I'm not sure if you realize the great differences in generality between this study and previous studies in sound-meaning associations. First, this study drew fr

I'm not sure if you realize the great differences in generality between this study and previous studies in sound-meaning associations. First, this study drew from ~4,000 languages representing all the world's major language families (a scale I assume the /i/ vs. /u/ studies didn't achieve). Second, this study was sensitive to all associations in its methodology, as opposed to the high vs. low study, where the scientists came into the study asking a very narrow question (is there an association between high vowels and smallness and low vowels and bigness?). Here is the table from the study that summarizes associations that were very strongly attested in their corpus: http://i.imgur.com/iCOM8KQ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/iCOM8KQ.jpg This study corroborates previous findings in sound-meaning association studies, but it also gives us a whole lot of new associations ('horn' and /k/, /r/? who knew?). Further, it investigates a previously uninvestigated (as far as I know) question: are there sounds that negatively correlate with certain meanings? (And it turns out there are.)