The present study examines implicit phonetic symbolism which posits that arbitrary linguistic sound is related to certain aspects of characteristics of other modalities, such as color, touch, or emotion. In consonant discrimination and lightness discrimination using Garner's speeded classification paradigm, spoken sounds (voiced/voiceless consonants) and lightness of visual stimuli (black/white squares) were systematically varied to assess cross-modal interactions. Congruent audio-visual pairs (voiced consonants and black, and between voiceless consonants and white) facilitated consonant discrimination. In lightness discrimination, no congruent facilitation or congruence effect was observed. These results indicated that cross-modal interactions in implicit phonetic symbolism can be found in correlations between linguistic spoken sounds and visual lightness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlnerF.ZlatevJ. (2010) Cross-modal iconicity: A cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism. Sign Systems Studies, 38(1/4), 298–348.
2.
AmemiyaT.MizutaniS. (2006) On the basic affective dimensions of Japanese onomatopoeia and the basic level of Japanese phonesthemes. Bulletin of the Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University, 37(2), 139–166.
3.
AveyardM. E. (2011) Some consonants sound curvy: Effects of sound symbolism on object recognition. Memory & Cognition. DOI:10.3758/s13421-011-0139-3.
4.
Ben-ArtziE.MarksL. E. (1995) Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1151–1162.
5.
Ben-ArtziE.MarksL. E. (1999) Processing linguistic and perceptual dimensions of speech: Interactions in speeded classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 579–595.
6.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2006) Praat: Doing phonetics in by computer. Version 4.5.08. [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org.
7.
de SaussureF. (1966) Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw Hill.
8.
GarnerW. R. (1974) The processing of information and structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
HaryuE.ZhaoR. (2007) [Understanding the symbolic values of Japanese onomatopoeia: Comparison of Japanese and Chinese speakers]. Shinrigaku Kenkyu [Japanese Psychological Research], 78, 424–432. [in Japanese]
10.
HashimotoT.UsuiN.TairaM.NoseI.HajiT.KojimaS. (2006) The neural mechanism associated with the processing of onomatopoeic sounds. NeuroImage, 31, 1762–1770.
KantartzisK.ImaiM.KitaS. (2011) Japanese sound-symbolism facilitates word learning in English-speaking children. Cognitive Science, 35, 575–586.
13.
KöhlerW. (1929) Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.
14.
MarksL. E. (1987) On cross-modal similarity: Auditory-visual interactions in speeded discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 384–394.
15.
MartinoG.MarksL. E. (1999) Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification: Tests of the semantic coding hypothesis. Perception, 28, 903–923.
16.
MartinoG.MarksL. E. (2000) Cross-modal interaction between vision and touch: The role of synesthetic correspondence. Perception, 29, 745–754.
17.
MaurerD.PathmanT.MondlochC.J. (2006) The shape of boubas: Sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9, 316–322.
18.
MelaraR. D.MarksL. E. (1990a) Dimensional interactions in language processing: Investigating directions and levels of crosstalk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 539–554.
19.
MelaraR. D.MarksL. E. (1990b) Processes underlying dimensional interactions: Correspondences between linguistic and nonlinguistic dimensions. Memory & Cognition, 18, 477–495.
20.
MelaraR. D.O'BrienT. P. (1987) Interaction between synesthetically corresponding dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 323–336.
21.
NewmanS. S. (1933) Further experiments in phonetic symbolism. The American Journal of Psychology, 45, 53–75.
22.
NuckollsJ. B. (1999) The case for sound symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 225–252.
23.
NygaardL. C.CookA. E.NamyL.L. (2009) Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition, 112, 181–186.
24.
O'BoyleM. W.MillerD. A.RahmaniF. (1987) Sound-meaning relationships in speakers of Urdu and English: Evidence for a cross-cultural phonetic symbolism. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 273–288.
25.
PalmerS. E. (1999) Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
26.
ParaultS. J.SchwanenflugelP. J. (2006) Sound-symbolism: A piece in the puzzle of word learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(4), 329–351.
27.
PariseC. V.SpenceC. (2009) “When birds of a feather flock together”: Synesthetic correspondences modulate audiovisual integration in non-synesthetes. PloS One, 4(5), e5664.
28.
PatchingG. R.QuinlanP. T. (2002) Garner and congruence effects in the speeded classification of bimodal signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 755–775.
29.
RamachandranV. S.HubbardE. M. (2001) Synaesthesia? A window into perception, thought, and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3–34.
30.
RojczykA. (2011) Sound symbolism in vowels: Vowel quality, duration, and pitch in sound-to-size correspondence. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 47, 602–620.
31.
SapirE. (1929) A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 225–239.
32.
SatouH.YoshidaF. (2009) The images of Japanese onomatopoeia: A comparison of ratings using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and the semantic differential method. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 80(2), 145–151.
TsurR. (2006) Size-sound symbolism revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 905–924.
35.
WestburyC. (2005) Implicit sound symbolism in lexical access: Evidence from an interference task. Brain and Language, 93, 10–19.
36.
WrembelM. (2010) Sound symbolism in foreign language phonological acquisition. Research in Language, 8, 1–14.
37.
YoshidaH.SmithL. B. (2003) Sound symbolism and early word learning in two languages. Submitted to the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
