UDC

81’23

Authors

Tumee Odonchimeg
Khovd State University;
Khovd State University, Khovd, 213500, Mongolia;
e-mail: odnoo_t@mail.ru
Mikhail S. Vlasov
The Shukshin Altai State Humanities Pedagogical University;
ul. Vladimira Korolenko 53, Biysk, 659333, Altayskiy kray, Russian Federation;
e-mail: vlasov@bigpi.biysk.ru
Elena V. Belogorodtseva
The Shukshin Altai State Humanities Pedagogical University;
ul. Vladimira Korolenko 53, Biysk, 659333, Altayskiy kray, Russian Federation;
e-mail: belo-elena@yandex.ru
Tat’yana V. Zhukova
The Shukshin Altai State Humanities Pedagogical University;
ul. Vladimira Korolenko 53, Biysk, 659333, Altayskiy kray, Russian Federation;
e-mail: zhukowat@mail.ru

Abstract

This article presents the results of a psycholinguistic behavioural study of the bouba/kiki effect in native speakers of Russian and Mongolian. The research is based on the hypothesis that there is a correlation between the phonological component of pseudowords and the shape of the objects they designate as a form of non-arbitrary mapping between speech sounds and the visual shape of objects. This correlation is expected to influence the recognition time for pseudowords in a visual test: e.g., a rounded shape is more likely to be called bouba than kiki, while the reaction time to the multimodal stimulus “rounded shape and pseudoword bouba” should be less than to the pair “rounded shape and pseudoword kiki”. Our experiment involved 124 subjects (60 Russian and 64 Mongolian native speakers), who were fluent only in their native language. To study visual recognition of words and pseudowords depending on the conditions for their presentation, two interrelated psycholinguistic techniques were applied: associative experiment (using round and angular forms as stimuli) and implicit association test for classifying verbal and nonverbal stimuli in order to identify semantic effects in word recognition and phonosemantic effects in pseudoword recognition. The psycholinguistic experiment showed a significant effect produced on reaction time to pseudowords in Russian and Mongolian subjects by the combination of the “stimulus type” (according to the phonosemantic features of sounds) and “stimulus condition” (congruency effect) factors; the other effects had minor significance. Presumably, this can be explained by rather complex and so far unrevealed mechanisms of cognitive processing of pseudowords. These effects are still undergoing rigorous verification in experimental studies using mental chronometry, EEG, fMRI and eyetracking.

Keywords

Russian language, Mongolian language, iconicity, sound symbolism, psycholinguistic experiment

References

1. Magnus M. Gods in the Word: Archetypes in the Consonants. Create Space. 2010.
2. Ramachandran V.S. Mirror Neurons and Imitation Learning as the Driving Force Behind “the Great Leap Forward” in Human Evolution. Available at: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran/ramachandran_p1.html (accessed 4 May 2017).
3. Ramachandran V.S., Hubbard E.M. Synaesthesia – a Window into Perception, Thought and Language. J. Conscious. Stud., 2001, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 3–34.
4. Fónagy I. Languages Within Language. An Evolutive Approach. Amsterdam, 2001.
5. Fischer O.C.M. Evidence for Iconicity in Language. Logos Lang.: J. Gen. Linguist. Lang. Theory, 2004, no. 5, pp. 1–19.
6. Fischer O., Nänny M. (eds.). The Motivated Sign: Iconicity in Language and Literature 2. Amsterdam, 2001.
7. Taylor I.K., Taylor M.M. Phonetic Symbolism in Four Unrelated Languages. Can. J. Psychol., 1962, no. 16, pp. 344–356.
8. Levitskiy V.V. Semantika i fonetika [Semantics and Phonetics]. Chernovtsy, 1973. 103 p.
9. Zhuravlev A.P. Foneticheskoe znachenie [Phonetic Meaning]. Leningrad, 1974. 160 p.
10. Voronin S.V. Osnovy fonosemantiki [Fundamentals of Phonosemantics]. Moscow, 2006. 239 p.
11. Graham J.F. Onomatopoetics: Theory of Language and Literature. Cambridge, 1992.
12. Trofimova E.B., Sergeeva M.E., Filippova E.Yu. Okkazional’naya verbalizatsiya zvukovykh i zritel’nykh signalov raznoyazychnymi nositelyami [Occasional Verbalization of Sound and Visual Signals by Native Speakers of Different Languages]. Moscow, 2009. 168 p.
13. Trofimova E.B., Trofimova U.M., Sergeeva M.E., Vlasov M.S., Filippova E.Yu., Odonchimeg T. Uzual’noe i okkazional’noe semioticheskoe prostranstvo emotsiy [The Usual and Occasional Semiotic Space of Emotions]. Ulan- Bator, 2011. 292 p.
14. Revill K.P., Namy L.L., Nygaard L.C. Eye Movements Reveal Sensitivity to Sound Symbolism Early and Late in Word Learning. CogSci, 2015, pp. 1967–1972.
15. Fryer L., Freeman J., Pring L. Touching Words Is Not Enough: How Visual Experience Influences Haptic-Auditory Associations in the “Bouba-Kiki” Effect. Cognition, 2014, vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 164–173.
16. Cuskley C., Simner J., Kirby S. Phonological and Orthographic Influences in the Bouba–Kiki Effect. Psychol. Res., vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 119–130.
17. Sučević J., Savić A.M., Popović M.B., Styles S.J., Ković V. Balloons and Bavoons versus Spikes and Shikes: ERPs Reveal Shared Neural Processes for Shape-Sound-Meaning Congruence in Words, and Shape-Sound Congruence in Pseudowords. Brain Lang., 2015, vol. 145–146, pp. 11–22.
18. Imai M., Miyazaki M., Yeung H.H., Hidaka S., Kantartzis K., Okada H., Kita S. Sound Symbolism Facilitates Word Learning in 14-Month-Olds. PLoS ONE, 2015, vol. 10, no. 2.
19. Peiffer-Smadja N. Exploring the Bouba/Kiki Effect: A Behavioral and fMRI Study. Available at: http://sapience. dec.ens.fr/cogmaster/www/doc/MEMOIRES/2010_PEIFFER-SMADJA_Nathan.pdf (accessed 20 April 2017).
20. Sapir E. A Study in Phonetic Symbolism. J. Exp. Psychol., 1929, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 225–239.
21. Maurer D., Pathman T., Mondloch C.J. The Shape of Boubas: Sound-Shape Correspondences in Toddlers and Adults. Dev. Sci., 2006, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 316–322.
22. French P.L. Toward an Explanation of Phonetic Symbolism. Word, 1977, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 305–322.
23. Doehrmann O., Naumer M.J. Semantics and the Multisensory Brain: How Meaning Modulates Processes of Audio-Visual Integration. Brain Res., 2008, vol. 1242, pp. 136–150.
24. Balota D.A., Paul S.T., Spieler D.H. Attentional Control of Lexical Processing Pathways During Word Recognition and Reading. Garrod S., Pickering M. (eds.). Language Processing. Hove, 1999, pp. 15–57.