Precision, correlations along with other psycholinguistic norms and predictive ability out-of iconicity feedback
Forty-9 local Foreign language-speaking college students off Universitat Rovira i Virgili (Tarragona, Spain) took part in the auditory research. That they had huggle-promotiecode the common age of years (SD = 6.thirty two, assortment = 19–58), 33 were girls (% of your own test), and sixteen have been males (% of your own attempt). No participants was indeed excluded regarding the analyses. Professionals obtained educational loans because of their involvement.
Way to obtain the newest norms
The fresh databases would be installed while the an excel file out of this link: The newest file is sold with the second columns: word (Language phrase), ico-yards (average iconicity of term), ico-sd (simple departure of your iconicity of term), ico-n (level of players who rated brand new iconicity of your own keyword), ico-dn (level of professionals which revealed that they did not know the word or the meaning), audio-meters (average iconicity of word regarding auditory modality), audio-sd (important departure of your own iconicity of one’s term on auditory modality), audio-n (number of users who ranked the iconicity of the keyword from inside the the fresh auditory modality), audio-dn (amount of users whom revealed that they did not understand the phrase otherwise their meaning on the auditory modality), and gcat (grammatical sounding the term).
We calculated the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC; Koo Li, 2016) for each iconicity questionnaire to obtain the interrater reliability of the measure. To do this, we used the two-way random effects based on the absolute agreement of multiple raters (2,k). The ICCs were all statistically significant (all ps < .001), M = .99, SD = .00, range = .97–99, which strongly supports the reliability of the data.
Additionally, we compared our iconicity ratings with those of Perry et al. (2015). Although there were 238 Spanish words in common with that study, we selected only 197. We did this because some words in the Perry et al. study had a negative iconicity value because the authors used a scale ranging from ?5 to 5. In that scale, negative values indicated that the sound of the word suggested the opposite of its meaning, 0 indicated that there was no relationship between the sound of a word and its meaning, and positive values indicated a congruent relationship between the sound of a word and its meaning. Hence, we excluded from the analyses the words that received a negative iconicity rating in Perry et al. (of note, a similar procedure was adopted by Sidhu Pexman, 2018). The correlation between the ratings of the two databases was significant albeit low, r = .29, p < .001. It has been suggested that subjective iconicity arises from participants' own experience with the world and/or language (Occhino, Anible, Wilkinson, Morfors, 2017). Individual susceptibility to the symbolic connotations of the words (Taylor Taylor, 1965) and increased consistency of the mapping between word forms and meanings with age (Taylor Taylor, 1962) also seem to play a role in how iconicity is subjectively perceived. Although the age of the participants was not reported in the Perry et al. study, age and/or individual differences might account for the low correlations between scores from their study and the current one. Methodological differences should be also considered, particularly regarding task instructions. In this sense, it is worth noting that Perry et al. asked participants to rate the stimuli on a scale varying from words that sound the opposite of what they mean to words that sound the same as what they mean. In contrast, in the current study we asked participants to score on a scale from a lack of resemblance to a close relationship between words' sound and meaning. In sum, although significant, the low correlation between the two normative studies points to the need for additional research using similar methodological settings to test the contribution of individual differences in language-related factors to the perceived relationship between word forms and meanings.