ArticleCognitive processing2026
Comparing semantic and phonetic similarities between Turkish and Japanese onomatopoeia.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sound symbolism research reveals a non-arbitrary relationship between phonetics and meaning, demonstrating strong associations between consonant sounds and perceived shape, size, or material. Onomatopoeias, a subset of sound-symbolic expressions, directly imitate the sound they describe. Previous evidence suggests that onomatopoeias encode sound-symbolic cues, even across unfamiliar languages, but no specific research has been done specifically on material-related sound symbolism. To examine how the phonetic and semantic features of onomatopoeic words influence material perception, we conducted a semantic differentiation task with Turkish-speaking participants (N = 28) unfamiliar with Japanese. Stimuli consisted of three-word sets: 14 Turkish words, 14 semantically similar Japanese words, and 14 phonetically similar Japanese words. For example, the Turkish word mır mır (a humming sound) shares a similar meaning with the Japanese word hiso hiso (speaking in a low or hushed tone), and shows phonetic similarity to the Japanese word miri miri (slowly tearing or stretching something tightly). Participants rated each word on seven adjective pairs: (1) flat-bumpy, (2) warm-cold, (3) wet-dry, (4) light-heavy, (5) smooth-rough, (6) slippery-sticky, and (7) granular-whole. Equivalence testing further indicated that phonetically similar pairs more frequently fell within predefined equivalence bounds and showed smaller deviations across adjective dimensions. Multidimensional scaling additionally revealed smaller perceptual distances between Turkish words and their phonetically similar Japanese counterparts. Together, these findings suggest that phonetic similarity contributes more strongly than semantic similarity to cross-linguistic material-related judgements. Furthermore, the results highlight distinctive sound patterns shared by Japanese and Turkish onomatopoeias, suggesting the existence of universal phonetic markers for material-related sound symbolism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42804109What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.