Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-6sxsx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-04T12:15:34.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Cognitive Linguistics

Linguistic Synesthesia

A Meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2025

Bodo Winter  and
Francesca Strik-Lievers
Bodo Winter
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Francesca Strik-Lievers
Affiliation:
Università di Genova

Summary

Linguistic synesthesias combine different senses, as in English smooth melody (touch→sound). For nearly a century, researchers have gathered data that has been interpreted as supporting the notion of a hierarchical ordering of the senses. According to this proposal, expressions map the presumed-to-be 'lower' senses of touch, taste, and smell onto the presumed-to-be 'higher' senses of sound and sight. Here, this proposal is tested in the first-ever meta-analysis of linguistic synesthesias, combining thirty-eight datasets from fourteen different languages. The authors demonstrate that clear patterns emerge from the data, but many such patterns are inconsistent with the notion of a linear hierarchical order or a simple lower/higher divide of the senses. This calls for a shift in what theories are considered to be viable for explaining asymmetries between the senses in linguistic synesthesia.
Get access

Keywords

perceptionsensory languagemetaphorembodied cognitionsynesthesia

Information

Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Cognitive Linguistics
Online ISBN: 9781009519182
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 03 July 2025

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.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alvarado, J. A., Velasco, C., & Salgado, A. (2024). The organization of semantic associations between senses in language. Language and Cognition, 16(4), 1588–1617. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2024.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auvray, M., & Spence, C. (2008). The multisensory perception of flavor. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(3), 1016–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.06.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagli, M. (2017). Tastes we’ve lived by: Taste metaphors in English. Textus, 30(1), 33–48.Google Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W., Dutriaux, L., & Scheepers, C. (2018). Moving beyond the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170144. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentz, C., & Winter, B. (2014). Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. In Wichmann, S. & Good, J. (Eds.), Quantifying Language Dynamics (pp. 96–124). Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. (2019). Embodiment. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Foundations of language (pp. 11–35). Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, B. (2011). Absolute and statistical universals. In Hogan, P. C. (Ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences (pp. 77–79). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. (2015). Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 901–924). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bottini, R., & Casasanto, D. (2013). Space and time in the child’s mind: Metaphoric or ATOMic? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bretones-Callejas, C. B. (2001). Synaesthetic metaphors in English. University of California at Berkeley & International Computer Science Institute Technical Report. http://ftp.icsi.berkeley.edu/ftp/global/pub/techreports/2001/tr-01-008.pdf.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
Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, N. R. (2010). Physiology of Behavior (10th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Case, T. I., Repacholi, B. M., & Stevenson, R. J. (2006). My baby doesn’t smell as bad as yours: The plasticity of disgust. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(5), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catricalà, M. (2008). Fenomenologie sinestetiche tra retorica e pragmatica. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, XLVI, 7–62.Google Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (Eds.). (2008). Metaphor and Gesture (Vol. 3). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Classen, C. (1993). Worlds of Sense: Exploring the Senses in History and across Cultures. Routledge.Google Scholar
Clayton, A. (2021). Bernoulli’s Fallacy: Statistical Illogic at the Crisis of Modern Science. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/clay19994-008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125(3), 452–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connell, L., Lynott, D., & Banks, B. (2018). Interoception: The forgotten modality in perceptual grounding of abstract and concrete concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cysouw, M. (2010). Dealing with diversity: Towards an explanation of NP-internal word order frequencies. Linguistic Typology, 14(2–3), 253–286. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2010.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, S. (1996). Synaesthesia and synaesthetic metaphors. Psyche, 2(32), 1–16.Google Scholar
De Felice, I. (2014). La sinestesia nella poesia latina. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, LII(1), 61–107.Google Scholar
Deroy, O., & Spence, C. (2013). Why we are not all synesthetes (not even weakly so). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 643–664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Salazar, D. (2019). La sinestesia. Configurazioni retoriche intersensoriali nella lingua letteraria romena. Aracne.Google Scholar
Doetsch Kraus, U. (1992). La sinestesia en la poesía española desde la Edad Media hasta mediados del siglo XIX. Un enfoque semántico. Universidad de Navarra.Google Scholar
Dombi, E. (1974). Synaesthesia and poetry. Poetics, 3(3), 23–44.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language, 68(1), 81–138. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. (2015). Modeling abstractness and metaphoricity. Metaphor and Symbol, 30(4), 259–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Levinson, S. C., & Gray, R. D. (2011). Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature, 473(7345), 79–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76(3), 546–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, A. (2022). The picture looks like my music sounds: Directional preferences in synesthetic metaphors in the absence of lexical factors. Language and Cognition, 14(2), 208–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2022.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fónagy, I. (1963). Die Metaphern in der Phonetik [Metaphors in Phonetics]. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fujimoto, T. (2001). Nihongo-ni okeru gokan-o arawasu kyoukankaku keiyoushi-ni tsuite [On shynaesthetic adjectives representing five senses in Japanese]. Nidaba, 30, 74–83.Google Scholar
Galac, Á., & Zayniev, D. (2023). Paths of linguistic synesthesia across cultures: A lexical analysis of conventionalized cross‑sensory meaning extensions in Europe and Central Asia. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 10(2), 450–479. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00108.gal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garg, A. X., Hackam, D., & Tonelli, M. (2008). Systematic review and meta-analysis: When one study is just not enough. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 3(1), 253. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.01430307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1996). Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition, 61(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00723-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, R. W. (2007). Why cognitive linguists should care more about empirical methods. In Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S., & Spivey, M. (Eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 2–18). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2013). Walking the walk while thinking about the talk: Embodied interpretation of metaphorical narratives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(4), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9222-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Mindless statistics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 33(5), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L., & Kruger, L. (1989). The Empire of Chance: How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Papesh, M. H., Barnhart, A. S., Hansen, W. A., & Hout, M. C. (2016). The poverty of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0860-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grady, J. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Stewart, G. (2018). Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature, 555(7695), Article 7695. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hehman, E., & Xie, S. Y. (2021). Doing better data visualization. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(4), 25152459211045334. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211045334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickok, G. (2014). The Myth of Mirror Neurons: The Real Neuroscience of Communication and Cognition. W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Hinojosa, J. A., Haro, J., Magallares, S., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Ferré, P. (2020). Iconicity ratings for 10,995 Spanish words and their relationship with psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods, 53(3), 1262–1275. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01496-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoekstra, R., Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). Robust misinterpretation of confidence intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(5), 1157–1164. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0572-3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, C.-R., & Xiong, J. (2019). Linguistic synaesthesia in Chinese. In Huang, C.-R., Jing-Schmidt, Z., & Meisterernst, B. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Chinese Applied Linguistics (pp. 294–312). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., Graff, P., Croft, W., & Pontillo, D. (2011). Mixed effect models for genetic and areal dependencies in linguistic typology. Linguistic Typology, 15(2), 281–319. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2011.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jo, C. (2017). A corpus-based study on synesthesia in Korean ordinary language. In Roxas, R. E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 31st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 249–254). University of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Jo, C. (2018). Synesthetic metaphors in Korean compound words. In Devereyx, B., Shutova, E., & Huang, C.-R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Jo, C. (2019). A corpus-based analysis of synesthetic metaphors in Korean. Linguistic Research, 36(3), 459–483. https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.36.3.201912.005.Google Scholar
Jo, C. (2022). Linguistic synesthesia in Korean: Universality and variation. SAGE Open, 12(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221117804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, N., Anikin, A., Carling, G., & Holmer, A. (2019). The typology of sound symbolism: Defining macro-concepts via their semantic and phonetic features. Linguistic Typology, 24(2), 253–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, M. (2021). tidybayes: Tidy data and geoms for Bayesian models. R Package Version 3.0.1. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1308151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Miestamo, M., & Börstell, C. (2024). A cross-linguistic study of lexical and derived antonymy. Linguistics, 62(6), 1417–1472. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2023-0140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumcu, A. (2021). Linguistic synesthesia in Turkish: A corpus-based study of crossmodal directionality. Metaphor and Symbol, 36(4), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2021.1921557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Leshinskaya, A., & Caramazza, A. (2016). For a cognitive neuroscience of concepts: Moving beyond the grounding issue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 991–1001. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0870-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2014). Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löhr, G. (2021). What are abstract concepts? On lexical ambiguity and concreteness ratings. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 13, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00542-9.Google 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: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170137. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 558–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, B. Z., & Hickok, G. (2016). Arguments about the nature of concepts: Symbols, embodiment, and beyond. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 941–958. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1045-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Majid, A., & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130(2), 266–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Roberts, S. G., Cilissen, L. et al. (2018). Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11369–11376. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720419115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mancaş, M. (1962). La synesthésie dans la création artistique de M. Eminescu, T. Arghezi et M. Sadoveanu. Cahiers de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée, 1, 55–87.Google Scholar
Marks, L. E. (1974). On associations of light and sound: The mediation of brightness, pitch, and loudness. The American Journal of Psychology, 87(1/2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, L. E. (1978). The Unity of the Senses: Interrelations among the Modalities. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marotta, G. (2011). Perché i colori chiassosi non fanno chiasso? Vincoli semantici e sintattici sulle associazioni sinestetiche. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, XCVI(2), 195–220. https://doi.org/10.1400/206836.Google Scholar
Marotta, G. (2012). Sinestesie tra vista, udito e dintorni: Un’analisi semantica distribuzionale. In Catricalà, M. (Ed.), Sinestesie e monoestesie: Prospettive a confronto (pp. 19–51). Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
McElreath, R. (2020). Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan (2nd ed.). CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morey, R. D., Hoekstra, R., Rouder, J. N., Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2016). The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0947-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morey, R. D., Kaschak, M. P., Díez-Álamo, A. M. et al. (2021). A pre-registered, multi-lab non-replication of the action-sentence compatibility effect (ACE). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 613–626. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01927-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60(2), 173–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)00711-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, G. L. (1997). Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition, 62(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00725-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakamura, T., Sakamoto, M., & Utsumi, A. (2010). The role of event knowledge in comprehending synesthetic metaphors. In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 32, pp. 1898–1903). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Norcliffe, E., & Majid, A. (2024). Verbs of perception: A quantitative typological study. Language, 100(1), 81–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Boyle, M. W., & Tarte, R. D. (1980). Implications for phonetic symbolism: The relationship between pure tones and geometric figures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9(6), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortega, L., Guzman-Martinez, E., Grabowecky, M., & Suzuki, S. (2014). Audition dominates vision in duration perception irrespective of salience, attention, and temporal discriminability. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(5), 1485–1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0663-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paissa, P. (1995). La sinestesia: Analisi contrastiva delle sinestesie lessicalizzate nel codice italiano e francese. La Scuola.Google Scholar
Paradis, C., & Eeg-Olofsson, M. (2013). Describing sensory experience: The genre of wine reviews. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.742838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, T. L. (2020). Patchwork: The Composer of Plots. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=patchwork.Google Scholar
Perezgonzalez, J. D. (2015). Fisher, Neyman-Pearson or NHST? A tutorial for teaching data testing. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, W., Fleischhauer, J., Beseoglu, H., & Bücker, P. (2008). A frame-based analysis of synaesthetic metaphors. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3(1), 122.Google Scholar
Popova, Y. (2005). Image schemas and verbal synaesthesia. In Hampe, B. (Ed.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics (Vol. 29, pp. 395–419). Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prandi, M. (2023). Is figurative interpretation an outcome of ambiguity? International Journal of Language Studies, 17(3), 21–36.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “The Language-as-Fixed-Effect Fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(3), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakova, M. (2003). The Extent of the Literal: Metaphor, Polysemy and Theories of Concepts. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S., & Winters, J. (2013). Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: Lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits. PloS One, 8(8), e70902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, S., Winters, J., & Chen, K. (2015). Future tense and economic decisions: Controlling for cultural evolution. PloS One, 10(7), e0132145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ronga, I. (2016). Taste synaesthesias: Linguistic features and neurophysiological bases. In Gola, E. & Ervas, F. (Eds.), Metaphor and Communication (pp. 47–60). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronga, I., Bazzanella, C., Rossi, F., & Iannetti, G. (2012). Linguistic synaesthesia, perceptual synaesthesia, and the interaction between multiple sensory modalities. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20(1), 135–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosiello, L. (1963). Le sinestesie nell’opera poetica di Montale. Rendiconti, 7, 1–19.Google Scholar
Rozeboom, W. W. (1960). The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test. Psychological Bulletin, 57(5), 416. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saitis, C., & Weinzierl, S. (2019). The semantics of timbre. In Siedenburg, K., Saitis, C., McAdams, S., Popper, A. N., & Fay (Eds.), R. R., Timbre: Acoustics, Perception, and Cognition (pp. 119–149). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakamoto, M., & Utsumi, A. (2014). Adjective metaphors evoke negative meanings. PloS One, 9(2), e89008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salzmann, K. (2014). Lexikalisierte Synästhesien im Sprachvergleich Italienisch-Deutsch. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, LII(1), 109–140.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanz-Valdivieso, L., & López-Arroyo, B. (2024). Figurative language and sensory perception: Corpus-based computer-assisted study of the nature and motivation of synesthetic metaphors in olive oil tasting notes. Metaphor and Symbol, 39(4), 260–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2024.2377535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L. (1992). What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. American Psychologist, 47(10), 1173–1181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.10.1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408(6814), Article 6814. https://doi.org/10.1038/35048669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shen, Y. (1997). Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 33–72. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., & Aisenman, R. (2008). Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter’: Synaesthetic metaphors and cognition. Language and Literature, 17(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007088222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., & Cohen, M. (1998). How come silence is sweet but sweetness is not silent: A cognitive account of directionality in poetic synaesthesia. Language and Literature, 7(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709800700202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., & Gadir, O. (2009). How to interpret the music of caressing: Target and source assignment in synaesthetic genitive constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., & Gil, D. (2008). Sweet fragrances from Indonesia: A universal principle governing directionality in synaesthetic metaphors. In Auracher, J., & van Peer, W. (Eds.), New Beginnings in Literary Studies (pp. 49–71). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Shinohara, K., & Nakayama, A. (2011). Modalities and directions in synaesthetic metaphors in Japanese. Cognitive Studies, 18(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.11225/jcss.18.491.Google Scholar
Simner, J., Harrold, J., Creed, H., Monro, L., & Foulkes, L. (2009). Early detection of markers for synaesthesia in childhood populations. Brain, 132(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awn292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simner, J., Mulvenna, C., Sagiv, N. et al. (2006). Synaesthesia: The prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences. Perception, 35(8), 1024–1033. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sóskuthy, M., & Roettger, T. B. (2020). When the tune shapes morphology: The origins of vocatives. Journal of Language Evolution, 5(2), 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzaa007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speelman, C., & McGann, M. (2013). How mean is the mean? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(4), 971–995. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strik-Lievers, F. (2015). Synaesthesia: A corpus-based study of cross-modal directionality. Functions of Language, 22(1), 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strik-Lievers, F. (2016). Synaesthetic metaphors in translation. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 54(1), 43–70.Google Scholar
Strik-Lievers, F. (2017). Figures and the senses. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.04str.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strik-Lievers, F. (2018). Synaesthesia and other figures: What the senses tell us about figurative language. In Baicchi, A., Digonnet, R., & Sandford, J. L. (Eds.), Sensory Perceptions in Language, Embodiment and Epistemology (pp. 193–207). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strik-Lievers, F. (2023). Synesthesia and language. In Aronoff, M. (Ed.), Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199772810-0307.Google Scholar
Strik-Lievers, F., & Huang, C.-R. (2016). A lexicon of perception for the identification of synaesthetic metaphors in corpora. In Calzolari, N., Choukri, K., Declerck, T., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16) (pp. 2270–2277). European Language Resources Association (ELRA). https://aclanthology.org/L16-1360.Google Scholar
Strik-Lievers, F., & Winter, B. (2018). Sensory language across lexical categories. Lingua, 204, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torchiano, M. (2019). effsize: Efficient effect size computation. R package Version 0.8.1. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1480624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1937). Synaesthetic metaphors in William Morris. (An essay on the decorative art of the pre-Raphaelites). Angol Filológiai Tanulmányok/Hungarian Studies in English, 2, 143–151.Google Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1945). Romanticism and synaesthesia: A comparative study of sense transfer in Byron and Keats. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 60(3), 811–827. https://doi.org/10.2307/459180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1946). Les transpositions sensorielles chez Leconte de Lisle. Le Français Moderne, 14, 23–40.Google Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1947). L’art de la transposition dans la poésie de Théophile Gautier. Le Français Moderne, XV, 265–286.Google Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1959). The Principles of Semantics. Jackson, Son.Google Scholar
Urban, M. (2011). Asymmetries in overt marking and directionality in semantic change. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 1(1), 3–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbanek, S. (2022). Png: Read and Write PNG Images. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=png.Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., & Nicenboim, B. (2016). Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational ideas – Part I. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(8), 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., & Gabry, J. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27(5), 1413–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Å. (1983). The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Å. (2001). The verbs of perception. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., & Raible, W. (Eds.), Language Universals (pp. 1294–1309). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wallmark, Z. (2019). A corpus analysis of timbre semantics in orchestration treatises. Psychology of Music, 47(4), 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735618768102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallmark, Z., & Kendall, R. A. (2018). Describing sound: The cognitive linguistics of timbre. In Dolan, E. I. & Rehding, A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Timbre. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190637224.013.14.Google Scholar
Weissgerber, T. L., Milic, N. M., Winham, S. J., & Garovic, V. D. (2015). Beyond bar and line graphs: Time for a new data presentation paradigm. PLoS Biology, 13(4), e1002128. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werning, M., Fleischhauer, J., & Beseoglu, H. (2006). The cognitive accessibility of synaesthetic metaphors. In Ron, S. & Naomi, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2365–2370). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Whitney, A. H. (1952). Synaesthesia in twentieth-century Hungarian poetry. The Slavonic and East European Review, 30(75), 444–464.Google Scholar
Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J. et al. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. M. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52(2), 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S. (2013). Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 58. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, B. (2016). Taste and smell words form an affectively loaded and emotionally flexible part of the English lexicon. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 975–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. (2019a). Sensory Linguistics: Language, Perception, and Metaphor. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. (2019b). Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. In Speed, L. J., O’Meara, C., Roque, L. San, & Majid, A. (Eds.), Perception Metaphor (pp. 105–126). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. (2022). Abstract concepts and emotion: Cross-linguistic evidence and arguments against affective embodiment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378(1870), 20210368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, B., & Grice, M. (2021). Independence and generalizability in linguistics. Linguistics, 59(5), 1251–1277. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., Marghetis, T., & Matlock, T. (2015). Of magnitudes and metaphors: Explaining cognitive interactions between space, time, and number. Cortex, 64, 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., & Matlock, T. (2013). More is up … and right: Random number generation along two axes. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35, 3789–3794.Google Scholar
Winter, B., Perlman, M., & Majid, A. (2018). Vision dominates in perceptual language: English sensory vocabulary is optimized for usage. Cognition, 179, 213–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, B., Sóskuthy, M., Perlman, M., & Dingemanse, M. (2022). Trilled /r/ is associated with roughness, linking sound and touch across spoken languages. Scientific Reports, 12, 1035. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04311-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., & Srinivasan, M. (2021). Why is semantic change asymmetric? The role of concreteness and word frequency in metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 37(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2021.1945419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., & Strik-Lievers, F. (2023). Semantic distance predicts metaphoricity and creativity judgments in synesthetic metaphors. Metaphor and the Social World, 13(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.00029.win.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wnuk, E., & Majid, A. (2014). Revisiting the limits of language: The odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition, 131(1), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Youn, H., Sutton, L., Smith, E. et al. (2016). On the universal structure of human lexical semantics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(7), 1766–1771. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520752113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, N. (2003). Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.2003.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zawisławska, M. (2019). Metaphor and Senses. The Synamet Corpus: A Polish Resource for Synesthetic Metaphors. Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Q., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R. (2022). Linguistic synesthesia is metaphorical: A lexical-conceptual account. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(3), 553–583. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Q., Huang, C.-R., & Ahrens, K. (2019). Directionality of linguistic synesthesia in Mandarin: A corpus-based study. Lingua, 232, 102744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Q., Long, Y., Jiang, X. et al. (2024). Linguistic synesthesia detection: Leveraging culturally enriched linguistic features. Natural Language Processing, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/nlp.2024.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, Y., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R. (2023). Novel metaphor and embodiment: Comprehending novel synesthetic metaphors. Linguistics Vanguard, 9(1), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

The PDF of this Element is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Linguistic Synesthesia
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Linguistic Synesthesia
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Linguistic Synesthesia
Available formats
×