70
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    2
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Exploring the nature of cumulativity in sound symbolism: Experimental studies of Pokémonastics with English speakers

      ,
      Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology
      Ubiquity Press, Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There has been a dramatic rise of interest in sound symbolism, systematic associations between sounds and meanings. Despite this, one aspect that is still markedly under-explored is its cumulative nature, i.e., when there are two or more sounds with the same symbolic meaning, whether these effects add up or not. These questions are important to address, since they bear on the general question of how speakers take into account multiple sources of evidence when they make linguistic decisions. Inspired by an accumulating body of research on cumulativity in other linguistic patterns, two experiments on sound symbolism using Pokémon names were conducted with native speakers of English. The experiments tested two types of cumulativity: counting cumulativity, which holds if the effects of multiple instances of the same factor add up, and ganging-up cumulativity, which holds when the effects of different factors add up. The experiments addressed whether these patterns of cumulativity hold in sound symbolism, and, more importantly, if so, how. We found that (1) three factors can show ganging-up cumulativity, (2) counting cumulativity and ganging-up cumulativity can coexist in a single system, (3) ganging-up cumulativity patterns can plausibly be considered to be linear, and (4) counting cumulativity effects can be sub-linear.

          Related collections

          Most cited references130

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Crossmodal correspondences: a tutorial review.

            In many everyday situations, our senses are bombarded by many different unisensory signals at any given time. To gain the most veridical, and least variable, estimate of environmental stimuli/properties, we need to combine the individual noisy unisensory perceptual estimates that refer to the same object, while keeping those estimates belonging to different objects or events separate. How, though, does the brain "know" which stimuli to combine? Traditionally, researchers interested in the crossmodal binding problem have focused on the roles that spatial and temporal factors play in modulating multisensory integration. However, crossmodal correspondences between various unisensory features (such as between auditory pitch and visual size) may provide yet another important means of constraining the crossmodal binding problem. A large body of research now shows that people exhibit consistent crossmodal correspondences between many stimulus features in different sensory modalities. For example, people consistently match high-pitched sounds with small, bright objects that are located high up in space. The literature reviewed here supports the view that crossmodal correspondences need to be considered alongside semantic and spatiotemporal congruency, among the key constraints that help our brains solve the crossmodal binding problem.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Heuristic decision making.

              As reflected in the amount of controversy, few areas in psychology have undergone such dramatic conceptual changes in the past decade as the emerging science of heuristics. Heuristics are efficient cognitive processes, conscious or unconscious, that ignore part of the information. Because using heuristics saves effort, the classical view has been that heuristic decisions imply greater errors than do "rational" decisions as defined by logic or statistical models. However, for many decisions, the assumptions of rational models are not met, and it is an empirical rather than an a priori issue how well cognitive heuristics function in an uncertain world. To answer both the descriptive question ("Which heuristics do people use in which situations?") and the prescriptive question ("When should people rely on a given heuristic rather than a complex strategy to make better judgments?"), formal models are indispensable. We review research that tests formal models of heuristic inference, including in business organizations, health care, and legal institutions. This research indicates that (a) individuals and organizations often rely on simple heuristics in an adaptive way, and (b) ignoring part of the information can lead to more accurate judgments than weighting and adding all information, for instance for low predictability and small samples. The big future challenge is to develop a systematic theory of the building blocks of heuristics as well as the core capacities and environmental structures these exploit.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology
                Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
                1868-6354
                February 01 2021
                February 01 2021
                2021
                February 01 2021
                February 01 2021
                2021
                : 12
                : 1
                Article
                10.5334/labphon.280
                1b7a7f33-e7de-466f-9774-f76cfb038b61
                © 2021

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article