Speakers
Description
Are some languages perceived as more beautiful than others – and if so, why? While some research suggests that phonetic or prosodic features may influence aesthetic appeal (e.g., Crystal, 1995), others emphasize the role of familiarity and cultural stereotypes (e.g., Anikin et al., 2023). A common limitation of previous studies is their reliance on subjective ratings, which are prone to social desirability biases (e.g. Nederhof, 1985) and may not accurately reflect subconscious preferences.
To address this, we present a novel method for studying linguistic appeal by using pupil size as a measure of affective response. Pupil dilation has been linked to pleasurable stimuli in other domains, such as music or environmental sounds (Gingras et al., 2015; Bianco et al., 2019; Laeng et al., 2016). We explore whether similar physiological reactions occur when listeners are exposed to aesthetically appealing spoken languages.
In our experiment, 50 native German speakers listened to texts from 17 spoken languages from diverse language families, varying in familiarity. Pupil size was recorded using an “EyeLink 1000 Plus” stationary eye-tracker while participants listened, followed by traditional Likert-scale ratings of appeal and assessments of familiarity with each language.
As expected, rating data confirmed earlier findings (e.g., Reiterer et al., 2021; Winkler et al., 2023): Romance languages (e.g., Italian, French) and highly familiar languages (e.g. English, German) were rated most beautiful, while other languages such as Albanian, Turkish, and Hebrew received lower ratings – possibly due to limited exposure or cultural biases. Pupil data, however, revealed patterns that were not always straightforwardly aligned with conscious ratings. We discuss the relationship between subjective judgments and physiological arousal and evaluate the potential of pupillometry as a tool for studying linguistic aesthetics.
References
Anikin, A., Aseyev, N., & Erben Johansson, N. (2023). Do some languages sound more beautiful than others? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(17), e2218367120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2218367120
Bianco, R., Gold, B. P., Johnson, A. P., & Penhune, V. B. (2019). Music predictability and liking enhance pupil dilation and promote motor learning in non-musicians. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 17060. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53510-w
Crystal, D. (1995). Phonaesthetically speaking. English Today, 42(11), 8–12.
Gingras, B., Marin, M. M., Puig-Waldmüller, E., & Fitch, W. T. (2015). The Eye is Listening: Music-Induced Arousal and Individual Differences Predict Pupillary Responses. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00619
Laeng, B., Eidet, L. M., Sulutvedt, U., & Panksepp, J. (2016). Music chills: The eye pupil as a mirror to music’s soul. Consciousness and Cognition, 44, 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.07.009
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420150303
Kogan, V., & Reiterer, S. M. (2021). 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. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.578594
Winkler, A., Kogan, V. V., & Reiterer, S. M. (2023). Phonaesthetics and personality – Why we do not only prefer Romance languages. Frontiers in Language Sciences, 2(1043619).