THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM English Language & Applied

MA AL (part-time)

RESEARCH METHODS ESSAY Term 2 (2017/2018)

Student Number 1869751

Title of Module Language and the Senses (SENSES). Code: 09 29566

Question

You will be asked to conduct a small research project, present the findings to the group in the form of a short presentation (maximum 12 slides) in week 9 and submit a 4,000 word written report.

Plan a small experimental study or corpus study to investigate one of the following topics: • Language and the senses • Sound symbolism • Iconicity in brand names • Aspects of ineffability of perceptual information • Sensory • Taste and smell words • Expert vocabulary (wine experts, coffee experts etc.) • Sensory language in advertising

You may base your study on one of the studies that we have explored in class, or you may prefer to develop your own.

Number of Words 3, 933

DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP

I declare: a. that this submission is of my own work; b. that this is written in my own words; and c. that all quotations for published or unpublished work are acknowledged with quotation marks and references to the work in question.

Date: 18 / April / 2018......

filename: 1869751-RMSENSES1

CONTENTS

1: INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND § Signs p. 3 § Arbitrariness and Iconicity in Language p. 4 § Sound-Symbolism p. 5 § Kiki and Bouba p. 6

2: The EXPERIMENT § Purpose p. 7 § Fictive Words and Novel Objects p. 7 § Method p. 9 § Predictions p. 10

3: The RESULTS § Quantitative Results p. 11 Name-to-Brick Preferences p. 11 Sound-to-Shape Preferences p. 12 Sound-to-Size Preferences p. 13 Consonant-for-Shape or Vowel-for-Shape? p. 14 Vowel-for-Size or Consonant-for-Size? p. 15 § Qualitative Results p. 16

4: FINAL COMMENTS and KEY FINDINGS § Final Comments p. 18 § Key Findings p. 19

APPENDIX p. 20 BIBLIOGRAPHY p. 22

- 2 -

1: INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND

§ Signs A sign can be described as a pairing between a signifier and a signified in which the signifier represents, or stands for, the signified (Chandler, 2002; Danesi, 2002; de Sassure, 2013[1916]; Johansen & Larsen, 2002). To better illustrate what this means, consider the sign below (which is used to mark the presence of radiation):

In this sign, the signifier is arrangement of three ‘pizza slices’ around a disc, while the signified is (something like) ‘Careful! Radiation!’. Signs are often described as being symbolic or iconic (Chandler, 2002; Danesi, 2002; Johansen & Larsen, 2002). In symbolic signs, the connection between the signifier and the signified is an arbitrary one. What this means is that the signifier has no natural, obvious connection to its signified (Chandler, 2002; Danesi, 2002; Johansen & Larsen, 2002; Nuckolls, 1999). The sign for radiation is a symbolic sign, as there is no natural, obvious reason that this arrangement of shapes, and not some other one (±, or ❖, or, :-0) should be used to warn us about the presence of radiation. Many words are symbolic signs, as, for example, in the case of ‘tree’. Given that the pronunciation of ‘tree’, [tri:], is not especially tree-like, there is no natural, obvious reason that this word, and not some other word (‘hotel’, or ‘janitor’, or ‘axe’), to talk about those tall, leafy things that grow from the ground. Iconic signs, meanwhile, are those in which the signifier does have a natural, obvious connection to its signified. For example, (some) paintings are iconic, as they have been made to look like whatever thing the artist chose to depict. In iconic signs, then, the connection between the signifier and the signified is non-arbitrary, as the signifier resembles its signified (Chandler, 2002; Danesi, 2002; Johansen & Larsen, 2002; Nuckolls, 1999). Words like ‘meow’, ‘quack’, and ‘moo’, or ‘boom’, ‘bang’, and ‘pop’ are not symbolic signs like ‘tree’, but are, instead, iconic ones. This is because

- 3 -

these words do resemble their referents, as their pronunciations sound like the actual sounds they refer to, be they animal sounds (like the former trio), or ‘explosive’ sounds (like the latter trio). Words like these, which resemble the sounds they refer to, are called onomatopoeic words (Miller, 2014; Schmidtke, Conrad, & Jacobs, 2014).

§ Arbitrariness and Iconicity in Language That a language can consist of both symbolic (‘tree’) and iconic (‘meow’) signs has been noticed since the time of Plato1. However, in modern linguistics, it has become standard, following de Sassure’s Course (2013[1916]), to think of a language as a system that relies on arbitrary symbols, and to view arbitrariness as an essential design feature of language (Hockett, 1959, 1960). As a consequence of this view, the ‘arbitrariness-of-the-linguistic-sign’ view (de Sassure, 2013[1916]), many have come to see those elements of a language that are iconic, like ‘meow’, ‘quack’, and ‘moo’, as a minority of anarchic, lawless elements that exist outside the ‘real’ language system. According to this view, then, onomatopoeic words can be ignored without consequence, as they are not examples of ‘proper’ language (de Sassure, 2013[1916]; Müller, 1869; c.f., Ahlner, 2009; Ahlner & Zlatev, 2010; Dingemanse et al., 2015; Hinton, Nichols & Ohala, 1994; Lockwood & Dingemanse, 2015; Nuckolls, 1999). Yet many of those who have claimed that arbitrariness is essential to language have, as Ahlner (2009; Ahlner & Zlatev, 2010) points out, made these claims based solely upon the study of the major European languages, and under the assumption that what is true of these languages must be true of all languages. But, those who have studied one or more of the world’s other languages, including its sign-languages (Taub, 2001), have noticed that these many of them make extensive and substantial use of iconic elements, and that, additionally, these elements are not, by any means, marginal or wayward (Dingemanse et al., 2015; Hinton, Nichols & Ohala, 1994; Lockwood & Dingemanse, 2015).

1 See ’s dialogue Cratalyus, circa 400BC. - 4 -

§ Sound-Symbolism In discussing iconicity in language, the term sound-symbolism is often used to distinguish linguistic iconicity, from iconicity in other modalities (Ahlner & Zlatev, 2010; Dingemanse et al., 2015; Hinton, Nichols & Ohala, 1994; Lockwood & Dingemanse, 2015). So far, the only examples of sound-symbolism that have been given are words like ‘meow’ and ‘pop’. However, languages can be iconic in different ways, so, imitative, ‘sound-alike’ words, like the ones just mentioned, represent just one kind of sound-symbolism (Dingemanse et al., 2015; Hinton, Nichols & Ohala, 1994; Lockwood & Dingemanse, 2015). Hinton, Nichols and Ohala (1994) have devised a typology of sound-symbolic phenomena that distinguishes imitative sound-symbolism (which covers the kinds of onomatopoeic words that have already been mentioned) from (amongst other things) synesthetic sound-symbolism. If imitative sound-symbolism is when a speech sound is used to refer to the acoustic properties of something else, like when the word ‘meow’ is used to refer to a cat’s call, then synesthetic sound-symbolism is when a speech sound is used to refer to the non-acoustic properties of something else (Hinton, Nichols & Ohala, 1994). One example of synesthetic sound-symbolism is when a speaker chooses different consonants, perhaps [k] and [b], to indicate differences in shape, or chooses different vowels, perhaps [i:] and [u:], to indicate differences in size (more on this shortly). A second example of synesthetic sound- symbolism is a class of words called . Ideophones are constructions that allow speakers to provide holistic descriptions of sensory events (Dingemanse, 2011, 2012, 2118). For example, ‘koro-koro’, a Japanese , means something like ‘small, continuously rolling, object’2 (Kita, 2008).

2 To refer to an experience of a large, continuously rolling, object, one would say ‘goro-goro’. Note that the only difference between ‘koro-koro’ and ‘goro-goro’ is between the initial consonants, and, additionally, note that these sounds are identical except that one is voiced while the other is not. Given that the voicing differences between two [k] and [g] appear to be marking non-acoustic differences between two differently-sized objects, this is a yet another example of synesthetic sound-symbolism.

- 5 -

§ Kiki and Bouba Before continuing, it’s worth mentioning an experimental paradigm called the Kiki- Bouba paradigm, this is because the experiment described below is an addition to, and continuation of, this very paradigm. This tradition of experiments began, in 1929, with an experiment by Wolfgang Köhler. In this experiment, Köhler first showed his participants two shapes: a pointed, star-like shape and a rounded, cloud-like shape, then, he asked each participant to say which shape was ‘Takete’ and which was ‘Baluba’ (Köhler, 1929). Despite the fact that ‘Takete’ and ‘Baluba’ were both nonsense words with no conventional, ‘public’ meanings, many participants preferred to call the star-like shape ‘Takete’, and the cloud-like shape ‘Baluba’. In a more recent experiment, by Ramachandran and Hubbard, participants were also shown star- and cloud-like shapes, but, this time, the names ‘Takete’ and ‘Baluba’ were replaced with ‘Kiki’ and ‘Bouba’. When asked which name belonged to which shape, 95 – 98% of the participants preferred to call the star-like shape ‘Kiki’ and the cloud-like shape ‘Bouba’ (Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001). Given that, in both of these experiments, one sound (either ‘Takete’ or ‘Kiki’) was seen as being ‘like’ one kind of shape, while the second sound (‘Baluba’ or ‘Bouba’) was seen as being ‘like’ a second, different kind of shape, both of these experiments provide textbook examples of synesthetic sound-symbolism (as defined above). Today, the term ‘Kiki-Bouba effect’ is used to describe what happens when a speech sound is judged as being more like one shape than another. However, since Ramachandran and Hubbard’s experiment (which brought about a renewed interest in the topic of sound-symbolism), Kiki-Bouba effects have been observed between different fictive words and different foodstuffs (Spence & Gallace, 2010), between different and different textures (Sakamoto & Watanabe, 2018), and between different personal names and different personal attributes (Gomez et al., 2013). According to this research, then, some speech sounds are fizzier, crunchier, smoother, bumpier, cleverer or stupider than others.

- 6 -

2: The EXPERIMENT

§ Purpose The purpose of this experiment was to see if participants would match four different fictive words to four different novel objects in a predicted way, and, additionally, in a way that demonstrated that they had used the sound-symbolic potential deliberately built into each of the fictive words.

§ Fictive Words and Novel Objects The four fictive words used in this experiment were ‘Kiki’, ‘Kuku’, ‘Mimi’, and ‘Mumu’ and the novel objects were four yellow-coloured Lego bricks of different shapes and sizes (see Table 1, below).

Cuboid Brick Shapes Brick Size Cylindrical Brick Shapes

One-Stud Tile One-Stud Disc

Small

Four-Stud Box Four-Stud Drum

Large

Table 1: Brick Inventory (Relative size-differences are approximately correct)

Previous experiments in the Kiki-Bouba paradigm show that fictive words featuring voiceless obstruents, like [k], are typically matched with pointed, star-like shapes, while voiced sonorants, like [m], are typically matched with rounded, cloud-

- 7 -

like shapes (Ahlner & Zlatev, 2010; Köhler, 1929; Newman, 1933; Nielsen, 2009; Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001; Schmidtke, Conrad, & Jacobs, 2014). So, for this experiment, the two cuboid bricks were each given names that featured [k] sounds, while the two cylindrical bricks were each given names that featured a [m] sounds (see Table 2, below). The choice of vowels was similarly motivated by claims made in the literature, specifically those suggesting that front, close vowels, like [i:], are typically matched with small objects, while back, open vowel, like [u:], are typically matched with larger objects (Ahlner & Zlatev, 2010; Newman, 1933; Nielsen, 2009; Jespersen, 1933; Ohala, 1994; Sapir, 1929; Schmidtke, Conrad, & Jacobs, 2014). So, for this experiment, the two smaller bricks were each given names that featured [i:] sounds, while the two larger bricks were each given names that feature [u:] sounds3. All this led to the ‘correct’ naming pattern illustrated below:

Cuboid Brick Cuboid Brick Cylindrical Brick Cylindrical Brick Shapes Names Shapes Names

One-Stud Tile One-Stud Disc Kiki Mimi [ki:ki:] [mi:mi:]

Four-Stud Box Four-Stud Drum

Kuku Mumu [ku:ku:] [mu:mu:]

Table 2: ‘Correct’ Brick-Naming Pattern

The naming pattern illustrated by Table 2 (above) is ‘correct’ because each name (at least according to the literature) suits its brick in just the right way: ‘Kiki’

3 Though all four names were created in a principled way, the use of [k] instead of another obstruent, and of [m] instead of another consonant sonorant, was an arbitrary one. The use of monophthong vowels instead of diphthongs was also arbitrary.

- 8 -

suits the smallest cuboid as it features sounds that are ‘sharp’ and ‘small’ ([k] and [i:], respectively); ‘Kuku’, on the other hand, suits the biggest cuboid as it features sounds that are ‘sharp’ and ‘large’ ([k] and [u:]); ‘Mimi’ suits the smallest cylinder as it features sounds that are ‘round’ and ‘small’ ([m] and [i:]); and, finally, ‘Mumu’ suits the largest cylinder as it features sounds that are ‘round’ and ‘large’ ([m] and [u:]).

§ Method

NOTE: All participants were students at the University of Birmingham, and a total of twenty individuals took part. Each participant received written instructions before the experiment began and a debrief at its end. Standard University of Birmingham Ethical Review Forms were signed by everyone who took part.

To begin, the four different bricks were arranged, in no particular order, before the participant, and the participant was invited to examine, and interact with, the bricks. Following this, the participant was asked to answer twelve questions which were designed to indirectly draw out his or her name-to-brick preferences. All twelve questions were verbally asked by the experimenter, and all twelve questions were formed in the following way:

• Is this brick a NAMEx or a NAMEy?

The questions were written so that each of the four fictive words appeared in the NAMEx position three times along with one of the remaining three fictive words in the NAMEy position. However, ahead of the experiment, the questions underwent a shuffling process which randomly inverted the NAMEx and NAMEy elements of the questions. The questions were ‘scrambled’ in this way to protect against the possibility of a participant assigning names to bricks based on the forms of the questions rather than according to their own intuitions. Once each participant had answered all twelve questions, they were given the opportunity to reflect upon, and explain – in writing – why they had chosen particular names for particular bricks.

- 9 -

§ Predictions It was predicted that, on the whole, the participants would:

1. Prefer ‘Kiki’ as a name for the one-stud tile. 2. Prefer ‘Kuku’ as a name for the four-stud box. 3. Prefer ‘Mimi’ as a name for the one-stud disc. 4. Prefer ‘Mumu’ as a name for the four-stud drum. 5. Prefer names featuring [k] sounds for the cuboids. 6. Prefer names featuring [m] sounds for the cylinders. 7. Prefer names featuring [i:] sounds for the small bricks. 8. Prefer names featuring [u:] sounds for the large bricks.

The main purpose of the experiment was to test the above predictions, but, as it used Lego bricks as stimuli, the experiment also provided an opportunity to see if the results of previous experiments from the Kiki-Bouba paradigm, which used 2-D stimuli (typically, one pointed, star-like shape, and one rounded, cloud-like shape), could be replicated using 3-D stimuli instead. The experiment was also slightly different to previous Kiki-Bouba experiments because:

a) It simultaneously presented participants with four (not two) stimuli; and, b) Because the stimuli were different in terms of both shape and size – meaning that participants had to take into consideration an extra factor, the size-factor, before expressing a preference for a name.

- 10 -

3: The RESULTS

§ Quantitative Results

NOTE: All percentage calculations and statistical tests were made using the figures presented in Table A1 (see Appendix, p. 20)

Name-to-Brick Preferences

Graph 1 100 9 21 17 18 80

60 91 40 79 83 82

% of Occasions 20

0 Kiki Kuku Mimi Mumu Name Chosen

One-Stud Tile Four-Stud Box One-Stud Disc Four-Stud Drum One of the Three Remaining Bricks

Graph 1 (above) shows that:

• ‘Kiki’ was chosen as a name for the one-stud tile on 79% of occasions. • ‘Kuku’ was chosen as a name for the four-stud box on 83% of occasions. • ‘Mimi’ was chosen as a name for the one-stud disc on 82% of occasions. • ‘Mumu’ was chosen as a name for the four-stud drum on 91% of occasions.

Using the figures relevant to the calculation, a chi-square test revealed that these results were significant: the participants did choose names according to the shape and size of the brick they were naming (�2 = 451, df = 9, p = 0.000).

- 11 -

Sound-to-Shape Preferences

Graph 2

100 6 91 94 75

50

% of Occasions 25

9 0 [k] [m] Sound Chosen: [k] or [m]

Cuboid Cylindrical

Graph 2 (above) shows that:

• ‘Kiki’ or ‘Kuku’ were chosen to name cuboid bricks on 94% of occasions. • ‘Mimi’ or ‘Mumu’ were chosen to name cylindrical bricks on 91% of occasions.

Using the figures relevant to the calculation, a chi-square test revealed that these results were significant: the participants did choose between [k] and [m] according to the shape of the brick they were naming (�2 = 170, df = 1, p = 0.000).

- 12 -

Sound-to-Size Preferences

Graph 3 100 13 87 87 75

50

% of Occasions 25

13 0 [i:] [u] Sounds Chosen: [i:] or [u:]

Small Large

Graph 3 (above) shows that:

• ‘Kiki’ or ‘Mimi’ were chosen to name small bricks on 87% of occasions. • ‘Kuku’ or ‘Mumu’ were chosen to name large bricks on 87% of occasions.

Using the relevant figures, a chi-square test revealed that these results were significant: the participants did choose between [i:] and [u:] according the size of the brick they were naming (�2 = 132, df = 1, p = 0.000).

- 13 -

Consonant-for-Shape or Vowel-for-Shape? Using the collected data, it was also possible to discover to what extent, if any, the participants preferred to use vowel contrasts, not consonant contrasts, to mark differences in brick shape.

Graph 4 100

75 48 54

50

% of Occasions 25 52 46

0 [i:] [u:] Sounds Used: [i:] or [u:]

Cuboid Cylindrical

Graph 4 shows that:

• ‘Kiki’ or ‘Mimi’ were chosen to name cuboid bricks on 52% of occasions and cylindrical bricks on 48% of occasions. • ‘Kuku’ or ‘Mumu’ were chosen to name cylindrical bricks on 54% of occasions and cuboid bricks on 46% of occasions.

Using the relevant figures, a chi-square test revealed that these results were not significant: the participants did not choose between [i:] and [u:] according to the shape of the brick they were naming (�2 = 0.799, df = 1, p = 0.371).

- 14 -

Vowel-for-Size or Consonant-for-Size? It was also possible to discover to what extent, if any, the participants preferred to use consonant contrasts, not vowel contrasts, to mark differences in brick size.

Graph 5 100

75 51 54

50

% of Occasions 25 49 46

0 [k] [m] Sounds Used: [k] or [m]

Small Large

Graph 5 (above) shows that:

• ‘Kiki’ or ‘Kuku’ were chosen to name small bricks on 49% of occasions and large bricks on 51% of occasions. • ‘Mimi’ or ‘Mumu’ were chosen to name small bricks on 46% of occasions and large bricks on 54% of occasions.

Using the relevant figures, a chi-square test revealed that these results were not significant: the participants did not choose between [k] and [m] according to the size of the brick they were naming (�2 = 0.254, df = 1, p = 0.614).

- 15 -

§ Qualitative Results After each participant had answered all twelve questions, they were given the opportunity to explain (in writing) why they had chosen particular names for particular bricks, and to think about, and comment upon, why they preferred particular sounds for particular shapes, or sizes, of brick4. Table A2 (see Appendix, p. 21) lists some of the adjectives and comments taken from the participants’ explanations of their name- / sound-to-brick matchings. When asked to explain why they had chosen ‘Kiki’ and ‘Kuku’, rather than ‘Mimi’ and ‘Mumu’, and names featuring [k] sounds, rather than [m] sounds, for the cuboid bricks, the participants explained that it was because these were “hard”, “angular”, “pointy”, and “sharp”. In one answer, the participant explained that [k] better suited the cuboids than the cylinders because “[k] doesn’t sound like a round sound”. With reference to ‘Kuku’, one participant mentioned that this name “[felt] even [and] regular shaped” (perhaps matching the symmetry of the brick?), while another mentioned its “cumbersome[ness]” (perhaps because ‘Kuku’ is, articulatory, somewhat more complicated than the other fictive words?5). In explaining why they preferred ‘Mimi’ and ‘Mumu’, rather than ‘Kiki’ and ‘Kuku’, and names featuring [m] sounds, rather than [k] sounds, for the cylindrical bricks, the participants explained that it was because these names were “soft”, “less sharp” and “more round”. One participant mentioned that [m] “matched the curved sides of the [cylinders]”, another called it “curvaceous”, while another described it as “sound[ing] less corner-y than ‘k’”. As well as being “curvaceous”, “round”, “smooth”

4 Up to this point, the fictive words had only been heard by the participants. However, as the follow-up questions were presented in writing the participants saw, for the first time, the fictive words in their written form. This led some participants to explain their answers in terms of a connection between the orthographic, not acoustic, forms of the fictive words and the shapes the bricks. This may lead some to conclude that the participants’ choices were guided by their knowledge of the appearance of the fictive words, not by their sounds. However, as the participants only saw the written forms the fictive words after they had already selected their name-to-brick preferences using only acoustically given information, then I would argue that the participants were basing their name-to-brick preferences according to the acoustic properties of the fictive words. This argument is lent support by research showing that Kiki-Bouba effects have been observed amongst pre-literate children and adults with no knowledge of English (Bremner et al, 2012; Davis, 1961; Maurer, Pathman & Mondloch, 2006).

5 My feeling is that, when I pronounce ‘Kiki’, my tongue moves while my lips stay relatively still. Meanwhile, when I pronounce ‘Mimi’ and ‘Mumu’, then the opposite is true: my lips move, but my tongue stays relatively still. However, when I pronounce ‘Kuku’, then both my lips and my tongue have to move. - 16 -

and “soft”, [m] was also described as being “feminine”. Meanwhile, [k]’s “hard”, “harsh”, “spikey”, “square[ness]” meant that it was, naturally(?!), “masculine”. While the comments described above explain why they preferred different consonants for different brick shapes, the participants were also able to explain why they preferred different vowels for different brick sizes. In explaining why names featuring [i:] sounds suited the two smaller bricks, the participants said that it was because, compared to [u:], [i:] was “smaller”, “cute[r]” and more “delicate”, and was, therefore, more appropriate to the smaller bricks. Conversely, names featuring [u:] sounds were seen as being more appropriate for the larger bricks because, compared to [i:], [u:] was “bigger”, “broader” and “wider”. Before concluding this section, briefly consider the table below:

[i:] [u:] “like a mouse” “sounds like a whale or a hippo noise” “eeee sound is associated with [the] “more grown-up” sound children make”

Table 3

Notice here that some of the participants have made an association between [i:] and the calls of small creatures (and babies) and [u:] and the calls of large creatures (and adult humans). These comments, which show that associations have been made between the high / low pitch sounds and small / large objects, are illustrative of what Ohala has called the frequency code (Ohala, 1994).

- 17 -

4: FINAL COMMENTS and KEY FINDINGS

§ Final Comments The experiment reported above has shown that most of the participants preferred particular names for particular bricks. But, given that ‘Kiki’, ‘Kuku’, ‘Mimi’, or ‘Mumu’ have no conventional, ‘public’ meanings, how was it that, by and large, the participants all agreed that, for example, ‘Kiki’ suited the one-stud tile, but not the four-stud drum? It is argued here that the naming pattern that emerged did so because the participants’ choices were guided by their having perceived natural, obvious associations between particular sounds and particular bricks. From the view of ‘standard’ linguistics, this is unusual, as the sounds of a language are assumed to be necessarily meaningless (Hockett, 1959, 1960). Yet, the results reported here show that the consonants and vowels each had – at least in the context of this experiment and its task – their own individual, unique meanings: [k] meant (something like) ‘hard, pointed’; [m] meant ‘soft, round’; [i:] meant ‘small’ (and ‘cute’?); while [u:] meant ‘large’. Given all this, it was only natural that ‘Kiki’ was preferred as a name for the smallest cuboid, that ‘Kuku’ was preferred as a name for the largest cuboid, that ‘Mimi’ was preferred as a name for the smallest cylinder, and that ‘Mumu’ was preferred as a name for the largest cylinder. According to Nuckolls (1999), a sound-symbol is a linguistic sound that’s used not to differentiate one unique word from another, but is used, instead, to directly communicate a meaning. Were ‘Kiki’ a real word, then its acoustics might only serve to differentiate it from another word: ‘didi’6. However, as ‘Kiki’ is a fictive word, its particular sound serves no such purpose. Instead, its acoustics seem to be directly communicating a meaning: ‘hard, pointed and small’. ‘Kiki’ then, is an example of a sound-symbol, and, given that they are also directly communicating meanings, each of the remaining three fictive words are examples of sound symbols too. Somewhat more specifically we can say that ‘Kiki’, ‘Kuku’, ‘Mimi’, and ‘Mumu’ are synesthetic sound-symbols, as the acoustics of these linguistic sounds are being used to refer to the non-acoustic properties of the bricks (Hinton, Nichols & Ohala, 1994).

6 Meaning ‘an elder sister or female cousin’ (OED online). - 18 -

§ Key Findings

• Most participants felt that particular names suited particular bricks better than others did. This suggests a strong name-to-brick preference.

• Most participants felt that names featuring [k] sounds better suited the cuboid bricks, while names featuring [m] sounds better suited the cylindrical bricks. This suggests a strong sound-to-shape preference.

• Most participants felt that names featuring [i:] sounds better suited the small bricks, while names featuring [u:] sounds better suited the large bricks. This suggests a strong sound-to-size preference.

• All of the participants used consonant differences to mark differences in brick shape, and vowel differences to mark differences in brick size.

- 19 -

APPENDIX

Table A1 (below) shows the number of occasions that each fictive word was chosen as a name for one of the bricks. The highlighted cells show where the participants’ overall preferences lay. All percentage calculations and statistical tests were made using the figures presented here.

Kiki Kuku Mimi Mumu One-Stud Tile

46 3 4 4

Four-Stud Box

8 50 2 1

One-Stud Disc

2 7 47 1

Four-Stud Drum

2 0 4 59

Table A1

- 20 -

Table A2 (below) lists some of the adjectives and comments taken from the participants’ explanations of their name- / sound-to-brick matchings.

Sound Described as: angular, cute, hard, masculine, pointy, sharp, small, spikey, square [ki:ki:] “it doesn’t sound like a round sound” cumbersome, even, hard, large, masculine, regular, spikey [ku:ku:] “less cute” [mi:mi:] cute, delicate, feminine, round, small big, feminine, hollow, large, round [mu:mu:] “full bodied” [k] angular, hard, harsh, sharp, short, spikey, square curvaceous, feminine, round, rounded, smooth, soft “less sharp” [m] “matched the curved sides of the [cylinders]” “sounds less corner-y than ‘k’” childlike, cute, delicate, diminutive, mini, petite, quick, short, small, tiny, titchy “cute - like the sounds you’d make to a baby”, [i:] “eeee sound is associated with [the] sound children make” “like a mouse” “little-feeling” aggressive, big, broad, full, hollow, large, strong, wide “more confident” [u:] “sounds like a whale or a hippo noise” “u as in HUGE”

Table A2

- 21 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahlner, F. (2009) Cross-Modal Iconicity: A Semiotic Approach to Sound Symbolism. Unpublished thesis. http://www.sol.lu.se/doc/1250542796.calendarEvents.2378.pdf.0.Ahlner_Cross- Modal_iconicity.pdf/Ahlner_Cross-Modal_iconicity.pdf

Ahlner, F. & Zlatev, J. (2010) Cross-modal iconicity: A cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism. Sign Systems Studies. 1, 298 – 348.

Bremner, A. J., Caparos, S., Davidoff, J., de Fockert, J., Linnell, K. J., & Spence, C. (2012) “Bouba” and “Kiki” in Namibia? A remote culture make similar shape-sound matches, but different shape-taste matches to Westerners. Cognition. 122, 80 – 85.

Chandler, D. (2002) Semiotics: The Basics. (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.

Dansei, M. (2002) Understanding Media Semiotics. London: Arnold.

Davis, R. (1961) The fitness of names to drawings, a cross-cultural study in Tanganyika. British Journal of Psychology. 52, 259 – 268. de Saussure, F. (2013[1916]) Course in General Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.

Dingemanse, M. (2011) Ideophones and the aesthetics of everyday language in West- African society. The Senses and Society. 6, 77 – 85.

Dingemanse, M. (2012) Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass. 6, 954 – 672.

Dingemanse, M. (2018) Redrawing the margins of language: lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa. 3(1), 4, 1 – 30.

Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015) Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Science. 19, 603 – 615.

Gomez, E., Iborra, O., de Cordoba, M. J., Juarez-Ramos, V., Rodriguez Artacho, M. A., & Rubio, J. L. (2013) The Kiki-Bouba effect: A case of personification and ideaesthesia. Journal of Consciousness Studies.

Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. (1994) Sound Symbolism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

- 22 -

Hockett, C. F. (1959) Animal “langauges” and human language. Human Biology. 31, 1, 32 – 39.

Hockett, C. F. (1960) The . Scientific American. 203, 88-96.

Johansen, J. D., & Larsen, S. E. (2002) Signs in Use. London: Routledge.

Jespersen, O. (1933) Symbolic value of the vowel i. In Linguistica; Selected Papers in English, French, and German. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard, 283 – 303.

Kita, S. (2008) World-view of protolanguage speakers as inferred from of sound symbolic words: A case of Japanese mimetics. In: Masataka, N. (ed.) The Origins of Language, Unraveling Evolutionary Forces. Tokyo: Springer, 25–38.

Köhler, W. (1929) Gestalt Psychology. New York: Horace Liveright.

Lockwood, G., & Dingemanse M. (2015) Iconicity in the lab: a review of behavioural, developmental, and neuroimaging research into sound-symbolism. Frontiers in Psychology. 6, 1 – 14.

Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006) The shape of boubas: Sound- shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science. 9, 316 – 322.

Miller, D. G. (2014) English Lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Müller, M. (1869) Lectures on The Science of Language (vol. 2). New York: Charles Scribner and Company.

Newman, S.S. (1933) Further experiments in phonetic symbolism. American Journal of Psychology. 45, 53-75.

Nielsen, A. K. S. (2009) Sound Symbolism and the Bouba-Kiki Effect: Uniting Function and Mechanism in the Search for Language Universals. Unpublished thesis. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan_Nielsen/publication/312044990_Soun d_symbolism_and_the_bouba- kiki_effect_Uniting_function_and_mechanism_in_the_search_for_language_univ ersals/links/586cc36e08ae8fce4919f350/Sound-symbolism-and-the-bouba-kiki- effect-Uniting-function-and-mechanism-in-the-search-for-language-universals.pdf

Nuckolls, J. B. (1999) The case for sound symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology. 18, 225-252.

- 23 -

Ohala, J. (1994) The frequency code underlies the sound symbolic use of voice pitch. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. Ohala (eds.) Sound symbolism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 325 – 347.

Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001) Synaesthesia – a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies. 8, 3 – 34.

Sakamoto, M., & Watanabe, J. (2018) Bouba/Kiki in touch: Associations between tactile perceptual qualities and Japanese phonemes. Frontiers in Psychology. 9, 1 – 12.

Sapir, E. (1929) A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 12. 225 – 239.

Schmidtke, D. S., Conrad, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2014) Phonological iconicity. Frontiers in Psychology. 5, 1 – 6.

Spence, C., & Gallace, A. (2010) Tasting shapes and words. Food Quality and Preference. 22, 290 – 295.

Taub, S. (2001) Languge from the Body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- 24 -