Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Linguistic Synesthesia
Publisher:
Cambridge University Press
Online publication date:
June 2025
Print publication year:
2025
Online ISBN:
9781009519182
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009519182
Subjects:
Cognitive Linguistics, Psychology, Cognition, Language and Linguistics
Series:
Elements in Cognitive Linguistics
Information

Book description

Linguistic synesthesias combine different senses, as in English smooth melody (touch→sound). For nearly a century, researchers have gathered data that has been interpreted as supporting the notion of a hierarchical ordering of the senses. According to this proposal, expressions map the presumed-to-be 'lower' senses of touch, taste, and smell onto the presumed-to-be 'higher' senses of sound and sight. Here, this proposal is tested in the first-ever meta-analysis of linguistic synesthesias, combining thirty-eight datasets from fourteen different languages. The authors demonstrate that clear patterns emerge from the data, but many such patterns are inconsistent with the notion of a linear hierarchical order or a simple lower/higher divide of the senses. This calls for a shift in what theories are considered to be viable for explaining asymmetries between the senses in linguistic synesthesia.

References

References

Alvarado, J. A., Velasco, C., & Salgado, A. (2024). The organization of semantic associations between senses in language. Language and Cognition, 16(4), 1588–1617. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2024.19.
Auvray, M., & Spence, C. (2008). The multisensory perception of flavor. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(3), 1016–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.06.005.
Baayen, H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.
Bagli, M. (2017). Tastes we’ve lived by: Taste metaphors in English. Textus, 30(1), 33–48.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.
Barsalou, L. W., Dutriaux, L., & Scheepers, C. (2018). Moving beyond the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170144. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0144.
Bentz, C., & Winter, B. (2014). Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. In Wichmann, S. & Good, J. (Eds.), Quantifying Language Dynamics (pp. 96–124). Brill.
Bergen, B. (2019). Embodiment. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations of language (pp. 11–35). Mouton de Gruyter.
Bickel, B. (2011). Absolute and statistical universals. In Hogan, P. C. (Ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences (pp. 77–79). Cambridge University Press.
Bickel, B. (2015). Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 901–924). Oxford University Press.
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6.
Bottini, R., & Casasanto, D. (2013). Space and time in the child’s mind: Metaphoric or ATOMic? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 803.
Bretones-Callejas, C. B. (2001). Synaesthetic metaphors in English. University of California at Berkeley & International Computer Science Institute Technical Report. http://ftp.icsi.berkeley.edu/ftp/global/pub/techreports/2001/tr-01-008.pdf.
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911.
Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28.
Carlson, N. R. (2010). Physiology of Behavior (10th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004.
Case, T. I., Repacholi, B. M., & Stevenson, R. J. (2006). My baby doesn’t smell as bad as yours: The plasticity of disgust. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(5), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.03.003.
Catricalà, M. (2008). Fenomenologie sinestetiche tra retorica e pragmatica. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, XLVI, 7–62.
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (Eds.). (2008). Metaphor and Gesture (Vol. 3). John Benjamins.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335–359.
Classen, C. (1993). Worlds of Sense: Exploring the Senses in History and across Cultures. Routledge.
Clayton, A. (2021). Bernoulli’s Fallacy: Statistical Illogic at the Crisis of Modern Science. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/clay19994-008.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997.
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125(3), 452–465.
Connell, L., Lynott, D., & Banks, B. (2018). Interoception: The forgotten modality in perceptual grounding of abstract and concrete concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170143.
Cysouw, M. (2010). Dealing with diversity: Towards an explanation of NP-internal word order frequencies. Linguistic Typology, 14(2–3), 253–286. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2010.010.
Dąbrowska, E. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0059.
Day, S. (1996). Synaesthesia and synaesthetic metaphors. Psyche, 2(32), 1–16.
De Felice, I. (2014). La sinestesia nella poesia latina. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, LII(1), 61–107.
Deroy, O., & Spence, C. (2013). Why we are not all synesthetes (not even weakly so). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 643–664.
De Salazar, D. (2019). La sinestesia. Configurazioni retoriche intersensoriali nella lingua letteraria romena. Aracne.
Doetsch Kraus, U. (1992). La sinestesia en la poesía española desde la Edad Media hasta mediados del siglo XIX. Un enfoque semántico. Universidad de Navarra.
Dombi, E. (1974). Synaesthesia and poetry. Poetics, 3(3), 23–44.
Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language, 68(1), 81–138. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0028.
Dunn, J. (2015). Modeling abstractness and metaphoricity. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 259–289.
Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Levinson, S. C., & Gray, R. D. (2011). Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature, 473(7345), 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09923.
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76(3), 546–592.
Fishman, A. (2022). The picture looks like my music sounds: Directional preferences in synesthetic metaphors in the absence of lexical factors. Language and Cognition, 14(2), 208–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2022.2.
Fónagy, I. (1963). Die Metaphern in der Phonetik [Metaphors in Phonetics]. Mouton de Gruyter.
Fujimoto, T. (2001). Nihongo-ni okeru gokan-o arawasu kyoukankaku keiyoushi-ni tsuite [On shynaesthetic adjectives representing five senses in Japanese]. Nidaba, 30, 74–83.
Galac, Á., & Zayniev, D. (2023). Paths of linguistic synesthesia across cultures: A lexical analysis of conventionalized cross‑sensory meaning extensions in Europe and Central Asia. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 10(2), 450–479. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00108.gal.
Garg, A. X., Hackam, D., & Tonelli, M. (2008). Systematic review and meta-analysis: When one study is just not enough. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 3(1), 253. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.01430307.
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W. (1996). Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00723-8.
Gibbs, R. W. (2007). Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. In Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S., & Spivey, M. (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 2–18). John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R. W. (2013). Walking the walk while thinking about the talk: Embodied interpretation of metaphorical narratives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(4), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9222-6.
Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Mindless statistics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 33(5), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.033.
Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L., & Kruger, L. (1989). The Empire of Chance: How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press.
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(4), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0860-1.
Grady, J. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290.
Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Stewart, G. (2018). Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature, 555(7695), Article 7695. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753.
Hehman, E., & Xie, S. Y. (2021). Doing better data visualization. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(4), 25152459211045334. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211045334.
Hickok, G. (2014). The Myth of Mirror Neurons: The Real Neuroscience of Communication and Cognition. W.W. Norton.
Hinojosa, J. A., Haro, J., Magallares, S., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Ferré, P. (2020). Iconicity ratings for 10,995 Spanish words and their relationship with psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods, 53(3), 1262–1275. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01496-z.
Hoekstra, R., Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1157–1164. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0572-3.
Huang, C.-R., & Xiong, J. (2019). Linguistic synaesthesia in Chinese. In Huang, C.-R., Jing-Schmidt, Z., & Meisterernst, B. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Chinese Applied Linguistics (pp. 294–312). Routledge.
Jaeger, T. F., Graff, P., Croft, W., & Pontillo, D. (2011). Mixed effect models for genetic and areal dependencies in linguistic typology. Linguistic Typology, 15(2), 281–319. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2011.021.
Jo, C. (2017). A corpus-based study on synesthesia in Korean ordinary language. In Roxas, R. E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 31st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 249–254). University of the Philippines.
Jo, C. (2018). Synesthetic metaphors in Korean compound words. In Devereyx, B., Shutova, E., & Huang, C.-R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
Jo, C. (2019). A corpus-based analysis of synesthetic metaphors in Korean. Linguistic Research, 36(3), 459–483. https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.36.3.201912.005.
Jo, C. (2022). Linguistic synesthesia in Korean: Universality and variation. SAGE Open, 12(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221117804.
Johansson, N., Anikin, A., Carling, G., & Holmer, A. (2019). The typology of sound symbolism: Defining macro-concepts via their semantic and phonetic features. Linguistic Typology, 24(2), 253–310.
Kay, M. (2021). tidybayes: Tidy data and geoms for Bayesian models. R Package Version 3.0.1. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1308151.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Miestamo, M., & Börstell, C. (2024). A cross-linguistic study of lexical and derived antonymy. Linguistics, 62(6), 1417–1472. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2023-0140.
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Kumcu, A. (2021). Linguistic synesthesia in Turkish: A corpus-based study of crossmodal directionality. Metaphor and Symbol, 36(4), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2021.1921557.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books.
Leshinskaya, A., & Caramazza, A. (2016). For a cognitive neuroscience of concepts: Moving beyond the grounding issue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 991–1001. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0870-z.
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2014). Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12057.
Löhr, G. (2021). What are abstract concepts? On lexical ambiguity and concreteness ratings. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 13, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00542-9.
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 B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170137. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0137.
Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 558–564.
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-Paris, 102(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.004.
Mahon, B. Z., & Hickok, G. (2016). Arguments about the nature of concepts: Symbols, embodiment, and beyond. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 941–958. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1045-2.
Majid, A., & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130(2), 266–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.004.
Majid, A., Roberts, S. G., Cilissen, L. et al. (2018). Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11369–11376. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720419115.
Mancaş, M. (1962). La synesthésie dans la création artistique de M. Eminescu, T. Arghezi et M. Sadoveanu. Cahiers de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée, 1, 55–87.
Marks, L. E. (1974). On associations of light and sound: The mediation of brightness, pitch, and loudness. The American Journal of Psychology, 87(1/2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422011.
Marks, L. E. (1978). The Unity of the Senses: Interrelations among the Modalities. Academic Press.
Marotta, G. (2011). Perché i colori chiassosi non fanno chiasso? Vincoli semantici e sintattici sulle associazioni sinestetiche. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, XCVI(2), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1400/206836.
Marotta, G. (2012). Sinestesie tra vista, udito e dintorni: Un’analisi semantica distribuzionale. In Catricalà, M. (Ed.), Sinestesie e monoestesie: Prospettive a confronto (pp. 19–51). Franco Angeli.
McElreath, R. (2020). Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
Morey, R. D., Hoekstra, R., Rouder, J. N., Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2016). The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0947-8.
Morey, R. D., Kaschak, M. P., Díez-Álamo, A. M. et al. (2021). A pre-registered, multi-lab non-replication of the action-sentence compatibility effect (ACE). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 613–626. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01927-8.
Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60(2), 173–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)00711-1.
Murphy, G. L. (1997). Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition, 62(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00725-1.
Nakamura, T., Sakamoto, M., & Utsumi, A. (2010). The role of event knowledge in comprehending synesthetic metaphors. In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 32, pp. 1898–1903). Cognitive Science Society.
Norcliffe, E., & Majid, A. (2024). Verbs of perception: A quantitative typological study. Language, 100(1), 81–123.
O’Boyle, M. W., & Tarte, R. D. (1980). Implications for phonetic symbolism: The relationship between pure tones and geometric figures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9(6), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068115.
Ortega, L., Guzman-Martinez, E., Grabowecky, M., & Suzuki, S. (2014). Audition dominates vision in duration perception irrespective of salience, attention, and temporal discriminability. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(5), 1485–1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0663-x.
Paissa, P. (1995). La sinestesia: Analisi contrastiva delle sinestesie lessicalizzate nel codice italiano e francese. La Scuola.
Paradis, C., & Eeg-Olofsson, M. (2013). Describing sensory experience: The genre of wine reviews. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.742838.
Pedersen, T. L. (2020). Patchwork: The Composer of Plots. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=patchwork.
Perezgonzalez, J. D. (2015). Fisher, Neyman-Pearson or NHST? A tutorial for teaching data testing. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00223.
Petersen, W., Fleischhauer, J., Beseoglu, H., & Bücker, P. (2008). A frame-based analysis of synaesthetic metaphors. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3(1), 122.
Popova, Y. (2005). Image schemas and verbal synaesthesia. In Hampe, B. (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (Vol. 29, pp. 395–419). Mouton de Gruyter.
Prandi, M. (2023). Is figurative interpretation an outcome of ambiguity? International Journal of Language Studies, 17(3), 21–36.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “The Language-as-Fixed-Effect Fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2650.
Rakova, M. (2003). The Extent of the Literal: Metaphor, Polysemy and Theories of Concepts. Palgrave Macmillan.
Roberts, S., & Winters, J. (2013). Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: Lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits. PloS One, 8(8), e70902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070902.
Roberts, S., Winters, J., & Chen, K. (2015). Future tense and economic decisions: Controlling for cultural evolution. PloS One, 10(7), e0132145.
Ronga, I. (2016). Taste synaesthesias: Linguistic features and neurophysiological bases. In Gola, E. & Ervas, F. (Eds.), Metaphor and Communication (pp. 47–60). John Benjamins.
Ronga, I., Bazzanella, C., Rossi, F., & Iannetti, G. (2012). Linguistic synaesthesia, perceptual synaesthesia, and the interaction between multiple sensory modalities. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20(1), 135–167.
Rosiello, L. (1963). Le sinestesie nell’opera poetica di Montale. Rendiconti, 7, 1–19.
Rozeboom, W. W. (1960). The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test. Psychological Bulletin, 57(5), 416. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042040.
Saitis, C., & Weinzierl, S. (2019). The semantics of timbre. In Siedenburg, K., Saitis, C., McAdams, S., Popper, A. N., & Fay (Eds.), R. R., Timbre: Acoustics, Perception, and Cognition (pp. 119–149). Springer.
Sakamoto, M., & Utsumi, A. (2014). Adjective metaphors evoke negative meanings. PloS One, 9(2), e89008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089008.
Salzmann, K. (2014). Lexikalisierte Synästhesien im Sprachvergleich Italienisch-Deutsch. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, LII(1), 109–140.
Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press.
Sanz-Valdivieso, L., & López-Arroyo, B. (2024). Figurative language and sensory perception: Corpus-based computer-assisted study of the nature and motivation of synesthetic metaphors in olive oil tasting notes. Metaphor and Symbol, 39(4), 260–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2024.2377535.
Schmidt, F. L. (1992). What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. American Psychologist, 47(10), 1173–1181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.10.1173.
Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408(6814), Article 6814. https://doi.org/10.1038/35048669.
Shen, Y. (1997). Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 33–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.33.
Shen, Y., & Aisenman, R. (2008). Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter’: Synaesthetic metaphors and cognition. Language and Literature, 17(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007088222.
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(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709800700202.
Shen, Y., & Gadir, O. (2009). How to interpret the music of caressing: Target and source assignment in synaesthetic genitive constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.002.
Shen, Y., & Gil, D. (2008). Sweet fragrances from Indonesia: A universal principle governing directionality in synaesthetic metaphors. In Auracher, J., & van Peer, W. (Eds.), New Beginnings in Literary Studies (pp. 49–71). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Shinohara, K., & Nakayama, A. (2011). Modalities and directions in synaesthetic metaphors in Japanese. Cognitive Studies, 18(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.11225/jcss.18.491.
Simner, J., Harrold, J., Creed, H., Monro, L., & Foulkes, L. (2009). Early detection of markers for synaesthesia in childhood populations. Brain, 132(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awn292.
Simner, J., Mulvenna, C., Sagiv, N. et al. (2006). Synaesthesia: The prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences. Perception, 35(8), 1024–1033. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5469.
Sóskuthy, M., & Roettger, T. B. (2020). When the tune shapes morphology: The origins of vocatives. Journal of Language Evolution, 5(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzaa007.
Speelman, C., & McGann, M. (2013). How mean is the mean? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00451.
Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(4), 971–995. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7.
Strik-Lievers, F. (2015). Synaesthesia: A corpus-based study of cross-modal directionality. Functions of Language, 22(1), 69–95.
Strik-Lievers, F. (2016). Synaesthetic metaphors in translation. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 54(1), 43–70.
Strik-Lievers, F. (2017). Figures and the senses. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.04str.
Strik-Lievers, F. (2018). Synaesthesia and other figures: What the senses tell us about figurative language. In Baicchi, A., Digonnet, R., & Sandford, J. L. (Eds.), Sensory Perceptions in Language, Embodiment and Epistemology (pp. 193–207). Springer.
Strik-Lievers, F. (2023). Synesthesia and language. In Aronoff, M. (Ed.), Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0307.
Strik-Lievers, F., & Huang, C.-R. (2016). A lexicon of perception for the identification of synaesthetic metaphors in corpora. In Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Declerck, T., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16) (pp. 2270–2277). European Language Resources Association (ELRA). https://aclanthology.org/L16-1360.
Strik-Lievers, F., & Winter, B. (2018). Sensory language across lexical categories. Lingua, 204, 45–61.
Torchiano, M. (2019). effsize: Efficient effect size computation. R package Version 0.8.1. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1480624.
Ullmann, S. (1937). Synaesthetic metaphors in William Morris. (An essay on the decorative art of the pre-Raphaelites). Angol Filológiai Tanulmányok/Hungarian Studies in English, 2, 143–151.
Ullmann, S. (1945). Romanticism and synaesthesia: A comparative study of sense transfer in Byron and Keats. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 60(3), 811–827. https://doi.org/10.2307/459180.
Ullmann, S. (1946). Les transpositions sensorielles chez Leconte de Lisle. Le Français Moderne, 14, 23–40.
Ullmann, S. (1947). L’art de la transposition dans la poésie de Théophile Gautier. Le Français Moderne, XV, 265–286.
Ullmann, S. (1959). The Principles of Semantics. Jackson, Son.
Urban, M. (2011). Asymmetries in overt marking and directionality in semantic change. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 1(1), 3–47.
Urbanek, S. (2022). Png: Read and Write PNG Images. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=png.
Vasishth, S., & Nicenboim, B. (2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational ideas – Part I. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(8), 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12201.
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., & Gabry, J. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27(5), 1413–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4.
Viberg, Å. (1983). The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123–162.
Viberg, Å. (2001). The verbs of perception. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., & Raible, W. (Eds.), Language Universals (pp. 1294–1309). Mouton de Gruyter.
Wallmark, Z. (2019). A corpus analysis of timbre semantics in orchestration treatises. Psychology of Music, 47(4), 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735618768102.
Wallmark, Z., & Kendall, R. A. (2018). Describing sound: The cognitive linguistics of timbre. In Dolan, E. I. & Rehding, A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Timbre. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190637224.013.14.
Weissgerber, T. L., Milic, N. M., Winham, S. J., & Garovic, V. D. (2015). Beyond bar and line graphs: Time for a new data presentation paradigm. PLoS Biology, 13(4), e1002128. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002128.
Werning, M., Fleischhauer, J., & Beseoglu, H. (2006). The cognitive accessibility of synaesthetic metaphors. In Ron, S. & Naomi, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2365–2370). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Whitney, A. H. (1952). Synaesthesia in twentieth-century Hungarian poetry. The Slavonic and East European Review, 30(75), 444–464.
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J. et al. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686.
Williams, J. M. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52(2), 461–478.
Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S. (2013). Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 58. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00058.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322.
Winter, B. (2016). Taste and smell words form an affectively loaded and emotionally flexible part of the English lexicon. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 975–988.
Winter, B. (2019a). Sensory Linguistics: Language, Perception, and Metaphor. John Benjamins.
Winter, B. (2019b). Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. In Speed, L. J., O’Meara, C., Roque, L. San, & Majid, A. (Eds.), Perception Metaphor (pp. 105–126). John Benjamins.
Winter, B. (2022). Abstract concepts and emotion: Cross-linguistic evidence and arguments against affective embodiment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378(1870), 20210368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0368.
Winter, B., & Grice, M. (2021). Independence and generalizability in linguistics. Linguistics, 59(5), 1251–1277. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0049.
Winter, B., Marghetis, T., & Matlock, T. (2015). Of magnitudes and metaphors: Explaining cognitive interactions between space, time, and number. Cortex, 64, 209–224.
Winter, B., & Matlock, T. (2013). More is up … and right: Random number generation along two axes. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35, 3789–3794.
Winter, B., Perlman, M., & Majid, A. (2018). Vision dominates in perceptual language: English sensory vocabulary is optimized for usage. Cognition, 179, 213–220.
Winter, B., Sóskuthy, M., Perlman, M., & Dingemanse, M. (2022). Trilled /r/ is associated with roughness, linking sound and touch across spoken languages. Scientific Reports, 12, 1035. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04311-7.
Winter, B., & Srinivasan, M. (2021). Why is semantic change asymmetric? The role of concreteness and word frequency in metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 37(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2021.1945419.
Winter, B., & Strik-Lievers, F. (2023). Semantic distance predicts metaphoricity and creativity judgments in synesthetic metaphors. Metaphor and the Social World, 13(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.00029.win.
Wnuk, E., & Majid, A. (2014). Revisiting the limits of language: The odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition, 131(1), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.008.
Youn, H., Sutton, L., Smith, E. et al. (2016). On the universal structure of human lexical semantics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(7), 1766–1771. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520752113.
Yu, N. (2003). Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.2003.001.
Zawisławska, M. (2019). Metaphor and Senses. The Synamet Corpus: A Polish Resource for Synesthetic Metaphors. Peter Lang.
Zhao, Q., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R. (2022). Linguistic synesthesia is metaphorical: A lexical-conceptual account. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(3), 553–583. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0098.
Zhao, Q., Huang, C.-R., & Ahrens, K. (2019). Directionality of linguistic synesthesia in Mandarin: A corpus-based study. Lingua, 232, 102744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102744.
Zhao, Q., Long, Y., Jiang, X. et al. (2024). Linguistic synesthesia detection: Leveraging culturally enriched linguistic features. Natural Language Processing, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/nlp.2024.9.
Zhong, Y., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R. (2023). Novel metaphor and embodiment: Comprehending novel synesthetic metaphors. Linguistics Vanguard, 9(1), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0020.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

Accessibility standard: Missing or limited accessibility features

The PDF of this book is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation

Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Reading Order and Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order

You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions

You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information

You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided

You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.