Based on Conceptual Blending Theory and Conceptual Metaphor Theory, and drawing on a rich body of empirical material from music psychology and ongoing fieldwork research data collected in three countries, we review visual representations of music as a blended domain between music and 2d images, giving rise to the concept of musical shape. As we describe the mechanisms that seem to influence this blend, based on physiological parameters (primary sensory motor skills) and variable cultural denominators with a particular emphasis on the representation of time, we put forward a “Model of Perceptual Modalities”. Here, music interacts with components of other domain spaces (imagery) while being informed by cognitive metaphors (both culturally specific and human-universal) so as to provide a simple but enriched theoretical understanding of the relation between music and shape.
AntovićM. (2016). From expectation to concepts: Towards multilevel grounding in musical semantics. Cognitive Semiotics, 9(2), 105–138.
4.
AntovićM.StamenkovićD.FigarV. (2016). Association of meaning in program music: On denotation, inherence, and onomatopoeia. Music Perception, 34(2), 243–248.
5.
AthanasopoulosG. (2013). Scoring sounds: The visual representation of music in cross-cultural perspective (Unpublished doctoral thesis). The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
AthanasopoulosG.MoranN.FrithS. (2011). Literacy makes a difference: A cross-cultural study on the graphic representation of music by communities in the United Kingdom, Japan and Papua New Guinea. Paper presented at the 2011 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Music Perception and Cognition (SMPC), Rochester, NY, USA.
8.
AthanasopoulosG.TanS. L.MoranN. (2016). Influence of literacy on representation of time in musical stimuli: An exploratory cross-cultural study in the UK, Japan, and Papua New Guinea. Psychology of Music, 44(5), 1126–1144.
9.
BlackingJ. (1974). How musical is man?Seattle: University of Washington Press.
10.
BoroditskyL. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22.
11.
BoroditskyL. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304, 62–65.
12.
BraswellG. S.RosengrenK. S. (2002). The role of handedness in graphic production: Interactions between biomechanical and cognitive factors in drawing development. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 581–599.
13.
BrunelL. (2013). Does bigger mean louder? Crossmodal congruency and memory judgment. Multisensory Research, 26, 67–68.
14.
CarelloC.AndersonK. L.Kunkler-PeckA. J. (1998). Perception of object length by sound. Psychological Science, 9(3), 211–214.
15.
CoulsonS.OakleyT. (2005). Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1510–1536.
16.
CruseH.BartlingC.DreifertM.SchmitzJ.BrunnD. E.DeanJ.KindermannT. (1995). Walking: A complex behavior controlled by simple networks. Adaptive Behavior, 3(4), 385–418.
17.
EitanZ.GranotR. Y. (2006). How music moves. Music Perception, 23(3), 221–248.
18.
EitanZ.SchupakA.MarksL. E. (2008, August). Louder is higher: Cross-modal interaction of loudness change and vertical motion in speeded classification. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMP10) (p. 10). Sydney, Australia: Causal Productions.
19.
EitanZ.TimmersR. (2010). Beethoven’s last piano sonata and those who follow crocodiles: Cross-domain mappings of auditory pitch in a musical context. Cognition, 114(3), 405–422.
20.
FauconnierG. (1985). Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
FauconnierG.TurnerM. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
22.
FeldS. (2012). Sound and sentiment: Birds, weeping, poetics, and song in Kaluli expression, with a new introduction by the author. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
23.
FuhrmanO.BoroditskyL. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit non-linguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34, 1430–1451.
24.
GentnerD.ImaiM.BoroditskyL. (2002). As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space-time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(5), 537–565.
25.
GibbsR. W.Jr. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Gómez MilánE.IborraO.de CórdobaM. J.Juárez-RamosV.Rodríguez ArtachoM. A.RubioJ. L. (2013). The Kiki-Bouba effect: A case of personification and ideaesthesia. The Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20(1–2), 84–102.
27.
GradyJ.OakleyT.CoulsonS. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In GibbsR.SteenG. (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
28.
HargreavesD. J. (1982). The development of aesthetic reactions to music. Psychology of Music (Special Issue), 51–54.
29.
HargreavesD. J. (2012). Musical imagination: Perception and production, beauty and creativity. Psychology of Music, 40(5), 539–557.
30.
HargreavesD. J.NorthA. C.TarrantM. (2015). How and why do musical preferences change in childhood and adolescence? In McPhersonG. E. (Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (2nd ed., pp. 303–322). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31.
JackendoffR. (1992). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
JohnsonM. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
JohnsonM. L.LarsonS. (2003). “Something in the way she moves”: Metaphors of musical motion. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(2), 63–84.
34.
KohnD.EitanZ. (2016). Moving music. Music Perception, 34(1), 40–55.
35.
KöhlerW. (1947). Gestalt psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Liveright.
36.
KüssnerM. B.Leech-WilkinsonD. (2014). Investigating the influence of musical training on cross-modal correspondences and sensorimotor skills in a real-time drawing paradigm. Psychology of Music, 42(3), 448–469.
37.
KüssnerM. B.PriorH. M.GoldN. E.Leech-WilkinsonD. (2012, July). Getting the shapes “right” at the expense of creativity? How musicians’ and non-musicians’ visualizations of sound differ. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC) and the 8th Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM) (p. 121). Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
38.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195–208.
39.
LarsonS. (2012). Musical forces: Motion, metaphor and meaning in music. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
40.
LasswellH. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies.
41.
LipscombS. D.KimE. M. (2004, August). Perceived match between visual parameters and auditory correlates: An experimental multimedia investigation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (pp. 72–75). Sydney, Australia: Causal Productions.
42.
MerriamA. P.MerriamV. (1964). The anthropology of music. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
43.
MaurerD.PathmanT.MondlochC. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: Sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9(3), 316–322.
44.
MonahanJ. L.MurphyS. T.ZajoncR. B. (2000). Subliminal mere exposure: Specific, general, and diffuse effects. Psychological Science, 11(6), 462–466.
45.
MonelleR. (2006). The musical topic: Hunt, military and pastoral. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
46.
MoranN. (2010, August). Improvising musicians’ looking behaviours: Duration constants in the attention patterns of duo performers. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on music perception and cognition (ICMPC11) (pp. 565–568). Seattle, University of Washington.
47.
MoranN. (2013). Social co-regulation and communication in North Indian duo performances. In ClaytonM.DueckB.LeanteL. (Eds.), Experience and meaning in music performance (pp. 40–61). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48.
NisbettR. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently – and why. New York: Free Press.
49.
RamachandranV. S.HubbardE. M. (2001). Synaesthesia: A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3–34.
50.
RobersonD.DavidoffJ.ShapiroL. (2002). Squaring the circle: The cultural relativity of “good” shape. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2(1), 29–51.
51.
RoschE. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.
52.
RusconiE.KwanB.GiordanoB. L.UmiltaC.ButterworthB. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition, 99(2), 113–129.
53.
SchubertE.HargreavesD. J.NorthA. C. (2014). A dynamically minimalist cognitive explanation of musical preference: Is familiarity everything?Frontiers in Psychology, 5(38). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00038
54.
SadekA. A. M. (1987). Visualization of musical concepts. Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 149–154.
TaggP. (2012). Music’s meanings: A modern musicology for non-musos. New York: Mass Media’s Scholar’s Press.
57.
TalmyL. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100.
58.
TanS.-L.KellyM. (2004). Graphic representations of short musical compositions. Psychology of Music, 32, 191–212.
59.
TanS.-L.WakefieldE. M.JeffriesP. W. (2009). Musically untrained college students’ interpretations of musical notation: Sound, silence, loudness, duration, and temporal order. Psychology of Music, 37(1), 5–24.
60.
VaidJ.SinghM.SakhujaT.GuptaG. C. (2002). Stroke direction asymmetry in figure drawing: Influence of handedness and reading/writing habits. Brain and Cognition, 48, 597–602.
61.
Van SommersP. (1984). Drawing and cognition: Descriptive and experimental studies of graphic production processes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62.
WalkerA. R. (1981). The presence of internalized images of musical sounds. Council for Research in Music Education, 66/67, 107–112.
63.
WalkerA. R. (1985). Mental imagery and musical concepts: Some evidence from the congenitally blind. Council for Research in Music Education, 85, 229–238.
64.
WalkerA. R. (1987). The effects of culture, environment, age and musical training on choices of visual metaphors for sound. Perception and Psychophysics, 42(5), 491–502.
65.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1–27.
66.
ZbikowskiL. M. (1998). Metaphor and music theory: Reflections from cognitive science. Music Theory Online, 4(1), 1–8.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
