Word formation patterns in the perception domain: a typological study of cross-modal semantic associations

The lexicalization of perception verbs has been of widespread interest as a route into understanding the relationship between language and cognition. A recent study finds global biases in colexification patterns, suggesting recurrent conceptual associations between sensory meanings across languages. In this paper, drawing on a balanced sample of 100 languages, we examine cross-modal semantic associations in word formation. Confirming earlier proposals, we find derived verbs are lower on a proposed Sense Modality Hierarchy (sight > hearing > touch > taste, smell) than the source perception verbs on which they are based. We propose these findings can be explained by verb frequency asymmetries and the general tendency for sources of derivations to be more frequent than their targets. Moreover, it appears certain pairings (e.g., hear–smell) are recurrently associated via word formation, but others are typologically rare. Intriguingly, the typological patterning partially diverges from the patterning reported for colexification in the same domain. We suggest that while colexification is driven by conceptual resemblance between sensory meanings, cross-modal word formations tend to arise from grammaticalization processes of lexical specification, where additional material (e.g., a sensory noun) is collocated to a polysemous verb in order to disambiguate it in context. Together, these processes can account for the typological similarities and divergences between the two phenomena. More generally, this study highlights the need to consider conceptual, communicative and diachronic factors together in the mapping between words and meanings

Language does not explain the wine-specific memory advantage of wine experts

Although people are poor at naming odors, naming a smell helps to remember that odor. Previous studies show wine experts have better memory for smells, and they also name wine and wine-related smells differently than novices. This leads us to ask whether wine experts’ odor memory is verbally mediated? In addition, does the odor memory advantage that experts have over novices generalize to all odors, or is it restricted to odors in their domain of expertise? Twenty-four wine experts and 24 novices smelled wines, wine-related odors and common odors, and were asked to remember these. Critically, half of the participants were asked to name the smells in addition to memorizing them, while the other half just remembered the smells. Wine experts had better memory for wines, but not for wine-related or common odors, indicating their memory is restricted to odors from their domain of expertise. Wine experts were also found to be more consistent and accurate than novices in their descriptions. But there was no relationship between experts’ ability to name odors and their memory for odors. This suggests experts’ odor memory advantage is not linguistically mediated, but may be the result of differential perceptual learning

Human Olfaction at the Intersection of Language, Culture, and Biology

The human sense of smell can accomplish astonishing feats, yet there remains a prevailing belief that olfactory language is deficient. Numerous studies with English speakers support this view: there are few terms for odors, odor talk is infrequent, and naming odors is difficult. However, this is not true across the world. Many languages have sizeable smell lexicons — smell is even grammaticalized. In addition, for some cultures smell talk is more frequent and odor naming easier. This linguistic variation is as yet unexplained but could be the result of ecological, cultural, or genetic factors or a combination thereof. Different ways of talking about smells may shape aspects of olfactory cognition too. Critically, this variation sheds new light on this important sensory modality

Language and Causal Understanding: There's Something About Mary

Making causal inferences is a ubiquitous property of the cognitive system. This dissertation examines how people make causal attributions in the social domain. Two cues to causality are examined. The first is the implicit causality in verbs and the second is covariation information. When people are presented with minimal sentences such as Mary fascinated Ted and then are asked what the cause of that event is, then people say something about Mary, for example, Mary was interesting. On the other hand, if they are presented with sentences such as Mary liked Ted, and then are asked about the cause, they say something about Ted, for example, Ted is nice. In the first example, cause is attributed to Mary or the first noun phrase (NP1); whereas in the second example, it is attributed to Ted, or the second noun phrase (NP2). This is called the implicit causality verb bias. The implicit causality bias is reviewed in some detail in the first two chapters. This is followed by a test of whether it is present even when no causal question is asked. The results from Chapter 3 suggest that the verb bias is present in such circumstances. Chapter 4 examined the relation between implicit causal information, such as that provided by implicit causality verbs, and explicit causal information, such as covariation theory. According to covariation theory, cause is determined by establishing what covaries with what. Chapter 4 demonstrated that both implicit and explicit sources of causal information are used to make attributions in production. However, Chapter 5 showed that while implicit causal information is also used in comprehension, the effect of explicit covariation information is weak. In order to ascertain exactly which cues people make to use attributions from covariation information Chapters 6 and 7 contrast a frequency signalling account of covariation theory with a focussing account. According to the frequency signalling account, cause is attributed to that individual which is in the smallest group; while according to the focussing account, cause is attributed to the individual who is in focal attention. It is found that both frequency and focussing influence attributions - and in very systematic ways

Sensory, motor, and emotion associations for landscape concepts differ across neighbouring speech communities

A long-standing debate centres around our mental representation of landscape: is it experienced in largely the same way across all humans or is it shaped to some extent by cultural and linguistic experience? Previous research supporting differences across cultures has often relied on introspection or qualitative ethnolinguistic methods. Departing from this, we collected systematic sensory, motor, and emotion ratings for different landscape terms from 289 native speakers of German, English and French. The results show that speakers within and across groups agree to a large extent in their ratings of landscape terms, particularly in their sensory and motor associations. However, there is cultural shaping too. This suggests more caution is required when extrapolating findings about landscape understandings and preferences across cultures and languages

Semantic systems in closely related languages

In each semantic domain studied to date, there is considerable variation in how meanings are expressed across languages. But are some semantic domains more likely to show variation than others? Is the domain of space more or less variable in its expression than other semantic domains, such as containers, body parts, or colours? According to many linguists, the meanings expressed in grammaticised expressions, such as (spatial) adpositions, are more likely to be similar across languages than meanings expressed in open class lexical items. On the other hand, some psychologists predict there ought to be more variation across languages in the meanings of adpositions, than in the meanings of nouns. This is because relational categories, such as those expressed as adpositions, are said to be constructed by language; whereas object categories expressed as nouns are predicted to be “given by the world”. We tested these hypotheses by comparing the semantic systems of closely related languages. Previous cross-linguistic studies emphasise the importance of studying diverse languages, but we argue that a focus on closely related languages is advantageous because domains can be compared in a culturally- and historically-informed manner. Thus we collected data from 12 Germanic languages. Naming data were collected from at least 20 speakers of each language for containers, body-parts, colours, and spatial relations. We found the semantic domains of colour and body-parts were the most similar across languages. Containers showed some variation, but spatial relations expressed in adpositions showed the most variation. The results are inconsistent with the view expressed by most linguists. Instead, we find meanings expressed in grammaticised meanings are more variable than meanings in open class lexical items

Vision Verbs Emerge First in English Acquisition but Touch, not Audition, Follows Second

Words that describe sensory perception give insight into how language mediates human experience, and the acquisition of these words is one way to examine how we learn to categorize and communicate sensation. We examine the differential predictions of the typological prevalence hypothesis and embodiment hypothesis regarding the acquisition of perception verbs. Studies 1 and 2 examine the acquisition trajectories of perception verbs across 12 languages using parent questionnaire responses, while Study 3 examines their relative frequencies in English corpus data. We find the vision verbs see and look are acquired first, consistent with the typological prevalence hypothesis. However, for children at 12–23 months, touch—not audition—verbs take precedence in terms of their age of acquisition, frequency in child‐produced speech, and frequency in child‐directed speech, consistent with the embodiment hypothesis. Later at 24–35 months old, frequency rates are observably different and audition begins to align with what has previously been reported in adult English data. It seems the initial orientation to verbalizing touch over audition in child–caregiver interaction is especially related to the control of physically and socially appropriate behaviors. Taken together, the results indicate children's acquisition of perception verbs arises from the complex interplay of embodiment, language‐specific input, and child‐directed socialization routines

Sensory, motor, and emotion associations for landscape concepts differ across neighbouring speech communities

A long-standing debate centres around our mental representation of landscape: is it experienced in largely the same way across all humans or is it shaped to some extent by cultural and linguistic experience? Previous research supporting differences across cultures has often relied on introspection or qualitative ethnolinguistic methods. Departing from this, we collected systematic sensory, motor, and emotion ratings for different landscape terms from 289 native speakers of German, English and French. The results show that speakers within and across groups agree to a large extent in their ratings of landscape terms, particularly in their sensory and motor associations. However, there is cultural shaping too. This suggests more caution is required when extrapolating findings about landscape understandings and preferences across cultures and languages