Moral Science Hour | ||
| Second in a series of explorations from the frontiers of knowledge and imagination - the Moral Science Hour. I want to thank KFAI radio for providing the opportunity to make this information available to the community, and I mean to the human community. I'd also like to thank my brother, Marc, and my sisters, Renee, and Toni. And I'd like to thank Marion Lundy-Underhill for her support of the research. This program will consider evidence of universal associations between language sounds and the meanings of words; evidence of the existence of unconscious influences on the development of consciousness; interactions between the sounds used in a language, and the culture of a group; evidence of the existence of moral sciences; and evidence of the existence of a universal source of all languages. First, it's useful to know that from the beginning of the study of linguistics as a science, in about the middle of the 1800's, until about two years ago, it was the assumption and consensus of most linguists that the relationship between the sounds used in words and the meanings of those words was largely arbitrary, or random, and that the sounds used in words had no more than an arbitrary relationship to the meanings of those words, with only a few exceptions, such as the sound "m" in words for "mother", and words that attempt to imitate nature, such as "fizz", "babbling" brook, and the "plunk" of a rock in water . There was some early research that questioned that assumption, though. There were two studies done in 1929, one by Edward Sapir, and the other by Wolfgang Kohler, that found that, in some cases, there were nearly universal associations between non-sense words and meanings. On the last program, an experiment by Edward Sapir 1 in 1929 was considered. He asked English-speaking adults and Chinese-speaking adults to assign one of two non-sense words, "mil" or "mal", and other similar non-sense words, to two different-sized objects. As most people would guess, most of the subjects in the experiment chose "mal" for the larger object and "mil" for the smaller object. Sapir said that his results indicated that "some vowels and consonants 'sound bigger' than others." Wolfgang Kohler did another experiment in 1929 2, in which he asked participants to choose one of two non-sense titles for each of two drawings. One was a figure made from straight lines with sharp angles and points, the other was a drawing made from curved lines. The subjects were asked which one they would call a "maluma" and which one they would call a "takaete". As you can probably guess, the overwhelming majority of participants ( about 95% ), assigned the word "maluma" to the rounded figure, and the word "takaete" to the pointed figure. The experiment by Kohler has been repeated many times over, by many researchers, with the same results, whether the people choosing names for the drawings were English-speaking adults, English-speaking toddlers, (2 to 3 years old), or 8 to 14 year-old children living on an isolated peninsula on Lake Tanganyika who spoke only Swahili, and their local language, Kitongwe 3. Repetitions of that experiment are currently known as the "bobo / kiki" effect. In addition, other experimenters found that when subjects were asked to assign the words "bobo" / "bouba" or "kiki" to different-sized animals, again, about 95% of the subjects assigned the word "bobo" to the larger animal (such as an elephant), and the word "kiki" to the smaller animal (such as a bird). On the last program, another study, done in 1955, by Roger Brown4 and his associates, was considered. That study found that, when subjects were given a choice between two Chinese words "ching" and "chung", and told that one word meant heavy and the other word meant light, 93% of the subjects, who knew no Chinese, correctly guessed that the word "ching" meant "light" and "chung" meant "heavy". In a summary of the results of that study, Brown and his associates, in their evaluation of the English-speaking subjects of the experiments, who knew nothing about any of the six languages ( Czech, Hindi, Polish, Hungarian, Chinese, and Japanese ) they were asked to translate, said that they "have shown superior to chance agreement and accuracy in the translation of unfamiliar languages. The accuracy of the translations can be explained by the assumption of some universal phonetic symbolism in which speech may have originated or toward which speech may be evolving." That was in 1955 in the study , "Phonetic Symbolism in natural languages". The ability to translate written foreign languages correctly at a higher than chance rate was also shown in an experiment in 1979 by Koriat and Levy5, in which Hebrew-speaking adults, who knew no Chinese, were asked to translate Chinese characters, into Hebrew, and were able to translate them correctly at a rate higher than chance. In 1995, another linguist, Robin Allot6, in a summary of the research on phonetic symbolism that was available at that time, said that "The evidence of the reality of sound symbolism in various forms seems strong. That it operates within any single language can hardly be doubted. That it can operate between languages and language-communities to a considerable extent also seems to be established by extensive research." Still, at the time he said that, in 1995, most linguists accepted the presumption that the relationship between the sounds used to make up words, and the meaning of those words was largely arbitrary and random. Then, about two years ago, in 2016, a study was published by the Max Planck Institute and the U. S. National Academy of Sciences ( https://www.pnas.org/content/113/39/10818 ), titled “Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages” 7 . It was based on a list of 40 to 100 words in 4,298 languages, – about 2/3 of the known languages of the world. The study, by Damian Blasi, and others, used a list of 40 words in all 4,298 languages, and a list of 60 more words - in addition to the 40 original words - in 328 of the languages. A press release from the Max Planck Institute ( Sept. 12, 2016 ), said that the analysis of the wordlists established that, the “sound of words is no coincidence”. The authors of the study said that “ By analyzing word lists covering nearly two-thirds of the world's languages, we demonstrate that a considerable proportion of 100 basic vocabulary items carry strong associations with specific kinds of human speech sounds, occurring persistently across continents, and linguistic families.” They said that “a careful statistical examination of words from over 6,000 languages reveals that unrelated languages very often use – or avoid – the same sounds for specific referents” ( a referent is a meaning that a word represents ). The study found that the occurrence of specific sounds in words with the same meaning was not rare, and that the use of specific sounds in words for the same concept occurred in 24% of the words, and in a far larger number of languages than would be expected if the presence of the sounds was caused only by chance, or was a random occurrence. For example, they found that the sound “n” was used in words for “nose” in about 1,400 of the 4,000 languages, far more than would be expected if that sound occurred in words for that body part only by chance. Each sound/meaning association that they identified as occurring far more frequently than would be expected, if that sound occurred only by chance, was included in their list of significant sound–meaning associations, only if it occurred in many languages, from many unrelated language families, and from at least three continents. For example, a significant number of words ( in a large number of languages ) included the sounds “L” and “e” in words for “tongue” ( as in “language” ), “n” and “u” in words for “nose”, “L”, “b”, and “p” in words for “leaf”, “r” in words for “round” and “red”, “s” in words for “sand”, “n” or “t” in words for “one” , “z” in words for star, and many other associations. The authors of the study also found that certain sounds were avoided, and were not used in most languages in words with specific meanings. They found this avoidance occurred at a far greater rate than those sounds would have been expected to be avoided, if the bias against use of those sounds was caused only by chance, or arbitrary choices. Fourteen of the concepts or referents used on the word list indicated specific sounds that were avoided, or were excluded from words with specific meanings, at a far higher rate than would have been expected if the sounds were chosen only by chance. For example, the sounds "u" , "p", "b" , "t", "s" , "L" , and "r" are avoided by most languages in words for self, that is, "I" . They appear far less often in words for the self in the 4,000 languages than would have been expected if the selection of sounds for the concept in each language was random, and caused only by chance or arbitrary selection. The 4,000 languages considered showed significant preferences for specific sounds, and biases against other sounds, in words with specific meanings in a far greater number of languages than would have been expected, if the sounds were chosen only by chance. The Max Planck Institute study established that the existence of a significant number of relationships between the sounds used in words, and the consciously intended meanings of the words, was, and is, nearly a certainty . But could there also be unconscious associations between some language sounds, and the culture of a group ? Could there be associations between the culture of a group, and other language structures - such as syntax, rules of word construction, and other language structures ? Could the sounds used in a language contribute to the transmission, encouragement, and conditioning of attitudes and values of a group ? Could the sounds, and other structures used in a language, influence the consciousness of speakers and the conditioning of values, attitudes, and beliefs about human nature, of speakers of a language ? Could the sounds and other structures of a language influence the formation, organization, and integration of the consciousness of speakers of that language ? The theory of linguistic derivation proposed in 1977 that such unrecognized and unconscious relationships between language sounds and cultural characteristics could, and do, exist . The first postulate of the theory of linguistic derivation is that the phonetic structure of any language is not random, and there is usually a predictable relationship between the sounds used in a language, and the culture of a group; and between other structures of the language of the group, and the culture of that group - that is the values, attitudes, and assumptions about human nature approved and encouraged by the group. The theory of linguistic derivation postulates that some of the sounds used in a language, and probably other structures of the language, can influence, teach and condition speakers of a language, without their conscious knowledge, to accept and approve the values, assumptions, and aspirations of the group. The theory is based on the idea that the group consciousness and collective consciousness operates to channel, focus, and limit the imagination and aspirations of speakers of a language, to the interests of that linguistic group or kom. Kom is a word created for a group that includes all spoken languages that use the same writing system - such as the Latin kom that includes English, French, German, Spanish, Danish, and so on. The theory proposes that the presence or absence of specific groups of sounds in a language, and the collective consciousness of a group, form a mutually reinforcing system and a self-fulfilling prophesy, that usually contributes to the transmission of the values, assumptions, and attitudes about human nature, that the group wants to encourage and promote, in speakers of that language. The theory proposes that the presence or absence of specific sounds in a language contributes to the internalization of values, and organization of the consciousness, to serve the interests, and promote the values and aspirations of the group. The theory effectively says that, in most cases, a language is the equivalent of a glass sphere with you at the center - that allows you to see out, but limits and channels your aspirations, imagination, and limits your belief about what humans are capable of - to the interests of that linguistic group or collective consciousness. The language says to speakers "this is the way things are and you can't do anything about it because you're only one person, and there are millions who accept the way things are. So you might as well accept it like nearly everyone else, and not try to do anything about it". And what is "IT" that they could or may want to do something, or think about doing something about - that participants in a group may consider to be a harmful aspect of the collective consciousnesses ? Start with a group that claims that it opposes violence, and, at the same time, presents an example of its approval and glorification of unprovoked violence by approving, allowing, and encouraging violence as a form of entertainment, and using that entertainment for profit, such as, say, boxing, football, and the simulated violence of "professional wrestling". Such a group effectively says that they love violence and will pay people to do violence against each other, but claims at the same time, that they do not approve of violence, or bullying. Another example, is that in the English collective consciousness and in most of the Latin kom, the excessive greed of a tiny minority causes great hardship for vast numbers of the population, yet few are prepared to serve or promote the idea of limitations on disposable income to, say $500,000 a year, or 25 times the level of subsistence, in order to provide a reasonable income of $20,000 per year to all citizens, while still providing adequate rewards, and motive to contribute to the well being and betterment of all, for those who make significant contributions to the good of all, and to the interests of the human community. While many people would probably agree with this, few would actively support the idea because of pressure from a sound system and language structures, that tell them, without their conscious knowledge, that there is nothing they can do about it - because of unconscious pressure from the group and the group consciousness to accept the rule and control of a controlling consciousness on this planet, a consciousness that includes and imposes no limits on income, greed, selfishness, or hedonism, in many cases due to the love of what some call "freedom" - which in most countries on this planet, is the "freedom" of a tiny minority to deny the right to a decent life, opportunity, and decent basic subsistence to millions of others. One of the intents of a language and collective consciousness is perpetuation of the values, beliefs, and beliefs about the capacity of the individual human organism, and groups of humans, to modify, control, and direct the collective entity, or the collective consciousness of the group to serve other goals than, for instance the excessive greed of a tiny minority. One of the intents of a language and collective consciousness is to attempt to dissuade participants in that language group from attempting to modify or change the collective consciousness to serve other goals than, for instance, the excessive greed of a small minority, and to serve the interests of most in that linguistic group. Getting back to the theory of linguistic derivation -- The first hypothesis formulated on the basis of the theory is that a certain group of sounds, described as “voiced fricatives” ( sounds like “v”, “z” , “th” as in “them”, “Ж” ( Cyrillic character for “z”, as in “azure” ), and “ɣ” - a voiced velar fricative – a sound that does not occur in English ), are sounds that represent and announce to the group, and to other groups, that the group glorifies, approves of, or tolerates unprovoked violence, within the group, by the group against other language groups, or both. The hypothesis regarding an association between use of those sounds in a language and group approval or toleration of unprovoked violence was first considered in the 1977 random sample of 100 languages. The results of that study established that those sounds were nearly always present in the languages of groups that approved of, or tolerated, unprovoked violence, and that most of the language groups that did not tolerate or approve of unprovoked violence had none of those sounds in their languages. The results strongly supported the prediction that there is an association between the presence of voiced fricatives in a language, and group or cultural approval of unprovoked violence. A more comprehensive study, done in 1998, the “continuing study” on the universal verbal language web site, included more languages; that study also supported the prediction of the hypothesis. The study found that most groups that used those sounds in their languages, approved of, or tolerated unprovoked violence, and that most of the groups that had few or no voiced fricatives in their language, were less violent or much less violent than most of the groups that used those sounds in their language. The theory postulates that those sounds, and the cultures that use them, or do not use them in their languages, form a mutually reinforcing system, and a self-fulfilling prophesy that perpetuates the cultural characteristics and values the group and the collective consciousness wants to transmit and propagate. One interesting sidelight at this point, is a study of infant babbling by Peter MacNeilage and Barbara Davis , “On the origin of internal structure of word forms”8, in which they found that infants apparently don’t like to babble fricative consonants; that is - infants greatly prefer to babble other sounds like m, d, b, and g. The study presumably suggests that infants dislike babbling voiced fricatives, even more than they dislike babbling fricatives in general. A question that could be asked is - could the aversion to babbling fricatives and voiced fricatives by infants be because violence is unspeakable to them ? So… is there a universal spoken language ? Another component of language structure – rules of word construction – provides additional evidence that there could be a consciousness acting as an advisor consciousness or a director consciousness to language groups, and collective consciousnesses. One example is the sound called the velar nasal, the “ng” sound. To my knowledge, the sound occurs in only about half of the languages on this planet. In some of the languages in which it occurs, there are specific rules of word construction that apply to that sound. For example, one of the rules of word construction in English is that no word can begin with the velar nasal. That is an absolute rule in English that has no exceptions. The only words in the English dictionary that begin with the velar nasal are words from foreign languages. To my knowledge, that rule is also true of all languages in the Latin kom – languages that use the Latin writing system. The claim and argument of some that the existence of all language structures, such as the English rule of word construction that the velar nasal can never begin a word, are a result of brain wiring and neuron connections is an untenable argument, because that wiring does not occur in all human brains. About half of all languages do not include a velar nasal, and the rule that the velar nasal can not be used to begin a word is a rule in only some of the languages that use that sound, so either all brains are not wired the same, or there is some consciousness that influences the minds and consciousness of some language groups to accept and approve of the rule that the velar nasal cannot begin any word. The rule is not caused by the neuron connections in all human brains, and it was not caused by chance, considering the large number of English words that use that sound, but none at the beginning of any word. So, what is the reason for that rule ? Could there be a consciousness that advised, influenced, or unconsciously ordered or directed the collective consciousness of the English-speaking group, even before that language adopted a writing system, to adopt the rule that the velar nasal is not allowed in the initial position in any word in the language ? What if there was a consciousness that was the source of a universal language ? What if, in that consciousness, the meaning of the velar nasal, the “ng” sound was, and is, that it is the universal symbol for the animal consciousness, the symbol for the aspects of consciousness that all mammals have in common, ingestion, elimination, respiration, sleep, reproduction, and so on. – And what if a universal consciousness considered the animal functions to be repulsive and repugnant to it ? What if a consciousness that was the source of a universal language wanted to show the consciousnesses with human bodies, that the animal consciousness never comes first in the consciousness without a physical body ? In other words, if that consciousness wanted to teach humans that the animal aspects of their consciousness are not the highest valued in its consciousness, and that the animal consciousness should not come first in their consciousness if they want to emulate its consciousness, represent it, or gain access to its power – the power of knowledge, as in the myth of the tree of knowledge or wisdom, then they should not allow its symbol for the animal consciousness to be in the first position in any word . If there is universal meaning of the velar nasal, and that meaning is that it refers to the animal consciousness, and the consciousness that is the source of those universal meanings considers the animal consciousness to be an aspect of consciousness that humans should not seek to emulate ( as in non-human animals ), one way to show humans its value system would be to direct or try to influence them to accept its rule that the velar nasal can never be allowed at the beginning of a word. So... what do all these studies add up to ? One of the authors of the 2016 study sponsored by the Max Planck Institute, Harald Hammarstrom, said in a September 12, 2016, press release that : “…the international team looked for possible reasons why some sounds are chosen more often for particular terms than others. We have been unable to explain the associations between sounds and meanings up to now.” Damian Blasi, another of the authors of the study said : “These insights into sound-meaning relationships have far-reaching consequences, particularly in … the search for the original language.” Morten H. Christiansen, another of the authors of the study, and a professor of psychology and director of Cornell’s Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, said : “These sound symbolic patterns show up again and again across the world, independent of the geographical dispersal of humans and independent of language lineage. There does seem to be something about the human condition that leads to these patterns. We don’t know what it is, but we know it’s there.” The results of these studies suggest that there could be some conscious force or influence acting in conjunction with, or on, group consciousnesses to cause biases in the use of certain sounds in words with specific meanings. That consciousness would have the ability to suggest, to individuals, and to groups, that they use specific sounds in their words for specific figures, definitions, concepts, or referents, such as – “v” in the English word for “violence.” Is there a universal source of all languages ? Is there a universal consciousness that is the source of all consciousness or is a part of all human consciousness and that all human consciousnesses are a part of ? Could it be that all of these studies showing multiple and repeated observations of the same results, with the same substantial differences – in the same direction – from results that would be expected if they were caused only by chance – be evidence of the existence and influence of a consciousness that all or most human consciousnesses are a part of, and that most human consciousnesses have, to varying degrees and in differing ways, integrated into their own consciousness ? Are these studies evidence of the existence of a consciousness without a physical body, yet that is a part of most or all human consciousnesses and group consciousnesses ? – A consciousness that has no physical body of its own and has the ability to influence the consciousness of many individuals and groups in the human community to, for instance, use the sound “n” in words for “nose” – as in 1,400 languages – and “r” in words for “red”. Could these studies provide evidence of the existence of a consciousness that is not bound by, subject to, controlled by, or affected by – the laws of probability – a consciousness that is not confined to a physical body, limited to a physical body, and that we are all attached to, that all life-forms are attached to, that all humans are a part of, and that unifies the human community – a consciousness that leaves its tracks on the human race in those massive deviations from statistical probabilities – a consciousness that leaves evidence of its existence in the similarities of choices of sounds in words, and in the presence of sounds in cultures that want to endorse and condition certain values, aspirations, and assumptions about human nature in their group ? What if that consciousness was also the source of knowledge of how to organize groups, to serve power to that group through understanding of the natural sciences and technology ? And what if that consciousness also had a moral code associated with it that was expressed through, and reinforced by, both the culture and the structure of the language of the group – the sound system, the rules of word construction, the grammar, and other structures of the language ? And what if that consciousness without a physical body wanted the human community to unite to serve the interests of all in the human community, and it left evidence of its existence and its intentions in the languages humans speak – in similarities in the sounds used in words with the same meanings, in rules of word construction, and in the presence or absence of certain sounds in the languages of groups with certain specific cultural characteristics ? Most people have had some experience with extrasensory perception in some form, the ability to read the minds of others, precognition, communication by thoughts or other forms of non-physical-sensory communication, yet most of those involved in scientific research want to deny the existence of a consciousness that could facilitate those experiences, and, despite the evidence, want to claim that there could only be material and physical causes for observed deviations from results that would occur if they were caused only by chance. Most of those involved in the natural sciences are adherents to belief in materialism – the belief that there are physical, material, or energy causes for nearly everything. They usually believe that there could only be matter or energy causes for events, when dealing with physical reality, but while the sciences that deal with the physical, material environment, have been shown to have nearly exclusively material or energy causes, there is clearly a possibility that the synthetic environment, the conscious environment created by humans to serve the interests of humans, through language, and other means, could include influences from conscious sources other than the reality of matter and energy only. The conscious, human-created environment could include influences from a consciousness that did not have a material body, yet which all life-forms are a part of, and all consciousnesses are connected to. The most logical and reasonable explanation for the observations of substantial deviations from results that would be expected if the results were caused only by chance, would be the existence of a physically unobservable consciousness that is the source of those massive deviations from chance probabilities, and the source of a universal verbal language. While there could be material causes of the massive deviations from chance results in the studies considered, that only begs the question of why those physical causes and neuron connections would exist in the brains of so many humans in the first place – when, for instance, there is no known benefit to any group from use of the sound “r” in words for “red” . That does not mean that there could not be both conscious and physical causes of the observed deviations from chance probabilities, only that it is probable that there were conscious causes of the biases observed in the studies, as well as possible physical causes. The natural sciences are substantially based on a reality and relationships that existed before humans, or human consciousness. Sciences that deal with consciousness and the synthetic realm and environment that was created by humans, and for humans, though, is created out of the consciousness and imagination of humans, and can be affected by individual consciousness, group or collective consciousness, and, if there is a non-human consciousness that all human consciousnesses are a part of, by non-human consciousness. Are there moral sciences ? The Max Planck Institute study did establish the fact of existence of considerably higher than chance occurrences of associations between sounds used in words, and the meanings of those words, as well as establishing that the most reasonable and logical explanation for the existence of those results and associations would be the existence and presence among the human race of a consciousness that is not confined to a human body, or physical form, that unites all human consciousness, and that all, or most, human consciousnesses are a part of, and participants in. The work on the relationship between the presence or absence of voiced fricatives in a language, and collective, group approval or toleration of unprovoked violence continues to be the only work available on this planet, to date, that considers possible existence of associations between language and culture. The work that has been completed on the theory strongly supports the existence of an association between the presence of voiced fricatives in a language, and group approval of unprovoked violence in a culture, but it cannot be reasonably considered to be conclusive, because of the relatively small number of languages considered. The aversion of most, or all, academic institutions in the U. S., and all other sources of research support, to support of any research on associations between language and culture, makes it, effectively, very difficult to gather enough evidence to conclusively prove or disprove the predicted relationship, and the observed association in the predicted direction, that could, and may well, establish the existence of the moral sciences. Currently, the evidence of the existence of universal meanings of language sounds, and the existence of the moral sciences, is overwhelming, but nearly completely ignored by those claimed to be "authorities" on this planet. The work of the Max Planck Institute study provides substantial evidence of the existence of a consciousness that is independent of any physical body, an inference that supports one of the postulated bases of the theory of linguistic derivation – that a consciousness exists that is the source of universal meanings of language sounds, a consciousness that unites all human consciousness and that all, or most human consciousnesses are a part of. Conclusions based on evidence from a substantial body of additional studies, have shown the same overwhelming deviations – in the same direction – from results that would be expected to occur by chance – all pointing toward one thing – the existence of a consciousness that is the source of the measurable observations of significant bias in the synthetic, human-created environment – the environment created by humans for humans. – The existence of a consciousness without a body that is integrated into most human consciousnesses would explain virtually all of the findings, and all of the differences between the observed results, and results that would be expected by chance. The existence of conscious, intentional bias in the combined results of all these studies is a virtual certainty. – It is clear that conscious interaction with another consciousness has resulted in findings that would not occur without that interference or interaction. The source of that interference could be a consciousness, brain wiring in humans, or both – and probably both. – Interference that serves a consciousness that all, or most, human consciousnesses are a part of, and connected to, to varying degrees and in differing ways – but all connected to the same consciousness – a consciousness without a body of its own, but to which all consciousness is connected. Chance occurrences could not explain the vast and repeated differences between results predicted by chance and observed results. Benjamin Whorf, an early linguist who was one of the founders of the study of comparative linguistics, believed : “ there may be inherent relations between sound and meaning, above and beyond the meanings assigned to words by the group that uses them, and that those relations would be spectacularly revealed by comparison of different languages, particularly those of different language families.” The research considered here could well represent the beginnings of that revelation. Indications are that the research considered represents early work in a new realm of sciences – the moral sciences – that we have only begun to explore. If you have any questions, you can email me at: reed0180@tc.umn.edu Again, my thanks to KFAI. Jan Reed
|
Click here to return to Universal Verbal Language home page |
Click here for Moral Science Foundation home page |
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
| 1 Sapir, Edward A., “A study in phonetic symbolism” ( 1929 ), Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 12, p. 225-239 2 Kohler, Wolfgang, Gestalt Psychology (1929, 1947 ) 3 Maurer, Daphne, Pathman, Thanujeni, and Moldach, Catherine, “The shape of Boubas: sound-shape correspondences in toddlers and adults”, (2006), Developmental Science Vol. 9, # 3, p. 316 – 322 4 Brown, Roger. W., Black, Abraham. H., & Horowitz, Arnold. E., “Phonetic Symbolism in natural languages” (1955). Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50 (3), p. 388-393 5 Koriat, A., and Levy, I., “Figural symbolism in Chinese ideographs” , (1979), Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol. 8, # 4, p. 93 – 103 6Allott, Robin, 1995, “Sound Symbolism”, Language in the Wurm Glaciation, (book), editor, Figge, Udo L., p. 15-38 7 Blasi, Damian, Christiansen,Morten, Hammarström, Harald, Stadler, Peter F., and Wichmann, Soren, “Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, September 27, 2016, Vol. 113, # 39, P. 10818-10823 8 MacNeilage, Peter F. and Davis, Barbara L., “On the origin of internal structure of word forms”, Science, April 21, 2000, Vol. 288, # 5465, P. 527 – 531 – also: Locke, John L., “Movement patterns in spoken language”, Science, April 21, 2000, Vol. 288, # 5465, p. 449 – 451, comment on research of MacNeilage and Davis
|