English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Talk

The limited power of sound symbolism

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons127

Mitterer,  Holger
Language Comprehension Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands;

/persons/resource/persons189209

Schuerman,  William L.
International Max Planck Research School for Language Sciences, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons1223

Tufvesson,  Sylvia
Language and Cognition Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons42

Dingemanse,  Mark
Human Sociality and Systems of Language Use, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)

mitterer_etal_2012.pdf
(Publisher version), 138KB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Mitterer, H., Schuerman, W. L., Reinisch, E., Tufvesson, S., & Dingemanse, M. (2012). The limited power of sound symbolism. Talk presented at the 18th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP 2012). Riva del Garda, Italy. 2012-09-06 - 2012-09-08.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0010-1893-B
Abstract
In defiance of the assumed design principle of language of arbitrariness between sign and signified, many languages use ideophones, which are depictive words for sensory imagery. The form-meaning mappings in ideophones have been variably hypothesized to be language-specific, universal, or a mixture of both. We test the claim of universality, and in particular, the claim that ideophones “do the work of representation by phonetic means” (Tedlock, 1999). In support of this claim, recent research shows that naive listeners can consistently map certain sounds to certain meanings in nonce words, leading to claims that such mappings may underlie the evolution of language (Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001). Given the theoretical weight ascribed to sound-symbolism in language, it is important to know whether ideophones could live up to this promise. The "recognizability" of these mappings may be due to both segmental and suprasegmental properties of the stimuli. While the segmental properties tend to be singled out, prosodic aspects have not been investigated yet. To critically evaluate the power of lexicalised sound-symbolism in ideophones, we recorded over 200 ideophones from five semantic categories (Sound, Motion, Texture, Visual Appearance, and Shape) and from five languages (Japanese, Korean, Semai, Siwu, Ewe, representing four language families).