Have you ever looked at a common object, say—a spoon—and repeated the word over and over until it sounded completely foreign? Spoon. Spoon. Spooooon. Suddenly, you are struck by a bizarre realization: Why on earth is this metallic scooping tool called a “spoon”? Who decided that that specific combination of sounds (s-p-u-n) captures the essence of the object?

If you have ever had this thought, you have inadvertently stumbled into one of the oldest and most contentious debates in the history of linguistics. It is a debate that dates back to 4th century BC Athens, captured in Plato’s often-overlooked dialogue, the Cratylus.

While linguists today have complex models for syntax and semantics, the core question of the Cratylus remains a fascinating entry point for language learners and philology enthusiasts alike: Are names arbitrary conventions, or is there a natural connection between a word’s sound and its meaning?

The Contenders: Hermogenes vs. Cratylus

The dialogue features Socrates adjudicating an argument between two men who hold completely opposing views on how language works. To understand the roots of modern linguistics, we have to understand their corners of the ring.

1. Hermogenes and Conventionalism

In one corner, we have Hermogenes. He represents the view known as Conventionalism. His argument is one that feels intuitive to the modern mind. He believes that names are purely a result of social habit and agreement.

Hermogenes argues that there is no inherent reason why a “cat” is called a “cat.” We could just as easily have agreed to call it a “glarb” or a “shim-sham.” As long as society agrees on the label, the language works. To Hermogenes, the relationship between the signifier (the word) and the signified (the object) is arbitrary. This view anticipates the work of the father of modern linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure, by about 2,300 years.

2. Cratylus and Naturalism

In the other corner stands Cratylus. He serves as the proponent of Naturalism. His view is more mystical and, initially, harder to swallow. Cratylus argues that names represent the true nature of things.

He believes that names are not just random labels; rather, they are vocal imitations of the object’s essence. If a name is “correct”, it must mimic the qualities of the thing it describes. Under this theory, a word is like a painting in sound. If you truly understand the nature of an object, you will naturally arrive at its correct name.

Socrates and the Sounds of Nature

Socrates, characteristically, refuses to let either side win easily. However, he spends a significant portion of the dialogue entertaining Cratylus’s Naturalism by breaking down the Greek language into its atomic parts: letters and sounds.

This is where the dialogue becomes a goldmine for phonology enthusiasts. Socrates suggests that individual sounds carry inherent meaning, a concept known today as sound symbolism or phonosemantics.

Here are a few examples Socrates provides regarding the “nature” of sounds:

• The Letter R (Rho): Socrates argues that the “r” sound involves vibration and movement of the tongue. Therefore, it is naturally suited for words involving motion, agitation, or hardness. He points to Greek words like rhein (to flow) and rhoe (flux).
• The Letter L (Lambda): Conversely, Socrates observes that “l” is a liquid sound where the tongue glides. Thus, it is naturally suited for things that are smooth, soft, or slippery, such as the Greek word leios (smooth).
• Vowels: He suggests that “i” (iota) is thin and piercing, suitable for small or penetrating things, while “a” (alpha) and “o” (omega) are large and round, suitable for vastness.

If you test this against English, you might find some eerie coincidences. Think of words like rough, run, rush, rock (using the R) versus light, level, love, lull (using the L). Cratylus would argue this proves his point: the sound mirrors the physical reality.

The Problem with Naturalism: The Tower of Babel

If Cratylus is right, and words naturally echo the essence of things, we hit a massive logical roadblock: Why are there so many languages?

If the sound “cat” is the perfect, natural vocalization of the feline essence, why do the Spanish say gato, the French chat, the Japanese neko, and the Koreans goyangi? If language were purely naturalistic, the whole world should theoretically speak the same “perfect” language.

Furthermore, languages evolve. We know that the word “hound” used to mean any dog, but now refers to a specific type. If the word changed its meaning but kept its sound, the “natural link” is broken. Socrates eventually turns the tables on Cratylus, acknowledging that while some words might have started as sound imitations, convention (Hermogenes’ view) is required to patch the gaps. We speak to be understood, and custom is the glue that holds that understanding together.

The Modern Verdict: The Bouba/Kiki Effect

So, was Cratylus wrong? Is language 100% arbitrary?

For most of the 20th century, linguists sided with Hermogenes. Saussure’s “Arbitrariness of the Sign” became a dogma of linguistics. However, recent cognitive science suggests that Cratylus wasn’t entirely crazy.

Consider the famous Bouba/Kiki Effect. In psychological experiments across different cultures and languages, participants are shown two shapes: one spiky and jagged, the other round and bulbous. They are told one is a “Bouba” and one is a “Kiki.”

Overwhelmingly (often 90%+), people identify the spiky shape as “Kiki” and the round shape as “Bouba.”

Why? Because the mouth shape required to say “Bouba” is round and the sound is soft, mirroring the visual curves. “Kiki” requires a sharp, stopping sound in the back of the throat and a tight smile, mirroring the jagged spikes. This is iconicity—where the form resembles the meaning.

We see this in:

• Onomatopoeia: Bang, splash, moo, buzz. These are clearly non-arbitrary.
• Ideophones: Common in Japanese and Korean (and comic books), these are words that evoke sensory experiences, like a word for “twinkle” or “wobbly.”
• Phonaesthemes: Clusters of words in English that share meaning and sound. Consider the “gl-” cluster for light/vision: glitter, glisten, glow, gleam, glare, glamour.

What This Means for Language Learners

Why does a philosophical debate from 2,400 years ago matter to someone learning a language today?

First, it liberates you from the frustration of arbitrariness. When you struggle to remember that book is buch, libro, or hon, remember Hermogenes. Most vocabulary is indeed just a social handshake—a random agreement you simply have to memorize.

However, you can also use Cratylus to your advantage. Look for the “natural” hooks in a language. Pay attention to how specific sounds feel in the mouth. In many languages, high front vowels (like the ‘ee’ in teeny) are used for small things (diminutives), while low back vowels (like the ‘o’ in huge) are used for large things.

The Final Word

In the end, Socrates concludes that language is a tool. Just as a drill is a tool for making holes, a name is a tool for dividing and teaching reality. The best tools might naturally fit the hand (Naturalism), but we can still work with imperfect tools as long as we all agree on how to use them (Conventionalism).

So, the next time you say the word “smooth”, feel your tongue glide over your teeth and ask yourself: Are you just following a rule, or are you painting with sound?