Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The shape and size-related sound symbolism phenomena assume that, for example, the vowel [i] and the consonant [t] are associated with sharp-shaped and small-sized objects, whereas [ɑ] and [m] are associated with round and large objects. It has been proposed that these phenomena are mostly based on the involvement of articulatory processes in representing shape and size properties of objects. For example, [i] might be associated with sharp and small objects, because it is produced by a specific front-close shape of articulators. Nevertheless, very little work has examined whether these object properties indeed have impact on speech sound vocalization. In the present study, the participants were presented with a sharp- or round-shaped object in a small or large size. They were required to pronounce one out of two meaningless speech units (e.g., [i] or [ɑ]) according to the size or shape of the object. We investigated how a task-irrelevant object property (e.g., the shape when responses are made according to size) influences reaction times, accuracy, intensity, fundamental frequency, and formant 1 and formant 2 of vocalizations. The size did not influence vocal responses but shape did. Specifically, the vowel [i] and consonant [t] were vocalized relatively rapidly when the object was sharp-shaped, whereas [u] and [m] were vocalized relatively rapidly when the object was round-shaped. The study supports the view that the shape-related sound symbolism phenomena might reflect mapping of the perceived shape with the corresponding articulatory gestures.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Alku, P., Vintturi, J., & Vilkman, E. (2002). Measuring the effect of fundamental frequency raising as a strategy for increasing vocal intensity in soft, normal and loud phonation. Speech Communication, 38, 321–334. CrossRef
De Jong, R., Liang, C. C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-responce correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731–750. PubMed
Fant, C. (1960). Acoustic theory of speech production. Gravenhague: Mouton’s.
Greenberg, J. H., & Jenkins, J. J. (1966). Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English III and IV. Word, 22, 207–242. CrossRef
Huang, Y.-H., Pratoomraj, S., & Johnson, R. C. (1969). Universal magnitude symbolism. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 155–156. CrossRef
Johnson, R. C. (1967). Magnitude symbolism of English words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 508–511. CrossRef
Kerzel, D., & Bekkering, H. (2000). Motor activation from visible speech: evidence from stimulus response compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 634–647. PubMed
Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
Newman, S. S. (1933). Further experiments in phonetic symbolism. The American Journal of Psychology, 45, 53–75. CrossRef
Newmeyer, F. J. (1993). Iconicity and generative grammar. Language, 68, 756–796. CrossRef
Ozturk, O., Krehm, M., & Vouloumanos, A. J. (2013). Sound symbolism in infancy: evidence for sound-shape cross-modal correspondences in 4-month-olds. Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 173–186. CrossRef
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia–a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 3–34.
Sapir, E. (1929). A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 239–255. CrossRef
Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale, ed. C. Bally and A. Sechehaye, Lausanne and Paris.
Shintel, H., Nusbaum, H. C., & Okrent, A. (2006). Analog acoustic expression in speech communication. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 167–177. CrossRef
Spector, F., & Maurer, D. (2011). The colors of the alphabet: Naturally-biased associations between shape and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 484–495. PubMed
Spector, F., & Maurer, D. (2013). Early sound symbolism for vowel sounds. i- Perception, 4, 239–241.
Tarte, R. D., & Barritt, L. S. (1971). Phonetic symbolism in adult native speakers of English: three studies. Language and Speech, 14, 158–168. PubMed
Thompson, P. D., & Estes, Z. (2011). Sound symbolic naming of novel objects is a graded function. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 2392–2404. CrossRef
Ultan, R. (1978). Size-sound symbolism. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, and E. A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of human language, Vol. 2: Phonology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 527–568.
Whalen, D. H., & Levitt, A. G. (1995). The universality of intrinsic F0 of vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 17, 193–203.
- Sharp and round shapes of seen objects have distinct influences on vowel and consonant articulation
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg