MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007815199 · doi:10.37693/pjos.2019.9.20283

Referential iconicity in music and speech

2020· article· en· W3007815199 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Journal of Semiotics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLunds Universitet
KeywordsIconicityLinguisticsArbitrarinessSemioticsMeaning (existential)MusicalPsychologySyllableCognitive linguisticsIndexicalitySound symbolismCognitionArtLiteraturePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Musical meaning is multifaceted. It is highly sensory and yet often abstract; able to cross cultural boundaries and yet embedded in specific traditions. For the most part music as a semiotic system is characterized by non-referential meaning (Monelle, 1991). Nevertheless, in so-called programmatic music, musical themes are intended to refer to worldly objects and events on the basis of iconic (and indexical) grounds. Such non-arbitrariness has been extensively documented in the case of speech as well (Ahlner and Zlatev, 2010; Sonesson 2013; Imai and Kita, 2014).
 In an experimental study, I investigated how referential iconicity in speech operates in comparison to music, considering the factors (a) primary/secondary iconicity and (b) linguistic/cultural background. In the experiment 21 Swedish and 21 Chinese native speakers had to match musical fragments from Prokofief’s Peter and the Wolf and spoken word-forms to objects, represented by schematic pictures. The experiment was designed to have two conditions to operationalize higher degree of primary and secondary iconicity, respectively.
 The results showed that there was no significant difference between the overall results for music and linguistic tasks, indicating that the cognitive-semiotic processes involved are not limited to a single cognitive domain or semiotic system. Both groups performed significantly above chance in both conditions, which serves as a clear indicator that interpreting referential music in music and speech sounds is not purely a case of secondary iconicity.
 
 Author Biography
 Verónica Giraldo’s academic background is in music and linguistics. She holds an MA in Language and Linguistics with specialization in Cognitive Semiotics from Lund University. The work presented derives from her master’s thesis project. One of her main interest is exploration of the possible correlations between language and music from the perspective of cognitive semiotics. She is currently researching on how to make visual art and museums more accessible to the blind and visually impaired community.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it