CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 99

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Iconicity can ground the creation of vocal symbols

Perlman, Marcus, Dale, Rick, Lupyan, Gary·2015·Royal Society Open Science
DOI 10.1098/rsos.150152PMC PMC4555852
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Studies of gestural communication systems find that they originate from spontaneously created iconic gestures. Yet, we know little about how people create vocal communication systems, and many have suggested that vocalizations do not afford iconicity beyond trivial instances of onomatopoeia. It is unknown whether people can generate vocal communication systems through a process of iconic creation similar to gestural systems. Here, we examine the creation and development of a rudimentary vocal symbol system in a laboratory setting. Pairs of participants generated novel vocalizations for 18 different meanings in an iterative ‘vocal’ charades communication game. The communicators quickly converged on stable vocalizations, and naive listeners could correctly infer their meanings in subsequent playback experiments. People's ability to guess the meanings of these novel vocalizations was predicted by how close the vocalization was to an iconic ‘meaning template’ we derived from the production data. These results strongly suggest that the meaningfulness of these vocalizations derived from iconicity. Our findings illuminate a mechanism by which iconicity can ground the creation of vocal symbols, analogous to the function of iconicity in gestural communication systems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsos.150152

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Performance and change in the form of vocalizations over 10 round of vocal charades. The lines in each plot were fit by local regression. Error bars represent standard error between subjects. Round is displayed on the x-axis of each plot. (a) Mean accuracy increased across rounds. (b) The mean number of guesses per turn decreased across rounds. (c) Mean turn time (s) decreased across rounds. (d) Sound duration (s) decreased across rounds. (e) The mean Euclidean distance between the form of sounds produced at round t and round t−1. Sounds became increasingly similar across the first 5 rounds.
Figure 1. Performance and change in the form of vocalizations over 10 round of vocal charades. The lines in each plot were fit by local regression. Error bars represent standard error between subjects. Round is displayed on the x-axis of each plot. (a) Mean accuracy increased across rounds. (b) The mean number of guesses per turn decreased across rounds. (c) Mean turn time (s) decreased across rounds. (d) Sound duration (s) decreased across rounds. (e) The mean Euclidean distance between the form of sounds produced at round t and round t−1. Sounds became increasingly similar across the first 5 rounds.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. The plots show the acoustic characteristics of each of the 18 meanings. The five variables are represented on the x-axis: D, duration; H, harmonics to noise ratio; I, intensity; P, pitch; C, pitch change. All values are normalized (z-scored) for each of the five measures. The red line shows the median and the blue box spans the first and third quartiles. The up and down arrows indicate variables that differed reliably between antonymic meanings. For example, vocalizations for bad differed from those for good by having a lower harmonics to noise ratio and pitch. The variables marked with arrows were the basis for the iconic template of each meaning.
Figure 2. The plots show the acoustic characteristics of each of the 18 meanings. The five variables are represented on the x-axis: D, duration; H, harmonics to noise ratio; I, intensity; P, pitch; C, pitch change. All values are normalized (z-scored) for each of the five measures. The red line shows the median and the blue box spans the first and third quartiles. The up and down arrows indicate variables that differed reliably between antonymic meanings. For example, vocalizations for bad differed from those for good by having a lower harmonics to noise ratio and pitch. The variables marked with arrows were the basis for the iconic template of each meaning.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Screenshot of the interface from the playback experiments. Participants listened to a sound as many times as they wanted by clicking on the ‘play’ arrow. They then made their selection by dragging the chosen word into the empty box.
Figure 3. Screenshot of the interface from the playback experiments. Participants listened to a sound as many times as they wanted by clicking on the ‘play’ arrow. They then made their selection by dragging the chosen word into the empty box.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Accuracy of naive listeners at selecting the correct meaning in the playback experiments. The dark blue bars represent playback for stimuli with varied iconicity (10 choices for each meaning; chance=10%, indicated by the dark blue dashed line). The medium and light blue bars show performance from a follow-up experiment with more and less iconic instances of the vocalizations, respectively (18 choices for each meaning: chance=5.6% indicated by the medium blue dashed line). Accuracy was higher for the more iconic versus less iconic vocalizations for all 18 of the tested meanings.
Figure 4. Accuracy of naive listeners at selecting the correct meaning in the playback experiments. The dark blue bars represent playback for stimuli with varied iconicity (10 choices for each meaning; chance=10%, indicated by the dark blue dashed line). The medium and light blue bars show performance from a follow-up experiment with more and less iconic instances of the vocalizations, respectively (18 choices for each meaning: chance=5.6% indicated by the medium blue dashed line). Accuracy was higher for the more iconic versus less iconic vocalizations for all 18 of the tested meanings.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Confusions made for each of the meanings during the playback experiments. The y-axis displays the meaning of the sound that was presented, and the x-axis displays the meaning that was selected. The ordering of meanings in each matrix was determined by a norming experiment that collected similarity ratings between each possible pair of meanings, with more similar words placed closer together. Warmer colours indicate more frequent choices. (a) Results from the first batch and (b) from the second batch in the playback experiment. Warmer colours gravitate along the diagonal, showing that listeners tended to select the correct response or a meaning that was similar to it. The results from the follow-up experiment with more and less iconic stimuli are shown in (c) and (d), respectively. Warmer colours gravitate along the diagonal for more iconic stimuli, but responses for less iconic stimuli appear more random.
Figure 5. Confusions made for each of the meanings during the playback experiments. The y-axis displays the meaning of the sound that was presented, and the x-axis displays the meaning that was selected. The ordering of meanings in each matrix was determined by a norming experiment that collected similarity ratings between each possible pair of meanings, with more similar words placed closer together. Warmer colours indicate more frequent choices. (a) Results from the first batch and (b) from the second batch in the playback experiment. Warmer colours gravitate along the diagonal, showing that listeners tended to select the correct response or a meaning that was similar to it. The results from the follow-up experiment with more and less iconic stimuli are shown in (c) and (d), respectively. Warmer colours gravitate along the diagonal for more iconic stimuli, but responses for less iconic stimuli appear more random.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6. (a) Accuracy in the playback experiment as a function of the round in which the stimulus was produced in the vocal charades game. Error bars display standard error between subjects. Accuracy is higher in rounds 5 and 10 compared to round 1. (b) Accuracy as a function of the normalized iconic distance of the stimulus. Iconic distance is the Euclidean distance between the vocalization and the iconic template for its intended meaning. Accuracy is higher for vocalizations that are closer to the template.
Figure 6. (a) Accuracy in the playback experiment as a function of the round in which the stimulus was produced in the vocal charades game. Error bars display standard error between subjects. Accuracy is higher in rounds 5 and 10 compared to round 1. (b) Accuracy as a function of the normalized iconic distance of the stimulus. Iconic distance is the Euclidean distance between the vocalization and the iconic template for its intended meaning. Accuracy is higher for vocalizations that are closer to the template.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7. Correlations between the two distance metrics to each particular meaning and probability of selecting that meaning. The correlation coefficient is plotted on the x-axis and meaning on the y-axis. Red represents iconic distance, and blue median distance. Negative correlations indicate that smaller distances to a particular meaning are associated with a higher likelihood of selecting that meaning. All meanings but many are associated with a negative correlation.
Figure 7. Correlations between the two distance metrics to each particular meaning and probability of selecting that meaning. The correlation coefficient is plotted on the x-axis and meaning on the y-axis. Red represents iconic distance, and blue median distance. Negative correlations indicate that smaller distances to a particular meaning are associated with a higher likelihood of selecting that meaning. All meanings but many are associated with a negative correlation.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124958 · DOI
  2. 10.1073/pnas.0405448102 · DOI
  3. 10.1126/science.1100199 · DOI
  4. 10.2307/412894 · DOI
  5. 10.1075/lv.12.2.04mei · DOI
  6. 10.1126/science.877567 · DOI
  7. 10.1515/9783110865028 · DOI
  8. Kendon A, 1988, Sign languages of aboriginal Australia: cultural, semiotic and communicative perspectives
  9. 10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.34 · DOI
  10. Dediu D, 2013, On the antiquity of language: the reinterpretation of Neandertal linguistic capacities and its consequences, Lang. Sci., 4, 397
  11. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0293 · DOI
  12. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195163483.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1515/cog-2013-0010 · DOI
  14. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0300 · DOI
  15. 10.1017/CBO9780511509629 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/03640210701703659 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/cogs.12190 · DOI
  18. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0298 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1111/cogs.12048 · DOI
  20. Goldin-Meadow S, 2003, The resilience of language: what gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language
  21. 10.1353/lan.2005.0043 · DOI
  22. 10.1007/s11049-011-9128-2 · DOI
  23. Gelb IJ, 1952, A study of writing: the foundations of grammatology
  24. Sampson G, 1985, Writing systems: a linguistic introduction
  25. Vaccari O, 1964, Pictorial Chinese–Japanese characters: a new and fascinating method to learn ideographs
  26. Corballis MC, 2003, From hand to mouth: the origins of language
  27. 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 · DOI
  28. 10.2307/455140 · DOI
  29. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00354 · DOI
  30. Quine WV, 1960, Word and object
  31. 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.10.015 · DOI
  32. Ramachandran VS, 2001, Synaesthesia—a window into perception, thought and language, J. Conscious. Stud., 8, 3
  33. 10.1177/0956797609354734 · DOI
  34. Hinton L, 1994, Sound symbolism
  35. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.225 · DOI
  36. 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Ohala JJ, 1994, Sound symbolism, 325
  38. 10.12697/SSS.2010.38.1-4.11 · DOI
  39. 10.1080/00437956.1964.11659816 · DOI
  40. 10.1023/A:1008184423824 · DOI
  41. 10.1002/lnc3.361 · DOI
  42. 10.1075/tsl.44 · DOI
  43. 10.1515/langcog-2012-0019 · DOI
  44. Boersma P, 2001, Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer, Glot Int., 5, 341
  45. 10.1073/pnas.0707835105 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0299 · DOI
  47. Clark N, 2013, Language and the creative mind, 393
  48. 10.1177/0956797612457374 · DOI
  49. Zbikowski LM, 1998, Metaphor and music theory: reflections from cognitive science, Music Theory Online, 4, 10.30535/mto.4.1.1 · DOI
  50. Klima E, 1988, The signs of language
  51. Nuckolls JB, 2003, Proc. 11th Annual Symp. about Language and Society, 131
  52. McNeill D, 1992, Hand and mind: what gestures reveal about thought
  53. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 99

Metadata

Authors
Perlman, M., Dale, R., & Lupyan, G.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
  • Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, USA
Venue
Royal Society Open Science
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
2015-08
Volume
2
Issue
8
Pages
150152
ISSN
2054-5703
DOI
10.1098/rsos.150152
PMC
PMC4555852
Cited by
99
References
2
Language
en
Licence
royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Iconicity can ground the creation of vocal symbols. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rsos.150152
The paper
Perlman, M., Dale, R., & Lupyan, G. (2015). Iconicity can ground the creation of vocal symbols. Royal Society Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150152