: typology of 6 prosodic signs that can be actualized in this domain. Corpus of examples.
– [II.5. Power domain: typology of 5 prosodic signs that can be actualized in this domain. Corpus of examples.
– [II.6]. Quantity domain: typology of 2 prosodic signs that can be actualized in this domain. Corpus of examples.
– [II.7]. Size domain: typology of 4 prosodic signs that can be updated in this domain. Corpus of examples.
– [II.8]. Sonority domain: typology of 2 prosodic signs that can be updated in this domain. Corpus of examples.
– [II.9]. Presence domain: typology of 2 prosodic signs that can be updated in this domain. Corpus of examples.
– [II.10.]. Resistance domain: typology of 2 actualizable prosodic signs in this domain. Corpus of examples.
– [II.11.]. Spatial position domain: typology of 5 prosodic signs that can be actualized in this domain. Corpus of examples.
– [II.13.]. Temporality domain: we currently assume only one prosodic sign that can be actualized in this domain. Corpus of examples.
– [II.14.]. Valence domain (= positive/negative): typology of 2 prosodic signs that can be actualized in this domain. Corpus of examples. – [II.15.]. Comparison with other semiosis based on sound imitation, which can integrate signs into the same semantic domains (or rather conceptual domains, strictly speaking, since they are different codes): programmatic music, film soundtracks, segmental sound symbolism. Analogies with sign language.