The shape of words in the brain

Ković, Vanja; Plunkett, Kim; Westermann, Gert

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.016

Cited by 136 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For words that feature early in language acquisition, systematicity is prominent, but for later-acquired words, the form-meaning mappings reveal increasing arbitrariness. The enhanced systematicity for the early vocabulary supports views that systematicity is useful for language acquisition [15][16][17][18]20]. Systematicity promotes understanding of the communicative function of language early in development, as the form provides information to the learner about the meaning, potentially enabling the child to learn that words have referents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…For example, in English, words associated with the nose and its functions tend to begin with sn-, or words referring to light often begin with gl- [6]. Preferences for certain sound-meaning relationships, have been demonstrated to affect learning of novel adjectives [15], verbs [16,17], nouns [18,19] and mixes thereof [20], though these studies generally test a forced choice between two alternatives. When the semantic distinction is not immediately available, as in a forced-choice test between two objects from different categories, then learning is less evident but still present under some learning conditions [21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How arbitrary is language?

Monaghan

Shillcock

Christiansen

et al. 2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

222

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a long established convention that the relationship between sounds and meanings of words is essentially arbitrary—typically the sound of a word gives no hint of its meaning. However, there are numerous reported instances of systematic sound–meaning mappings in language, and this systematicity has been claimed to be important for early language development. In a large-scale corpus analysis of English, we show that sound–meaning mappings are more systematic than would be expected by chance. Furthermore, this systematicity is more pronounced for words involved in the early stages of language acquisition and reduces in later vocabulary development. We propose that the vocabulary is structured to enable systematicity in early language learning to promote language acquisition, while also incorporating arbitrariness for later language in order to facilitate communicative expressivity and efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How arbitrary is language?

Monaghan

Shillcock

Christiansen

et al. 2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

222

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Now, while Parise and Spence's (2009) results demonstrated increased spatial and temporal integration for pairs of auditory and visual stimuli that share a crossmodal correspondence, other researchers have argued that the perceptual salience of crossmodally congruent (as compared to incongruent) pairs of auditory and visual stimuli may also be heightened (see, e.g., Evans & Treisman, 2010;Marks, 1987a; though see Marks et al, 2003;Melara, 1989b). Indeed, the latest electrophysiological research has demonstrated that when crossmodally matching (as compared to mismatching) pairs of stimuli are presented, the early neural evoked response (e.g., N1) may peak significantly earlier and have an enhanced amplitude (e.g., Kovic, Plunkett, & Westermann, 2009; see also Seo et al, 2010). Results such as these have been taken to support a perceptual enhancement account of at least some part of certain crossmodal correspondence effects.…”

Section: Interim Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review

Spence

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

1,218

1,263

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many everyday situations, our senses are bombarded by many different unisensory signals at any given time. To gain the most veridical, and least variable, estimate of environmental stimuli/properties, we need to combine the individual noisy unisensory perceptual estimates that refer to the same object, while keeping those estimates belonging to different objects or events separate. How, though, does the brain "know" which stimuli to combine? Traditionally, researchers interested in the crossmodal binding problem have focused on the roles that spatial and temporal factors play in modulating multisensory integration. However, crossmodal correspondences between various unisensory features (such as between auditory pitch and visual size) may provide yet another important means of constraining the crossmodal binding problem. A large body of research now shows that people exhibit consistent crossmodal correspondences between many stimulus features in different sensory modalities. For example, people consistently match high-pitched sounds with small, bright objects that are located high up in space. The literature reviewed here supports the view that crossmodal correspondences need to be considered alongside semantic and spatiotemporal congruency, among the key constraints that help our brains solve the crossmodal binding problem.

show abstract

“…bouba and kiki judged to correspond to a round, curvy versus jagged, pointy shape, respectively [20][21][22]. Iconic mappings have also been shown to be facilitatory in studies using indirect measures of online processing, including reaction times [23,24] and EEG waveforms [25,26], as well as to facilitate language acquisition in both children and adults [27,28]. Finally, prosody, or the suprasegmental modulation of the acoustic signal, constitutes another channel of expression in which iconic mappings may be expressed.…”

Section: Language Studies: the Current Focus Approaches And Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language as a multimodal phenomenon: implications for language learning, processing and evolution

Vigliocco¹,

Perniss

Vinson³

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

188

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our understanding of the cognitive and neural underpinnings of language has traditionally been firmly based on spoken Indo-European languages and on language studied as speech or text. However, in face-to-face communication, language is multimodal: speech signals are invariably accompanied by visual information on the face and in manual gestures, and sign languages deploy multiple channels (hands, face and body) in utterance construction. Moreover, the narrow focus on spoken Indo-European languages has entrenched the assumption that language is comprised wholly by an arbitrary system of symbols and rules. However, iconicity (i.e. resemblance between aspects of communicative form and meaning) is also present: speakers use iconic ges- tures when they speak; many non-Indo-European spoken languages exhibit a substantial amount of iconicity in word forms and, finally, iconicity is the norm, rather than the exception in sign languages. This introduction provides the motivation for taking a multimodal approach to the study of language learning, processing and evolution, and discusses the broad implications of shifting our current dominant approaches and assumptions to encompass multimodal expression in both signed and spoken languages

show abstract

The shape of words in the brain

Cited by 136 publications

References 27 publications

How arbitrary is language?

How arbitrary is language?

Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review

Language as a multimodal phenomenon: implications for language learning, processing and evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About