Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:06:34.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The source and magnitude of sound-symbolic biases in processing artificial word material and their implications for language learning and transmission

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Alan Nielsen  and
Drew Rendall
Alan Nielsen
Affiliation:
University of Lethbridge
Drew Rendall*
Affiliation:
University of Lethbridge
*
Correspondence addresses: Drew Rendall, Department of Psychology, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, T1K 3M4, Canada. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There exists a fundamental paradox in linguistic cognition. Experiments show consistent sound-symbolic biases in people's processing of artificial words, yet the biases are not manifest in the structure of real words. To address this paradox, we designed an experiment to test the magnitude and source of these biases. Participants were tasked with matching nonsense words to novel object forms. One group was implicitly taught a matching rule congruent with biases reported previously, while a second group was taught a rule incongruent with this bias. In test trials, participants in the congruent condition performed only modestly but significantly better than chance and better than participants in the incongruent condition who performed at chance. These outcomes indicate the processing bias is real but weak and reflects an inherent learning bias. We discuss implications for language learning and transmission, considering the functional value of non-arbitrariness in language structure and underlying neurocognitive mechanisms.

Keywords

symbol groundingsound symbolismartificial language learningBouba-Kikilanguage acquisition
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 115 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bachorowski, J.-A. & Owren, M. J.. 1995. Vocal expression of emotion: Acoustic properties of speech are associated with emotional intensity and context. Psychological Science 6. 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachorowski, J.-A., Smoski, M. J. & Owren, M. J.. 2001. The acoustic features of human laughter. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110. 1581–1597.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. 1994. Evidence for pervasive synesthetic sound symbolism in ethnozoological nomenclature. In Hinton, L., Nichols, J. & Ohala, J. J. (eds.), Sound symbolism, 76–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brang, D., Rouw, R., Ramachandran, V. S. & Coulson, S.. 2011. Similarly shaped letters evoke similar colors in grapheme-color synaesthesia. Neuropsychologia 49. 1355–1358.Google Scholar
Brown, R. W., Black, A. H. & Horowitz, A. E.. 1955. Phonetic symbolism in natural languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 50. 388–93.Google Scholar
Gasser, M. 2004. The origins of arbitrariness of language. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 434–439.Google Scholar
Huang, Y.-H., Pratoomraj, S. & Johnson, R. C.. 1969. Universal magnitude symbolism. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior 8. 155–156.Google Scholar
Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M. & Okada, H.. 2008. Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition 109. 54–65.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. C. 1967. Magnitude symbolism of English words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6(4). 508–511.Google Scholar
Kirby, S., Cornish, H. & Smith, K.. 2008. Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105. 10681–10686.Google Scholar
Köhler, W. 1947. Gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Liveright.Google Scholar
Kovic, V., Plunkett, K. & Westermann, G.. 2010. The shape of words in the brain. Cognition 114. 19–28.Google Scholar
Maurer, D., Pathman, T. & Mondloach, C. J.. 2006. The shape of boubas: Sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science 9. 316–322.Google Scholar
Monaghan, P., Chriastiansen, M. H. & Fitneva, S. A.. 2011. The Arbitrariness of the sign: Learning advantages from the structure of the vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 140. 325–347.Google Scholar
Morton, E. S. 1977. On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some birds and mammal sounds. American Naturalist 111. 855–869.Google Scholar
Murray, I. R. & Arnot, J. L.. 1993. Toward the simulation of emotion in synthetic speech: A review of the literature on human vocal emotion. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 93. 1097–1108.Google Scholar
Newman, S. S. 1933. Further experiments in phonetic symbolism. American Journal of Psychology 45. 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 1992. Iconicity and generative grammar. Language 68. 756–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, A. & Rendall, D.. 2011. The Sound of round: Evaluating the role of consonants in the classic Takete-Maluma phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 65. 115–124.Google Scholar
Nikolie, D., Lichti, P. & Singer, W.. 2007. Color opponency in synaesthetic experience. Psychological Science 18. 481–486.Google Scholar
Nygaard, L. C., Cook, A. E. & Namy, L. L.. 2009. Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition 112. 181–186.Google Scholar
Owren, M. J. & Rendall, D.. 1997. An affect-conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocalizations. In Owings, D. W., Beecher, M. D. & Thompson, N. S. (eds.), Perspectives in ethology, Volume 12: Communication, 299–346. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Owren, M. J. & Rendall, D.. 2001. Sound on the rebound: Bringing form and function back to the forefront in understanding nonhuman primate vocal signaling. Evolutionary Anthropology 10. 58–71.Google Scholar
Owren, M. J., Rendall, D. & Bachorowski, J.-A.. 2005. Conscious and unconscious emotion in nonlinguistic vocal communication. In Barrett, L. F., Niedenthal, P. & Winkielman, P. (eds.), Emotion and consciousness, 185–204. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Parise, C. V. & Pavani, F.. 2011. Evidence of sound symbolism in simple vocalizations. Experimental Brain Research 214. 373–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Protopapas, A. & Eimas, P. D.. 1997. Perceptual differences in infant cries revealed by modifications of acoustic features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102. 3723–3734.Google Scholar
Rendall, D. 2003. Acoustic correlates of caller identity and affect intensity in the vowel-like grunt vocalizations of baboons. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113. 3390–3402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rendall, D., Owren, M. J. & Ryan, M. J.. 2009. What do animal signals mean? Animal Behaviour 78. 233–240.Google Scholar
Rouw, R. & Scholte, S.. 2007. Increased structural connectivity in grapheme—color synesthesia. Nature Neuroscience 10. 792–797.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. 1983. Course in general linguistics. Translated by Harris, Roy. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Simner, J., Mulvenna, C., Sagiv, N., N., , Tsakanikos, E., Witherby, S. A., Fraser, C., Scott, K. & Ward, J.. 2006. Synaesthesia: The prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences. Perception 35. 1024–1033.Google Scholar
Spector, F. & Maurer, D.. 2009. Synesthesia: A new approach to understanding the development of perception. Developmental Psychology 45. 175–189.Google Scholar
Tarte, R. D. & Barritt, L. S.. 1971. Phonetic symbolism in adult native speakers of English: Three studies. Language and Speech 14. 158.Google Scholar
Tarte, R. D. 1974. Phonetic symbolism in adult native speakers of Czech. Language and Speech 17. 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, J., Huckstep, B. & Tsakanikos, E.. 2006. Sound-colour synaesthesia: To what extent does it use cross-modal mechanisms common to us all? Cortex 42. 264–280.Google Scholar
Westbury, C. 2005. Implicit sound symbolism in lexical access: Evidence from an interference task. Brain and Language 93. 10–19.Google Scholar