Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 214, Issue 3, pp 373–380 | Cite as

Evidence of sound symbolism in simple vocalizations

  • Cesare V. Parise
  • Francesco Pavani
Research Article


The question of the arbitrariness of language is among the oldest in cognitive sciences, and it relates to the nature of the associations between vocal sounds and their meaning. Growing evidence seems to support sound symbolism, claiming for a naturally constrained mapping of meaning into sounds. Most of such evidence, however, comes from studies based on the interpretation of pseudowords, and to date, there is little empirical evidence that sound symbolism can affect phonatory behavior. In the present study, we asked participants to utter the letter /a/ in response to visual stimuli varying in shape, luminance, and size, and we observed consistent sound symbolic effects on vocalizations. Utterances’ loudness was modulated by stimulus shape and luminance. Moreover, stimulus shape consistently modulated the frequency of the third formant (F3). This finding reveals an automatic mapping of specific visual attributes into phonological features of vocalizations. Furthermore, it suggests that sound-meaning associations are reciprocal, affecting active (production) as well as passive (comprehension) linguistic behavior.


Sound symbolism Vocalization Go/no-go task Multisensory integration 



We would like to thank Elisa Pellencin for her precious help in running the experiments and extracting the phonological parameters of the vocalizations. This work was supported by a PRIN grant to F.P. and has been realized also thanks to the support from the Provincia autonoma di Trento and the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Trento e Rovereto.


  1. Ammon KH, Moerman C, Guleac JD (1977) Aphasics’ defective perception of connotative meaning of verbal items which have no denotative meaning. Cortex 13(4):453–457PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bond B, Stevens SS (1969) Cross-modality matching of brightness to loudness by 5-year-olds. Percept Psychoph 6:337–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowman A, Azzalini A (1997) Applied smoothing techniques for data analysis: the kernel approach with S-Plus illustrations. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Bozzi P, Flores D’Arcais G (1967) Experimental research on the intermodal relationships between expressive qualities. Arch Psicol Neurol Psichiatr 28(5):377–420PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis R (1961) The fitness of names to drawings: a cross-cultural study in Tanganyika. Br J Psychol 52:259–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farmer T, Christiansen M, Monaghan P (2006) Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension. Proc Nat Acad Sci 103(32):12203–12208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gallace A, Spence C (2006) Multisensory synesthetic interactions in the speeded classification of visual size. Percept Psychophys 68(7):1191–1203Google Scholar
  9. Gentilucci M (2003) Grasp observation influences speech production. Europ J Neurosci 17:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gentilucci M, Stefanini S, Roy A, Santunione P (2004) Action observation and speech production: study on children and adults. Neuropsychologia 42(11):1554–1567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giard M, Peronnet F (1999) Auditory-visual integration during multimodal object recognition in humans: a behavioral and electrophysiological study. J Cogn Neurosci 11(5):473–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hockett C (1958) A course in modern linguistics. Collier-Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Holland M, Wertheimer M (1964) Some physiognomic aspects of naming, or Maluma and Takete revisited. Percept Mot Skills 19:111–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jespersen O (1922) The symbolic value of the vowel i. Philologica 1:1–19Google Scholar
  15. Johnson RC, Suzuki NS, Olds WK (1964) Phonetic symbolism in an artificial language. J Abnorm Soc Psych 69(2):233–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Köhler W (1929) Gestalt psychology. Liveright, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Kovic V, Plunkett K, Westermann G (2010) The shape of words in the brain. Cognition 114:19–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marks LE (1987) On cross-modal similarity: auditory-visual interactions in speeded discrimination. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 13:384–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marks LE (1989) On cross-modal similarity: the perceptual structure of pitch, loudness, and brightness. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 15:586–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marks L, Stevens J (1966) Individual brightness functions. Percep Psychophys 1:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maurer D, Pathman T, Mondloch C (2006) The shape of boubas: sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Develop Sci 9(3):316–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Molholm S, Ritter W, Javitt D, Foxe J (2004) Multisensory visual-auditory object recognition in humans: a high-density electrical mapping study. Cereb Cortex 14(4):452–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newman S (1933) Further experiments in phonetic symbolism. Am J Psychol 45:53–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nuckolls J (2003) The case for sound symbolism. Ann Rev Anthropol 28:225–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nygaard L, Cook A, Namy L (2009) Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition 112(1):181–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parise C, Spence C (2008) Synesthetic congruency modulates the temporal ventriloquism effect. Neurosc Lett 442(3):257–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parise C, Spence C (2009) When birds of a feather flock together: synesthetic correspondences modulate audiovisual integration in non-synesthetes. PLoS ONE 4(5):e5664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parise C, Spence C (under review) Audiovisual crossmodal correspondences and sound symbolism: an IAT study. Atten Percept PsychophysGoogle Scholar
  29. Parise C, Spence C (submitted) Audiovisual cross modal correspondences. In: J Simner, E Hubbard (eds), The Oxford handbook of synesthesia. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Pulvermuller F, Fadiga L (2010) Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nat Rev Neurosc 11:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Ann Rev Neurosc 27:169–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Root R, Ross S (1965) Further validation of subjective scales for loudness and brightness by means of cross-modality matching. Am J Psychol 78:285–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sapir E (1929) A study in phonetic symbolism. J Exp Psychol 12(3):225–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saussure F, Bally C, Sechehaye A, Riedlinger A, Baskin W (1966) Course in general linguistics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Shintel H, Nusbaum HC, Okrent A (2006) Analog acoustic expression in speech. J Mem Lang 55:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith LB, Sera MD (1992) A developmental analysis of the polar structure of dimensions. Cognit Psychol 24:99–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stevens JC, Marks LE (1965) Cross-modality matching of brightness and loudness. Proc Nat Ac Scie USA 54:407–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Waaramaa T, Alku P, Laukkanen AM (2006) The role of F3 in the vocal expression of emotions. Logop Phonatr Vocol 31(4):153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walker P, Bremner GJ, Mason U, Spring J, Mattock K, Slater A, Johnson SP (2010) Preverbal infants’ sensitivity to synaesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psychol Sci 21(1):21–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Westbury C (2005) Implicit sound symbolism in lexical access: evidence from an interference task. Brain Lang 93(1):10–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive Sciences and EducationUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for Biological CyberneticsTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  4. 4.Bernstein Centre for Computational NeuroscienceTübingenGermany
  5. 5.Department of Cognitive NeuroscienceUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  6. 6.Center of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)University of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  7. 7.Center for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC)University of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations