Mark Dingemanse

Presentations

Displaying 1 - 24 of 24
  • Blokpoel, M., Dingemanse, M., Kachergis, G., Bögels, S., Drijvers, L., Eijk, L., Ernestus, M., De Haas, N., Holler, J., Levinson, S. C., Lui, R., Milivojevic, B., Neville, D., Ozyurek, A., Rasenberg, M., Schriefers, H., Trujillo, J. P., Winner, T., Toni, I., & Van Rooij, I. (2018). Ambiguity helps higher-order pragmatic reasoners communicate. Talk presented at the 14th biannual conference of the German Society for Cognitive Science, GK (KOGWIS 2018). Darmstadt, Germany. 2018-09-03 - 2018-09-06.
  • Bögels, S., Milvojevic, B., De Haas, N., Döller, C., Rasenberg, M., Ozyurek, A., Dingemanse, M., Eijk, L., Ernestus, M., Schriefers, H., Blokpoel, M., Van Rooij, I., Levinson, S. C., & Toni, I. (2018). Creating shared conceptual representations. Poster presented at the 10th Dubrovnik Conference on Cognitive Science, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Arbitrariness, systematicy and iconicity in natural language [invited lecture]. Talk presented at the Interacting Minds Center. Aarhus, Denmark. 2016-03-08.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Arbitrariness, iconicity and systematicity in language [invited lecture]. Talk presented at the Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition. Leiden, The Netherlands. 2016-02-04.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Is "Huh?" a universal word? [public lecture]. Talk presented at the Aarhus University (Ig Nobel Scandinavian Tour). Aarhus, Denmark. 2016-02-08.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Is "Huh?" a universal word? [public lecture]. Talk presented at the Festsalen, Copenhagen University (Ig Nobel Scandinavian Tour). Copenhagen, Denmark. 2016-03-12.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Is "Huh?" a universal word? [public lecture]. Talk presented at the Karolinska Institute (Ig Nobel Scandinavian Tour). Stockholm, Sweden. 2016-03-13.
  • Dingemanse, M., & van Leeuwen, T. M. (2016). What does sound-symbolism have to do with synaesthesia?. Talk presented at the Grote Taaldag. Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2016-02-06.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2016). Towards a typology of conversational structures: The case of other-initiated repair [invited lecture]. Talk presented at the Functional & Cognitive Linguistics: Grammar and Typology. Department of Linguistics. Leuven, Belgium. 2016-04-24.
  • Lockwood, G., Drijvers, L., Hagoort, P., & Dingemanse, M. (2016). In search of the kiki-bouba effect. Poster presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for the Neurobiology of Language (SNL 2016), London, UK.

    Abstract

    The kiki-bouba effect, where people map round shapes onto round sounds (such as [b] and [o]) and spiky shapes onto “spiky” sounds (such as [i] and [k]), is the most famous example of sound symbolism. Many behavioural variations have been reported since Köhler’s (1929) original experiments. These studies examine orthography (Cuskley, Simner, & Kirby, 2015), literacy (Bremner et al., 2013), and developmental disorders (Drijvers, Zaadnoordijk, & Dingemanse, 2015; Occelli, Esposito, Venuti, Arduino, & Zampini, 2013). Some studies have suggested that the cross-modal associations between linguistic sound and physical form in the kiki-bouba effect are quasi-synaesthetic (Maurer, Pathman, & Mondloch, 2006; Ramachandran & Hubbard, 2001). However, there is a surprising lack of neuroimaging data in the literature that explain how these cross-modal associations occur (with the exceptions of Kovic et al. (2010)and Asano et al. (2015)). We presented 24 participants with randomly generated spiky or round figures and 16 synthesised, reduplicated CVCV (vowels: [i] and [o], consonants: [f], [v], [t], [d], [s], [z], [k], and [g]) nonwords based on Cuskley et al. (2015). This resulted in 16 nonwords across four conditions: full match, vowel match, consonant match, and full mismatch. Participants were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 7 how well the nonword fit the shape it was presented with. EEG was recorded throughout, with epochs timelocked to the auditory onset of the nonword. There were significant behavioural effects of condition (p<0.0001). Bonferroni t-tests show participants rated full match more highly than full mismatch nonwords. However, there was no reflection of this behavioural effect in the ERP waveforms. One possible reason for the absence of an ERP effect is that this effect may jitter over a broad latency range. Currently oscillatory effects are being analysed, since these are less dependent on precise time-locking to the triggering events.
  • Lockwood, G., van Leeuwen, T. M., Drijvers, L., & Dingemanse, M. (2016). Synaesthesia and sound-symbolism — insights from the Groot Nationaal Onderzoek project. Poster presented at the Synesthesia and Cross-Modal Perception, Dublin, Ireland.
  • Lockwood, G., Hagoort, P., & Dingemanse, M. (2016). Synthesized size-sound sound symbolism. Talk presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2016). Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2016-08-10 - 2016-08-13.

    Abstract

    Studies of sound symbolism have shown that people can associate sound and meaning in consistent ways when presented with maximally contrastive stimulus pairs of nonwords such as bouba/kiki (rounded/sharp) or mil/mal (small/big). Recent work has shown the effect extends to antonymic words from natural languages and has proposed a role for shared cross-modal correspondences in biasing form-to-meaning associations. An important open question is how the associations work, and particularly what the role is of sound-symbolic matches versus mismatches. We report on a learning task designed to distinguish between three existing theories by using a spectrum of sound-symbolically matching, mismatching, and neutral (neither matching nor mismatching) stimuli. Synthesized stimuli allow us to control for prosody, and the inclusion of a neutral condition allows a direct test of competing accounts. We find evidence for a sound-symbolic match boost, but not for a mismatch difficulty compared to the neutral condition.
  • Van Leeuwen, T. M., Dingemanse, M., Lockwood, G., & Drijvers, L. (2016). Color associations in nonsynaesthetes and synaesthetes: A large-scale study in Dutch. Talk presented at the Synesthesia and Cross-Modal Perception. Dublin, Ireland. 2016-04-22.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Better science through listening to lay people. Talk presented at the Ecsite Annual Conference 2013. Gothenburg, Sweden. 2013-06-06 - 2013-06-08.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Conventionalised and creative depictions in interaction. Talk presented at the Workshop on Quotation and Depiction in Interaction. Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2013-03-08.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Expressiveness and system integration. Talk presented at the Grammar of Mimetics Workshop. SOAS, London. 2013-05-10 - 2013-05-11.
  • Dingemanse, M., Torreira, F., & Enfield, N. J. (2013). Form and function of a possibly universal interjection for initiating repair. Talk presented at the Association for Linguistic Typology 10th Biennial Conference (ALT 10). Leipzig, Germany. 2013-08-15 - 2013-08-18.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Ideofonen: Schilderen met taal. Talk presented at Talk at Taalgala, Grote Taaldag at the occasion of winning the AVT/Anéla Dissertation Award. Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2013-02-08.
  • Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., & Rossi, G. (2013). Place reference in story launchings. Talk presented at the Workshop on Place, Landscape, and Language. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 2013-04-18 - 2013-04-19.

    Abstract

    Stories in conversation often start with references to time, person, and location. We examine the role of place references in story launchings in three different cultures. We find that while any type of place reference can help signal that a story is coming up, different types of place references project different kinds of stories. The rich information evoked by place references makes them an excellent linguistic resource to do scene-setting for the narrated world.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Implicational hierarchies and semantic typology: The case of ideophones. Talk presented at the Association for Linguistic Typology 10th Biennial Conference (ALT 10). Leipzig, Germany. 2013-08-15 - 2013-08-18.
  • Dingemanse, M., & Lockwood, G. (2013). Mimetics: A neuroimaging approach. Talk presented at the Sound and Symbolism Workshop 2013. Imai Lab, Keio University Mita, Minato, Japan. 2013-12-13 - 2013-12-14.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu. Poster presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Max Planck Society, Potsdam, Germany.
  • Dingemanse, M. (2013). Wetenschapper + weblog. Talk presented at the Vakconferentie Wetenschapscommunicatie 2013. Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2013-10-01.
  • Enfield, N. J., Dingemanse, M., Rossi, G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd, S., Gisladottir, R. S., Levinson, S. C., Kendrick, K. H., Manrique, E., & Roberts, S. G. (2013). Towards a typology of systems of language use: The case of other-initiated repair. Talk presented at the 13th International Pragmatics Conference. New Delhi, India. 2013-09-08 - 2013-09-13.

    Abstract

    This presentation will report on the findings of a large-scale comparative project on other-initiated repair in 12 languages, representing major and minor languages of Europe, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Australia, South America, and Papua New Guinea (and including a sign language). This comparative project is based on a multilanguage corpus of video-recorded interaction in informal settings in homes and villages, among family and friends. Building on findings from qualitative work, a research team in the "Interactional Foundations of Language" Project at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen has developed a detailed coding scheme for the systematic comparison of other-initiated repair sequences across languages. These languages belong to different language families, have different typological profiles, and are spoken by members of distinctly different cultures. Despite the diversity of languages and cultures represented, the findings of this study show a striking set of commonalities in the sequential and formal organization of other-initiated repair. This lends some support to an ''interactional infrastructure'' hypothesis, which suggests that interactional structures are more likely to be universal than lexico-grammatical structures. At the same time, however, we also observe differences across the languages in how the common system of possibilities for other-initiated repair is used: for example, while most if not all languages allow speakers to use both an interjection ("Huh?") and a WH-word ("What?") strategy for ''open-class other-initiation of repair'', the relative frequency of these strategies varies, with English showing quite common use of ''What?'' for this function, but with many other languages almost exclusively using a ''Huh?'' strategy. The presentation will summarize and explain findings of the coding study, with reference not only to the different strategies available for other-initiation of repair, but also the kinds of repair operations that can be carried out as a function of the choice of repair initiator. There will also be some discussion of the relevance of these results to our understanding of the cultural status of rights and responsibilities in the domain of social agency.

Share this page