This study analyses how certain qualitative perceptual appearances of biological forms are correlated with expressions of natural language. Making use of the Osgood semantic differential, we presented the subjects with 32 drawings of biological forms and a list of 10 pairs of connotative adjectives to be put in correlations with them merely by subjective judgments. The principal components analysis made it possible to group the semantics of forms according to two distinct axes of variability: Harmony and dynamicity. Specifically, the nonspiculed, nonholed, and flat forms were perceived as harmonic and static; the rounded ones were harmonic and dynamic. The elongated forms were somewhat disharmonious and somewhat static. The results suggest the existence in the general population of a correspondence between perceptual and semantic processes, and of a nonsymbolic relation between visual forms and their adjectival expressions in natural language.
AlbertazziL. (2010). The roots of metaphorical information. In AlbertazziL.van TonderG.VishwanathD. (Eds.), Perception beyond inference. The information content of perceptual processes (pp. 345–390). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AlbertazziL.CanalL.MiccioloR.MalfattiM. (2013). The hue of concepts. Perception, 42, 1344–1352.
3.
AlbertazziL.Da PosO.CanalL.MiccioloR.MalfattiM.VescoviM. (2012). The hue of shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 37–47.
4.
BozziP.d'ArcaisG. B. Flores (1967). Ricerca sperimentale sui rapporti intermodali tra qualità espressive. Archivio di Psicologia, Neurologia e Psichiatria, 28, 115–143.
5.
KadoshR. CohenHenikA.WalshV. (2009). Synesthesia: Learned or lost?Developmental Science, 12, 484–491.
6.
CruseA. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CruseA. (1992). Antonymy revisited: Some thoughts on the relation between words and concepts. In LehrerA.KittayE. F. (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 289–306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
DadamJ.AlbertazziL.Da PosO.CanalL.MiccioloR. (2012). Morphological patterns and their colour. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 114, 363–377.
9.
DeroyO.CrisinelA. S.SpenceC. (2013). Cross-modal correspondences between odors and contingent features: Odors, musical notes, and geometrical shapes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 878–896.
10.
DeroyO.SpenceC. (2013). Why we are not all synaesthetes (not even weakly so). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 643–664.
11.
DryerM. S. (2005). Order of adjective and noun. In HaspelmathM.GeyerM. S.GilD.ComrieB. (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 354–355). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
EnfieldN. J. (2004). Adjectives in Lao. In DixonR. M. W.AikhenvaldA. (Eds.), Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 323–347). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
GallaceA.BoschinE.SpenceC. (2011). On the taste of “bouba” and “kiki”: An exploration of word–food associations in neurologically normal participants. Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 34–46.
14.
GibbsR. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GómezM. E.IborraO.de CórdobaM. J.Juárez-RamosV.ArtachoM. A. RodríguezRubioJ. L. (2013). The Kiki–Bouba effect: A case of personification and ideaesthesia. The Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20(1/2), 84–102.
16.
GreenacreM. (2007). Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
17.
HaeckelE. H. (1866). Generelle Morphologie der Organismen [General morphology of organisms]. Berlin: Reimer Verlag.
18.
HaeckelE. H. (2004/1904). Kunstformen der Natur [Art forms in nature]. Munich: Prestel.
19.
HampeB.GradyJ. E. (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. New York: de Gruyter
20.
HubbardE. M.ArmanA. C.RamachandranV. S.BoyntonG. M. (2005). Individual differences among grapheme–colour synaesthetes: Brain–behaviour correlations. Neuron, 45, 975–985.
21.
JürgensU. M.NikolićD. (2012). Ideasthesia: Conceptual processes assign similar colours to similar shapes. Translational Neuroscience, 3, 22–27.
22.
KöhlerW. (1947). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology. New York: Liveright.
23.
LangackerR. (1990). Concept, image and symbol. New York: de Gruyter.
24.
LauC.SchlossK. B.PalmerS. E. (2011). Color–grapheme associations in non-synesthetes: Evidence of emotional mediation. Journal of Vision, 11(11):394 (Abstract). doi:10.1167/11.11.394
25.
LindauerM. S. (1973). From imagery to colors. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 36, 165–166.
26.
MartinoG.MarksL. E. (1999). Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification: Tests of the semantic coding hypothesis. Perception, 28, 903–923.
27.
MartinoG.MarksL. E. (2001). Synesthesia: Strong and weak. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 61–65.
28.
MaurerD.MondlochC. (2005). Neonatal synesthesia: A re-evaluation. In RobertsonC. L.SagivN. (Eds.), Synesthesia: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 193–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
MetzgerW. (1941). Psychologie: Die Entwicklung ihrer Grundannahmen seit der Einführung des Experiments. Dresden: Steinkopff.
30.
RamachandranV. S.HubbardE. M. (2001). Synaesthesia: A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 3–34.
31.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.R-project.org/
32.
SagivN.WardJ. (2006). Crossmodal interactions: Lessons from synesthesia. Progress in Brain Research, 155, 259–271.
33.
ShibuyaY.NozawaH.KanamaruT. (2007). Understanding synesthetic expressions. In PlümacherM.HolzP. (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 203–226). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
34.
SimnerJ.GartnerO.TaylorM. D. (2011). Cross-modal personality attributions in synaesthetes and non-synaesthetes. Journal of Neuropsychology, 5, 283–301.
35.
SimnerJ.WardJ.LanzM.JansariA.NoonanK.GloverL.OakleyD. (2005). Non-random associations of graphemes to colours in synaesthetic and normal populations. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 1069–1085.
36.
SivikL. (1974). Color meaning and perceptual color dimensions: A study of color samples. Göteborg Psychological Reports4(1).
37.
SpectorF.MaurerD. (2008). The colour of Os: Naturally biased associations between shape and colour. Perception, 37, 841–847.
38.
SpectorF.MaurerD. (2011). The colors of the alphabet: Naturally-biased associations between shape and colour. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 484–495.
SpenceC.DeroyO. (2013). How automatic are crossmodal correspondences?Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 245–260. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2012.12.006
41.
ThompsonD. W. (1961). On growth and form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
von HornbostelE. M. (1927). Die Einheit der Sinne [The unity of the senses]. Melos, Zeitschrift für Musik, iv, 290–297. [Reprint abridged, 1938, in EllisW. D. (Ed.), A source book of gestalt psychology (pp. 210–216). New York: Harcourt-Brace]
43.
WardJ.HuckstepB.TsakanikosE. (2006). Sound–colour synaesthesia: To what extent does it use cross-modal mechanisms common to us all?Cortex, 42, 264–280.
44.
WardJ.TsakanikosE.BrayA. (2006). Synaesthesia for reading and playing musical notes. Neurocase: The Neural Basis of Cognition, 12, 27–34. doi:10.1080/13554790500473672
45.
WrightB. (1962). The influence of hue, lightness and saturation on apparent warmth and weight. American Journal of Psychology, 75, 232–241.
