Eros, Beauty, and Phon-Aesthetic Judgements of Language Sound. We Like It Flat and Fast, but Not Melodious. Comparing Phonetic and Acoustic Features of 16 European Languages.

Vita V Kogan, Susanne M Reiterer
Author Information
  1. Vita V Kogan: School of European Culture and Languages, University of Kent, Kent, United Kingdom.
  2. Susanne M Reiterer: Department of Linguistics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Abstract

This article concerns sound aesthetic preferences for European foreign languages. We investigated the phonetic-acoustic dimension of the linguistic aesthetic pleasure to describe the "music" found in European languages. The Romance languages, French, Italian, and Spanish, take a lead when people talk about melodious language - the music-like effects in the language (a.k.a., phonetic chill). On the other end of the melodiousness spectrum are German and Arabic that are often considered sounding harsh and un-attractive. Despite the public interest, limited research has been conducted on the topic of phonaesthetics, i.e., the subfield of phonetics that is concerned with the aesthetic properties of speech sounds (Crystal, 2008). Our goal is to fill the existing research gap by identifying the acoustic features that drive the auditory perception of language sound beauty. What is so music-like in the language that makes people say "it is music in my ears"? We had 45 central European participants listening to 16 auditorily presented European languages and rating each language in terms of 22 binary characteristics (e.g., beautiful - ugly and funny - boring) plus indicating their language familiarities, L2 backgrounds, speaker voice liking, demographics, and musicality levels. Findings revealed that all factors in complex interplay explain a certain percentage of variance: familiarity and expertise in foreign languages, speaker voice characteristics, phonetic complexity, musical acoustic properties, and finally musical expertise of the listener. The most important discovery was the trade-off between speech tempo and so-called linguistic melody (pitch variance): the faster the language, the flatter/more atonal it is in terms of the pitch (speech melody), making it highly appealing acoustically (sounding beautiful and sexy), but not so melodious in a "musical" sense.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Mar;5(3):e1000302 [PMID: 19266016]
  2. Science. 2020 Feb 28;367(6481):1043-1047 [PMID: 32108113]
  3. Sci Adv. 2019 Sep 04;5(9):eaaw2594 [PMID: 32047854]
  4. Psychol Rep. 2004 Jun;94(3 Pt 2):1253-60 [PMID: 15362400]
  5. Nat Neurosci. 2019 Apr;22(4):627-632 [PMID: 30833700]
  6. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Nov 24;112(47):14563-8 [PMID: 26553987]
  7. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Aug 28;9:482 [PMID: 26379537]
  8. Front Psychol. 2013 May 01;4:206 [PMID: 23641223]
  9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Nov 13;109(46):19027-32 [PMID: 23112175]
  10. Hum Brain Mapp. 2006 Mar;27(3):239-50 [PMID: 16078183]
  11. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Aug;40(4):1491-506 [PMID: 24911013]
  12. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013 Jul;134(1):628-39 [PMID: 23862837]
  13. Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 22;4:874 [PMID: 24319438]
  14. Front Psychol. 2013 Apr 24;4:184 [PMID: 23630507]
  15. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Feb 13;8:68 [PMID: 24592230]
  16. Brain Sci. 2018 Sep 01;8(9): [PMID: 30200479]
  17. Percept Mot Skills. 2000 Oct;91(2):535-8 [PMID: 11065315]
  18. Psychol Bull. 2003 Sep;129(5):770-814 [PMID: 12956543]
  19. Front Psychol. 2018 Mar 05;9:247 [PMID: 29556206]
  20. Phys Life Rev. 2011 Dec;8(4):383-403 [PMID: 22035772]
  21. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(4):364-82 [PMID: 15582859]
  22. Neuroimage. 2004 Sep;23(1):64-74 [PMID: 15325353]
  23. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Dec;26(6):1797-813 [PMID: 11129375]
  24. Mol Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;20(2):275-82 [PMID: 24614497]
  25. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jul;5(7):688-94 [PMID: 12068300]
  26. Int J Psychophysiol. 2019 Aug;142:25-32 [PMID: 31173769]
  27. Brain Cogn. 2005 Dec;59(3):310-3 [PMID: 16337871]
  28. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Mar;131(3):2249-60 [PMID: 22423720]
  29. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 May;119(5 Pt 1):3034-47 [PMID: 16708959]
  30. Behav Res Methods. 2020 Feb;52(1):388-407 [PMID: 31016684]
  31. Neuroimage Clin. 2017 Mar 02;14:602-609 [PMID: 28367404]
  32. Phonetica. 2009;66(1-2):46-63 [PMID: 19390230]
  33. Front Psychol. 2010 Dec 27;1:236 [PMID: 21833290]
  34. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Dec;81(6):989-1000 [PMID: 11761320]
  35. Cogn Emot. 2014;28(6):1137-47 [PMID: 24383619]
  36. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Aug;18(8):1380-93 [PMID: 16859422]
  37. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018 May 20;: [PMID: 29781084]
  38. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Apr;3(4):393-405 [PMID: 30971792]
  39. Appetite. 1982 Dec;3(4):353-60 [PMID: 7168567]
  40. Science. 2020 Feb 28;367(6481):974-976 [PMID: 32108099]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0languageEuropeanlanguagesspeechaesthetic-perceptionmelodysoundforeignlinguisticpeoplemelodiousmusic-likeaphoneticsoundingresearchepropertiesacoustic16termscharacteristicsbeautifulspeakervoiceexpertisemusicalpitcharticleconcernspreferencesinvestigatedphonetic-acousticdimensionpleasuredescribe"music"foundRomanceFrenchItalianSpanishtakeleadtalkeffectskchillendmelodiousnessspectrumGermanArabicoftenconsideredharshun-attractiveDespitepublicinterestlimitedconductedtopicphonaestheticsisubfieldphoneticsconcernedsoundsCrystal2008goalfillexistinggapidentifyingfeaturesdriveauditorybeautymakessay"itmusicears"?45centralparticipantslisteningauditorilypresentedrating22binaryguglyfunnyboringplusindicatingfamiliaritiesL2backgroundslikingdemographicsmusicalitylevelsFindingsrevealedfactorscomplexinterplayexplaincertainpercentagevariance:familiaritycomplexityfinallylistenerimportantdiscoverytrade-offtemposo-calledvariance:fasterflatter/moreatonalmakinghighlyappealingacousticallysexy"musical"senseErosBeautyPhon-AestheticJudgementsLanguageSoundLikeFlatFastMelodiousComparingPhoneticAcousticFeaturesLanguagescrosslinguisticcomparisonattitudesideologiesphon-aestheticsprosodyintonationrhythmrate

Similar Articles

Cited By