3 ms·
It’s structurally the same. You can choose a lion, a wolf, a shark, etc, but it is not arbitrary that you choose some such animal to symbolize ferocity, and not
by hyperpape 5y ago
It’s structurally the same. You can choose a lion, a wolf, a shark, etc, but it is not arbitrary that you choose some such animal to symbolize ferocity, and not a rabbit.
There’s some bias to associate sounds with particular images or concepts, but we have different languages because we don’t choose the same words.
If anything, the consistency of symbolism is much greater than inter-linguistic consistency of how words sound.
- twelvechairs 5y agoI don't understand what point you are trying to make. You seem to have made exactly mine. Symbolism is a choice. The Bouba/Kiki thing is not.
- beaconstudios 5y agothey're arguing that symbols are not arbitrary, which is true but I think they inferred that you were making that argument as opposed to the softer "symbols are conventional" one that you did make. Convention does not necessarily imply arbitrariness. If symbols were arbitrary then maybe a rabbit could symbolise ferocity, but they are instead more like metaphors that need to tie into something concrete.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hyperpape 5y agoThanks, this is really helpful. I did in fact think that the use of convention implied more arbitrariness. The convention that we drive on the right can be reversed. But I suppose there can be conventions which are partially constrained by some underlying phenomenon.