Maria Catricalà

: The linguistic research has analyzed different aspects of synesthesia, especially: the rhetoric definition; the semantic valence; the pragmatic implicatures. But we haven’t yet a complete cartography of their privileged construals and their syntagmatic configurations in different languages. For a better insight we need to extend the cross-linguistic comparison and the studies of cognitive schemas.In this paper I will present a comprehension test on readings with and without specific synesthetic forms (N+Adj denominative/not denominative). Linguistic synesthesia per se is not a nonsense, but one of the evidences of cross-talk theory. So the time of comprehension of text with synesthetic strategy should be more rapid and better than those devoid of that. My hypothesis is that the morphological and syntactic commutations are determinant as the semantic factors.

: cognitive linguistics; constructions; pragmatics; readability; rhetoric;synesthesia.

1. BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHICAL EXCURSUS, FROM RHETORIC TO COGNITIVE GRAMMAR

It is well known that the linguistic research has analyzed different aspects of synesthesia, making our understanding of synesthethic features and grammar rapidly increase in the last decades. More specifically, the most recent contribution studies managed to highlight how linguistic synesthesia is not just a simple frill of the literary code, being on the contrary ascribed to a specific cognitive process. A process which, as metaphor and metonymy do, can help us in better understanding the relationship between verbal signs and thought, linguistic system and culture, processing courses and messages comprehension.How was this consciousness reached? Basically through three types of studies: first of all thanks to the in depth examinations about the history of definition of synesthesia and identification of its various phenomenologies; secondly, thanks to the researches about the boundaries, the configuration and the pragmatic-communicative aspects of synestethic patterns; last, but not least, thanks to the results of the comparison among different languages. Under these circumstances I will be able to trace only the main meaningful aspects of the sources bibliography. I only point out that:a. one first relevant change in the synesthethic statute has been outlined in its definition. Starting

from the one stated by classical rhetoric and grounded on the concept of “brevior similitudo” (LAUSBERG , 1960), the definition has changed -during the 30’s, with Theodore Karwoski – first when speaking about synesthesia as “characteristic of human thinking, involving lawful translations from one modality to another, along a dimension parallel made in cognizing” (OSGOOD-MAY-MIRON , 1975: 396), then as an interconnection between two different senses (ULLM ANN, 1957; GAR AVELLI MOR TAR A, 1988; TORNITORE, 2000) and last with Morier (1989, 1176), to end up in treating it as a “type particulier de correspondance selon lequel la vibration d’un nerf sensitif ébranle un nerf appartenant à un ordre sensitif différent et déclenche ainsi une perception quasi simultanée, étrangère à l’organe affecté”. Even more recent is the suggestion (CATR IC ALÀ, 2009) of considering as synesthethic each pattern (or construction: CROFT-CRUSE, 2008) connecting to an element which belongs to a basic, sensory domain, an element external to the same domain. This definition leads to two advantages: a. it permits to enclose among the linguistic phenomenologies of synesthesia, those characterized by an abstract element (sweet feelings, obscure ideas, etc.) and those presupposing a tract linked to the sensory-motor apparatus (softly lay down, etc. ); b. it takes into account the concept of embodied language which, despite being still highly debated and uncertain, has a relevant influence over the present

SYNESTHETIC PHENOMENOLOGIES AND THE LINGUISTIC RESEARCHES: A READING COMPREHENSION TEST

Roma Tre University, mcatricala@uniroma3.it

Abstract

Keywords

III Congreso Internacional de Sinestesia, Ciencia y Arte. Granada 2009

vision of verbal codes and their internal mechanisms, investigated by biolinguistics.b. about the prominent sensorial directionalities in the synesthethic forms and other aspects related to vectors and boundaries, which can be traced within the same language or come out from the comparison among different languages, comparative studies result as being very helpful. The one made by OSGOOD-MAY-MIRON (1975) can be mentioned among the most well-known ones. More than one questionnaire was administered to thirty different communities, in order to determine both which ones were the linguistic universals, interculturally shared in the field of perception and whether existed a common foundation for the connotative meaning assigned to colours, sounds and dimensions. Among the most recent studies, the one made by V IBERG(2008) must be pointed out. He works since ages on the polysemy of the verbs of perception and in this last study he goes back to the subject in the light of cognitive grammar and the idea of constructions. Among the most systematic studies, the one made by PAISSA (1995) must be mentioned. She collected nearly one hundred and fifty Italian adjectives occurring in one (or more than one) synesthethic phrase N+ADJ and compared them with their French correspondents, in order to verify their potential isomorphism. Resuming this research, I have myself extended the comparison to some old Greek, Latin, Spanish, English and Tzotzil vocabulary sources, finding out that: despite the different characteristics of those languages and the number of the different existing forms, sight and tact are the senses being mostly used as vehicle, in each of the languages examined. Moreover, it is true as well that just within Totzil (the most different language, for both characteristics and culture, from the other ones) neither interconnections with a source in taste, nor synesthesias with olfactory vehicle seem to be occurring (based on the data at disposal):

. Senses (Touch, Sight, taste, Hearing, Smell) used as vehicle across languages. Adj. v. = adjective vehic le.

141 T48; S54; t22; H14; S3123 T48; S48; t24; H11; S362 T32; S22; t6; H3; SØ 88 T35; S38; t13; H2; S2 109 T34; S42; t18; H14; S1 123 T49; S42; t15; H 12; S5 27 T14; S 9; tØ; H4; SØ

c. considering the pragmatic framework, CINQUE(1972) had already brought forward also an explicative hypothesis for these prominent tendencies. In other words he had already noticed in the 70’s that synesthesia works as long as it is ruled by “serie di violazioni e implicature relative alle presupposte referenze legate alla percezione attraverso un qualche senso umano” (CINQUE, 1972: 285) (a series of violations and implicatures related to

the presupposed references, linked to perception through one of the human senses). More specifically, he went on, saying about the example It was a nice warm sound that: “presumibilmente la voce caldo ha come presupposizione sulla propria referenza [percepibile attraverso il tatto] contraddetta dalla referenza di suono” (the word warm is assumed as having as presupposition on its own reference [perceivable through tact], contradicted by the sound reference). Further on we will see how the analysis of both the pragmatic level (SIMONE, 2007) and the cognitive grammar have permitted to recover this model and to in-depth examine it;On one side this means that the linguistic research in this specific field of study has interfaced itself always more often with that made by other disciplines (mainly literary critic, psychology and anthropology); on the other side it has preserved and still preserves an exclusive specificity in itself for what concerns grammar, which defines not only the configurative, collocational and colligational aspects, but also the semantic functional worthiness of synesthesia.

2. ONE THOUSAND AND ONE GRAMMARS OF SYNESTHESIA

The grammar of synesthesia, meant as a microsystem of compulsory options (SIMONE 2007), can be outlined first of all through some morphologic and phrasal aspects. Concerning the morphological materials, it happens to be interesting to notice that in more than one case of N+ADJ phrases, a tendency prevails in using plural rather than singular forms, as

aimed at the fulfilment of synesthesia. So, while the opposition masculine/feminine appears as totally irrelevant on this level, in other cases it seems that perception could not develop and consequently express itself in a synesthethic construction, but starting from a multiplicity of propulsions or a simply occurrence of more than one propulsion at a time. Hence the hypothesis that the plural form could sometimes represent a bond for the reproduction itself of synesthesia, as happens in the following cases about “behaviours, manners” (ex.: Sp.

; It. ; Fr. ; Eng.. ); or, when a

characteristic refers to an entire group rather than to only one element (ex. Sp. cabellos grasientos) or when dealing with pluralia tantum as English hot news (for other ex. see C ATRIC ALÀ in press).Concerning the configurative aspects, the phrase N+ADJ happens to be (as PAISSA says, 1995b) “archetypical” for synesthesia, in its being a good answer to the specific need of using discursive strategies capable of defocusing the agent (GIAC ALONE 2006). For example in Italian it is said that the colours are noisy, but not that they make noise, hues can be loud, but they don’t beep, nor scratching words scratch and the same thing happen in Spanish, e.g.. we can get a cutting answer, not an answer that cuts.

Table 1

Language Adj. v. Domains-target

ItalianFrenchGreekLatinSpanishEnglishTzotzil

conditio sine qua non

maquinaciones tenebrosas, ojos ternos modi untuosimanières fraîches rough manners

III Congreso Internacional de Sinestesia, Ciencia y Arte. Granada 2009

This obviously doesn’t prevent cases of different configurations from occurring instead, from that with a prepositional phrase ( ‘weak of character’) to that with a verbal phrase, like

‘make truth sweet’or like ‘his words were vibrant with hate’

or even with an adverbial phrase (’clearly speaking). Here are some

examples in Latin, Spanish and English:

1a. NP=Noun+PP (Prepositional Phrase), where PP=Preposition+Noun: LATIN: ‘the unripeness of worrying’ (Orazio, Carmina. 4, 12, 19); ‘sharpness of mind, of wit’ (Cicerone);1b. NP= Noun+ ADJ.+ PP, where PP=preposition+Noun: LATIN: ‘sentimental in gesture’ (Cicerone Brutus 225); cupidine caecus ‘blinded by greed’ (Sallustio, De bello Iugurtino 25, 17);

‘illustrious for birth’ (Livio); ‘hot from rage’; , ‘fiery for nature’ (Silio Italico); SPANISH: ‘weak in personality’;

‘insensitive to prayers’; ‘a hard-hearted person’;

‘blind from jealousy’; ‘blind from rage’; (yellow from fear) ‘pale from fear’; ‘green from envy, from bile’; ENGLISH: white with fear; green with envy; torn by intense jealousy; hard of hearing boy fresh from school. 2a. VP=Transitive Verb+NP, where NP=N:

LATIN: ‘sweeten the habits, make them mild’ (Ovidio); ‘make tender the colours’; ‘metaphor enlightens the speaking’ (Cicerone, De oratore 3, 170); ‘[they] make the people blind’ (Seneca); (Plauto) 1; SPANISH: endulzar la veridad ‘sweeten the truth’;

‘make the face red-hot’; ‘brake the euphoria’;

‘blur the mind’; ‘hidden the real problem’; aclarar la voz ‘clear the voice’;ENGLISH: to soften someone; to heat the imaginatio’; to blur the senses.2b. VP=V+PP, where PP=ADJ./ADVERB/ADJ+Modifier:

LATIN: ‘answer with sharp, shrill voice’ (Orazio, Satyrae. 1, 8, 40); ‘[you] sharply see’ (Orazio, Satyrae 1, 3, 26);

‘with a sardonic smile’ (Apuleio); ‘sourly smiling’ (Ammiano

Marcellino. 27, 11, 5);

1 See Garcìa Jurado (2003) for this example and the positive connotation of the metaphors ‘hot/cold’ in Latin culture.

SPANISH: ‘speak clear’; ‘blush, be ashamed’;

‘to run down someone’; ENGLISH: to get clear of; to feel blue; to speak clear; to feel dull; to feel bit flat; to become very cool towards someone; 2c. VP=V+PP, where PP=preposition+N:

LATIN: ‘the soul was full of rage’ (Ovidio, Metamorphoses 2, 602); SPANISH: ‘his words vibrated with hate’; ‘don’t care at all’;

‘getting hot in the discussion’; ‘[he] burns in desire’; ENGLISH: to be in the dark (about something); they burn with anger, with desire’.

But, independently from those configurative differences, a strong similarity on the functional level can be noticed: the intermodal and intersensory connection is useful in fact, to proceed gradually, to activate a “quantifier” of perception, as in responder or negar tajamente (sharply answer, sharply deny).This aspect is strictly connected to the context, as are those of micro pragmatism (SIMONE 2007), where for example occur references to places and spaces (shady character) or to specific actors of the event being involved, without being declared. On a perceptive level for example, in some cases like dazzling promise, it is presupposed that someone being hit by the light (or by something else other than light) would participate in the event; this would not happen in other cases, like splendid voice or bright carrier. In the case of synesthesias in which a material element occurs, as velvety, bronzed, crystalline (e.g.

‘muffled noise’ or ‘velvet voice’, etc.) the following must

be assumed: the prototypicity of one or more than one specific characteristics of those substances is shared and only those characteristics are metonymically referred to. For example, what is prominent about velvet is not whether it is a large or thin corduroy, about bronze not whether it is less or more expensive, about crystal not whether it is Boemia or Rocca crystal. Is it possible then to go over this point, where the linguistic research traditionally stopped to leave space for the psychological or historical-sociological or anthropological one? In the light of both the grammar and the cognitive rhetoric framework it seems an affirmative answer is possible. They in fact adds, to the possibility of finding morphological-perceptive or colligational-syntactic interfaces, that of taking into account, at same time, with no kind of exception, the figurativity and the linguistic-communicative representation of verbal messages. For what that concerns synesthesia this means that, for example, it is possible to look upon a further aspect of classification, like the presence/absence of the material element. Until what extent does this affect the possibility of accessing the meaning of synesthesia? And, more generally speaking, can synesthesia promote in some

débil de caràctereendulzar

la veridad sus palabras vibraban de odio

hablar claro/claramente

sweetness of windamara curarum

acies mentis, ingenii

blind from ragemollis in gestu

clarus genere fervidus ira

fervidus ingenii

débil de caràcteresordo a los ruegos una persona dura de corazónciego de celos ciego de rabia

amarillo del sustoverde de invidia, de bilis

sweeten the life, warm the voice

emollire moresemollire colores

translatum illuminat orationem

excaecant populumos frigefacere

enrojocer el rostro anublar la euforia ofuscar la mente

velar el verdadero problema

speak clear/cleary

resonare acutumcernis acutum

subridens amarumsubamarum adridens

hablar claro (o claramente)ponerse rojo poner verde a uno

burn with love

animus tumida fervebat ab ira

sus palabras vibraban de odiotraer al fresco

acalorarse en la discusiónse abrasa en desio

ruidos acolchados voz atercipelada

III Congreso Internacional de Sinestesia, Ciencia y Arte. Granada 2009

way the processes of comprehension and decodification of conversations and written texts; or, reversely, as contradiction and nonsense (PRAND I, 1987), it requires to activate a specific inference strategy2, so becoming an obstacle for the communicative aims of language, more specifically causing the comprehension to be more difficult? In order to give an answer to those kind of questions, our research about synesthesia has been redefined within the domain of two wider projects concerning: one, the conversational dynamics, the other one, the reading. Funded by the Italian Ministero della Università e Ricerca (Ministry of University and Research), the PRIN having the title of Lingua, lettura e parametri di accesso (Language, reading and accessing parameters) aims to verify how and to what extent the interfacing between the levels of analysis of the linguistic system and the rhetorical dimension of language could modify text readability. Being at the moment verified through a series of experiments based on readings, the hypothesis should permit to an ad hoc coefficient, related to the rhetorical dimension, to be part of readability formulas. Under these circumstances, after having quickly explained the reference theoretical scenario, one of the first of these experiments will be introduced.

3. THE COMPREHENSION COURSES AND THE FIGURATIVE DISCOURSE

The scientific research about the comprehension courses, which has deep roots in the evolutionary psychology, has developed a field of research specifically focused on reading, meant as a complex ability, linked to multiple perceptive and cognitive abilities. Since last century’s 20’s literature has provided a large series of historical and statistic data which highlight, on one side the importance of the quantitative approach to the matter; on the other side the necessity of adopting an interdisciplinary point of view, capable of integrating the linguistic observation with the psychological and neurolinguistical one. The research about reading has in fact developed itself mainly in terms of formulas which consent to evaluate the readability of a text on the basis of different parameters. The most important and representative ones, appeared (with different importance) in some of the most well known formulas – like those of FLESCH (1943, 1948), DALE-CHALL (1948, 1995), GUNNING (1952), TAYLOR (CLOZE SCORE, 1953), FRY (1963, 1968),COLEMAN (1965), SMOG (MCLAUGHLIN , 1968),FLESCH-KINC AID (1976), KEMPER (1983), GULPEASE (1988) – can be grouped into three fundamental types:a. parameters about the vocabulary burden: “vocabulary diversity” (THORND IKE, 1921; “vocabulary burden” (LIVELY, PRESSEY, 1923;); the

2 See the idea of synesthesia outlined by MARKS-ODGAARD(2005) and their Cross-talk theory.

level of sectoriality of language and the abstractness of vocabulary (OJEM AN, 1934; DALE , TYLER, 1934); b. parameters about the structural indexes: length of sentences, number of words, number of syllables, etc. (GRAY, LEAR Y, 1935); average length of words, average length of sentences, etc. (FLESCH, 1948; DALE , CH ALL, 1948); c. parameters connected to the competency level of speakers (VOGEL, WASHBUR NE, 1928; DUBAY, 2004,18), the reason and the pregained knowledge (ARMBRUSTER, 1984).Nearly eighty years of studies and researches about reading have produced then, a relevant amount of quantitative data about the aspects of the text, which are significantly correlated to readability. At the same time, it is necessary to notice how such data represent the translation of qualitative parameters too, like for example those concerning the characteristic of the reader (study level, etc.) or the kind of text used. To use DUBAY’s own words (2004, 61), “the variables used in the readability formulas show us the skeleton of a text. It is up to us to flesh out that skeleton with tone, content, organization, coherence, and design”.It is our opinion anyway that, one of the directions the present and the future research about readability should take into account, is strictly connected to the research about the qualitative aspects linked to the rhetorical dimension of the text: that is, the occurrence of those expressions – in our case synesthesias – which, as metaphors, idioms or the statements characterized by no compositional meaning, are at the heart of the cognitive-linguistic research about comprehension courses. It is for sure that, since the 70’s, there has been someone who has realized the importance that perception has into apprentice and has highlighted that a lot of comprehension mechanisms can not be explained through the stimulus-reaction scheme (see GIBSON, LEVIN, 1975). That is why, already in the past, different processing courses have been taken into account; the ones which at the end don’t lead to the apprentice of an answer, but rather to the modification of perception itself. However, it is mainly within the frame of the development of the subsequent psycholinguistic studies, as within the cognitive grammar framework, that our idea of evaluating also the importance of those elements having “something more” than the sum of their components, has found a more stabled reference scenario on a scientific level. Thanks to the psycholinguistic studies, in fact, it has been first of all demonstrated that someone who reads perceives the meaning of what he reads through the perception of events. Through perception, some processes of extraction of distinctive characteristics, of invariants, of hierarchic relationships are performed. Those processes are abstracted from variable contexts and consent the individual to progressively structure his own knowledge. The linguistic meaning would have then its origin in the perception of objects and events, that is in the perceptive apprentice. If the performance of perception then, can be defined as a look for

III Congreso Internacional de Sinestesia, Ciencia y Arte. Granada 2009

invariants (G IBSON , LEVIN , 1975, 46), it can be assumed that the dimension of experience would imply a list of cognitive processes allowing abstract and conceptual meanings to be developed and organized, based on a hierarchical organization of distinct sensorial characteristics. The framework of cognitive grammar develops itself based on the same premises: vocabulary is “a distillation of shared human experience” (LANG ACKER 2000, 1) in which every item “embodies the commonality in form and meaning observable across a substantial number of usage events”. Under this perspective it is believed that the linguistic competence is correlated to the cognitive abilities, which is linked to the basic domains of experience (visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, tastily, spatial, temporal, emotional). Those domains can be described in terms of processes of reinforcement and structuring of recurrent characteristics (invariants), of filtering and decontextualization of non recurrent characteristics, of comparison of experiences, categorization of structures, abstraction and conceptual reification (ibidem, 3).The encyclopaedic vision of semantics implied in this model, involves the absence of a clear distinction between the meaning of the vocabulary and the general knowledge correlated to the entity the meaning refers to. Each item of the vocabulary is not simply a group of semantic tracts, but gives access to a potentially infinitive group of concepts and conceptual systems evoked dependently from the context. To which is linked another important corollary of this theoretical apparatus: the concept of metaphor as cognitive process, in which the so called “image schemas” (JOHNSON, 1987; LAKOFF , 1987), developed in the bodily and daily experience, play a fundamental role in building our “mental world” (LANG ACKER , 2000, 3).From these premises our hypothesis is developed: also synesthesia, like metaphor (LAKOFF , JOHNSON,1980), can configures itself as a an autonomous and fondant cognitive process, which has then a relevant importance in reading.Even though this could be sound as believable, from an intuitively point of view, it is however necessary to look for some verifications. What anyway remains relevant to be understood and to be put under verification is whether linguistic synesthesias would promote or not the comprehension and the readability of a text and whether all of them would do it in the same way or not. Concerning this matter, besides the reference scenario on the synesthetic statute described in the previous paragraphs, other two important chapters must be added:a) the presumed or non presumed opposition between literary and figurative meaning, which in cognitive linguistic acquired different meanings and methodologically founded a series of studies about phenomena like, for example, metaphor and ironyb) the elements, being afferent to different levels of analysis, condition the processing of stimuli (generally represented by singular enunciates), as has

been highlighted by the most recent studies of neurolinguistics. Because of obvious reasons, under these circumstances, I can examine only very quickly those two themes.

4. LITERALISTS VS. CONTEXTUALISERS

When examining the most important linguistic researches about the processing courses, it can be noticed that those which can be usually labelled as enunciates with a non literary, metaphorical, ambiguous, indirect meaning, are at the centre of a lot of experimental schemes. This is obviously something deriving from the original distinction between literary and non literary meaning in indirect enunciates, occurring in the standard pragmatic model of SEARLE (1975). With no pretence of exhaustiveness, the main results of some classical studies about the comprehension of meaning based upon this distinction, can be here numbered:The priority of the literary meaning over the figurative one is not confirmed by the empirical researches about comprehension processes like those of GLUCKSBERG (1986) and GIBBS (1989). These researches demonstrate that “non possiamo non comprendere il significato metaforico di frasi figurate di tipo nominale (cioè della forma “Un A è un B” come ad esempio Il mio lavoro è una prigione), in quanto tale significato figurato si attiverebbe automaticamente […] E’ d’altronde poco credibile sul piano intuitivo sia che i parlanti esaminino sempr le condizioni di verità di frasi assai comuni come Quell’uomo è una roccia […] prima di capire che si tratta di metafore, sia che l’identificazione di una frase come letterale o metaforica sia sempre preceduta da un test che verifichi la coerenza contestuale del suo significato letterale” (Cacciari 1991, 7) (“It is impossibile not to comprehend the metaphorical meaning of nominal figurative sentences – like “An A is a B” as for example My job is a prison), because this meaning would automatically become activated […] It is anyway hard to believe on an intuitive level both that speakers would always put under verification the truthfulness of every common sentence like That man is a rock […], before understanding they are metaphors, and that the identification of a sentence as being literary or metaphorical would always be anticipated by a test verifying the contextual coherence of its literary meaning). Such assumption is supported in first place by SPERBER AND WILSON(1981) and then by Gibbs (1982, 1989, 2002) on the basis of the results of experiments in which the time taken to read literary expressions does not differ significantly from the time taken to read figurative expressions: so the implicit meanings (ex. irony, sarcasm, metaphor) would be processed as quickly as the explicit ones. This would constitute the proof of the fact that the distinction between two types of meanings – the literary and the figurative one –would have little validity on a psychic level (GIBB S1989): the inferential processes used to process explicit contents and the implicatures would

III Congreso Internacional de Sinestesia, Ciencia y Arte. Granada 2009

essentially be the same ones, as the processing of an ironic sentence would not differ from that of a literary meaning; what Sperber and Wilson state (1990, 1998), for example, is that the ironic meaning is decoded in a straight way, without the intermediation of a first interpretation being rejected in a second moment, in favour of the “implicit” one. In opposition to this point of view are those theories that can be traced back to the so called Incongruity-Resolution Model (see Suls 1972; McGhee 1979), which is coherent with the standard pragmatic model developed by Searle (1975). This model doesn’t presuppose a unique phase of processing for the enunciates characterized by incongruence, but two distinct phases (perception and resolution). At present times the debate over the subject concerns mainly the nature of these two phases: are they consecutive (as for example supported by the cognitive models of processing of humour, cfr. Raskin 1985, Attardo 1994) or coincident (as in the hypothesis of Graded Salience of Giora, 1997, in which a bottom-up type process, acting on the basis of the parameter of prominence, would be sided by a top-down type of process, which looks for the contextually appropriate meanings)? In both cases (consecutive or coincident phases), even though for different reasons, the hypothesis is brought forward that it takes relatively more time to process indirect enunciates: because the processing course develops itself during two consecutives phases or because, after receiving incompatible results from the two processes described by Giora (when the meaning being prominent from a vocabulary point of view opposes itself to the one being contextually appropriate), a process of “adjustement”, which implies a relatively longer time to be processed, becomes necessary. This would occur in all those cases of “indirect” communication – in which one meaning cross-refer to another one – which result as unfamiliar; when instead the indirect expressions are highly familiar, conventional, they are quickly elaborated just because of their being prominent in the vocabulary. There would be no difference in processing literary or not literary meaning then, but rather in processing vocabulary elements or not, prominent expression and uses (recurrent, familiar, prototypical) or not.Besides the dichotomies occurring between types of meanings and types of processings, take place the point of view of someone who, as Miller (1979, 121), states that it would be necessary “cercare di spiegare la comprensione del linguaggio metaforico negli stessi termini usati per spiegare quella del linguaggio non metaforico […] cercare di scoprire in cosa consista la comprensione letterale, se quella metaforica deve essere spiegata negli stessi termini”. (trying to explain the comprehension of metaphorical language in the same terms used to explain that of the non metaphorical language […] trying to discover in what literary comprehension is about, if the metaphorical one must bed explained in the same terms.). For the author, the central process of textual comprehension is the apperception, which is the

assimilation of new information through the correlation with something already known. This assumption is also central for our studio, because our hypothesis concerns the idea that synesthesia would be a autonomous and fondant cognitive process (using Lakoff’s own words, a “mode of thought”), linked to the basic domains of perception, the use of which could make comprehension easier. Similarly to what happens in the research about the elaboration of indirect linguistic acts, also in neurolinguistics the analysis of the processing courses pass mainly, on a methodological level, through the examination of how long it takes to read singular enunciates. Among the different models of readings proposed by linguistics, the connectionist one (Seidenberg and McClelland 1989, Plaut et al. 1996) postulates (diverting for example from the models with two ways) the existence of only one mechanism – a net containing orthographic, phonological, semantic information represented as pattern of activation – which associates the written form to the phonological one. This highlights one of the most important assumptions of the connectionist approach, which at the same time inscribes it in the same reference scenario of cognitive grammar: the complete linguistic competence is based upon the combination of both semantic and phonological knowledge. Consequently words “weak” in respect to the dimensions of frequency, regularity and the “value of the image” (words for which a reduced semantic contribution is expected, like for example those evoking a mental image less easily: Peressotti and Job 2006, 165) should take more time to be read, with more mistakes occurring at the same time. Under this perspective becomes interesting to investigate the correlation between the results of readings (in terms of time, accuracy, speaker’s judgement) and the occurrence, within the stimulus-text, of linguistics units characterized by different iconic values.

5. THE EXPERIMENT

In the pilot experiment here presented, the element defined as “materiality” has been considered as the fundamental variable: it is the characteristic which make a synesthesia like dark silence different from one like dull silence. In the case of material synesthesias in fact, the adjective (to remain within the configurations Name + adjectives) is a denominative adjective (ex. crystalline reasoning, hone-like music), and it could be correlated to a higher comprehensibility, because it evocates a concrete image. This hypothesis has been verified through two different tests.The experiment has been conducted over a sample of 200 students attending the first year of the graduation course in Sciences of communication at the Literary Faculty of Roma Tre University. The experimental scheme consisted of two different tests to be administered, in order to verify the hypothesis about the higher comprehensibility of material synesthesias respect to the non material ones. A comprehensibility

III Congreso Internacional de Sinestesia, Ciencia y Arte. Granada 2009

hierarchy has been hypothesized, which can be schematized in the following way:-material synesthesias>non material synesthesiasex. crystalline reasoning>transparent reasoningOn the base of this hypothesis, the same hierarchy is turned upside down for the enunciates which don’t have any synesthesia occurring within:non material zero grade>material zero gradeex. transparent surface>crystalline surfaceSupposing that material synesthesias are more prototypical (then more comprehensible) respect to the non material ones, and that on the opposite side the non material zero grade (ex. sight –sight) is more prototypical than the material one, has been hypothesized that the subjects would have judged the material synesthesias and the non material zero grade ones as relatively more comprehensible.To verify the hypothesis, two tests have been created. The test number 1 was composed of 24 enunciates containing all the four different types of stimuli (seethe test in appendix). The subjects had to evaluate the comprehensibility of each of the enunciates, assigning them a score going from 0 (zero comprehensibility) to 5 (maximum comprehensibility). The test number 2 (control test) was composed of 5 enunciates containing all the types of stimuli, except material synesthesias. The enunciates were in the form of slogans and the subjects were asked to imagine themselves as copywriters who had to choose only one of the 5 slogans to promote a new soap powder. The following ones are the results of test number 1. The numbers represent the average scores each subject assigned to each enunciate; in order to simplify the report, only the couples name+adjective will be here presented (you can find the complete list of the enunciates in the Appendix).

. Mean comprehens ibility scores in Test 1.

TRANSPARENT VOICE CRYSTALLINE VOICE2,79 3,57SOFT TASTE VELVETY TASTE2,53 2,83SOFT VOICE VELVETY VOICE2,84 3,07CRYSTALLINE SURFACE TRANSPARENT SURFACE3,10 3,79HONEY-LIKE MIXTURE SWEET MIXTURE3,35 4,56

HONEY-LIKE MUSIC SWEET MUSIC2,58 4,08 VELVETY COLOUR SOFT COLOURCOMBINATION COMBINATION2,78 3,10HONEY-LIKE PARFUME SWEET PARFUME2,84 3,97HONEY-LIKE SHOW SWEET SHOW3,05 3,62HONEY-LIKE SWEETBEHAVIOUR BEHAVIOUR3,36 3,78CRYSTALLINE TRANSPARENTREASONING REASONING3,58 3,83

It can be immediately noticed that within this second group of data are concentrated all of synesthesia cases in which materiality is conveyed by the adjective honey-like. The material synesthesia being less comprehensible respect to the non material one (result that is opposite to the one expected) derives in our opinion from this specific stimulus, which moreover records the highest differences in score within the second group of data. Assuming that is the adjective honey-like (and not the materiality in itself) referred to music, parfume, show and behaviour, to determine a lower comprehensibility, it can be inferred that the hypothesis about the hierarchy of comprehensibility is verified (see the first group of data). Such interpretation could be further demonstrated in correlation with the parameter of prominence, analyzing then, the frequency of the couples of stimuli used in the corpus of an Italian written texts. If our interpretation of data is correct, the results would then show that the absolute lowest recurrences correspond to material synesthesias containing honey-like and that on the other side not relevant differences, in respect to frequency, are occurring among all the other couples of synesthesias and those of material/non material zero grade.At the present time of our research, the data of this first experiment seem to offer an explanation of material synesthesia in terms of being more prototypical (more comprehensible then) respect to the non material one. Such explanation is supported by the idea of the value of image within material synesthesias: in cognitive terms, the evocation of a concrete image (crystalline vs. transparent, velvety vs. soft, etc.), linked to the physical objet (velvet, crystal) as being a nominal, prototypical referent (LANG ACKER 2000, 10), would be correlated to a higher comprehensibility. Also the results of the control test go in this same direction, as shown in th following table:

. Number (N) of subjects choosing each slogan in Test 2.

bright colours with the new XYZ 154 79,38scented colours with the new XYZ 14 7,22soft colours with the new XYZ 11 5,67loud colours with the new XYZ 8 4,12crystalline colours with the new... 7 3,61

Data show a clear and relevant preference for the non material zero grade (bright colours: 79,38% of preferences) respect to the material zero grade (crystalline colours: 3,61%). In this way the comprehensibility hierarchy is confirmed: the non material zero grade (registering the higher number of choices) is more prototypical than the material one (lower number of choices).

6. CONCLUSION

The study here explained, in spite of being only recently began, highlights that the different directions

Table 2

Table 3

Slogan N %

194 100,00

III Congreso Internacional de Sinestesia, Ciencia y Arte. Granada 2009

followed by the linguistic studies can lead to useful and specific results in the field of synesthetic research. More specifically, summing up, we think that both the two strands of in depth-examinations that have been here shown are revealing themselves as being of relevant importance from an interdisciplinary point of you too. Both for the enlargement, as wide as possible, of the comparative study among different languages and cultures and the survey of the results coming from the use of verbal synesthesia in the concrete communicative acts, on a word level, the one of written texts being decoded, then: we are interested in activating new forms of collaborations, with the possibility to extend the research to the introduction of synestaethic constructions in conversational situations too.For this purpose we are going to put online one of our first database of synestethic structures in different languages within the website of Word-design, in which the project of readability will always match that of cognitive rhetoric more closely.

Professor of Linguistics and Communication at Roma Tre University. She has published several books dedicated to history of grammars (

, Firenze, Accademia della Crusca, 1995) and to technical lexicons (fashion, patents of invention, politics).

REFERENCES

AR IEL M. (1997), “Accessibility theory: an overview”, in SANDERS T., SCHILPEROORD J., SPOOREN W. (eds.) (1997),

, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 29-87.ARMBRU STER B. B. (1984), “The problem of

inconsiderate text”, in DUFFEY G. (ed.) (1984), , Longmann, New

York, pp. 202-217.ATTARDO S. (1994), ,

Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York.BIANCHI C. (2009),

, Laterza, Bari. CACC IARI C. (1991), “La metafora: da evento del

linguaggio a struttura del pensiero”, in CACCIAR IC., (ed.) (1991), , Raffaello Cortina, Milano, pp. 1-31.

CATR IC ALÀ M. (in press), “Fenomelogie sinestestiche tra retorica e pragmatica: la questione definitoria”, in , 2009.

CINQUE G., (1972), “Grammatica generativa e metafora”, in , Accademia della Crusca, Firenze, vol. II, pp. 261-295.

CROFT A., CRUSE W. (2008), , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

DALE E., CH ALL, J.S. (1948), “A formula for predicting readability”, in

, Jan. 21 and Feb. 17, n. 27, pp.1-20, 37-54.

DALE E., TYLER W. (1934), “A study of the factors influencing the difficulty of reading materials for adults of limited reading ability”, in

n. 4, pp. 384-412.DUBAY W.H. (2004), ,

Impact information, Costa Mesa.FLESCH R. (1948), “A new readability yardstick”, in

n. 32, pp. 221-233.

GAR AVELLI MOR TAR A B. (1988),, Bompiani, Milano.

GARC IA JUR ADO F. (2003), “Le metafore di ‘parlare’ in latino”, in GAETA L., LUR AGH I, S. (eds.) (2003) , Carocci, Roma, pp. 147-157.

GIAC ALONE A. (2006), “Strategie di costruzione dell’enunciato nell’italiano di apprendenti: soggetti generici, costruzioni impersonali e passive”, in GR AND I N., IANN ACC ARO G. (eds.) (2006),

, Caissa Italia Editore, Cesena-Roma, pp. 239-258.

GIBBS R.W. (1982), “A critical examination of the contribution of literal meaning to understanding nonliteral discourse”, in n. 2, pp. 9-27.

GIBBS R.W. (1989), “Understanding and literal meaning”, in n. 13, pp. 243-251.

GIBBS R.W. (2002), “A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated, in

n. 31, pp. 457-486.GIBSON E.L., LEVIN H. (1975),

, MIT press, Cambridge.GIOR A R., 1997, “Understanding figurative and literal

language: The graded salience hypothesis”, in n. 7, pp. 183-206

GLUCKSBERG S. (1986), “How people use context to resolve ambiguity: implications for an interactive model of language comprehension”, in KURCZ I., SHUG AR G.W., DANKS J. (eds.) (1986),

, Elsevier science publisher, Amsterdam.

GRAY W. S., LEAR Y B. (1935), , Chicago University Press, Chicago.

JOHNSON M. (1987),,

University of Chicago press, Chicago-London.LAKOFF G., JOHN SON M. (1980),

, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.LAKOFF G. (1987),

, University of Chicago press, Chicago-London.

LANG ACKER R.H. (2000),, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-

New York.LIVELY B. A., PRESSEY S. L. (1923), “A method for

measuring the ‘vocabulary burden’ of textbooks”, in

, n. 9, pp. 389-398.LAUSBERG H. (1960),

, Max Hueber, München.

Maria Catricalà.

L’italiano tra grammaticalità e testualizzazione

Text representation: linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects

Comprehension instruction

Linguistic theories of humor

Pragmatica cognitiva. I meccanismi della comunicazione

Teorie della metafora

Studi e saggi linguistici

Studi di Grammatica Italiana

Cognitive linguistics

Educational research bulletin

Library Quarterly

The principles of readability

Journal of Applied Psychology

Manuale di retorica

Introduzione alla linguistica cognitiva

Scritti in onore di Emanuele Banfi in occasione del suo 60° compleanno

Text

Cognitive Science

Journal of pragmaticsThe psychology of

reading

Cognitive Linguistics,

Knowledge and language

What makes a book readable

The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason

Metaphors we live by

Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind

Grammar and conceptualization

Educational administration and supervision

Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft

III Congreso Internacional de Sinestesia, Ciencia y Arte. Granada 2009

MARKS L.E., ODG AARD E.C. (2005),, in

ROBER TSON L.C., SAG IV N. (eds.) (2005),

, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 214-236.

MAZZEO M. (2005),,

Quodlibet, Macerata.MORIER H. (1989),

, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.

MCGHEE P.E. (1979),, V.H. Freeman, San Francisco.

MILLER G.A. (1979), “Images and models, similes and metaphors”, in OR TON Y A. (ed.) (1979),

, Cambridge, Cambridge University press, pp. 202-250.

OJEMANN R. (1934), “The reading ability of parents and factors associated with the reading difficulty of parent education materials”, in STODD ARD G.D. (ed.), .

, University of Iowa, Iowa City, vol. II., n. 19.

OSGOOD C.E., MAY W.H., MIRON M.S. (1975),,

University of Illinois press, Urbana.PAISSA P. (1995a), “La sinestesia. Storia e analisi del

concetto”, in , n. 8, pp. 3-125.

PAISSA P. (1995b), “La sinestesia. Analisi contrastiva delle sinestesie lessicalizzate nel codice italiano e francese”, in

, n. 9, pp. 3-187.

PERESSO TTI F., JOB R. (2006), “Lessico: i processi”, in LAUD ANN A A., VOGHER A M. (eds.) (2006),

, Laterza, Roma-Bari, pp. 149-169.PLAU T D.C., MC CLELLAND J.L, SEIDEN BERG M.S.,

PATTER SON K. (1996), “Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains, in

, n. 103, pp. 56-115.POPOVA Y. (2005), “Image schemas and verbal

synaesthesia”, in HAMPE B. (ed.) (2005),

, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 395-419.

PRANDI M. (1987), , Editions de Minuit, Paris.

RASK IN V. (1985), , Reidel, Dordrecht-Boston-Lancaster.

RICCÒ D. (1999),,

Etas, Milano.ROUW R., SCHOLTE H.S. (2007), “Increased structural

connectivity in grapheme-color synesthesia”, in , n. 10, pp. 792-797.

SEARLE J. R. (1975), “Indirect speech acts”, in COLEP., MORG AN J. (eds.) (1975),

, Academics, New York, pp. 41-59.

SEID ENBERG M.S., MCCLELLAND J.L. (1989), “A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming”, in

, n, 96, pp. 523-568.SIMONE R. (2007), “Constructions and categories in

verbal and signed languages”, in PIZZU TO E., PIETR ANDREA P., SIMONE R. (eds.) (2007),

, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, pp. 197-248.

SPERBER D., WILSON D. (1981), “Irony and the use-mention distinction”, in COLE P. (ed.) (1981),

, Academic Press, New York, pp. 295-318.

SPERBER D., WILSON D. (1990), “Rhetoric and relevance”, in BENDER J., WELLBER Y D. (eds.)(1990),

, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 140-156.

SPERBER D., WILSON D. (1998), “Irony and relevance: A reply to Seto, Hamamoto and Yamanashi”, in CAR STON R., UCH ID A S. (eds.) (1998),

, Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 283-293.

SULS J. (1972), “A two-stage model for the appr appreciation of jokes and cartoons”, inGOLDSTEIN J. H., MCGH EE P.E. (eds.) (1972),

, Academic Press, London-New York, pp. 81-100.

THORND IKE E. L. (1921),, Teachers College,

Columbia University, New York.TORNITORE T. (2000), “Sinestesie. Proposta di

definizione e classificazione”, in , vol. XXXV, n. 2, pp. 303-314.

ULLMANN S. (1957), , Blackwell: Oxford.

VIBERG Å. (2008), “Swedish verbs of perception from a typological and contrastive perspective”, inGOMEZ GONZALEZ M., MACKENZIE J.L.,GONZALEZ-ÁLVAREZ E.M. (eds.) (2008),

, John Benjamins. Amsterdam, pp. 123-172.VOGEL M., WASHBURNE C. (1928), “An objective

method of determining grade placement of children’s reading material”, in

, n. 28, pp. 373-381.

Developmental constraints on theories of synesthesia

Synaesthesia. Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience

Storia naturale della sinestesia. Dalla questione Molyneux a Jakobson

Dictionnaire de poétique et de rhétorique

Humor: its origin and development

Metaphor and thought

Researchers in parent educationStudies in Child Welfare VIII

Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning

Quaderni del Centro di Linguistica dell’Università Cattolica

Quaderni del Centro di Linguistica dell’Università Cattolica

Il linguaggio. Strutture linguistiche e processi cognitivi

Psychological review

From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics

Sémantique du contresens

Semantic mechanisms of humor

Sinestesie per il design. Le interazioni sensoriali nell'epoca dei multimedia

Nature Neuroscience

Syntax and semantics, vol. 3 – Speech acts

Psychological review

Verbal and signed languages. Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies

Radical Pragmatics

The Ends of Rhetoric: History, Theory, Practice

Relevance Theory: Applications And Implications

The Psychology of Humor

The teacher’s word book. Bureau of Publications

Lingua e Stile

The principles of semantics

Languages and Cultures in Contrast and Comparison, Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 175

Elementary school journal

III Congreso Internacional de Sinestesia, Ciencia y Arte. Granada 2009

Il punteggio 5 corrisponde alla comprensibilità massima; il punteggio 0 alla comprensibilità minima. Ad , se assegni 0 ad una frase, intendi che secondo te quella frase non è d ione immediata, c ioè non è appropriata (o è poco appropriata) ad esprimere quel significato. Se assegni 5 ad una frase, intendi che secondo te la frase è di comprensione immediata, quindi la forma è appropriata ad esprimere quel s ignificato. I puntegg ind icano gradi intermedi di comprensib ilità.

facendo una crocetta su uno solo dei numeri accanto ad ogni frase.

Ho assaggiato l’impasto, è mieloso. 0 1 2 3 4 5Cantava con voce cristallina. 0 1 2 3 4 5Un morbido accostamento di colori completava il tutto. 0 1 2 3 4 5Non ti sembra un atteggiamento troppo dolce? 0 1 2 3 4 5La superficie trasparente c i consentiva d i vedere la scena. 0 1 2 3 4 5Una musica dolce invase la stanza. 0 1 2 3 4 5Un vellutato accostamento di colori completava il tutto. 0 1 2 3 4 5La salsa ha un gusto morbido. 0 1 2 3 4 5La superficie cristallina ci consentiva di vedere la scena. 0 1 2 3 4 5Davanti a uno spettacolo tanto mieloso, restammo senza parole. 0 1 2 3 4 5Il suo ragionamento è trasparente, non ho niente da contestare. 0 1 2 3 4 5La scatola emanava un profumo dolce. 0 1 2 3 4 5Il tessuto era vellutato. 0 1 2 3 4 5Cantava con voce trasparente. 0 1 2 3 4 5Una musica mielosa invase la stanza. 0 1 2 3 4 5Fu scelta per la sua voce vellutata. 0 1 2 3 4 5Ho assaggiato l’impasto, è dolce. 0 1 2 3 4 5Davanti a uno spettacolo tanto dolce, restammo senza parole. 0 1 2 3 4 5La salsa ha un gusto vellutato. 0 1 2 3 4 5Non ti sembra un atteggiamento troppo mieloso? 0 1 2 3 4 5Il tessuto era morbido. 0 1 2 3 4 5La scatola emanava un profumo mieloso. 0 1 2 3 4 5Il suo ragionamento è cristallino, non ho niente da contestare. 0 1 2 3 4 5Fu scelta per la sua voce morbida. 0 1 2 3 4 5

Scegli facendo accanto ad esso

Colori splendenti con il nuovo XYZColori soffic i con il nuovo XYZColori squillanti con il nuovo XYZColori cristallini con il nuovo XYZColori profumati con il nuovo XYZ

Appendix - TEST 1Valuta la comprensibilità delle seguenti frasi assegnando ad ognuna un punteggio da 0 a 5.

esempio

Assegna il punteggioIl test è anonimo e non viene assegnato alcun voto. Non ci sono rispo giuste.

Appendix - TEST 2Un’agenzia di pubblicità ti incarica di selezionare uno slogan per il nuovo detersivo XYZ. Quale tra i seguenti sceglieresti?

un solo slogan una crocetta.Il test è anonimo e non viene assegnato alcun voto. Non ci sono risposte giuste.

III Congreso Internacional de Sinestesia, Ciencia y Arte. Granada 2009