Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-05T05:54:30.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Iconic prosody enhances the depictive power of ideophones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2025

Kimi Akita*
Affiliation:
Department of English Linguistics, School of Humanities, Nagoya University , Aichi, Japan
Shigeto Kawahara
Affiliation:
The Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, Keio University , Tokyo, Japan
*
Corresponding author: Kimi Akita; Email: akita.kimi.s4@f.mail.nagoya-u.ac.jp
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prosody not only signals the speaker’s cognitive states but can also imitate various concepts. However, previous studies on the latter, the iconic function of prosody, have mostly analyzed novel words and nonlinguistic vocalizations. To fill this gap in the literature, the current study has examined the iconic potential of the prosodic features of existing Japanese imitative words known as ideophones. In Experiment 1, female Japanese speakers pronounced 20 sentences containing ideophones in infant-directed speech. They used a higher f0 to express faster and more pleasant movements. Similar iconic associations were observed in Experiment 2, in which Japanese speakers chose the best-matching pitch–intensity–duration combination for each of the ideophones. In Experiment 3, Japanese speakers chose the best-matching voice quality – creaky voice, falsetto, harsh voice or whisper – for the ideophones. Falsetto was preferred for a light object’s fast motion, harsh voice for violent motion and whisper for quiet motion. Based on these results, we entertain the possibility that the iconic prosody of ideophones provides a missing link in the evolutionary theory of language that began with iconic vocalizations. Ideophones with varying degrees of iconic prosody can be considered to be located between nonlinguistic vocalizations and arbitrary words in this evolutionary path.

Information

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Stimulus sentences for Experiment 1, with abbreviated semantic labels for cross-referencing in parentheses

Figure 1

Table 2. Mean semantic ratings, with standard deviation in parentheses, for all the ideophones that were examined

Figure 2

Table 3. Principal components’ loadings

Figure 3

Figure 1. Mean standardized f0 of the V2 of ideophones, from the lowest to the highest.

Figure 4

Figure 2. Mean standardized intensity of ideophones, from the lowest to the highest.

Figure 5

Figure 3. Mean standardized duration of ideophones, from the lowest to the highest.

Figure 6

Figure 4. The speed and pleasantness of ideophones and the mean standardized f0 of their V2.

Figure 7

Table 4. The results of the Bayesian mixed regression model for the mean f0 of the V2 of ideophones

Figure 8

Figure 5. The speed and pleasantness of ideophones and their mean standardized intensity.

Figure 9

Table 5. The results of the Bayesian mixed regression model for the intensity of ideophones

Figure 10

Figure 6. The speed and pleasantness of ideophones and their mean standardized duration.

Figure 11

Table 6. The results of the Bayesian mixed regression model for the duration of ideophones

Figure 12

Figure 7. Proportions of high and low f0 sounds (A, B, C, D versus E, F, G, H) preferred for the 20 ideophones, ordered in the same way as the corresponding figure in Experiment 1.

Figure 13

Table 7. The results of the Bayesian mixed regression model for the preferred f0 level

Figure 14

Figure 8. Proportions of high- and low-intensity sounds (A, B, E, F versus C, D, G, H) preferred for the 20 ideophones, ordered in the same way as the corresponding figure in Experiment 1.

Figure 15

Table 8. The results of the Bayesian mixed regression model for the preferred intensity level

Figure 16

Figure 9. Proportions of long and short sounds (A, C, E, G versus B, D, F, H) preferred for the 20 ideophones, ordered in the same way as the corresponding figure in Experiment 1.

Figure 17

Table 9. The results of the Bayesian mixed regression model for the preferred duration

Figure 18

Figure 10. Proportions of the four voice qualities preferred for the 20 ideophones.

Figure 19

Table 10. The results of the Bayesian regression model for the preferred voice qualities, with creaky voice as a baseline

Figure 20

Figure 11. Possible evolutionary path from nonlinguistic vocalizations to non-ideophonic, symbolic words via ideophones.