Elementos Rectores del Régimen Penitenciario Peruano

The biggest single theoretical contribution of this thesis has come in the demonstration that phonetic symbolic marking is not as clear-cut as previous studies have suggested. By our use of graded stimuli and

responses, we are able to see that had we employed a pairwise dichotomous forced choice paradigm, we would likely have seen a different, and

misleadingly incomplete, picture of the phenomenon. Not only would we have increased demand characteristics, which have been shown to be an issue in previous research, but we also would have only seen what marking at the ends of the spectra look like. Using such paradigms seems even the more inappropriate when the hypotheses being tested are based on the graded functions of gesture and frequency code.

Additionally, in Chapter 2, we are able to show that sound symbolism for size appears to be a graded function. Previous research had generally used dichotomous stimuli and were unable to show this, despite their claims that it supported the theory that phonetic symbolism arises from graded functions. These experiments directly support the hypotheses arising from gesture and frequency code. Additionally, by our use of written stimuli in Experiment 1 and auditory stimuli in Experiment 2, we were able to lend support to the idea that written stimuli allows for reinforcement of the speech sounds, leading to larger effect sizes and more successful experiments. As many recent experiments still employ written stimuli, this supporting finding of previous works is not trivial.

160

Previous works have tended to either examine size or shape, but not both within the same paradigm. When they have, it has tended to either be using pure tones or dichotomous stimuli, with the latter commonly

suggesting that the same phonemes are being used to mark both size and shape. In Chapter 3, we examine the two both separately and together, using the same paradigm and graded stimuli and responses. In doing so, we find that marking for size appears to be mostly when the stimuli are fairly large, i.e., at least the size of a human. There appears to be no preference of name when the greeble is small, but marking for large follows the expected pattern, i.e., large names are strongly preferred, mixed names are in the middle, and small names are not at all preferred.

With shape, we found there to again be an interaction, but with a somewhat different pattern. Small names and small first names were preferred for spiky greebles, i.e., based on onset cluster, the medium shape was strongly marked with small first names, and the round greebles were marked with large and large first names. It is worth noting that had we used dichotomous stimuli, the pattern would have appeared to suggest that only spiky and round were marked and that the interaction was clear-cut.

Additionally, there is an interaction between size and shape with phonetic marking. With small names, the appropriateness ratings suggest that shape is not of primary concern. Rather, it appears that greeble size is what is leading to the ratings, with a general tendency to rate the small names as less appropriate the larger the greeble gets. In the case of the large names, there is still a general trend towards marking based on size.

161

However, there is a separation of preference based on shape, especially in terms of the larger round greebles.

In Chapter 4, we examined the question of whether motion was a consideration in sound symbolic naming. Motion had been suggested as one of the major factors considered when naming an object. In Experiment 3, however, we found that speed alone did not elicit any preferences for name when naming the object in motion, and neither did the gross movement conditions that included speed, pattern of movement, and movement

continuity. Even when participants were explicitly told that the greeble was self-locomoting, they still did not display any phonetic symbolic marking based on motion. Only when we asked the participants to assess the name for the motion being displayed by the greeble did we see an interaction of name and motion. This suggests that marking an object for the motion that it makes is unlikely. Instead, the marking for the object, if it is indeed done, comes from the relationship it has to certain movements, which would be marked phonetically.

Additionally, we are able to add as a possible prerequisite for marking that of trait stability. In Experiment 3 (size) and especially in the motion experiments, it became clear that participants are not willing to make any marking decisions unless the trait they are marking for is at least semi- permanent. This has not been specifically discussed in other works, and may only show up when there is some autonomy in the decision making process, i.e., the experiment is not based on forced choice. If the stimuli are artifacts, then there is no expectation of change over time, but with natural kind-like

162

stimuli, i.e., greebles, size is only marked in a linear way when there is some sort of forced choice involved.

163