Stimuli Selection Criteria for the Experiment “Visual Perception of Imitative Words in Native and Non-Native Language by the Method Lexical Decision”

Introduction. The present article is aiming to describe the procedure of stimuli selection for the psycho-semantic experiment on visual perception of imitative words in native (Russian) and non-native language (English). The methodology of the experiment is predominantly based on the implementation of the “lexical decision” method. Thus, the aim of the article is to verify the procedure of and to define clear-cut criteria for the material selection. In particular, we introduce indicating de-iconization stage of imitative words as an important criterion for data pre-selection. De-iconization is a gradual loss of an iconic sound-sense link in an imitative word due to the parallel impact of regular sound changes and semantic shifts.

Methodology and sources. The  research  methodology  is  based  on  the  works  of

S. V. Voronin who is the founder of phonosemantics as a linguistic discipline inRussia, as well as on works of his followers (including a co-author of this paper, M. A. Flaksman). The article is also based on the methodology of research on phonotactics. The authors also use psycho-semantic methods such as the method of lexical decision. The main sources of stimuli selection are The Russia Etymological Dictionary by M. Vasmer, The Oxford English Dictionary, the frequency dictionaries by O. N. Liashevskaya and S. A. Sharov. The classification of imitative words according to their de-iconization stages was done by the method of the diachronic evaluation of the imitative lexicon.

Results and discussion. As a result of a rigorous selection procedure described in the article the authors arrived on 128 stimuli (an even number (64 + 64) of words and quasiwords). The quasi-words are coined according to phonotactic rules and made according to the same pattern as the corresponding words. The group of real words is constituted of two sub-groups: 32 imitative words and 32 non-imitative words. The words from these two subgroups are homomorphous – they have the same number of syllables, frequency and belong to the same parts of speech. Imitative words include onomatopoeic and soundsymbolic words of different sub-classes and de-iconization stages. The combination of the material selection methods discussed in this paper (especially, the introduction of the distinction of imitative words according to their de-iconization stage) is aiming at facilitating the experiment procedure as well as eliminating the chance factors.

Conclusion. The stimuli selection for the psycholinguistic experiment based on the procedure introduced in this paper allows to establish the existing patterns of the systematic function of human brain in the process of visual perception of imitative words on different de-iconization stages.

1. Peirce, C.S. (2000), Collected Papers, Transl. by Golubovich, K., Chukhrukidze, K. and Dmitriev, T., Logos, Moscow, RUS.

2. Voronin, S.V. (2006), Osnovy fonosemantiki [The Fundamentals of Phonosemantics], Lenand, Moscow, RUS.

3. Iconicity Atlas Project, available at: http://www.iconicity-atlas.com/index.htm (accessed 24.06.2020).

4. Hinton, L., Nichols, J. and Ohala, J. (eds.) (1994), Sound Symbolism, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

5. Voeltz, E.F.K. and Kilian-Hatz, Ch. (eds.) (2001), Ideophones. Typological Studies in Language 44, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, NLD.

6. Armoskaite, S. and Koskinen, P. (2017), “Structuring sensory imagery: Ideophones across languages and cultures”, Canadian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 62, iss. 2, pp. 149–153. Https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2017.12.

7. Blasi, D.E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P.F. and Christiansen M.H. (2016), “Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 113, no. 39, pp. 10818–10823. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1605782113.

8. Dingemanse, M. (2012), “Advances in the Cross-Linguistic Study of Ideophones”, Language and Linguistics Compass, vol. 6, iss. 10, pp. 654–672. Https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.361.

9. Oda, H. (2011), “An embodied semantic mechanism for mimetic words in Japanese”, Ph.D. dissertation Thesis, Indiana Univ., Indiana, USA.

10. Revill, K.P., Namy, L.L., DeFife, L.C. and Nygaard, L.C. (2014), “Cross-linguistic sound symbolism and crossmodal correspondence: Evidence from fMRI and DTI”, Brain and Language, vol. 128, iss. 1, pp. 18–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.11.002.

11. Tkacheva, L.O., Sedelkina, Y.G. and Nasledov, A.D. (2019), “Possible Cognitive Mechanisms for Identifying Visually-presented Sound-Symbolic Words”, Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, vol. 12, iss. 1, pp. 188–200. DOI: 10.11621/pir.2019.0114.

12. Flaksman, M.A. (2015), “Diachronic development of English iconic vocabulary”, Can. Sci. (Philol.) Thesis, St Petersburg State Univ., SPb, RUS.

13. Sedelkina, Yu.G., Tkacheva, L.O. and Nasledov A.D. “On visual recognition of sound-symbolic utterances in native and foreign languages”, Aktual'nye problemy yazykoznaniya [Actual problems of linguistics], VIII interuniversity scientific and practical conference with international participation, SPb., RUS, 22-23 apr. 2019, vol. 1, pp. 261–266.

14. Voronin, S.V. (1990), “About the method of phonosemantic analysis”, Lingvometodicheskie aspekty semantiki i pragmatiki teksta [Linguo-methodological aspects of the semantics and pragmatics of the text], Kursk, pp. 98–100.

15. Ladefoged, P. (1993), A Course in Phonetics, 3rd ed., Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, USA.

16. Roca, I. and Johnson, W. (1999), A Course in Phonology, Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

17. Broselow, E. and Finer, D. (1991), “Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax”, Second language research, vol. 7, iss. 1, pp. 35-59. Https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700102.

18. Giegerich, H.J. (2006), English Phonology. An Introduction, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

19. Halle, M. (1971), The Sound Pattern of Russian: A Linguistic and Acoustical Investigation (Description and Analysis of Contemporary Standard Russian), De Gruyter Mouton, Paris, FRA.

20. Redford, M.A. (1999), “The mandibular cycle and reversed-sonority onset clusters in Russian“, in Ohala, J.J., Hasegawa, Y., Ohala M., Granvill D. and Bailey, A.C. (eds.), Proceedings from the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, (ICPhS-99 San Francisco, USA), pp. 1893–1896.

21. Flaksman, M.A. (2016), Slovar' angliiskoi zvukoizobrazitel'noi leksiki v diakhronicheskom osveshchenii [Dictionary of English sound-visual vocabulary in diachronic lighting], Institute of Foreign Languages, RKhGA, SPb., RUS.

22. Vasmer, M.Ju.F. (2009), Russisches Etymologisches Worterbuch, Transl. by Trubachev, O.N., Astrel', AST, Moscow, RUS.

23. Lyashevskaya, O.N. and Sharov, S.A. (2009), Chastotnyi slovar' sovremennogo russkogo yazyka [Frequency dictionary of the modern Russian language], Azbukovnik, Moscow, available at: https://dict.ruslang.ru/freq.php (accessed 18.06.2020).

24. Oxford English Dictionary, (2020), available at: https://www.oed.com (accessed 18.06.2020).

25. Folomkina, S.K. (1980), Obuchenie chteniyu (tekst lektsii po kursu «Metodika prepodavaniya inostrannykh yazykov») [Teaching to read (text of lectures for the course “Methods of teaching foreign languages”)], MGPIIYa, Moscow, USSR.

26. Cutler, A. (2012), Native listening. Language experience and the recognition of spoken words, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

27. Ivanov, V.V. (2004), Lingvistika tret'ego tysyacheletiya: voprosy k budushchemu [Linguistics of the third millennium: questions for the future], Yazyki slavyanskoi kul'tury, Moscow, RUS.