Psychological Research

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 119–130 | Cite as

Phonological and orthographic influences in the bouba–kiki effect

Original Article

Abstract

We examine a high-profile phenomenon known as the bouba–kiki effect, in which non-word names are assigned to abstract shapes in systematic ways (e.g. rounded shapes are preferentially labelled bouba over kiki). In a detailed evaluation of the literature, we show that most accounts of the effect point to predominantly or entirely iconic cross-sensory mappings between acoustic or articulatory properties of sound and shape as the mechanism underlying the effect. However, these accounts have tended to confound the acoustic or articulatory properties of non-words with another fundamental property: their written form. We compare traditional accounts of direct audio or articulatory-visual mapping with an account in which the effect is heavily influenced by matching between the shapes of graphemes and the abstract shape targets. The results of our two studies suggest that the dominant mechanism underlying the effect for literate subjects is matching based on aligning letter curvature and shape roundedness (i.e. non-words with curved letters are matched to round shapes). We show that letter curvature is strong enough to significantly influence word–shape associations even in auditory tasks, where written word forms are never presented to participants. However, we also find an additional phonological influence in that voiced sounds are preferentially linked with rounded shapes, although this arises only in a purely auditory word–shape association task. We conclude that many previous investigations of the bouba–kiki effect may not have given appropriate consideration or weight to the influence of orthography among literate subjects.

References

  1. Ahlner, F., & Zlatev, J. (2010). Cross-modal iconicity: a cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism. Sign Systems Studies, 38(1), 298–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aveyard, M. (2012). Some consonants sound curvy: effects of sound symbolism on object recognition. Memory & Cognition, 40, 83–92. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0139-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berlin, B. (1994). Evidence for pervasive synaesthetic sound symbolism in ethnozoological nomenclature. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 76–93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bremner, A. J., Caparos, S., Davidoff, J., de Fockert, J., Linnell, K. J., & Spence, C. (2013). “Bouba” and “Kiki” in Namibia? A remote culture make similar shape–sound matches, but different shape–taste matches to Westerners. Cognition, 126(2), 165–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, R., Black, A., & Horowitz, A. (1955). Phonetic symbolism in natural languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 312–318.Google Scholar
  6. Carr, P. (2012). English phonetics and phonology: an introduction. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Cheung, H., Chen, H.-C., Yip Lai, C., Wong, O. C., & Hills, M. (2001). The development of phonological awareness: effects of spoken language experience and orthography. Cognition, 81(3), 227–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheung, H., & Chin, H.-C. (2004). Early orthographic experience modifies both phonological awareness and on-line speech processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cramer, A.O.J, Van Ravenzwaaij, D., Matzke D., Steingroever, H., Wetzels, R., Grasman, R.P., Waldorp, L.J., Wagenmakers, E-J. (2014). Hidden multiplicity in multiway ANOVA: Prevalence, consequences, and remedies. http://www.ejwagenmakers.com/papers.html. Accessed 20 Nov 2014.
  10. Cuskley, C. (2013a). Shared cross-modal associations and the emergence of the lexicon. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Edinburgh. https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/7702. Accessed 15 May 2013.
  11. Cuskley, C. (2013b). Mappings between linguistic sound and motion. Public Journal of Semiotics, 5(1), 37–60.Google Scholar
  12. Cuskley, C., & Kirby, S. (2013). Synaesthesia, cross-modality and language evolution. In J. Simner & E. Hubbard (Eds.), Oxford handbook of synaesthesia (pp. 869–907). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. D’Onofrio, A. (2013). Phonetic detail and dimensionality in word–shape correspondences: refining the bouba–kiki paradigm. Language and Speech,. doi:10.1177/0023830913507694. (preprint).Google Scholar
  14. Davis, R. (1961). The fitness of names to drawings. a cross-cultural study in Tanganyika. British Journal of Psychology, 52(3), 259–268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer, S. (1922). Uber das enstehen und verstehen von namen. Arch. f. d. Gestalt Psychology, 42, 335–368.Google Scholar
  16. Fort, M., Weiß, A., Martin, A., & Peperkamp, S. (2013). Looking for the bouba–kiki effect in pre-lexical infants. Poster presented at the International Child Phonology Conference (June 12, 2013). Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
  17. Fox, C. (1935). An experimental study of naming. American Journal of Psychology, 47, 545–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallace, A., Boschin, E., & Spence, C. (2011). On the taste of ‘bouba’ and ‘kiki’: an exploration of word–food associations in neurologically normal participants. Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 34–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J. (1994). Sound symbolism. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 1–14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hockett, C. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M., & Okada, H. (2008). Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition, 109, 54–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Inglis-Arkell, E. (2010). The bouba–kiki effect. http://www.io9.com/5691770/the-bouba+kiki-effect. Accessed 3 Dec 2013.
  23. Irwin, F., & Newland, E. (1940). A genetic study of the naming of visual figures. Journal of Psychology, 9, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jesperson, O. (1933). Linguistica: Selected papers of O. Jesperson in English, French and German. Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard.Google Scholar
  25. Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
  26. Köhler, W. (1930). Gestalt Psychology (British Edition). London: Liveright.Google Scholar
  27. Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
  28. Koriat, A. (1977). The symbolic implications of vowels and of their orthographic representations in two natural languages. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 6(2), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kovic, V., Plunkett, K., & Westerman, G. (2010). The shape of words in the brain. Cognition, 114, 19–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lukatela, K., Carello, C., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I. Y. (1995). Phonological awareness in illiterates: observations from Serbo-Croatian. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marks, L. E. (1996). On perceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 11(1), 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: word–shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9(3), 316–322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Monaghan, P., Mattock, K., & Walker, P. (2012). The role of sound symbolism in word learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 38, 1152–1164.Google Scholar
  34. Newman, S. (1933). Further experiments in phonetic symbolism. American Journal of Psychology, 45, 53–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nielsen, A., & Rendall, D. (2011). The sound of round: evaluating the sound-symbolic role of consonants in the classic takete–maluma phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 115–124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Nielsen, A., & Rendall, D. (2012). The source and magnitude of sound-symbolic biases in processing artificial word material and their implications for language learning and transmission. Language and Cognition, 4(2), 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nuckolls, J. B. (1999). The case for sound symbolism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nygaard, L. C., Cook, A. E., & Namy, L. L. (2009). Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition, 112, 181–186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Boyle, M. W., Miller, D. A., & Rahmani, F. (1987). Sound-meaning relationships in speakers of Urdu and English: evidence for a cross-cultural phonetic symbolism. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16, 273–288.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ozturk, O., Krehm, M., & Vouloumanos, A. (2013). Sound symbolism in infancy: evidence for word–shape cross-modal correspondences in 4-month-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 173–186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Parise, C., & Spence, C. (2012). Audiovisual crossmodal correspondences and sound symbolism: a study using the implicit association test. Experimental Brain Research, 220, 319–333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Peña, M., Mehler, J., & Nespor, M. (2011). The role of audiovisual processing in early conceptual development. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1419–1421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Ramachandran, V., & Hubbard, E. (2001). Synaesthesia: a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(1), 3–34.Google Scholar
  44. Ramachandran, V., & Hubbard, E. (2005). Synaesthesia: a window into the hard problem of consciousness. In L. Robertson & N. Sagiv (Eds.), Synaesthesia: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 127–189). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Reeve, C. D. C. (1998). Translation of Plato’s Cratylus (HPC Classic Series). Cambridge: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Rizzolati, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robson, D. (2011). Kiki or bouba? In search of language’s missing link. The New Scientist, 2821, 12–16.Google Scholar
  48. Rogers, S., & Ross, A. (1975). A cross-cultural test of the maluma–takete phenomenon. Perception, 5(2), 105–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sapir, E. (1929). A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  51. Simner, J. (2011). Yellow-tasting sounds: Synaesthesia’s merging of the senses. Talk presented to Oxford University Department of Psychology, May 2011.Google Scholar
  52. Simner, J., Cuskley, C., & Kirby, S. (2010). What sound does that taste? Perception39, 553–569.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Slowiaczek, L. M., Soltano, E. G., Wieting, S. J., & Bishop, K. L. (2003). An investigation of phonology and orthography in spoken-word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 56(2), 233–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spector, F., & Maurer, D. (2013). Early sound symbolism for vowel sounds. i-Perception, 4(4), 239.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Stone, G., Vanhoy, M., & Van Orden, G. (1997). Perception is a two way street: feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Teller, D. Y. (1979). The forced-choice preferential looking procedure: a psychophysical technique for use with human infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 2, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Uznadze, D. (1924). Ein experimenteller bietrag zum problem der psychologischen grundlagen der namengebung. Psychology Forsch, 5, 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Walker, P., Bremner, J. G., Mason, U., Spring, J., Mattock, K., Slater, A., & Johnson, S. P. (2010). Preverbal infants’ sensitivity to synaesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psychological Science, 21(1), 21–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Ward, J., & Simner, J. (2003). Lexical-gustatory synaesthesia: linguistic and conceptual factors. Cognition, 89, 237–261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Werner, H. (1957). Comparative psychology of mental development (revised edition). New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
  61. Werner, H., & Wapner, S. (1952). Toward a general theory of perception. Psychological Review, 59, 324–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Westbury, C. (2005). Implicit sound symbolism in lexical access: evidence from an interference task. Brain and Language, 93, 10–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Ziegler, J. C., & Ferrand, L. (1998). Orthography shapes the perception of speech: the consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 5(4), 683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Dynamics UnitInstitute for Scientific InterchangeTurinItaly
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of SussexBrighton and HoveUK
  3. 3.Department of Psychology, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  4. 4.Department of Linguistics, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations