Stuck in a metaphor: English and Turkish speakers’ cross-modal associations for pitch
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to test predictions from the Hierarchical Mental Metaphors Theory (HMMT; Casasanto, 2016; Casasanto & Bottini, 2014), with regard to pitch metaphors among English and Turkish speakers. Languages differ in metaphors to refer to pitch (e.g., in English “high” and “low” refer to both spatial concepts and pitch). According to HMMT, adults have access to cross-modal mappings that were available in infancy; language use increases the activation of the mapping underlying the pitch metaphor in their language. In the present studies, adults were asked to indicate whether a tone (high/low) went with various visual stimuli (e.g., high/low, thin/thick, pointy/round). In Study 1, the results did not support the prediction that English speakers would have greater activation of the pitch-height metaphor in their language than metaphors that cross-modal mappings not in their language. In Study 2, English speakers could learn incongruent pitch-thickness mapping easily yet found it hard to learn incongruent pitch-height mapping. With speakers of Turkish, a language that associates pitch with thickness, Study 3 replicated that it is hard to learn incongruent pitch-spatial metaphor mapping. Further, contrary to earlier studies suggesting that language affects pitch-height mapping more strongly than pitch-thickness mapping, Turkish speakers in the current study effectively learned pitch-height mapping. These results suggest that the habitual use of pitch metaphors in a language affects the conceptualization of pitch, particularly when switching from the pitch-spatial metaphor mapping encoded in one's native language rather than learning a new pitch-spatial metaphor mapping.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it