Phono-Semantic Matching (henceforth, PSM) is a camouflaged borrowing in which a foreign lexical item is matched with a phonetically and semantically similar pre-existent native word/root. The neologism resulting from this source of lexical expansion preserves both the meaning and the approximate sound of the reproduced expression in the Source Language (SL) with the help of pre-existent Target Language (TL) elements. (Neologism is used here in its broader meaning, i.e. either an entirely new lexical item or a TL pre-existent word whose meaning has been altered, resulting in a new sense.) The following figure is a general illustration of this process:
Such multisourced neologization is common inter alia in two key language groups:
(1) languages using a phono-logographic script that does not allow mere phonetic adaptation, e.g. Chinese and Japanese (the latter only to the extent that kanji are used), and
(2) reclaimed (e.g. Revived Hebrew, henceforth Israeli), revolutionized (e.g. Republican Turkish) and puristically-oriented (e.g. Icelandic) languages, in which language-planners attempt to replace undesirable foreignisms or loanwords.
The figure below summarizes the process with regard to the Israeli PSM משקפים mishkafáim ‘glasses’:
One of the problems facing Hebrew revivalists was that of Hebrew lexical voids. The revivalists attempted to use mainly internal sources of lexical enrichment but were faced with a paucity of roots. They changed the meanings of obsolete Hebrew terms to fit the modern world. This infusion often entailed PSM. Israeli has approximately 300 PSMs because such multiple causation neologization is preferred for the following reasons:
- It conceals foreign influence from the native speakers, ensuring lexicographic acceptability of the coinage (for the native speaker in the future),
- It recycles obsolete autochthonous roots and words (a delight for purists), and
- It aids initial learning among contemporary learners and speakers.
Other motivations include:
4. playfulness (cf. pilpul and midrashic tradition of homiletic commentary),
5. Apollonianism (the wish to create order/meaningfulness, cf. etymythology, or folk etymology),
6. iconicity (the belief that there is something intrinsic about the sound of names),
7. political correctness / rejective lexical engineering, and
8. attracting customers (in the case of brand names) (Zuckermann 2006).
Consider the following PSM from the assembly line of the Academy of the Hebrew Language:
The following PSM is partially incestuous since Yiddish shákher can be traced back to Hebrew sáħar:
Often in PSM, the source-language not only dictates the choice of root, but also the choice of noun-pattern, thus constituting a camouflaged influence on the Target Language morphology. For example, the phono-semantic matcher of English dock with Israeli מבדוק mivdók could have used – after deliberately choosing the phonetically and semantically suitable root בדק √bdq ‘check’ (Rabbinic), ‘repair’ (Biblical) – the noun-patterns mi⌂⌂a⌂á, ma⌂⌂e⌂á, mi⌂⌂é⌂et, mi⌂⌂a⌂áim etc. (each ⌂ represents a slot where a radical is inserted). Instead, mi⌂⌂ó⌂, which was not highly productive, was chosen because its [o] makes the final syllable of מבדוק mivdók sound like English dock.
Traditional classifications of borrowing such as Einar Haugen’s (1950) ignore PSM and categorize borrowing into either substitution or importation. However, PSM is a distinct phenomenon, which operates through simultaneous substitution and importation. Yet, PSM ought not to be confused with calquing as the latter lacks the phonetic matching component. Recognizing PSM carries significant implications of hybridity and multiple causation not only for lexicology and comparative historical linguistics, but also for sociolinguistics, cultural studies and – importantly: Revivalistics.
Find out more:
Sapir, Yair and Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 2008. ‘Icelandic: Phonosemantic Matching’, pp. 19-43 (Chapter 2) (References: 296-325) of Judith Rosenhouse and Rotem Kowner (eds), Globally Speaking: Motives for Adopting English Vocabulary in Other Languages. Clevedon – Buffalo – Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 2003. Language Contact and Lexical Enrichment in Israeli Hebrew. London – New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 2005. ‘Phono-Semantiche Abgleichung’ in Stefan Langer and Daniel Schnorbusch (eds), Semantik im Lexikon, Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 223-267.
Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 2006. ‘“Etymythological Othering” and the Power of “Lexical Engineering” in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. A Socio-Philo(sopho)logical Perspective’, pp. 237-58 (Chapter 16) of ‘Tope Omoniyi and Joshua A. Fishman (eds), Explorations in the Sociology of Language and Religion (Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture series). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zuckermann, Ghil‘ad 2020. Revivalistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Professor Ghil‘ad Zuckermann (DPhil Oxford; PhD Cambridge) is listed among Australia’s top 30 ‘living legends of research’ by The Australian newspaper (2024). He received the Rubinlicht Prize for his outstanding contribution to Yiddish scholarship in 2023. He is the author of Revivalistics: From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond (Oxford University Press, 2020).
Language attitudes towards Sheng: deterioration or unification? 
The Swedish Romani language, historically and today 
The Survival of Yiddish beneath Israeli 
Around Europe in Sixty Languages by Gaston Dorren. Book review. 
Karl Verner, world-famous linguist – an former student of Aarhus Cathedral School. Part 2 
Bob Marley and his language, the film about him, and irates of the Caribbean