Sensory Linguistics

Language, perception and metaphor

HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027203106 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027262622 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
One of the most fundamental capacities of language is the ability to express what speakers see, hear, feel, taste, and smell. Sensory Linguistics is the interdisciplinary study of how language relates to the senses. This book deals with such foundational questions as: Which semiotic strategies do speakers use to express sensory perceptions? Which perceptions are easier to encode and which are “ineffable”? And what are appropriate methods for studying the sensory aspects of linguistics? After a broad overview of the field, a detailed quantitative corpus-based study of English sensory adjectives and their metaphorical uses is presented. This analysis calls age-old ideas into question, such as the idea that the use of perceptual metaphors is governed by a cognitively motivated “hierarchy of the senses”. Besides making theoretical contributions to cognitive linguistics, this research monograph showcases new empirical methods for studying lexical semantics using contemporary statistical methods.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
xiii–xiv
Chapter 1. Sensory linguistics: Introduction to the book
1–7
Part I. Theory
Chapter 2. The five senses folk model
11–15
Chapter 3. Sensory semiotics
17–30
Chapter 4. Ineffability
31–49
Chapter 5. The Embodied Lexicon Hypothesis
51–65
Chapter 6. Synesthesia and metaphor
67–77
Chapter 7. Synesthetic metaphors are not metaphorical
79–97
Chapter 8. The hierarchy of the senses
99–103
Chapter 9. Explaining the hierarchy of the senses
105–119
Part II. A case study of sensory adjectives
Chapter 10. Methodological foundations
123–140
Chapter 11. Norming the senses
141–152
Chapter 12. Dominance relations and specialization of sensory words
153–162
Chapter 13. Correlations and clusters
163–174
Chapter 14. Semantic preferences of sensory words
175–186
Chapter 15. Frequency, semantic complexity, and iconicity
187–197
Chapter 16. The evaluative dimension
199–211
Chapter 17. Re-evaluating the hierarchy of the senses
213–232
Part III. Conclusion
Chapter 18. Conclusion
235–247
References
249–285
Subject index
287–289
Sensory Linguistics: Language, perception and metaphor is an amazing, incredibly thoughtful book that paves a brilliant path forward in our scholarly understanding of the sensory, embodied, foundations for perception, thought, and language. Bodo Winter provides a rich set of descriptive, theoretical, and methodological considerations for uncovering the sensory basis of language and linguistic meaning, with particular focus on synesthesia and metaphor. I was impressed by Winter’s numerous novel arguments and insights and how these offer a new vision of the relations between linguistic and sensory experience. This book is cognitive science at its best!”
“[T]his book provides a comprehensive and insightful discussion of the correspondences between language and perception using reproducible empirical methods. In particular, it attaches great importance to looking for converging evidence throughout the book, which has been emphasized, until recently, in Cognitive Linguistics (Kövecses, 2011). What is discovered about sensory adjectives in this study is consistent with the existing empirical findings in neuroscience and psycholinguistics.”
“Being exquisitely well written, this publication, with clarity and wit, helps us acquire a deep understanding of the matter and makes it both an informative and an unusually pleasant reading. The organization of the whole book is quite clearcut and each section has been coherently related. The clarity of explanation, the relatively straightforward language used and the numerous examples make the book accessible to a broad audience.”
References

References

Abraham, W.
(1987) Synästhesie als Metapher. Folia Linguistica , 21, 155–190.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Agapakis, C. M., & Tolaas, S.
(2012) Smelling in multiple dimensions. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology , 16, 569–575.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ahlner, F., & Zlatev, J.
(2010) Cross-modal iconicity: A cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism. Sign Systems Studies , 1, 298–348.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Akpinar, E. & Berger, J.
(2015) Drivers of cultural success: The case of sensory metaphors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 109, 20–34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alais, D., & Burr, D.
(2004) The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Current Biology , 14, 257–262.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alivisatos, A., Jacobson, G., Hendler, T., Malach, R., & Zohary, E.
(2002) Convergence of visual and tactile shape processing in the human lateral occipital cortex. Cerebral Cortex , 12, 1202–1212.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allan, K., & Burridge, K.
(2006)  Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anaki, D., & Henik, A.
(2017) Bidirectionality in synesthesia and metaphor. Poetics Today , 38, 141–161.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Amassian, V. E., Cracco, R. Q., Maccabee, P. J., Cracco, J. B., Rudell, A., & Eberle, L.
(1989) Suppression of visual perception by magnetic coil stimulation of human occipital cortex. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology , 74, 458–462.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Amsel, B. D., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M.
(2012) Perceptual and motor attribute ratings for 559 object concepts. Behavior Research Methods , 44, 1028–1041.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ankerstein, C. A., Pereira, G. M.
(2013) Talking about taste: Starved for words. In C. Gerhardt, M. Frobenius, & S. Ley (Eds.), Culinary linguistics: The chef’s special (pp. 305–315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Araujo, I. E., Rolls, E. T., Kringelbach, M. L., McGlone, F., & Phillips, N.
(2003) Taste-olfactory convergence, and the representation of the pleasantness of flavour, in the human brain. European Journal of Neuroscience , 18, 2059–2068.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arshamian, A., & Larsson, M.
(2014) Same same but different: the case of olfactory imagery. Frontiers in Psychology , 5, 34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P., & Bylund, E.
(2013) Does grammatical aspect affect motion event cognition? A cross‐linguistic comparison of English and Swedish speakers. Cognitive Science , 37, 286–309.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auvray, M., & Spence, C.
(2008) The multisensory perception of flavor. Consciousness and Cognition , 17, 1016–1031.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., & del Prado Martín, F. M.
(2005) Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages. Language , 81, 666–698.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baccianella, S., Esuli, A., & Sebastiani, F.
(2010) SentiWordNet 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 10, 2200–2204.Google Scholar
Backhouse, A. E.
(1994) The lexical field of taste: a semantic study of Japanese taste terms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bagli, M.
(2016) “Shaking off so good a wife and so sweet a lady”: Shakespeare’s use of taste words. Journal of Literary Semantics, 45, 141–159.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Tastes we’ve lived by: Taste metaphors in English. Textus, 30, 33–48.Google Scholar
Baker, S. J.
(1950) The pattern of language. The Journal of General Psychology, 42, 25–66.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barrós-Loscertales, A., González, J., Pulvermüller, F., Ventura-Campos, N., Bustamante, J. C., Costumero, V., Parcet, M. A., & Ávila, C.
(2011) Reading salt activates gustatory brain regions: fMRI evidence for semantic grounding in a novel sensory modality. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 2554–2563.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W.
(1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
(2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barten, S. S.
(1998) Speaking of music: The use of motor-affective metaphors in music instruction. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 32, 89–97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bartley, S. H.
(1953) The perception of size or distance based on tactile and kinesthetic data. The Journal of Psychology, 36, 401–408.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
(2015a) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–9.Google Scholar
(2015b) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, O., & Greenlee, M. W.
(2007) Neural correlates of coherent audiovisual motion perception. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 1433–1443.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baumgärtner, K.
(1969) Synästhesie und das Problem sprachlicher Universalien. Zeitschrift für deutsche Sprache, 25, 1–20.Google Scholar
Basbaum, A. I., Bautista, D. M., Scherrer, G., & Julius, D.
(2009) Cellular and molecular mechanisms of pain. Cell, 139, 267–284.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, M. A.
(2008) Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4, 119–139.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K.
(2012) Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Berglund, B., Berglund, U., Engen, T., & Ekman, G.
(1973) Multidimensional analysis of twenty-one odors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 14, 131–137.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B.
(2006) The first congress of ethnozoological nomenclature. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 12, S23–S44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B., & O’Neill, J. P.
(1981) The pervasiveness of onomatopoeia in Aguaruna and Huambisa bird names. Journal of Ethnobiology, 1, 238–261.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., & Kay, P.
(1969) Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bhushan, N., Rao, A. R., & Lohse, G. L.
(1997) The texture lexicon: Understanding the categorization of visual texture terms and their relationship to texture images. Cognitive Science, 21, 219–246.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Birch, J.
(2012) Worldwide prevalence of red-green color deficiency. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 29, 313–320.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R., Sobel, K. V., & James, T. W.
(2004) Neural synergy between kinetic vision and touch. Psychological Science, 15, 397–402.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. F., & Christiansen, M. H.
(2016) Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 10818–10823.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M.
(2002) The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13, 185–188.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bottini, R. & Casasanto, D.
(2010) Implicit spatial length modulates time estimates, but not vice versa. In S. Ohlsson, & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1348–1353). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Box, G. E.
(1979) Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. Robustness in Statistics, 1, 201–236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 165–172.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brower, D.
(1947) The experimental study of imagery: II. The relative predominance of various imagery modalities. The Journal of General Psychology, 37, 199–200.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. W., & Lenneberg, E. H.
(1954) A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 454–462.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brunsdon, C., & Chen, H.
(2014) GISTools: Some further GIS capabilities for R. R package version 0.7–4. https://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=GISTools
Brysbaert, M., & New, B.
(2009) Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., New, B., & Keuleers, E.
(2012) Adding part-of-speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 991–997.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V.
(2014) Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bueti, D., & Walsh, V.
(2009) The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 12, 1831–1840.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C. D.
(1949) A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages: A contribution to the history of ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bylund, E., Athanasopoulos, P., & Oostendorp, M.
(2013) Motion event cognition and grammatical aspect: Evidence from Afrikaans. Linguistics, 51, 929–955.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R.
(2007) Manner-of-motion verbs in wine description. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 2095–2114.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
(2014) Ways of perceiving, moving, and thinking: Revindicating culture in conceptual metaphor research. Cognitive Semiotics, V, 268–290.Google Scholar
Caballero, R., & Paradis, C.
(2015) Making sense of sensory perceptions across languages and cultures. Functions of Language, 22, 1–19.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cabanac, M.
(1971) Physiological role of pleasure. Science, 173, 1103–1107.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cabanac, M., Pruvost, M., & Fantino, M.
(1973) Alliesthesie negative pour des stimulus sucres apres diverses ingestions de glucose. Physiology & Behavior, 11, 345–348.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caclin, A., Soto-Faraco, S., Kingstone, A., & Spence, C.
(2002) Tactile “capture” of audition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 64, 616–630.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cain, W. S.
(1979) To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. Science, 203, 467–470.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. D., & Katz, A. N.
(2006) On reversing the topics and vehicles of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 21, 1–22.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Canobbio, A. T.
(2004) Trattamento delle sensazioni nella poesia di Guido Gozzano. Genova: University of Genova MA thesis.Google Scholar
Caplan, D.
(1973) A note on the abstract readings of verbs of perception. Cognition, 2, 269–277.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, N. R.
(2010) Physiology of behavior (10th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Casagrande, V. A.
(1994) A third parallel visual pathway to primate area V1. Trends in Neurosciences, 17, 305–310.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casati, R., Dokic, J., & Le Corre, F.
(2015) Distinguishing the commonsense senses. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities (pp. 462–479). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D.
(2014) Experiential origins of mental metaphors: Language, culture, and the body. In M. Landau, M. D. Robinson, & B. Meier (Eds.), The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life (pp. 249–268). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) The hierarchical structure of mental metaphors. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 46–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Jasmin, K.
(2010) Good and bad in the hands of politicians: Spontaneous gestures during positive and negative speech. PLOS ONE, 5, e11805.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L.
(2008) Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579–593.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Chrysikou, E. G.
(2011) When left is “right”: Motor fluency shapes abstract concepts. Psychological Science, 22, 419–422.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cazeaux, C.
(2002) Metaphor and the categorization of the senses. Metaphor and Symbol, 17, 3–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, E., Lee, J., Chun, S., & Miller, A. E.
(2012) Development of a lexicon for commercially available cabbage (baechu) kimchi. Journal of Sensory Studies, 27, 511–518.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crisinel, A. S., Cosser, S., King, S., Jones, R., Petrie, J., & Spence, C.
(2012) A bittersweet symphony: Systematically modulating the taste of food by changing the sonic properties of the soundtrack playing in the background. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 201–204.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N.
(2008) Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 489–509.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chu, S., & Downes, J. J.
(2000) Long live Proust: The odour-cued autobiographical memory bump. Cognition, 75, B41–B50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Citron, F. M.
(2012) Neural correlates of written emotion word processing: a review of recent electrophysiological and hemodynamic neuroimaging studies. Brain and Language, 122, 211–226.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Citron, F. M., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2014) Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26, 2585–2595.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Citron, F. M., Güsten, J., Michaelis, N., & Goldberg, A. E.
(2016) Conventional metaphors in longer passages evoke affective brain response. NeuroImage, 139, 218–230.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H.
(1996) Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Pointing and placing. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 243–268). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J.
(1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764–805.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Classen, C.
(1993) Worlds of sense: Exploring the senses in history and across cultures. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(1997) Foundations for an anthropology of the senses. International Social Science Journal, 49, 401–412.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Classen, C., Howes, D., & Synnott, A.
(1994) Aroma: The cultural history of smell. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. S., Kosslyn, S. M., Breiter, H. C., DiGirolamo, G. J., Thompson, W. L., & Anderson, A. K., Rosen, B. R., & Belliveau, J. W.
(1996) Changes in the cortical activity during mental rotation, a mapping study using functional MRI. Brain, 119, 89–100.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Connell, L.
(2007) Representing object colour in language comprehension. Cognition, 102, 476–485.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Connell, L., & Lynott, D.
(2009) Is a bear white in the woods? Parallel representation of implied object color during language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 573–577.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Look but don’t touch: Tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words. Cognition, 115, 1–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Modality switching costs emerge in concept creation as well as retrieval. Cognitive Science, 35, 763–778.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125, 452–465.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) I see/hear what you mean: semantic activation in visual word recognition depends on perceptual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 527–533.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Do we know what we’re simulating? Information loss on transferring unconscious perceptual simulation to conscious imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1218–1232.Google Scholar
Connell, L. M., Lynott, D. J., & Banks, B.
(2018) Interoception: the forgotten modality in perceptual grounding of abstract and concrete concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 373, 20170143.Google Scholar
Coulson, M.
(2004) Attributing emotion to static body postures: Recognition accuracy, confusions, and viewpoint dependence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 117–139.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowart, W.
(1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
Craig, A. D.
(2003) A new view of pain as a homeostatic emotion. Trends in Neurosciences, 26, 303–307.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crisinel, A. S., Jones, S., & Spence, C.
(2012) ‘The sweet taste of maluma’: Crossmodal associations between tastes and words. Chemosensory Perception, 5, 266–273.Google Scholar
Croijmans, I., & Majid, A.
(2016) Not all flavor expertise is equal: The language of wine and coffee experts. PLOS ONE, 11, e0155845.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A.
(1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curcio, C. A., Sloan Jr., K. R., Packer, O., Hendrickson, A. E., & Kalina, R. E.
(1987) Distribution of cones in human and monkey retina: individual variability and radial asymmetry. Science, 236, 579–583.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cuskley, C.
(2013) Mappings between linguistic sound and motion. Public Journal of Semiotics, 5, 39–62.Google Scholar
Cuskley, C., & Kirby, S.
(2013) Synaesthesia, cross-modality and language evolution. In Simner, J. & Hubbard E. M. (Eds), Oxford handbook of synaesthesia (pp. 869–907). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cytowic, R. E., & Eagleman, D.
(2009) Wednesday is indigo blue: Discovering the brain of synesthesia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2010) Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review, 27, 1–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 219–253.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 649–667). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016a) Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 479–491.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) Looking into introspection. In G. Drożdż (Ed.), Studies in lexicogrammar: Theory and applications (pp. 55–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dacremont, C.
(1995) Spectral composition of eating sounds generated by crispy, crunchy and crackly foods. Journal of Texture Studies, 26, 27–43.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, P., Doolittle, N., Nagata, H., & Breslin, P. A. S.
(2000) The merging of the senses: integration of subthreshold taste and smell. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 431–432.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dam-Jensen, H., & Zethsen, K. K.
(2007) Pragmatic patterns and the lexical system – A reassessment of evaluation in language. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1608–1623.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
(2014) Figurative Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Dantzig, S., Cowell, R. A., Zeelenberg, R., & Pecher, D.
(2011) A sharp image or a sharp knife: Norms for the modality-exclusivity of 774 concept-property items. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 145–154.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dantzig, S., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W.
(2008) Perceptual processing affects conceptual processing. Cognitive Science, 32, 579–590.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/
David, S.
(1997) Représentations sensorielles et marques de la personne: contrastes entre olfaction et audition. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Catégorisation et cognition: de la perception au discours (pp. 209–242). Paris: Editions Kimé.Google Scholar
Davis, R.
(1961) The fitness of names to drawings: A cross-cultural study in Tanganyika. British Journal of Psychology, 52, 259–268.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Day, S.
(1996) Synaesthesia and synaesthetic metaphors. Psyche, 2, 1–16.Google Scholar
de Houwer, J., & Randell, T.
(2004) Robust affective priming effects in a conditional pronunciation task: evidence for the semantic representation of evaluative information. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 251–264.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delwiche, J. F., & Heffelfinger, A. L.
(2005) Cross-modal additivity of taste and smell. Journal of Sensory Studies, 20, 512–525.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C.
(2013) Intuition pumps and other tools for thinking. London: Penguin Boos.Google Scholar
Deroy, O., & Spence, C.
(2013) Why we are not all synesthetes (not even weakly so). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 643–664.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Wijk, R. A., & Cain, W. S.
(1994) Odor quality: discrimination versus free and cued identification. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 12–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diederich, C.
(2015) Sensory adjectives in the discourse of food: A frame-semantic approach to language and perception. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, G., Luyten, H., de Wijk, R., & Mojet, J.
(2007) A new sensory vocabulary for crisp and crunchy dry model foods. Food Quality and Preference, i, 37–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diffloth, G.
(1994) i: big, a: small. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 107–114). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dilts, P., & Newman, J.
(2006) A note on quantifying ‘good’ and ‘bad’ prosodies. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2, 233–242.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M.
(2009) The selective advantage of body-part terms. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2130–2136.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu. PhD dissertation. Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
(2012) Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 654–672.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Ideophones and gesture in everyday speech. Gesture, 13, 143–165.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3, 4.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., & Akita, K.
(2017) An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: On the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones, with special reference to Japanese. Journal of Linguistics, 53, 501–532.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P.
(2015) Arbitrariness, Iconicity, and Systematicity in Language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 603–615.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., & Majid, A.
(2012) The semantic structure of sensory vocabulary in an African language. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 300–305). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Dirven, R.
(1985) Metaphor as a basic means for extending the lexicon. In W. Paprotté & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 85–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Djordjevic, J., Lundstrom, J. N., Clement, F., Boyle, J. A., Pouliot, S., & Jones-Gotman, M.
(2008) A rose by any other name: would it smell as sweet?. Journal of Neurophysiology, 99, 386–393.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dolscheid, S., Shayan, S., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D.
(2013) The thickness of musical pitch: Psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science, 24, 613–621.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dominy, N. J., Lucas, P. W., Osorio, D., & Yamashita, N.
(2001) The sensory ecology of primate food perception. Evolutionary Anthropology, 10, 171–186.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drury, H. A., Van Essen, D. C., Anderson, C. H., Lee, C. W., Coogan, T. A., & Lewis, J. W.
(1996) Computerized mappings of the cerebral cortex: a multiresolution flattening method and a surface-based coordinate system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 1–28.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, D.
(2000) Categories as acts of meaning: The case of categories in olfaction and audition. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 1, 35–68.Google Scholar
Dunn, J.
(2015) Modeling abstractness and metaphoricity. Metaphor and Symbol, 30, 259–289.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R., & Clevenger, T.
(1990) The effects of schematic and affective processes on metaphorical invention. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 91–102.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eklundh, L., & Singh, A.
(1993) A comparative analysis of standardised and unstandardised principal components analysis in remote sensing. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 14, 1359–1370.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elder, R. S., & Krishna, A.
(2009) The effects of advertising copy on sensory thoughts and perceived taste. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 748–756.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L.
(2004) An alternative view of the mental lexicon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 301–306.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K.
(2014) Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130301.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J.
(2008) The anatomy of meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engen, T., & Ross, B. M.
(1973) Long-term memory of odors with and without verbal descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100, 221–227.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Engstrom, A. G.
(1946) In defence of synaesthesia in literature. Philological Quarterly, 25, 1–19.Google Scholar
Erzsébet, P. D.
(1974) Synaesthesia and poetry. Poetics, 3, 23–44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Essegbey, J.
(2013) Touch Ideophones in Nyagbo. In O. O. Orie, & K. W. Sanders (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on African Linguistics (pp. 235–243). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Esuli, A., & Sebastiani, F.
(2006) Sentiwordnet: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In Proceedings of 5th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (Vol. 6, pp. 417–422).Google Scholar
Etzi, R., Spence, C., Zampini, M., & Gallace, A.
(2016) When sandpaper is ‘kiki’ and satin is ‘bouba’: An exploration of the associations between words, emotional states, and the tactile attributes of everyday materials. Multisensory Research, 29, 133–155.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D.
(2000) In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76, 546–592.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V.
(2007) A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M.
(2006) Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Evans, V., Bergen, B., & Zinken, J.
(2007) The cognitive linguistics enterprise: An overview. In V. Evans, B. Bergen & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 2–30). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Everett, D.
(2005) Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology, 46, 621–646.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fainsilber, L., & Ortony, A.
(1987) Metaphorical uses of language in the expression of emotions. Metaphor and Symbol, 2, 239–250.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R.
(1986) On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229–238.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, S.
(2005) Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua, 115, 1525–1550.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, C.
(1998) WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fenko, A., Otten, J. J., & Schifferstein, H. N.
(2010) Describing product experience in different languages: The role of sensory modalities. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3314–3327.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, K.
(2017) What constitutes strong psychological science? The (neglected) role of diagnosticity and a priori theorizing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 46–61.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, T.
(1994) Vocal tract length perception and the evolution of language. B.A. Thesis, Brown University.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R.
(1957) Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, A.
(1999) What, if anything, is phonological iconicity? In O. Fischer & M. Nänny (Eds.), Form miming meaning: Iconicity in language and literature (pp. 123–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, S.
(1922) Über das Entstehen und Verstehen von Namen. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 42, 335–368.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A.
(2008) Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 825–850.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., San Roque, L., & Majid, A.
(2018) Smell is coded in grammar and frequent in discourse: Cha’palaa olfactory language in cross‐linguistic perspective. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 28, 175–196.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A.
(1983) The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fontana, F.
(2013) Association of haptic trajectories with takete and maluma. In I. Oakley, & S. Brewster (Eds.), Haptic and audio interaction Design (pp. 60–68). Berlin: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C.
(2006) Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: agendas for research. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven, F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibañez (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 379 – 402). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008) Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 462 – 482). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forceville, C. J., & Urios-Aparisi, E.
(2009) (Eds.) Multimodal metaphor. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foroni, F., & Semin, G. R.
(2009) Language that puts you in touch with your bodily feelings the multimodal responsiveness of affective expressions. Psychological Science, 20, 974–980.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S.
(2011) An R Companion to Applied Regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fraley, C., Raftery, A. E., Murphy, T. B., & Scrucca, L.
(2012) mclust Version 4 for R: Normal Mixture Modeling for Model-Based Clustering, Classification, and Density Estimation Technical Report No. 597, Department of Statistics, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Fryer, L., Freeman, J., & Pring, L.
(2014) Touching words is not enough: How visual experience influences haptic – auditory associations in the “Bouba – Kiki” effect. Cognition, 132, 164–173.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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, 34–46.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G.
(2005) The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in reason and language. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P.
(2014) The geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gawel, R., Oberholster, A., & Francis, I. L.
(2000) A ‘Mouth‐feel Wheel’: terminology for communicating the mouth‐feel characteristics of red wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 6, 203–207.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(1993) Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 223–272.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, A., & Loken, E.
(2013) The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. In Technical report, Department of Statistics, Columbia University. [www​.stat​. columbia​.edu​/~gelman​/research​/unpublished​/p​_hacking​.pdf , Retrieved July 31, 2017]
Gentleman, R., & Lang, D.
(2007) Statistical analyses and reproducible research. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 16, 1–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A.
(1984) Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256–281.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21, 434–458.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 2–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Matlock, T.
(2008) Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 161–176). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E.
(2013) The need for quantitative methods in syntax and semantics research. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 88–124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilad, Y., Man, O., Pääbo, S., & Lancet, D.
(2003) Human specific loss of olfactory receptor genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 3324–3327.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilad, Y., Wiebe, V., Przeworski, M., Lancet, D., & Pääbo, S.
(2004) Loss of olfactory receptor genes coincides with the acquisition of full trichromatic vision in primates. PLOS Biology, 2, e5.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(2001) Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M.
(1997) What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P.
(2002) Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A.
(1999) Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28, 1–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 379–401.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, R. F., Perfetti, C. A., & Schneider, W.
(2006a) Perceptual knowledge retrieval activates sensory brain regions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 4917–4921.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Distinct and common cortical activations for multimodal semantic categories. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 214–222.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Papesh, M. H., Barnhart, A. S., Hansen, W. A., & Hout, M. C.
(2016) The poverty of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 959–978.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
González, J., Barros-Loscertales, A., Pulvermüller, F., Meseguer, V., Sanjuán, A., Belloch, V., & Ávila, C.
(2006) Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions. Neuroimage, 32, 906–912.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S. & Spivey, M. J.
(2007) Introduction. The many faces of research in Cognitive Linguistics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. xi–xxi). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gori, M., Del Viva, M., Sandini, G., & Burr, D. C.
(2008) Young children do not integrate visual and haptic form information. Current Biology, 18, 694–698.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gori, M., Sandini, G., Martinoli, C., & Burr, D.
(2010) Poor haptic orientation discrimination in nonsighted children may reflect disruption of cross-sensory calibration. Current Biology, 20, 223–225.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.
(1997) THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 267–290.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1595–1614.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S.
(1999) Blending and metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graumann, A.
(2007) Color names and dynamic imagery. In M. Plümacher, & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 129–140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Divjak, D. S.
(2010) Quantitative approaches in usage-based cognitive semantics: myths, erroneous assumptions, and a proposal. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 333–353). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D.
(2005) Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 635–676.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Geeraerts, D. & Speelman, D.
(2007) A case for a cognitive corpus linguistics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 149–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grossenbacher, P. G., & Lovelace, C. T.
(2001) Mechanisms of synesthesia: Cognitive and physiological constraints. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 36–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grote, K.
(2013) “Modality relativity”: The influence of sign language and spoken language on conceptual categorization. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen.Google Scholar
Guest, S., Catmur, C., Lloyd, D., & Spence, C.
(2002) Audiotactile interactions in roughness perception. Experimental Brain Research, 146, 161–171.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haenny, P. E., Maunsell, J. H. R., & Schiller, P. H.
(1988) State dependent activity in monkey visual cortex II: Retinal and extraretinal factors in V4. Experimental Brain Research, 69, 245–259.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, M. C., Franzén, O., McGlone, F., Essick, G., Dancer, C., & Pardo, J. V.
(2002) Tactile motion activates the human middle temporal/V5 (MT/V5) complex. European Journal of Neuroscience, 16, 957–964.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halgren, E.
(1992) Emotional neurophysiology of the amygdala within the context of human cognition. In J. P. Aggleton (Ed.), The amygdala: Neurobiological aspects of emotion, memory and mental dysfunction (pp. 191–228). New York: Wiley-Liss.Google Scholar
Harmon, Z., & Kapatsinski, V.
(2017) Putting old tools to novel uses: The role of form accessibility in semantic extension. Cognitive Psychology, 98, 22–44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartigan, J. A., & Hartigan, P. M.
(1985) The dip test of unimodality. The Annals of Statistics, 13, 70–84.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(1999) Why is grammaticalization irreversible?. Linguistics, 37, 1043–1068.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hassemer, J., & Winter, B.
(2018) Decoding gestural iconicity. Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F.
(2004) Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301–307.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Havas, D. A., Glenberg, A. M., & Rinck, M.
(2007) Emotion simulation during language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 436 – 441.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Havas, D. A., Glenberg, A. M., Gutowski, K. A., Lucarelli, M. J., & Davidson, R. J.
(2010) Cosmetic use of botulinum toxin-A affects processing of emotional language. Psychological Science, 21, 895–900.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Havas, D. A., & Matheson, J.
(2013) The functional role of the periphery in emotional language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 294.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Havlicek, J., & Roberts, S. C.
(2009) MHC-correlated mate choice in humans: a review. Psychoeuroendocrinology, 34, 497–512.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. C., & Pick, H. L.
(1966) Visual and proprioceptive adaptation to optical displacement of the visual stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 150–158.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A.
(2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Healy, K.
(2017) Fuck nuance. Sociological Theory, 35, 118–127.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W.
(1958) Physics and philosophy: The revolution in modern science. Lectures delivered at University of St. Andrews, Scotland, Winter 1955–56. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Hermans, D., & Baeyens, F.
(2002) Acquisition and activation of odor hedonics in everyday situations: Conditioning and priming studies. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp. 119–139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herz, R. S.
(2002) Influences of odors on mood and affective cognition. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp. 160–177). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) A naturalistic analysis of autobiographical memories triggered by olfactory visual and auditory stimuli. Chemical Senses, 29, 217–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herz, R.
(2007) The scent of desire: Discovering our enigmatic sense of smell. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Herz, R. S., & Engen, T.
(1996) Odor memory: Review and analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 300–313.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herz, R. S., & Schooler, J. W.
(2002) A naturalistic study of autobiographical memories evoked by olfactory and visual cues: Testing the Proustian hypothesis. American Journal of Psychology, 115, 21–32.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hidaka, S., & Shimoda, K.
(2014) Investigation of the effects of color on judgments of sweetness using a taste adaptation method. Multisensory Research, 27, 189–205.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, L., Nichols, J., & Ohala, J.
(1994) Introduction: sound-symbolic processes. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 1–12). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hirata, S., Ukita, J., & Kita, S.
(2011) Implicit phonetic symbolism in voicing of consonants and visual lightness using Garner’s speeded classification task. Perceptual Motor Skills, 113, 929–940.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F.
(1982 [1960]) The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 88 – 111. Reprinted in: W. S-Y Wang (1982), Human communication: Language and its psychobiological bases (pp. 4 – 12). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Howes, D.
(1991) (Ed.). The varieties of sensory experience: A sourcebook in the anthropology of the senses. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
(2002) Nose-wise: Olfactory metaphors in mind. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp. 67–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Cross-talk between the senses. The Senses & Society, 1, 381–390.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huisman, J. L., & Majid, A.
(2018) Psycholinguistic variables matter in odor naming. Memory & Cognition, 46, 577–588.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hultén, B.
(2015) Sensory marketing: Theoretical and empirical grounds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hultén, B., Broweus, N. & van Dijk, M.
(2009) Sensory marketing. Houndmills: Palgrave.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
(2000) Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S.
(2002) Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12, 249–268.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huumo, T.
(2010) Is perception a directional relationship? On directionality and its motivation in Finnish expressions of sensory perception. Linguistics, 48, 49–97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
(2008) Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic?. Atlantis, 30, 15–33.Google Scholar
IJzerman, H., & Koole, S. L.
(2011) From perceptual rags to metaphoric riches – Bodily, social, and cultural constraints on sociocognitive metaphors: Comment on Landau, Meier, and Keefer (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 137, 355–361.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
IJzerman, H., & Semin, G. R.
(2009) The thermometer of social relations mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychological Science, 20, 1214–1220.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
James, W.
(1891 [1890]) The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jastrzembski, J. E., & Stanners, R. F.
(1975) Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 534–537.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Quinn, J. G.
(1976) To define true meaning. Nature, 264, 635–636.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jorgensen, J. C.
(1990) The psychological reality of word senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 167–190.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jousmäki, V., & Hari, R.
(1998) Parchment-skin illusion: sound-biased touch. Current Biology, 8, R190–R191.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Judd, D. B., & Wyszecki, G.
(1975) Color in business, science and industry. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Julius, D., & Basbaum, A. I.
(2001) Molecular mechanisms of nociception. Nature, 413, 203–210.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D.
(2014) The language of food. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Karns, C. M., & Knight, R. T.
(2009) Intermodal auditory, visual, and tactile attention modulates early stages of neural processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 669–683.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Madden, C. J., Therriault, D. J., Yaxley, R. H., Aveyard, M., Blanchard, A. A., & Zwaan, R. A.
(2005) Perception of motion affects language processing. Cognition, 94, B79–B89.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Zwaan, R. A., Aveyard, M., & Yaxley, R. H.
(2006) Perception of auditory motion affects language processing. Cognitive Science, 30, 733–744.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, A. N., & Al-Azary, H.
(2017) Principles that promote bidirectionality in verbal metaphor. Poetics Today, 38, 35–59.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A.
(2004) Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Semiotic diversity in utterance production and the concept of ‘language’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130293.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keverne, E. B.
(1999) The vomeronasal organ. Science, 286, 716–720.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, M., Sim, E. J., Herrnberger, B., Grothe, J., & Hoenig, K.
(2008) The sound of concepts: four markers for a link between auditory and conceptual brain systems. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 12224–12230.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiritchenko, S., Zhu, X., & Mohammad, S.
(2014) Sentiment analysis of short informal texts. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 50, 723–762.Google Scholar
Kita, S.
(1997) Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics, 35, 379–415.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Reed, C.
(1987) There’s more to touch than meets the eye: The salience of object attributes for haptics with and without vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 356–369.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, R.
(1986) Zur Linguistischen Synergetik: Struktur und Dynamik der Lexik. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Köhler, W.
(1929) Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
de Koning, B. B., Wassenburg, S. I., Bos, L. T., & Van der Schoot, M.
(2016) Size does matter: Implied object size is mentally simulated during language comprehension. Discourse Processes, 54, 493–503.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M.
(2015) (Ed.) The linguistics of temperature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M., Ball, T. M., & Reiser, B. J.
(1978) Visual images preserve metric spatial information: evidence from studies of image scanning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 47–60.Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M., Seger, C., Pani, J. R., & Hillger, L. A.
(1990) When is imagery used in everyday life? A diary study. Journal of Mental Imagery, 14, 131–152.Google Scholar
Köster, E. P.
(2002) The specific characeristics of the sense of smell. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp. 27–43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kousta, S. T., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G.
(2009) Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 112, 473–481.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kousta, S. T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E.
(2011) The representation of abstract words: why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 14–34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2002) Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) The metaphor – metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 75–88.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kovic, V., Plunkett, K., & Westermann, G.
(2010) The shape of words in the brain. Cognition, 114, 19–28.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M.
(2010) A note on the asymmetry in the hedonic implicatures of olfactory and gustatory terms. In S. Fuchs, P. Hoole, C. Mooshammer & M. Zygis (Eds.), Between the regular and the particular in speech and language (pp. 235–245). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kunkler-Peck, A. J., & Turvey, M. T.
(2000) Hearing shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 279–294.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V.
(2015) Virtual experiments in megastudies: A case study of language and emotion. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1693–1710.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., Estes, Z., Brysbaert, M., & Warriner, A. B.
(2014) Emotion and language: valence and arousal affect word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1065–1081.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, S., Stilla, R., & Sathian, K.
(2012) Metaphorically feeling: comprehending textural metaphors activates somatosensory cortex. Brain and Language, 120, 416–421.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) The invariance hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas?. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 39–74.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R.
(1985) Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A.
(2010) A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1045–1067.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford university press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lascaratou, C.
(2007) The language of pain: Expression or description?. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, H. T.
(1984) Flavor description of white wine by “expert” and nonexpert wine consumers. Journal of Food Science, 49, 120–123.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lederman, S. J.
(1979) Auditory texture perception. Perception, 8, 93–103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A. P. J.
(2015) Lexical categories and conceptualization of olfaction in Amis. Language and Cognition, 7, 321–350.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. W., & Schwarz, N.
(2012) Bidirectionality, mediation, and moderation of metaphorical effects: The embodiment of social suspicion and fishy smells. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 737–749.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Le Guérer, A.
(2002) Olfaction and cognition: A philosophical and psychoanalytic view. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp. 196–208). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A.
(1978) Structures of the lexicon and transfer of meaning. Lingua, 45, 95–123.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Wine and conversation (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lemon, J.
(2006) Plotrix: a package in the red light district of R. R-News, 6, 8–12.Google Scholar
Levänen, S., Jousmäki, V., & Hari, R.
(1998) Vibration-induced auditory-cortex activation in a congenitally deaf adult. Current Biology, 8, 869–872.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(2000) Yélî Dnye and the theory of basic color terms. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology , 10, 3–55.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A.
(2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29, 407–427.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N.
(2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K.
(2003) Grammar, gesture and meaning in American sign language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindstrom, M.
(2010) Brand sense: Sensory secrets behind the stuff we buy (2nd Ed.). London: Kogan Limited.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, B.
(2012) Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers.Google Scholar
Lockwood, G., & Dingemanse, M.
(2015) Iconicity in the lab: a review of behavioral, developmental, and neuroimaging research into sound-symbolism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1246.Google Scholar
Lorig, T. S.
(1999) On the similarity of odor and language perception. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 23, 391–398.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Louw, B.
(1993) Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis & T. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair (pp. 157–176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, M. M.
(2011) Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 273–302.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, M., & Connell, L.
(2011) A taste of words: Linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. Cognitive Science, 35, 381–398.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lu, J., & Goldin-Meadow, S.
(2017) Combining categorical and gradient information in sign and spoken communication. Presentation at the 11th International Symposium on Iconicity in Language and Literature, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
Lu, J. C., & Goldin-Meadow, S.
(2018) Creating images with the stroke of a hand: Depiction of size and shape in sign language. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1276.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. A.
(1992) Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G., & Clark, A.
(2015) Words and the world: Predictive coding and the language-perception-cognition interface. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 279–284.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G., & Winter, B.
(2018) Language is more abstract than you think, or, why aren’t languages more iconic? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 373, 20170137.Google Scholar
Lynott, D., & Connell, L.
(2009) Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 558–564.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 516–526.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macpherson, F.
(Ed.) (2011) The senses: Classic and contemporary philosophical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maechler, M.
(2015) diptest: Hartigan’s dip test statistic for unimodality– corrected. R package version 0.75–7.Google Scholar
Mahmut, M. K., & Stevenson, R. J.
(2015) Failure to obtain reinstatement of an olfactory representation. Cognitive Science, 39, 1940–1949.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A.
(2012) Current emotion research in the language sciences. Emotion Review, 4, 432–443.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., & Burenhult, N.
(2014) Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130, 266–270.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Burenhult, N., Stensmyr, M., de Valk, J., & Hansson, B. S.
(2018) Olfactory language and abstraction across cultures. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 373, 20170139.Google Scholar
Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A.
(2008) A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology, 102, 59–70.Google Scholar
Mannaert, L. N. H., Dijkstra, K., & Zwaan, R. A.
(2017) Is color an integral part of a rich mental simulation?. Memory & Cognition, 45, 974–982.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H.
(1959) Phonetic symbolism in English word formations. Indogermanische Forschungen, 64, 146–168.Google Scholar
(1960) The categories and types of present-day English word formation. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Markman, A. B.
(2008) Pluralism, relativism and the proper use of theories. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 20, 247–250.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marks, L. E.
(1974) On associations of light and sound: The mediation of brightness, pitch, and loudness. The American Journal of Psychology, 87, 173–188.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1975) On colored-hearing synesthesia: cross-modal translations of sensory dimensions. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 303–331.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1978) The unity of the senses: Interrelations among the modalities. New York: Academic Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1982a) Bright sneezes and dark coughs, loud sunlight and soft moonlight. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 8, 177–193.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1982b) Synesthetic perception and poetic metaphor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 15–23.Google Scholar
Marks, L. E., & Stevens, J. C.
(1966) Individual brightness functions. Perception & Psychophysics, 1, 17–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martino, G., & Marks, L. E.
(2001) Synesthesia: Strong and weak. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 61–65.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T.
(1989) Metaphor and the grammaticalization of evidentials. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 215–225). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J.
(2006) The shape of boubas: sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9, 316–322.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McElreath, R.
(2016) Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D.
(1992) Hand and mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meir, I.
(2010) Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language, 86, 865–896.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mendelson, D.
(1984) Synaesthetic metaphor in the work of Isaak Babel. Russian Literature, 15, 347–362.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mesirov, J. P.
(2010) Computer science. Accessible reproducible research. Science, 327, 5964.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meteyard, L., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G.
(2007) Motion detection and motion verbs language affects low-level visual perception. Psychological Science, 18, 1007–1013.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G.
(2012) Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48, 788–804.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A.
(1995) WordNet: a lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38, 39–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Charles W.
(1991) Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 1–28.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N.
(1976) Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, I. J., & Reedy, F. E.
(1990) Variations in human taste bud density and taste intensity perception. Physiology & Behavior, 47, 1213–1219.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, S. D.
(2004) Why integrative pluralism? E:CO, 6, 81–91.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. D., & Dietrich, M. R.
(2006) Integration without unification: An argument for pluralism in the biological sciences. The American Naturalist, 168, 73–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McBurney, D. H.
(1986) Taste, smell, and flavor terminology: Taking the confusion out of the fusion. In H. L. Meiselman, & R. S. Rivkin (Eds.), Clinical measurement of taste and smell (pp. 117–125). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J.
(1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746–748.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mohammad, S. M., & Kiritchenko, S.
(2015) Using hashtags to capture fine emotion categories from tweets. Computational Intelligence, 31, 301–326.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mojet, J., Köster, E. P., & Prinz, J. F.
(2005) Do tastants have a smell?. Chemical Senses, 30, 9–21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T., & Carling, C.
(1988) The limitations of language. London: Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moos, A., Simmons, D., Simner, J., & Smith, R.
(2013) Color and texture associations in voice-induced synesthesia. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 568.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Møller, A.
(2012) Sensory systems: Anatomy and physiology (2nd Ed.). Richardson: A. R. Møller Publishing.Google Scholar
Morein-Zamir, S., Soto-Faraco, S., & Kingstone, A.
(2003) Auditory capture of vision: examining temporal ventriloquism. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 154–163.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morley, J., & Partington, A.
(2009) A few frequently asked questions about semantic – or evaluative – prosody. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14, 139–158.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morrot, G., Brochet, F., & Dubourdieu, D.
(2001) The color of odors. Brain and Language, 79, 309–320.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., du Sert, N. P., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J. & Ioannidis, J. P.
(2017) A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L.
(1996) On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173–204.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition, 62, 99–108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, M. L.
(2010) Lexical meaning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nagata, H.
(1988) The relativity of linguistic intuition: The effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 1–17.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989) Effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments under objective and subjective self-awareness conditions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 255–269.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Anchoring effects in judging grammaticality of sentences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 159–164.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nakagawa, H.
(2012) The importance of TASTE verbs in some Khoe languages. Linguistics, 50, 395–420.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, T., Sakamoto, M., & Utsumi, A.
(2010) The role of event knowledge in comprehending synesthetic metaphors. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1898–1903). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Ngo, M. K., Misra, R., & Spence, C.
(2011) Assessing the shapes and speech sounds that people associate with chocolate samples varying in cocoa content. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 567–572.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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, 115–125.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Parsing the role of consonants versus vowels in the classic Takete-Maluma phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 153–163.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D.
(1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noble, A. C., Arnold, R. A., Buechsenstein, J., Leach, E. J., Schmidt, J. O., & Stern, P. M.
(1987) Modification of a standardized system of wine aroma terminology. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 38, 143–146.Google Scholar
Novich, S., Cheng, S., & Eagleman, D. M.
(2011) Is synaesthesia one condition or many? A large‐scale analysis reveals subgroups. Journal of Neuropsychology, 5, 353–371.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Callaghan, C.
(2009) Sounds and events. In M. Nudds & C. O’Callaghan (Eds.), Sounds & perception: New philosophical essays (pp. 26–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Not all perceptual experience is modality specific. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities (pp. 133–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Callaghan, C. & Nudds, M.
(2009) Introduction: The philosophy of sounds and auditory perception. In M. Nudds & C. O’Callaghan (Eds.), Sounds & perception: New philosophical essays (pp. 1–25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W.
(2005) Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J.
(1984) An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica, 41, 1–16.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) The frequency code underlies the sound symbolic use of voice pitch. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 325–347). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Olofsson, J. K., & Gottfried, J. A.
(2015) The muted sense: neurocognitive limitations of olfactory language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 314–321.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Malley, G.
(1957) Literary synesthesia. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15, 391–411.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortony, A.
(1975) Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 25, 45–53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz, M. J.
(2011) Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1568–1580.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osaka, N., Osaka, M., Morishita, M., Kondo, H., & Fukuyama, H.
(2004) A word expressing affective pain activates the anterior cingulate cortex in the human brain: an fMRI study. Behavioural Brain Research, 153, 123–127.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C.
(1963) Language universals and psycholinguistics. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 236–254). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E.
(1981) The cognitive dynamics of synesthesia and metaphor. Review of Research in Visual Arts Education, 7, 56–80.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H.
(1957) The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A.
(1968) Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 words. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76.Google Scholar
Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., Xu, Z., & Prado-León, L. R.
(2013) Music – color associations are mediated by emotion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 8836–8841.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pang, B., & Lee, L.
(2004) A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (article 271). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
(2008) Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2, 1–135.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Papesh, M. H.
(2015) Just out of reach: On the reliability of the action-sentence compatibility effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, e116–e141.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C.
(2000) Reinforcing adjectives: A cognitive semantic approach on grammaticalization. In R. Bermudez-Otero, D. Denison, R. M. Hogg, & C. B. McCully (Eds)., Generative theory and corpus studies (pp. 233–258). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics. Axiomathes, 15, 541–573.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C., & Eeg-Olofsson, M.
(2013) Describing sensory experience: The genre of wine reviews. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 22–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partington, A.
(2004) “Utterly content in each other’s company”: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 131–156.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pasnau, R.
(1999) What is sound?. The Philosophical Quarterly, 49, 309–324.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Patel, A. D., & Iversen, J. R.
(2003) Acoustic and perceptual comparison of speech and drum sounds in the north indian tabla tradition: An empirical study of sound symbolism. In M. J. Solé, D. Recansens, & J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 925–928). Barcelona.Google Scholar
Pecher, D., van Dantzig, S., Zwaan, R. A., & Zeelenberg, R.
(2009) Language comprehenders retain implied shape and orientation of objects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1108–1114.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W.
(2003) Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119–124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peli, E., Fine, E. M., & Labianca, A. T.
(1996) Evaluating visual information provided by audio description. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 90, 378–385.Google Scholar
Peng, R. D.
(2011) Reproducible research in computational science. Science, 334, 1226–1227.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, G., & Thompson, V. A.
(2017) Base-rate neglect. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory (pp. 44–61). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P.
(2016) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising: A corpus-based account. Metaphor and Symbol, 31, 73–90.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Multimodal metaphor and metonymy in advertising. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P., & Julich, N.
(2014) Let’s talk music: A corpus-based account of musical motion. Metaphor and Symbol, 29, 298–315.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perlman, M.
(2010) Talking fast: The use of speech rate as iconic gesture. In F. Perrill, V. Tobin, & M. Turner (Eds.), Meaning, form, and body (pp. 245–262). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Perlman, M., & Cain, A.
(2014) Iconicity in vocalization, comparisons with gesture, and implications for theories on the evolution of language. Gesture, 14, 321–351.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perlman, M., Clark, N., & Johansson Falck, M.
(2014) Iconic prosody in story reading. Cognitive Science, 39, 1348–1368.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perlman, M., Little, H., Thompson, B., & Thompson, R. L.
(2018) Iconicity in signed and spoken vocabulary: A comparison between American Sign Language, British Sign Language, English, and Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1433.Google Scholar
Perry, L. K., Perlman, M., & Lupyan, G.
(2015) Iconicity in English and Spanish and its relation to lexical category and age of acquisition. PLOS ONE, 10, e0137147.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perry, L. K., Perlman, M., Winter, B., Massaro, D. W., & Lupyan, G.
(2018) Iconicity in the speech of children and adults. Developmental Science, 21, e12572.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, W., Fleischhauer, J., Beseoglu, H., & Bücker, P.
(2008) A frame-based analysis of synaesthetic metaphors. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3, 1–22.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, J. C., Hollowood, T. A., Hort, J., & Taylor, A. J.
(2005) Temporal synchrony and integration of sub-threshold taste and smell signals. Chemical Senses, 30, 539–545.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, M. L., & Heining, M.
(2002) Neural correlates of emotion perception: From faces to taste. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp. 196–208). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pick, H. L., Warren, D. H., & Hay, J. C.
(1969) Sensory conflict in judgments of spatial direction. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 203–205.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plümacher, M., & Holz, P.
(2007) Speaking of colors and odors. In M. Plümacher, & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 1–17). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plümacher, M.
(2007) Speaking of colors and odors. In M. Plümacher, & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 61–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomp, J., Bestgen, A. K., Schulze, P., Müller, C. J., Citron, F. M., Suchan, B., & Kuchinke, L.
(2018) Lexical olfaction recruits olfactory orbitofrontal cortex in metaphorical and literal contexts. Brain and Language, 179, 11–21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Popova, Y. B.
(2003) ‘The fool sees with his nose’: metaphoric mappings in the sense of smell in Patrick Süskind’s Perfume. Language and Literature, 12, 135–151.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Popova, Y.
(2005) Image schemas and verbal synaesthesia. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 395–420). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Porat, R., & Shen, Y.
(2017) Metaphor: The journey from bidirectionality to unidirectionality. Poetics Today, 38, 123–140.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Porcello, T.
(2004) Speaking of sound: Language and the professionalization of sound-recording engineers. Social Studies of Science, 34, 733–758.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pragglejaz Group, P.
(2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22, 1–39.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prather, S. C., Votaw, J. R., & Sathian, K.
(2004) Task-specific recruitment of dorsal and ventral visual areas during tactile perception. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1079–1087.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Price, J. L.
(1987) The central and accessory olfactory systems. In T. E. Finger & W. L. Silver (Eds.), Neurobiology of taste and smell (pp. 179–204). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K.
(2007) Ungrammaticality, rarity, and corpus use. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3, 33–47.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, F.
(2005) Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rakova, M.
(2003) The extent of the literal: Metaphor, polysemy and theories of concepts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M.
(2001) Synaesthesia – a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 3–34.Google Scholar
R Core Team
(2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://​www​.R​-project​.org/.
Regier, T., Carstensen, A., & Kemp, C.
(2016) Languages support efficient communication about the environment: Words for snow revisited. PLOS ONE, 11, e0151138.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, M. P., Strange, B. A., & Dolan, R. J.
(2004) Encoding of emotional memories depends on amygdala and hippocampus and their interactions. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 278–285.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richter, M., Eck, J., Straube, T., Miltner, W. H., & Weiss, T.
(2010) Do words hurt? Brain activation during the processing of pain-related words. Pain, 148, 198–205.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, G., Lewandowski, J., & Galantucci, B.
(2015) How communication changes when we cannot mime the world: Experimental evidence for the effect of iconicity on combinatoriality. Cognition, 141, 52–66.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rock, I., & Victor, J.
(1964) Vision and touch: An experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science, 143, 594–596.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rolls, E.
(2008) Functions of the orbitofrontal and pregenual cingulate cortex in taste, olfaction, appetite and emotion. Acta Physiologica Hungarica, 95, 131–164.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ronga, I.
(2016) Taste synaesthesias: Linguistic features and neurophysiological bases. In E. Gola & F. Ervas (Eds.), Metaphor and communication (pp. 47–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ronga, I., Bazzanella, C., Rossi, F., & Iannetti, G.
(2012) Linguistic synaesthesia, perceptual synaesthesia, and the interaction between multiple sensory modalities. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20, 135–167.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rouby, C., & Bensafi, M.
(2002) Is there a hedonic dimension to odors? In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, Taste, and Cognition (pp. 140–159). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Royet, J. P., Plailly, J., Delon-Martin, C., Kareken, D. A., & Segebarth, C.
(2003) fMRI of emotional responses to odors: influence of hedonic valence and judgment, handedness, and gender. Neuroimage, 20, 713–728.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Royet, J. P., Zald, D., Versace, R., Costes, N., Lavenne, F., Koenig, O., & Gervais, R.
(2000) Emotional responses to pleasant and unpleasant olfactory, visual, and auditory stimuli: a positron emission tomography study. The Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 7752–7759.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sadamitsu, M.
(2004) Synaesthesia re-examined: an alternative treatment of smell related concepts. Osaka University Papers in English Linguistics, 8, 109–125.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, M., & Utsumi, A.
(2014) Adjective metaphors evoke negative meanings. PLOS ONE, 9, e89008.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sakamoto, M., & Watanabe, J.
(2016) Cross-modal associations between sounds and drink tastes/textures: a study with spontaneous production of sound-symbolic words. Chemical Senses, 41, 197–203.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Bouba/Kiki in touch: Associations between tactile perceptual qualities and Japanese phonemes. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 295.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E.
(1929) A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 225–239.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., Brown, P., Defina, R., Dingemanse, M., Dirksmeyer, T., Enfield, N., Floyd, S., Hammond, H., Rossi, G., Tufvesson, S., van Putten, S., & Majid, A.
(2014) Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 31–60.Google Scholar
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., & Majid, A.
(2018) Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 29, 371–406.Google Scholar
Sathian, K., & Zangaladze, A.
(2002) Feeling with the mind’s eye: contribution of visual cortex to tactile perception. Behavioural Brain Research, 135, 127–132.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sathian, K., Zangaladze, A., Hoffman, J. M., & Grafton, S. T.
(1997) Feeling with the mind’s eye. Neuroreport, 8, 3877–3881.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. M.
(1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szarkowska, A.
(2011) Text-to-speech audio description: towards wider availability of AD. Journal of Specialised Translation, 15, 81–98.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F.
(1959) [1916] Course in general linguistics. New York: The philosophical library.Google Scholar
Schiffman, S., Robinson, D. E., & Erickson, R. P.
(1977) Multidimensional scaling of odorants: Examination of psychological and physicochemical dimensions. Chemical Senses, 2, 375–390.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmeidler, E. & Kirchner, C.
(2001) Adding audio description: Does it make a difference?. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 197–212.Google Scholar
Schmidtke, D. S., Conrad, M., & Jacobs, A. M.
(2014) Phonological iconicity. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schott, D. G.
(2004) Communicating the experience of pain: the role of analogy. Pain, 108, 209–212.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, C. E., Lindsley, R. W., Specht, C., Marcovici, A., Smiley, J. F., & Javitt, D. C.
(2001) Somatosensory input to auditory association cortex in the macaque monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 85, 1322–1327.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schürmann, M., Caetano, G., Jousmäki, V., & Hari, R.
(2004) Hands help hearing: facilitatory audiotactile interaction at low sound-intensity levels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 830–832.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C. T.
(1996) The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J.
(1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E.
(2010) Descriptions of pain, metaphor, and embodied simulation. Metaphor and Symbol, 25, 205–226.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sergent, J., Ohta, S., & MacDonald, B.
(1992) Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing. A positron emission tomography study. Brain, 115, 15–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S.
(2002) Visual illusion induced by sound. Cognitive Brain Research, 14, 147–152.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C.
(2013) A reduced redundancy usenet corpus (2005–2011). Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta. Retrieved from <http://​www​.psych​.ualberta​.ca​/westburylab​/downloads​/usenetcorpus​.download​.html>.
Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. A.
(1992) Representation of colors in the blind, color-blind, and normally sighted. Psychological Science, 3, 97–104.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J.
(1971) Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y.
(1997) Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics, 8, 33–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) How come silence is sweet but sweetness is not silent: a cognitive account of directionality in poetic synaesthesia. Language and Literature, 7, 123–140.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Metaphor and poetic figures. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 295–307). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., & Aisenman, R.
(2008) Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter: Synaesthetic metaphors and cognition. Language and Literature, 17, 107–121.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., & Cohen, M.
(1998) How come silence is sweet but sweetness is not silent: a cognitive account of directionality in poetic synaesthesia. Language and Literature, 7, 123–140.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., & Gil, D.
(2007) Sweet fragrances from Indonesia: A universal principle governing directionality in synaesthetic Metaphors. In W. van Peer, & J. Auracher (Eds.), New beginnings in literary studies (pp. 49–71). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Shen, Y., & Gadir, O.
(2009) How to interpret the music of caressing: Target and source assignment in synaesthetic genitive constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 357–371.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., & Porat, R.
(2017) Metaphorical directionality: The role of language. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 62–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shermer, D. Z., & Levitan, C. A.
(2014) Red hot: The crossmodal effect of color intensity on perceived piquancy. Multisensory Research, 27, 207–223.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shibuya, Y., & Nozawa, H.
(2003) Constraints on synaesthesia. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 403–414). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Shibuya, Y., Nozawa, H., & Kanamaru, T.
(2007) Understanding synesthetic expressions: Vision and olfaction with the physiological = psychological model. In M. Plümacher, & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 203–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shinohara, K., & Nakayama, A.
(2011) Modalities and directions in synaesthetic metaphors in Japanese. Cognitive Studies, 18, 491–507.Google Scholar
Shintel, H., & Nusbaum, H. C.
(2007) The sound of motion in spoken language: Visual information conveyed by acoustic properties of speech. Cognition, 105, 681–690.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shintel, H., Nusbaum, H. C., & Okrent, A.
(2006) Analog acoustic expression in speech communication. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 167–177.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M.
(2017) Five mechanisms of sound symbolic association. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–25.Google Scholar
(2018) Lonely sensational icons: semantic neighbourhood density, sensory experience and iconicity. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33, 25–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silberzahn
et al. (2017) Many analysts, one dataset: Making transparent how variations in analytical choices affect results. Open Science Framework [ https://​osf​.io​/qix4g/ , accessed May 29, 2017 ]
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U.
(2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simner, J.
(2012) Defining synaesthesia. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 1–15.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simner, J., Cuskley, C., & Kirby, S.
(2010) What sound does that taste? Cross-modal mappings across gustation and audition. Perception, 39, 553–569.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simner, J., Harrold, J., Creed, H., Monro, L., & Foulkes, L.
(2008) Early detection of markers for synaesthesia in childhood populations. Brain, 132, 57–64.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simner, J., Mulvenna, C., Sagiv, N., Tsakanikos, E., Witherby, S. A., Fraser, C., Scott, K., & Ward, J.
(2006) Synaesthesia: The prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences. Perception, 35, 1024–1033.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.
(1971) Psycholinguistics. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Co.Google Scholar
Smeets, M. A. M., & Dijksterhuis, G. B.
(2014) Smelly primes – when olfactory primes do or do not work. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 96.Google Scholar
Snefjella, B., & Kuperman, V.
(2016) It’s all in the delivery: Effects of context valence, arousal, and concreteness on visual word processing. Cognition, 156, 135–146.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorabji, R.
(1971) Aristotle on demarcating the five senses. The Philosophical Review, 80, 55–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Soto-Faraco, S., Spence, C., & Kingstone, A.
(2004) Congruency effects between auditory and tactile motion: extending the phenomenon of cross-modal dynamic capture. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 208–217.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suárez Toste, E.
(2007) Metaphor inside the wine cellar: On the ubiquity of personification schemas in winespeak. Metaphorik, 12, 53–64.Google Scholar
Speed, L. J., & Majid, A.
(2017) Dutch modality exclusivity norms: Simulating perceptual modality in space. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1–15.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) An exception to mental simulation: No evidence for embodied odor language. Cognitive Science, 42, 1146–1178.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spence, C.
(2007) Audiovisual multisensory integration. Acoustical Science and Technology, 28, 61–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 971–995.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Managing sensory expectations concerning products and brands: Capitalizing on the potential of sound and shape symbolism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 37–54.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Multisensory flavour perception. Current Biology, 23, R365–R369.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Multisensory flavor perception. Cell, 161, 24–35.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Eating with our ears: Assessing the importance of the sounds of consumption to our perception and enjoyment of multisensory flavour experiences. Flavour, 4, 3.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spence, C., & Bayne, T.
(2015) Is consciousness multisensory? In D. Stokes, M. Matthen & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities (pp. 95–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spence, C., Nicholls, M. E., & Driver, J.
(2001) The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 330–336.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spence, C., & Piqueras-Fiszman, B.
(2014) The perfect meal: The multisensory science of food and dining. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spence, C., Smith, B., & Auvray, M.
(2015) Confusing tastes and flavours. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen, & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities (pp. 247–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. J.
(1973) Differences between linguists and nonlinguists in intuitions of grammaticality-acceptability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 83–98.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spivey, M.
(2007) The continuity of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N.
(2013) Experimental syntax and island effects. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stadtlander, L. M., & Murdoch, L. D.
(2000) Frequency of occurrence and rankings for touch-related adjectives. Behavior Research Methods, 32, 579–587.Google Scholar
Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A.
(2001) The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Staniewski, P.
(2017) Geschmack und smak– sprachliche Aspekte der gustatorischen Wahrnehmung im Deutschen und Polnischen. In J. Szczek & M. Kalasznik (Eds.), Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung (pp. 223–248). Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T.
(2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, R. J., Prescott, J., & Boakes, R. A.
(1999) Confusing tastes and smells: how odours can influence the perception of sweet and sour tastes. Chemical Senses, 24, 627–635.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S.
(1975) Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. C., & Marks, L. E.
(1965) Cross-modality matching of brightness and loudness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 54, 407–411.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, D.
(2010) Semantic prosody: A critical evaluation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stoffregen, T. A., & Bardy, B. G.
(2001) On specification and the senses. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 195–213.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, D., & Biggs, S.
(2015) The dominance of the visual. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities (pp. 350–378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S.
(1988) Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 768–777.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strik Lievers, F.
(2015) Synaesthesia: A corpus-based study of cross-modal directionality. In R. Caballero, & C. Paradis (Eds.), Functions of language, sensory perceptions in language and cognition (pp. 69–95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2016) Synaesthetic metaphors in translation. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 54, 43–70.Google Scholar
(2016) Figures and the senses: Towards a definition of synaesthesia. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 83–101.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strik Lievers, F., & Winter, B.
(2018) Sensory language across lexical categories. Lingua, 204, 45–61.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M.
(2001) Words and phrases. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Styles, S. J., & Gawne, L.
(2017) When does maluma/takete fail? Two key failures and a meta-analysis suggest that phonology and phonotactics matter. i-Perception, 8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Toste, E.
(2013) One man’s cheese is another man’s music: Synaesthesia and the bridging of cultural differences in the language of sensory perception. In R. Caballero & J. Díaz-Vera (Eds.), Sensuous Cognition (pp. 169–191). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K., & Jiang, W.
(2013) When my eyes are on you, do you touch my eyes? A reclassification of metaphors mapping from physical contact to perception. In T. Fuyin Li (Eds.), Compendium of cognitive linguistics research volume 2 (pp. 189–200). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Sun, C., Koppel, K., & Chambers, E.
(2014) An initial lexicon of sensory properties for nail polish. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 36, 262–272.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., Gyoba, J., & Sakamoto, S.
(2008) Selective effects of auditory stimuli on tactile roughness perception. Brain Research, 1242, 87–94.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Synnott, A.
(1991) Puzzling over the senses: From Plato to Marx. In D. Howes (Ed.), The varieties of sensory experience: A sourcebook in the anthropology of the senses (pp. 61–76). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Talavera, M., & Chambers, D. H.
(2016) Flavor lexicon and characteristics of artisan goat cheese from the United States. Journal of Sensory Studies, 31, 492–506.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taboada, M.
(2016) Sentiment analysis: An overview from linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 325–347.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(1995) Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Teghtsoonian, M., & Teghtsoonian, R.
(1965) Seen and felt length. Psychonomic Science, 3, 465–466.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tekiroğlu, S. S., Özbal, G., & Strapparava, C.
(2014) A computational approach to generate a sensorial lexicon. In Proceedings of the COLING 2014 Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon (CogALex), August 2014, Dublin, Ireland.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. R.
(1978) The best explanation: Criteria for theory choice. The Journal of Philosophy, 75, 76–92.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thierry, G., Athanasopoulos, P., Wiggett, A., Dering, B., & Kuipers, J. R.
(2009) Unconscious effects of language-specific terminology on preattentive color perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 4567–4570.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G., & Hunston, S.
(2000) Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 38–55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. D., & Estes, Z.
(2011) Sound symbolic naming of novel objects is a graded function. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 2392–2404.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thoret, E., Aramaki, M., Kronland-Martinet, R., Velay, J. L., & Ystad, S.
(2014) From sound to shape: auditory perception of drawing movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 983–994.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L.
(1948) On the frequency of semantic changes in modern English. The Journal of General Psychology, 39, 23–27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasino, B., Fink, G. R., Sparing, R., Dafotakis, M., & Weiss, P. H.
(2008) Action verbs and the primary motor cortex: a comparative TMS study of silent reading, frequency judgments, and motor imagery. Neuropsychologia, 46, 1915–1926.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, I.
(2005) Nociceptive processing in the human brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 478–487.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Troche, J., Crutch, S. J., & Reilly, J.
(2017) Defining a conceptual topography of word concreteness: Clustering properties of emotion, sensation, and magnitude among 750 English words. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1787.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsur, R.
(2007) Issues in literary synaesthesia. Style, 41, 30–51.Google Scholar
(2008) Toward a theory of cognitive poetics. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2012) Playing by ear and the tip of the tongue: Precategorical information in poetry. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turatto, M., Galfano, G., Bridgeman, B., & Umiltà, C.
(2004) Space-independent modality-driven attentional capture in auditory, tactile and visual systems. Experimental Brain Research, 155, 301–310.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, B. H., Mishkin, M., & Knapp, M.
(1980) Organization of the amygdalopetal projections from modality‐specific cortical association areas in the monkey. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 191, 515–543.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S.
(1945) Romanticism and synaesthesia: A comparative study of sense transfer in Keats and Byron. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 60, 811–827.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1959) The principles of semantics. Glasgow: Jackson, Son & Co.Google Scholar
Ultan, R.
(1978) Size-sound symbolism. In J. H. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson, & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language, Vol 2: Phonology (pp. 525–568). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Urbanek, S.
(2013) png: Read and write PNG images. R package version 0.1–7. https://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=png
Usnadze, D.
(1924) Ein experimenteller Beitrag zum Problem der psychologischen Grundlagen der Namengebung. Psychologische Forschung, 5, 24–43.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Velasco-Sacristán, M., & Fuertes-Olivera, P. A.
(2006) Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 217–252.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D.
(2002) Modern applied statistics with S (4th Ed.). New York: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Å.
(1983) The verbs of perception: a typological study. Linguistics, 21, 123–162.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Crosslinguistic perspectives on lexical organization and lexical progression. In K. Hyltenstam, & Å. Viberg (Eds.), Progression and regression in language: Sociocultural, neuropsychological and linguistic perspectives (pp. 340 – 385). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vickers, Z. M.
(1984) Crispness and crunchiness  –! A difference in pitch? Journal of Texture Studies, 15, 157–163.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S.
(2009) Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition, 1, 219–247.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vinson, D. P., Cormier, K., Denmark, T., Schembri, A., & Vigliocco, G.
(2008) The British Sign Language (BSL) norms for age of acquisition, familiarity, and iconicity. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1079–1087.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Volkow, N. D., Wang, G. J., & Baler, R. D.
(2011) Reward, dopamine and the control of food intake: implications for obesity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 37–46.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vukovic, N., Fardo, F., & Shtyrov, Y.
(under review). When words burn  – language processing differentially modulates pain perception in typical and chronic pain populations. Language and Cognition.
Vukovic, N., & Williams, J. N.
(2014) Automatic perceptual simulation of first language meanings during second language sentence processing in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 145, 98–103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagenmakers, E. J., Beek, T., Dijkhoff, L., Gronau, Q. F., Acosta, A., Adams Jr, R. B., Albohn, D. N., Allard, E. S., Benning, S. D., Blouin-Hudon, E.-M., Bulnes, L. C., Caldwell, T. L., Calin-Jageman, R. J., Capaldi, C. A., Carfagno, N. S., Chasten, K. T., Cleeremans, A., Connell, L., DeCicco, J. M., Dijkstra, K., Fischer, A. H., Foroni, F., Hess, U., Holmes, K. J., Jones, J. L. H., Klein, O., Koch, C., Korb, S., Lewinski, P., Liao, J. D., Lund, S., Lupianez, J., Lynott, D., Nance, C. N., Oosterwijk, S., Ozdoğru, A. A., Pacheco-Unguetti, A. P., Pearson, B., Powis, C., Riding, S., Roberts, T.-A., Rumiati, R. I., Senden, M., Shea-Shumsky, N. B., Sobocko, K., Soto, J. A., Steiner, T. G., Talarico, J. M., van Allen, Z. M., Vandekerckhove, M., Wainwright, B., Wayand, J. F., Zeelenberg, R., Zetzer, E. E., & Zwaan, R. A.
(2016) Registered replication report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 917–928.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walker, E., & Cooperrider, K.
(2016) The continuity of metaphor: Evidence from temporal gestures. Cognitive Science, 40, 481–495.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, V.
(2000) Neuropsychology: The touchy, feely side of vision. Current Biology, 10, R34–R35.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483–488.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M.
(2013) Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1191–1207.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V.
(2015) Affective biases in English are bi-dimensional. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 1147–1167.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waskul, D. D., Vannini, P., & Wilson, J.
(2009) The aroma of recollection: Olfaction, nostalgia, and the shaping of the sensuous self. The Senses and Society, 4, 5–22.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T., & Arnold, J.
(2005) Intuitions in linguistic argumentation. Lingua, 115, 1481–1496.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, J., Utsunomiya, Y., Tsukurimichi, H., & Sakamoto, M.
(2012) Relationship between Phonemes and Tactile-emotional Evaluations in Japanese Sound Symbolic Words. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2517–2522). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Welch, R. B., & Warren, D. H.
(1980) Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 638–667.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Werning, M., Fleischhauer, J., & Beseoglu, H.
(2006) The cognitive accessibility of synaesthetic metaphors. In R. Sun, & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2365–2370). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Whitney, A. H.
(1952) Synaesthesia in twentieth-century Hungarian poetry. The Slavonic and East European Review, 30, 444–464.Google Scholar
Whitsitt, S.
(2005) A critique of the concept of semantic prosody. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10, 283–305.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H.
(2017a) stringr: Simple, Consistent Wrappers for Common String Operations. R package version 1.2.0. https://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=strin
(2017b) tidyverse: Easily install and load ‘tidyverse’ packages. R package version 1.1.1. https://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=tidyverse
Wilce, J. M.
(2009) Language and emotion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willander, J., & Larsson, M.
(2006) Smell your way back to childhood: Autobiographical odor memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 240–244.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willems, R. M., Labruna, L., D’Esposito, M., Ivry, R., & Casasanto, D.
(2011) A functional role for the motor system in language understanding: evidence from theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation. Psychological Science, 22, 849–854.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willems, R. M., & Francken, J. C.
(2012) Embodied cognition: taking the next step. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 582.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.
(1976) Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52, 461–478.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A.
(2008) Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322, 606–607.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. O.
(1998) Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Wilson, M.
(2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, N. L., & Gibbs, R. W.
(2007) Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 721–731.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S.
(2013) Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 58.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B.
(2011) Pseudoreplication in phonetic research. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Science (pp. 2137–2140). Hong Kong, August 2011.Google Scholar
(2014) Horror movies and the cognitive ecology of primary metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 29, 151–170.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Taste and smell words form an affectively loaded part of the English lexicon. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 975–988.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(in press). Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. In L. Speed, L. San Roque & A. Majid Eds. Perception metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Winter, B., & Bergen, B.
(2012) Language comprehenders represent object distance both visually and auditorily. Language and Cognition, 4, 1–16.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., & Matlock, T.
(2013) Making judgments based on similarity and proximity. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 219–232.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. & Matlock, T.
(2017) Primary metaphors are both cultural and embodied. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 99–115). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., & Matlock, T., Shaki, S., & Fischer, M.
(2015a) Mental number space in three dimensions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 209–219.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., Marghetis, T., & Matlock, T.
(2015b) Of magnitudes and metaphors: Explaining cognitive interactions between space, time, and number. Cortex, 64, 209–224.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., Perlman, M., & Majid, A.
(2018) Vision dominates in perceptual language: English sensory vocabulary is optimized for usage. Cognition, 179, 213–220.Google Scholar
Winter, B., Perlman, M., & Matlock, T.
(2014) Using space to talk and gesture about numbers: Evidence from the TV News Archive. Gesture, 13, 377–408.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., Perlman, M., Perry, L. K., & Lupyan, G.
(2017) Which words are most iconic? Iconicity in English sensory words. Interaction Studies, 18, 433–454.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D.
(2011) Structure‐mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 35, 1456–1488.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wnuk, E., & Majid, A.
(2014) Revisiting the limits of language: The odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition, 131, 125–138.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wyler, S.
(2007) Color terms between elegance and beauty: The verbalization of color with textiles and cosmetics. In M. Plümacher, & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of Colors and Odors (pp. 113–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yaxley, R. H., & Zwaan, R. A.
(2007) Simulating visibility during language comprehension. Cognition, 105, 229–236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yeshurun, Y., & Sobel, N.
(2010) An odor is not worth a thousand words: from multidimensional odors to unidimensional odor objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 219–241.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yu, N.
(2003) Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32, 19–34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zald, D. H., Lee, J. T., Fluegel, K. W., & Pardo, J. V.
(1998) Aversive gustatory stimulation activates limbic circuits in humans. Brain, 121, 1143–1154.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zald, D. H., & Pardo, J. V.
(1997) Emotion, olfaction, and the human amygdala: amygdala activation during aversive olfactory stimulation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94, 4119–4124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zangaladze, A., Epstein, C. M., Grafton, S. T., & Sathian, K.
(1999) Involvement of visual cortex in tactile discrimination of orientation. Nature, 401, 587–590.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zarzo, M.
(2008) Psychologic dimensions in the perception of everyday odors: pleasantness and edibility. Journal of Sensory Studies, 23, 354–376.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zatorre, R. J., Jones-Gotman, M., Evans, A. C., & Meyer, E.
(1992) Functional localization and lateralization of human olfactory cortex. Nature, 360, 339–340.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Q.
(1998) Fuzziness – vagueness – generality – ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 13–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, C. B., & Leonardelli, G. J.
(2008) Cold and lonely does social exclusion literally feel cold?. Psychological Science, 19, 838–842.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K.
(1945) The meaning-frequency relationship of words. The Journal of General Psychology, 33, 251–256.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G. M.
(2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A.
(2009) Mental simulation in language comprehension and social cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1142–1150.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Pecher, D.
(2012) Revisiting mental simulation in language comprehension: Six replication attempts. PLOS ONE, 7, e51382.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H.
(2002) Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. M., & Sadock, J. M.
(1975) Ambiguity tests and how to fail them. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 1–36). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Börstell, Carl & Ryan Lepic
2020. Spatial metaphors in antonym pairs across sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2  pp. 112 ff. Crossref logo
CABALLERO, ROSARIO & CARITA PARADIS
2020. Soundscapes in English and Spanish: a corpus investigation of verb constructions. Language and Cognition  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
DINGEMANSE, MARK, MARCUS PERLMAN & PAMELA PERNISS
2020. Construals of iconicity: experimental approaches to form–meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition 12:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
DINGEMANSE, MARK & BILL THOMPSON
2020. Playful iconicity: structural markedness underlies the relation between funniness and iconicity. Language and Cognition 12:1  pp. 203 ff. Crossref logo
Günther, Fritz, Tri Nguyen, Lu Chen, Carolin Dudschig, Barbara Kaup & Arthur M. Glenberg
2020. Immediate sensorimotor grounding of novel concepts learned from language alone. Journal of Memory and Language 115  pp. 104172 ff. Crossref logo
Li, Heng
2019. Metaphors in the Mind: Sources of Variation in Embodied Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol 34:4  pp. 258 ff. Crossref logo
Littlemore, Jeannette
2019.  In Metaphors in the Mind, Crossref logo
Lynott, Dermot, Louise Connell, Marc Brysbaert, James Brand & James Carney
2020. The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods 52:3  pp. 1271 ff. Crossref logo
POULTON, THOMAS
2020. The smells we know and love: variation in codability and description strategy. Language and Cognition 12:3  pp. 501 ff. Crossref logo
THOMPSON, BILL, MARCUS PERLMAN, GARY LUPYAN, ZED SEVCIKOVA SEHYR & KAREN EMMOREY
2020. A data-driven approach to the semantics of iconicity in American Sign Language and English. Language and Cognition 12:1  pp. 182 ff. Crossref logo
Zhao, Qingqing
2020.  In Embodied Conceptualization or Neural Realization [Frontiers in Chinese Linguistics, 10],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFD – Psycholinguistics
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2018059733 | Marc record