Cross-modal iconicity: A cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism

Abstract

It is being increasingly recognized that the Saussurean dictum of “the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign” is in conflict with the pervasiveness of the phenomenon commonly known as “sound symbolism”. After first presenting a historical overview of the debate, however, we conclude that both positions have been exaggerated, and that an adequate explanation of sound symbolism is still lacking. How can there, for example, be (perceived) similarity between expressions and contents across different sensory modalities? We offer an answer, based on the Peircian notion of iconic ground, and G. Sonesson’s distinction between primary and secondary iconicity. Furthermore, we describe an experimental study, in a paradigm first pioneered by W. Köhler, and recently popularized by V. Ramachandran, in which we varied vowels and consonants in fictive word-forms, and conclude that both types of sounds play a role in perceiving an iconic ground between the word-forms and visual figures. The combination of historical conceptual analysis, semiotic explication and psychological experimentation presented in this article is characteristic of the emerging paradigm of cognitive semiotics.

Phonological and orthographic influences in the bouba–kiki effect

“…This is in marked contrast to other recent studies which have made broader efforts to examine specific properties of linguistic sound underlying the effect in a controlled way (e.g. D 'Onofrio, 2013;Aveyard, 2012;Nielsen & Rendall, 2011;Ahlner & Zlatev, 2010;Westbury, 2005). Thus, Bremner et al (2013) show that a nonliterate population makes some broad word-shape associations, but it remains unclear which specific phonetic qualities underlie these associations.…”

“…Nielsen and Rendall (2012) made the first attempt to systematically control for orthographic angularity. They found that non-words containing sonorants were preferentially paired with rounded shapes, versus obstruents (see also, Ahlner & Zlatev, 2010). To remove orthographic influence, Nielsen and Rendall (2012) capitalised the first letter in their non-words, thereby altering the curvature of some sonorants from rounded to angular (e.g.…”

“…We also explore a possible phonological influence by contrasting voicing in our items. Voicing is an example of a contrast in sonority (Carr, 2012), a broad contrast underlying several different studies showing that shape-non-word associations are driven by contrasts in voicing (D'Onofrio, 2013), the stop/continuant distinction (Westbury, 2005;Aveyard, 2012), and obstruency (Nielsen & Rendall, 2012Ahlner & Zlatev, 2010). We compare these orthographic and phonological factors using a written (Experiment 1) and auditory (Experiment 2) presentation of non-word items.…”

“…Up to 98 % of respondents chose the word kiki for the spiky abstract shape, and bouba for the rounded abstract shape, and such biases have been reported using a range of variations on this paradigm dating back almost a century (Fischer, 1922;Uznadze, 1924;K öhler, 1929, 1947Fox, 1935;Irwin & Newland, 1940;Westbury, 2005;Maurer, Pathman & Mondloch, 2006;Ahlner & Zlatev, 2010;Nielsen & Rendall, 2011Aveyard, 2012;Parise & Spence, 2012).…”

From mimicry to mime by way of mimesis: Reflections on a general theory of iconicity

“…This is the stuff of which metaphors are made. (See Sonesson 1989, 2010. Interpreted in another way, it is the point of departure of the distinction which is basic to cultural semiotics.…”