Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:53:53.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electrophysiological signatures of English onomatopoeia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2019

GABRIELLA VIGLIOCCO ,
YE ZHANG ,
NICOLA DEL MASCHIO ,
ROSANNA TODD  and
JYRKI TUOMAINEN
GABRIELLA VIGLIOCCO*
Affiliation:
Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London
YE ZHANG
Affiliation:
Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London
NICOLA DEL MASCHIO
Affiliation:
Centre for Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics (CNPL), University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milano, Italy
ROSANNA TODD
Affiliation:
Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London
JYRKI TUOMAINEN
Affiliation:
Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London
*
*Address for correspondence: e-mail: g.vigliocco@ucl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Onomatopoeia is widespread across the world’s languages. They represent a relatively simple iconic mapping: the phonological/phonetic properties of the word evokes acoustic related features of referents. Here, we explore the EEG correlates of processing onomatopoeia in English. Participants were presented with a written cue-word (e.g., leash) and then with a spoken target-word. The target-word was either an onomatopoeia (e.g., bark), a sound-related but arbitrary word (e.g., melody), or another arbitrary word (e.g., bike). Participants judged whether the cue- and the target-word were similar in meaning. We analysed Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) in different time-windows: (i) early (100–200 and 200–250 ms) to assess differences in processing at the form-level; (ii) the N400 time-window (300–500 ms) in order to establish if there are differences in semantic processing across our word-types; and (iii) late (600–900 ms) to assess post-lexical effects. We found that onomatopoeia differed from the other words in the N400 time-window: when cue and target were unrelated, onomatopoeic words led to greater negativity which can be accounted for in terms of enhanced semantic activation of onomatopoeia which leads to greater salience of the mismatch. We discuss results in the context of a growing body of literature investigating iconicity in language processing and development.

Keywords

iconicityonomatopoeiaEEGERPN400word processing
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 12 , Issue 1: Special Issue on Iconicity , March 2020 , pp. 15 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B. & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods 39(3), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(4), 637–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B. & O’Neill, J. P. (1981). The pervasiveness of onomatopoeia in Aguaruna and Huambisa bird names. Journal of Ethnobiology 1(2), 238–261.Google 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(39), 10818–10823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, P (2001). Praat: a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5(9/10), 341–345.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaumon, M., Bishop, D. V. & Busch, N. A. (2015). A practical guide to the selection of independent components of the electroencephalogram for artifact correction. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 250, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge: the Managua lectures (Vol. 16). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Gibson, E. & Piantadosi, S. T. (2017). Wordform similarity increases with semantic similarity: an analysis of 100 languages. Cognitive Science 41(8), 2149–2169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Saussure, F. (1916). Course in general linguistics . New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Delorme, A. & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 134(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dingemanse, M. (2012). Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10), 654–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egashira, Y., Choi, D., Motoi, M., Nishimura, T. & Watanuki, S. (2015). Differences in Event-Related Potential responses to Japanese onomatopoeias and common words. Psychology 6(13), 1653–1660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K., Midgley, K. J., Kohen, C. B., Sehyr, Z. S. & Holcomb, P. J. (2017). The N170 ERP component differs in laterality, distribution, and association with continuous reading measures for deaf and hearing readers. Neuropsychologia 106, 298–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grote, K. & Linz, E. (2003). The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. In Muller, W. G. & Fisher, O. (eds.), From sign to signing: iconicity in language and literature 3 (pp. 23–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P. & Brown, C. M. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech: semantic ERP effects. Neuropsychologia 38(11), 1518–1530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hockett, C. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American 203, 88–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, N., Vinson, D. P. & Vigliocco, G. (2007). How does it hurt, Kiri-kiri or Siku-sikuI: Japanese mimetic words of pain perceived by Japanese speakers and English speakers. In Applying theory and research to learning Japanese as a foreign language (pp. 2–19). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. & Waugh, L. R. (2002). The sound shape of language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanero, J., Imai, M., Okuda, J., Okada, H. & Matsuda, T. (2014). How sound symbolism is processed in the brain: a study on Japanese mimetic words. PLoS One, 9(5), e97905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanske, P. & Kotz, S. A. (2007). Concreteness in emotional words: ERP evidence from a hemifield study. Brain Research 1148, 138–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kantartzis, K., Imai, M. & Kita, S. (2011). Japanese sound-symbolism facilitates word learning in English-speaking children. Cognitive Science 35(3), 575–586.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(47), 12224–12230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiefer, M., Trumpp, N., Herrnberger, B., Sim, E. J., Hoenig, K. & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Dissociating the representation of action- and sound-related concepts in middle temporal cortex. Brain and Language 122(2), 120–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H. & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods 44(4), 978–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology 62, 621–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laing, C. E. (2014). A phonological analysis of onomatopoeia in early word production. First Language 34(5), 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laing, C. E. (2019). Phonological motivation for the acquisition of onomatopoeia: an analysis of early words. Language Learning and Development 15(2), 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R. (2018). Emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version, 1(1).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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01246Google ScholarPubMed
Lockwood, G., Hagoort, P. & Dingemanse, M. (2016). How iconicity helps people learn new words: Neural correlates and individual differences in sound-symbolic bootstrapping. Collabra 2(1), 7. doi:10.1525/collabra.42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, G. & Tuomainen, J. (2015). Ideophones in Japanese modulate the P2 and late positive complex responses. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 933. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00933CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez-Calderon, J. & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: an open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8, 213. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luck, S. J., Vogel, E. K. & Shapiro, K. L. (1996). Word meanings can be accessed but not reported during the attentional blink. Nature 383(6601), 616–618.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 B 373(1752), 20170137. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0137CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynott, D. & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods 41(2), 558–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynott, D. & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: the relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods 45(2), 516–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L. & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology 18(1), 1–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S. & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods 37(4), 547–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B. & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: a review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex 48(7), 788–804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meteyard, L., Stoppard, E., Snudden, D., Cappa, S. F. & Vigliocco, G. (2015). When semantics aids phonology: a processing advantage for iconic word forms in aphasia. Neuropsychologia 76, 264–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nygaard, L. C., Cook, A. E. & Namy, L. L. (2009). Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition 112(1), 181–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ormel, E., Hermans, D., Knoors, H. & Verhoeven, L. (2009). The role of sign phonology and iconicity during sign processing: the case of deaf children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 14(4), 436–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peeters, D. (2016). Processing consequences of onomatopoeic iconicity in spoken language comprehension. In 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2016) (pp. 1632–1647). Cognitive Science Society. Online <https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/faces/ViewItemOverviewPage.jsp?itemId=item_2304565>.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1931–36). The collected papers, volumes 1–6 (ed. Hartshorne, C. & Weiss, P.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perlman, M., Dale, R. & Lupyan, G. (2015). Iconicity can ground the creation of vocal symbols. Royal Society Open Science 2(8), 150152. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150152CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perniss, P., Thompson, R. & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perniss, P. & Vigliocco, G. (2014). The bridge of iconicity: from a world of experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Socety B 369(1651), 20130300. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0300CrossRefGoogle 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(3), e12572. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12572CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
RStudio Team (2015). RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA URL <http://www.rstudio.com/>..>Google Scholar
Schirmer, A., Fox, P. M. & Grandjean, D. (2012). On the spatial organization of sound processing in the human temporal lobe: a meta-analysis. Neuroimage 63(1), 137–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sidhu, D. M. & Pexman, P. M. (2017). A prime example of the Maluma/Takete effect? Testing for sound symbolic priming. Cognitive Science, 41(7), 1958–1987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2018). Five mechanisms of sound symbolic association. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1619–1643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sidhu, D. M, Vigliocco, G. & Pexman, P. M. (this issue). Effects of iconicity in lexical decision.Google Scholar
Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the body: iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P. & Vigliocco, G. (2009). The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35(2), 550–557.Google ScholarPubMed
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., Woll, B. & Vigliocco, G. (2012). The road to language learning is iconic: evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science 23(12), 1443–1448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E. & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: a new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigliocco, G. & Kita, S. (2006). Language-specific properties of the lexicon: implications for learning and processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 21(7/8), 790–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Motamedi, Y., Murgiano, M., Wonnacott, E., Marshall, C., Milán-Maillo, I. & Perniss, P. (2019). Onomatopoeia, gestures, actions and words: How do caregivers use multimodal cues in their communication to children?. Online <https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/v263k>.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 of London, Series B 369. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0292CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vinson, D., Thompson, R. L., Skinner, R. & Vigliocco, G. (2015). A faster path between meaning and form? Iconicity facilitates sign recognition and production in British Sign Language. Journal of Memory and Language 82, 56–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vinson, D. P. & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of objects and events. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 183–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voeltz, F. E. & Kilian-Hatz, C. (eds.) (2001). Ideophones (Vol. 44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Vigliocco et al. supplementary material

Vigliocco et al. supplementary material

Download Vigliocco et al. supplementary material(File)
File 36.9 MB