Article published in:
Interaction and Iconicity in the Evolution of Language
Edited by Stefan Hartmann, Michael Pleyer, James Winters and Jordan Zlatev
[Interaction Studies 18:3] 2017
► pp. 443–464

Which words are most iconic?

Iconicity in English sensory words

| University of Birmingham
| University of Miami
| University of Wisconsin-Madison
Some spoken words are iconic, exhibiting a resemblance between form and meaning. We used native speaker ratings to assess the iconicity of 3001 English words, analyzing their iconicity in relation to part-of-speech differences and differences between the sensory domain they relate to (sight, sound, touch, taste and smell). First, we replicated previous findings showing that onomatopoeia and interjections were highest in iconicity, followed by verbs and adjectives, and then nouns and grammatical words. We further show that words with meanings related to the senses are more iconic than words with abstract meanings. Moreover, iconicity is not distributed equally across sensory modalities: Auditory and tactile words tend to be more iconic than words denoting concepts related to taste, smell and sight. Last, we examined the relationship between iconicity (resemblance between form and meaning) and systematicity (statistical regularity between form and meaning). We find that iconicity in English words is more strongly related to sensory meanings than systematicity. Altogether, our results shed light on the extent and distribution of iconicity in modern English.
Keywords: sound symbolism, onomatopoeia, perception, sound, touch
Published online: 08 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.3.07win
References

References

Ahlner, F., & Zlatev, J.
(2010) Cross-modal iconicity: A cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism. Sign Systems Studies, 1, 298–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arata, M., Imai, M., Okuda, J., Okada, H., & Matsuda, T.
(2010) Gesture in language: How sound symbolic words are processed in the brain. In R. Camtrabone & S. Ohlsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1374–1379). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. F., & Wilcox, S. E.
(2007) The gestural origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R.
(2007) The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459. 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
Bergen, B. K.
(2004) The psychological reality of phonesthemes. Language, 80, 290–311. 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
Blust, R.
(2003) The phonestheme NG in Austronesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 42, 187–212.Google 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. M., & Kuperman, V.
(2014) Concreteness ratings for 40 thousands generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, N. R.
(2010) Physiology of behavior (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Connell, L., & Lynott, D.
(2012) Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125, 452–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A.
(2004) Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 384–387. 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
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 J. Simner & E. M. Hubbard (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Synaesthesia (pp. 869–907). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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
de Saussure, F.
(1959) [1916]. Course in General Linguistics. New York: The philosophical library.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M.
(2011a) Ideophones and the aesthetics of everyday language in a West-African society. The Senses and Society, 6, 77–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) 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
(2014) Making new ideophones in Siwu: Creative depiction in conversation. Pragmatics and Society, 5, 384–405. 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
Dragulescu, A. A.
(2014) xlsx: Read, write, format Excel 2007 and Excel 97/2000/XP/2003 files. R package version 0.5.7.
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
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
Farmer, T. A., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P.
(2006) Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 12203–12208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fay, N., Arbib, M., & Garrod, S.
(2013) How to bootstrap a human communication system. Cognitive Science, 37, 1356–1367. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fay, N., Lister, C. J., Ellison, T. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S.
(2014) Creating a communication system from scratch: Gesture beats vocalization hands down. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R.
(1930) Speech. London: Ernest Benn.Google Scholar
(1935) The use and distribution of certain English sounds. English Studies, 17, 8–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, S.
(1922) Über das Entstehen und Verstehen von Namen. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 42, 335–368.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
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S.
(2011) An {R} companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.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
Guest, S., Catmur, C., Lloyd, D., & Spence, C.
(2002) Audiotactile interactions in roughness perception. Experimental Brain Research, 146, 161–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hashimoto, T., Usui, N., Taira, M., Nose, I., Haji, T., & Kojima, S.
(2006) The neural mechanism associated with the processing of onomatopoeic sounds. Neuroimage, 31, 1762–1770. 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: Cambridge University Press.Google 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. 40–12). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, S. S.
(1998) The psychological reality, variability, and compositionality of English phonesthemes. Atlanta: Emory University dissertation.Google Scholar
Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M., & Okada, H.
(2008) Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition, 109, 54–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Imai, M., & Kita, S.
(2014) The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and language evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B, Biological Sciences, 369, 20130298. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jousmäki, V., & Hari, R.
(1998) Parchment-skin illusion: Sound-biased touch. Current Biology, 8, R190–R191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, B. J., & Yap, M. J.
(2013) Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono-and disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 160–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, M. H.
(1992) Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments. Psychological review, 99, 349–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, W.
(1929) Gestalt Psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., & Round, E. R.
(2015) Phonesthemes in morphological theory. Morphology, 25, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle 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
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
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
Marks, L. E.
(1978) The unity of the senses: Interrelations among the modalities. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, I., Padden, C., Aronoff, M., & Sandler, W.
(2013) Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 309–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Monaghan, P., Shillcock, R. C., Christiansen, M. H., & Kirby, S.
(2014) How arbitrary is English? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B, Biological Sciences, 369, 20130299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Navarro, D. J.
(2015) Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners (Version 0.5). Adelaide: University of Adelaide.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
Nielsen, A. K., & Rendall, D.
(2013) Parsing the role of consonants versus vowels in the classic Takete-Maluma phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 153–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J.
(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: Cambridge University Press.Google 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
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A.
(1968) Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 words. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76(3, Pt. 2), 1–25. CrossrefGoogle 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., Dale, R., & Lupyan, G.
(2015) Iconicity can ground the creation of vocal symbols. Royal Society Open Science, 2, 150152. CrossrefGoogle 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. M., & Lupyan, G.
submitted). Iconicity in the speech of children and adults. Developmental Science, e12572 Crossref
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P.
(1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707–784. 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
Rhodes, R.
(1994) Aural images. In L. Hinton, J. Nichols, & J. J. Ohala (Eds.), Sound symbolism (pp. 276–292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team
(2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Sapir, E.
(1929) A study in phonetic symbolism. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 225–239. 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
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
Sutherland, S. L., & Cimpian, A.
(2015) An explanatory heuristic gives rise to the belief that words are well suited for their referents. Cognition, 143, 228–240. 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
Talmy, L.
(1991) Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. Berkeley Working Papers in Linguistics, 480–519.Google Scholar
Torchiano, M.
(2015) Effsize: Efficient effect size computation. R package version 0.5.4.
Urban, M.
(2011) Conventional sound symbolism in terms for organs of speech: A cross-linguistic study. Folia Linguistica, 45(1), 199–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Usnadze, D.
(1924) Ein experimentller Beitrag zum Problem der psychologischen Grundlagen der Namengebung. Psychologische Forschung, 5, 24–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Perniss, P., & Vinson, D.
(2014) Language as a multimodal phenomenon: Implications for language learning, processing and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 369, 20130292. 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
Voeltz, E. F. K., & Kilian-Hatz, C.
(2001) Ideophones. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, J., & Sakamoto, M.
(2012) Comparison between onomatopoeias and adjectives for evaluating tactile sensations. Proceedings of SCIS-ISIS2012 , 2346–2348.
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
Waugh, L. R.
(1994) Degrees of iconicity in the lexicon. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 55–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, S., Holman, E. W., & Brown, C. H.
(2010) Sound symbolism in basic vocabulary. Entropy, 12, 844–858. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H., & Francois, R.
(2015) dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.4.2.
Winter, B.
(2016a) Taste and smell words form an affectively loaded and emotionally flexible part of the English lexicon. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 975–988. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) The sensory structure of the English lexicon. PhD thesis, University of California Merced.
Yoshino, J., Yakata, A., Shimizu, Y., Haginoya, M., & Sakamoto, M.
(2013) Method of evaluating metal textures by the sound symbolism of onomatopoeia. In The Second Asian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 618–624).
Cited by

Cited by 32 other publications

No author info given
2019.  In Sensory Linguistics [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 20], Crossref logo
No author info given
2019.  In Sensory Linguistics [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 20], ► pp. 235 ff. Crossref logo
CABALLERO, ROSARIO & CARITA PARADIS
2020. Soundscapes in English and Spanish: a corpus investigation of verb constructions. Language and Cognition 12:4 ► pp. 705 ff. Crossref logo
Dingemanse, Mark
2018. Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 Crossref logo
Hinojosa, J. A., J. Haro, S. Magallares, J. A. Duñabeitia & P. Ferré
2021. Iconicity ratings for 10,995 Spanish words and their relationship with psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods 53:3 ► pp. 1262 ff. Crossref logo
Laing, Catherine E.
2019. Phonological Motivation for the Acquisition of Onomatopoeia: An Analysis of Early Words. Language Learning and Development 15:2 ► pp. 177 ff. Crossref logo
Lupyan, Gary & Bodo Winter
2018. Language is more abstract than you think, or, why aren't languages more iconic?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373:1752 ► pp. 20170137 ff. 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
McLean, Bonnie
2021. Revising an implicational hierarchy for the meanings of ideophones, with special reference to Japonic. Linguistic Typology 25:3 ► pp. 507 ff. Crossref logo
Mon, Serena K., Mira Nencheva, Francesca M.M. Citron, Casey Lew-Williams & Adele E. Goldberg
2021. Conventional metaphors elicit greater real-time engagement than literal paraphrases or concrete sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 121 ► pp. 104285 ff. Crossref logo
Monaghan, Padraic & Seán G. Roberts
2021. Iconicity and Diachronic Language Change. Cognitive Science 45:4 Crossref logo
Novogrodsky, Rama & Natalia Meir
2020. Age, frequency, and iconicity in early sign language acquisition: Evidence from the Israeli Sign Language MacArthur–Bates Communicative Developmental Inventory. Applied Psycholinguistics 41:4 ► pp. 817 ff. Crossref logo
Ota, Mitsuhiko, Nicola Davies‐Jenkins & Barbora Skarabela
2018.  Why Choo‐Choo Is Better Than Train : The Role of Register‐Specific Words in Early Vocabulary Growth . Cognitive Science 42:6 ► pp. 1974 ff. Crossref logo
Perlman, Marcus & Gary Lupyan
2018. People Can Create Iconic Vocalizations to Communicate Various Meanings to Naïve Listeners. Scientific Reports 8:1 Crossref logo
Perry, Lynn K., Stephanie A. Custode, Regina M. Fasano, Brittney M. Gonzalez & Jordyn D. Savy
2021. What Is the Buzz About Iconicity? How Iconicity in Caregiver Speech Supports Children's Word Learning. Cognitive Science 45:4 Crossref logo
Pexman, Penny M., Emiko Muraki, David M. Sidhu, Paul D. Siakaluk & Melvin J. Yap
2019. Quantifying sensorimotor experience: Body–object interaction ratings for more than 9,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods 51:2 ► pp. 453 ff. Crossref logo
Sidhu, David M. & Penny M. Pexman
2018. Five mechanisms of sound symbolic association. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25:5 ► pp. 1619 ff. Crossref logo
Sidhu, David M. & Penny M. Pexman
2021. Implications of the “Language as Situated” View for Written Iconicity. Journal of Cognition 4:1 Crossref logo
SIDHU, DAVID M., GABRIELLA VIGLIOCCO & PENNY M. PEXMAN
2020. Effects of iconicity in lexical decision. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 164 ff. Crossref logo
Sidhu, David M., Chris Westbury, Geoff Hollis & Penny M. Pexman
2021. Sound symbolism shapes the English language: The maluma/takete effect in English nouns. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 28:4 ► pp. 1390 ff. Crossref logo
Slavova, Velina
2019. Towards emotion recognition in texts: A sound-symbolic experiment. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science Engineering and Education 7:2 ► pp. 41 ff. Crossref logo
Slavova, Velina
2020. Emotional Valence Coded in the Phonemic Content – Statistical Evidence Based on Corpus Analysis. Cybernetics and Information Technologies 20:2 ► pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Speed, Laura J. & Asifa Majid
2020. Grounding language in the neglected senses of touch, taste, and smell. Cognitive Neuropsychology 37:5-6 ► pp. 363 ff. Crossref logo
Strik Lievers, Francesca & Bodo Winter
2018. Sensory language across lexical categories. Lingua 204 ► pp. 45 ff. Crossref logo
Thompson, Arthur Lewis, Kimi Akita & Youngah Do
2020. Iconicity ratings across the Japanese lexicon: A comparative study with English. Linguistics Vanguard 6:1 Crossref logo
Thompson, Arthur Lewis & Youngah Do
2019. Defining iconicity: An articulation-based methodology for explaining the phonological structure of ideophones. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 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
Vergallito, Alessandra, Marco Alessandro Petilli & Marco Marelli
2020. Perceptual modality norms for 1,121 Italian words: A comparison with concreteness and imageability scores and an analysis of their impact in word processing tasks. Behavior Research Methods 52:4 ► pp. 1599 ff. Crossref logo
Winter, Bodo & Marcus Perlman
2021. Iconicity ratings really do measure iconicity, and they open a new window onto the nature of language. Linguistics Vanguard 7:1 Crossref logo
Winter, Bodo & Marcus Perlman
2021. Size sound symbolism in the English lexicon. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 Crossref logo
Winter, Bodo, Paula Pérez-Sobrino, Lucien Brown & Andriy Myachykov
2019. The sound of soft alcohol: Crossmodal associations between interjections and liquor. PLOS ONE 14:8 ► pp. e0220449 ff. Crossref logo
Östling, Robert, Carl Börstell & Servane Courtaux
2018. Visual Iconicity Across Sign Languages: Large-Scale Automated Video Analysis of Iconic Articulators and Locations. Frontiers in Psychology 9 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 06 december 2021. 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.