The author suggests that the following seemingly disparate phenomena have an underlying relationship: (a) cross-language similarities in the intonation contours for statements versus questions, (b) cross-cultural similarities in the vocal expression via intonation of attitude and affect, (c) cross-language patterns in the use of tone, vowels, and consonants in ‘sound symbolic’ vocabulary, (d) cross-species use of F₀ in threatening or non threatening vocalizations, (e) cross-cultural and cross-species use of certain facial expressions (involving distinct mouth shape), and (f) the existence of sexual dimorphism in the vocal anatomy of humans (and certain non humans). He argues that all arise due to an innately specified ‘frequency code’, which associates high acoustic frequency with the primary meaning of ‘small vocalizer’ and thus such secondary meanings as ‘subordinate, submissive, non threatening, desirous of the receiver’s goodwill, etc’ and associates with low acoustic frequency the primary meaning of ‘large vocalizer’ and such secondary meanings as ‘dominant, aggressive, threatening, etc’

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Certain signaling functions of the pitch of voice are remarkably similar across languages and cultures: (1) high or rising pitch to mark questions, low or falling pitch to mark nonquestions; (2) high pitch to signal politeness, low pitch to signal assertiveness; (3) in ‘sound symbolic’ vocabulary, high tone used with words connoting smallness or diminutive, low tone with words connoting largeness. These patterns can be explained by the assumption that human vocal communication exploits the ‘frequency code’, a cross-species association of high pitch vocalizations with smallness (of the vocalizer), lack of threat, and of low pitch vocalizations with the vocalizer’s largeness and threatening intent.

No abstract

No abstract