Adult listeners systematically associate certain speech sounds with round or spiky shapes, a sound-symbolic phenomenon known as the “bouba-kiki effect.” In this study, we investigate the respective influences of consonants and vowels in this phenomenon. French participants were asked to match auditorily presented pseudowords with one of two visually presented shapes, one round and one spiky. The pseudowords were created by crossing either two consonant pairs with a wide range of vowels (experiment 1 and 2) or two vowel pairs with a wide range of consonants (experiment 3). Analyses showed that consonants have a greater influence than vowels in the bouba-kiki effect. Importantly, this asymmetry cannot be due to an onset bias, as a strong consonantal influence is found both with CVCV (experiment 1) and VCV (experiment 2) stimuli. We discuss these results in terms of the differential role of consonants and vowels in speech perception.
BloomfieldL. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
3.
BonattiL. L.PeñaM.NesporM.MehlerJ. (2005). Linguistic constraints on statistical computations: The role of consonants and vowels in continuous speech processing. Psychololgical Science, 16(6), 451–459.
4.
BondB.StevensS. (1969). Cross-modality matching of brightness to loudness by 5-year-olds. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 337–339.
5.
BremnerA. J.CaparosS.DavidoffJ.de FockertJ.LinnellK. J.SpenceC. (2013). “Bouba” and “Kiki” in Namibia? A remote culture make similar shape-sound matches, but different shape-taste matches to Westerners. Cognition, 126(2), 165–172.
6.
CaramazzaA.ChialantD.CapassoR.MiceliG. (2000). Separable processing of consonants and vowels. Nature, 403(6768), 428–430.
7.
ChastaingM. (1958). Le symbolisme des voyelles: Signification des “i”. Journal de Psychologie, 55,461–481.
8.
CutlerA.Sebastian-GallesN.Soler-VilageliuO.van OoijenB. (2000). Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: Cross-linguistic comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 28(5), 746–755.
9.
de SaussureF. D. (1959). Course in general linguistics. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
10.
FortM.WeissA.MartinA.PeperkampS. (2013). Looking for the bouba-kiki effect in pre-lexical infants. In OuniS.BerthommierF.JesseA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th international conference on auditory-visual speech processing (pp. 71–76). Annecy, France: INRIA.
11.
GallaceA.SpenceC. (2006). Multisensory synesthetic interactions in the speeded classification of visual size. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(7), 1191–1203.
KantartzisK.ImaiM.KitaS. (2011). Japanese sound-symbolism facilitates word learning in English-Speaking children. Cognitive Science, 35, 575–586.
14.
KeidelJ. L.JenisonR. L.KluenderK. R.SeidenbergM. S. (2007). Does grammar constrain statistical learning? Commentary on Bonatti, Peña, Nespor, and Mehler (2005). Psychological Science, 18(10), 922–923.
15.
KöhlerW. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Liveright.
16.
KöhlerW. (1947). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology. New York, NY: Liveright.
17.
KovicV.PlunkettK.WestermannG. (2010). The shape of words in the brain. Cognition, 114(1), 19–28.
18.
LewkowiczD. J.TurkewitzG. (1980). Cross-modal equivalence in early infancy: Auditory-visual intensity matching. Developmental Psychology, 16, 597–607.
19.
LudwigV. U.AdachiI.MatsuzawaT. (2011). Visuoauditory mappings between high luminance and high pitch are shared by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 108(51), 20661–20665.
20.
MarksL. E. (1987). On cross-modal similarity: Auditory–visual interactions in speeded discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 384–394.
21.
MarksL. E. (2004). Cross-modal interactions in speeded classification. In CalvertI. G. A.SpenceC.SteinB. E. (Eds.), Handbook of multisensory processes (pp. 85–105). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
MaurerD.PathmanT.MondlochC. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: Sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9(3), 316–322.
23.
MehlerJ.PeñaM.NesporM.BonattiL. L. (2006). The “soul” of language does not use statistics: Reflections on vowels and consonants. Cortex, 42, 846–854.
MonaghanP.MattockK.WalkerP. (2012). The role of sound symbolism in language learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 38(5), 1152–1164.
26.
MondlochC. J.MaurerD. (2004). Do small white balls squeak? Pitch–object correspondences in young children. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4(2), 133–136.
27.
NesporM.PeñaM.MehlerJ. (2003). On the different roles of vowels and consonants in speech processing and language acquisition. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2, 203–229.
28.
NewB.NazziT. (2014). The time course of consonant and vowel processing during word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 29(2), 147–157.
29.
NielsenA. K.RendallD. (2011). The sound of round: Evaluating the sound-symbolic role of consonants in the classic Takete-Maluma phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(2), 115–124.
30.
NygaardL. C.CookA. E.NamyL. L. (2009). Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition, 112(1), 181–186.
31.
OzturkO.KrehmM.VouloumanosA. (2013). Sound symbolism in infancy: Evidence for sound-shape cross-modal correspondences in 4-month-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(2), 173–186.
32.
PariseC. V.PavaniF. (2011). Evidence of sound symbolism in simple vocalizations. Experimental Brain Research, 214(3), 373–380.
33.
PariseC. V.SpenceC. (2012). Audiovisual crossmodal correspondences and sound symbolism: A study using the implicit association test. Experimental Brain Research, 220(3–4), 319–333.
34.
PeñaM.MehlerJ.NesporM. (2011). The role of audiovisual processing in early conceptual development. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1419–1421.
35.
R Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
36.
RamachandranV. S.HubbardE. M. (2001). Synaesthesia – A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciouness Studies, 8(12), 3–34.
37.
SapirE. (1929). A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 225–239.
38.
SpectorF.MaurerD. (2013). Early sound symbolism for vowel sounds. i-Perception, 4(4), 239–241.
TarteR. D. (1974). Phonetic symbolism in adult native speakers of Czech. Language and Speech, 17, 87–94.
42.
TarteR. D. (1982). The relationship between monosyllables and pure tones: An investigation of phonetic symbolism. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 352–360.
43.
ToroJ. M.NesporM.MehlerJ.BonattiL. L. (2008). Finding words and rules in a speech stream: Functional differences between vowels and consonants. Psychological Science, 19(2), 137–144.
44.
ToroJ. M.ShuklaM.NesporM.EndressA. D. (2008). The quest for generalizations over consonants: Asymmetries between consonants and vowels are not the by-product of acoustic differences. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(8), 1515–1525.
45.
WagnerS.WinnerE.CicchettiD.GardnerH. (1981). “Metaphorical” mapping in human infants. Child Development, 52, 728–731.
46.
WalkerP. (2012). Cross-sensory correspondences and cross talk between dimensions of connotative meaning: Visual angularity is hard, high-pitched, and bright. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 74(8), 1792–1809.
47.
WalkerP.BremnerJ. G.MasonU.SpringJ.MattockK.SlaterA.JohnsonS. P. (2010). Preverbal infants’ sensitivity to synaesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psychological Science, 21(1), 21–25.
48.
WestburyC. (2005). Implicit sound symbolism in lexical access: Evidence from an interference task. Brain and Language, 93(1), 10–19.
