Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Perspectives on soundscapes

Verb constructions in descriptions of everyday sounds

ORCiD logo with link | Lund University
ORCiD logo with link | Lund University
ORCiD logo with link | Lund University
ORCiD logo with link | Lund University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Lund University.

Published online: 22 September 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00233.tzi
Abstract
This study explores how listeners use verb constructions to describe everyday sounds. It considers (i) how the verb constructions provide Gestalt to events in the form of activities, processes and states, and (ii) how the constructions correspond to different aspects of a soundscape (sound sources, acoustic properties, and listener reactions). We found that verb constructions primarily describe sound sources and that these are portrayed as dynamic events. Acoustic properties were rarely described through verb constructions. When they were, the constructions primarily conveyed static properties of sound as in the sound is loud as opposed to dynamic events as in the sound comes closer. Listener reactions were primarily expressed through comparative constructions such as it sounds like and justifications such as I can hear. The upshot of the study is that speakers conceptualise sounds according to highly dynamic Gestalts for which the main focus is the source of the sound.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Sounds, soundscapes, and acousmatic experiences
    • 2.2Representations in discourse of sounds as events
    • 2.3Conceptual structures, construals, and constructions
    • 2.4The present study
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Materials
    • 3.2Identification of verb constructions
    • 3.3Verb coding scheme
    • 3.4Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Frequencies of verb constructions
    • 4.2Event types
    • 4.3Activity/Process constructions
    • 4.4State constructions
    • 4.5Perspectives
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (52)
References
Akita, K., & Parudeshi, P. (2019). Ideophones, mimetics and expressives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L., Sloman, S., & Chaigneau, S. (2004). The HIPE theory of function. In L. Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization, and development (pp. 131–148). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergman, P., Skold, A., Vastfjall, D., & Fransson, N. (2009). Perceptual and emotional categorization of sound. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126(6), 3156–3167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bizley, J. K., & Cohen, Y. E. (2013). The what, where and how of auditory-object perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(10), 693–707. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bregman, A. S. (1994). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., Gjestland, T., & Dubois, D. (2016). Acoustic environments and soundscapes. In J. Kang & B. Schulte-Fortkamp (Eds.), Soundscape and the built environment (pp. 1–16). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., Kang, J., & Gjestland, T. (2011). Towards standardization in soundscape preference assessment. Applied Acoustics, 72(6), 387–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caballero, R., & Paradis, C. (2020). Soundscapes in English and Spanish: A corpus investigation of verb constructions. Language and Cognition, 12(4), 705–728. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caballero, R., Paradis, C., & Suárez-Toste, E. (2019). Representing wine: sensory perceptions, communication and cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cox, T. J. (2008). Scraping sounds and disgusting noises. Applied Acoustics, 69(12), 1195–1204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dhomont, F. (1996). Is there a Québec sound? Organised Sound, 1(1), 23–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. (2012). Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistic Compass, 6(10), 654–672. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubois, D. (2000). Categories as acts of meaning: The case of categories in olfaction and audition. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 1(1), 35–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Cance, C., Coler, M., Paté, A., & Guastavino, C. (2021). Sensory Experiences: Exploring Meaning and the Senses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernström, M., & Taylor, S. (2019). An uncomfortable audio ethnography: Sound and politics in the evolution of an acouscenic listening approach to Softday’s Sonically Engaged Art Practice. Acoustic Ecology Review, 18(1).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiebig, A. (2023). Soundscape: A construct of human perception. In B. Schulte-Fortkamp, A. Fiebig, J. A. Sisneros, A. N. Popper & R. R. Fay (Eds.), Soundscapes: Humans and their acoustic environment (pp. 23–48). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame semantics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (Reprinted from Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaver, W. W., & Norman, D. A. (1988). Everyday listening and auditory icons. University of California, San Diego, Department of Cognitive Science and Psychology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs Jr, R. W., & Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: Psycholinguistic evidence. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 161–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guastavino, C. (2021). Exploring soundscapes. In D. Dubois, C. Cance, M. Coler, A. Paté, & C. Guastavino (Eds.), Sensory experiences: Exploring meaning and the senses (pp. 139–167). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gygi, B., Kidd, G. R., & Watson, C. S. (2007). Similarity and categorization of environmental sounds. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(6), 839–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halpern, D. L., Blake, R., & Hillenbrand, J. (1986). Psychoacoustics of a chilling sound. Perception & Psychophysics, 391, 77–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartman, J., & Paradis, C. (2018). Emotive and sensory simulation through comparative construal. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(2), 123–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). The language of sound: events and meaning multitasking of words. Cognitive Linguistics, 34(3–4), 445–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houix, O., Lemaitre, G., Misdariis, N., Susini, P., & Urdapilleta, I. (2012). A lexical analysis of environmental sound categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(1), 52–80.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. J. (1985). Acoustic information for objects, places, and events. Persistence and change, 115–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kane, B. (2014). Sound unseen: Acousmatic sound in theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kang, J., & Schulte-Fortkamp, B. (Eds.). (2016). Soundscape and the built environment (Vol. 5251). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcell, M., Malatanos, M., Leahy, C., & Comeaux, C. (2007). Identifying, rating, and remembering environmental sound events. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 561–569. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcell, M. M., Borella, D., Greene, M., Kerr, E., & Rogers, S. (2000). Confrontation naming of environmental sounds. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 22(6), 830–864. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nudds, M. (2009). Sounds and Space. In M. Nudds & C. O’Callaghan (Eds.), Sounds and perception: New philosophical essays (pp. 0). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Callaghan, C., & Nudds, M. (2009). Introduction: The philosophy of sounds and auditory perception. In M. Nudds & C. O’Callaghan (Eds.), Sounds and perception: New philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (2005). Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics. Axiomathes, 151, 541–573. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Meanings of words: Theory and application. In H. Ulrike & S. Petra (Eds.), Handbuch Wort und Wortschatz (pp. 274–294). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pasnau, R. (1999). What is sound. The Philosophical Quarterly, 491, 309–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijanowski, B. C., Villanueva-Rivera, L. J., Dumyahn, S. L., Farina, A., Krause, B. L., Napoletano, B. M., Gage, S. H., & Pieretti, N. (2011). Soundscape ecology: The science of sound in the landscape. BioScience, 61(3), 203–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Põldvere, N., Johansson, V., & Paradis, C. (2021). On the London–Lund Corpus 2: Design, challenges and innovations. English Language and Linguistics, 25(3), 459–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenblum, L. D., Wuestefeld, A. P., & Anderson, K. L. (1996). Auditory reachability: An affordance approach to the perception of sound source distance. Ecological psychology, 8(1), 1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samodra, F. T. B. (2018, 11–12 October 2017). Soundscape elaboration from anthrophonic adaptation of community noise. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Medan, Indonysia.
Schulte-Fortkamp, B., Fiebig, A., Sisneros, J. A., N. Popper, A., & Fay, R. R. (Eds.). (2023). Soundscapes: Humans and their acoustic environment. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Southworth, M. (1969). The sonic environment of cities. Environment and Behavior, 1(1), 49–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steenson, C. J., & Rodger, M. W. (2015). Bringing sounds into use: Thinking of sounds as materials and a sketch of auditory affordances. In Q. U. B. School of Psychology (Ed.), (pp. 1–33).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tuuri, K., & Eerola, T. (2012). Formulating a revised taxonomy for modes of listening. Journal of new music research, 41(2), 137–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Viberg, Å. (2019). Phenomenon-Based Perception Verbs in Swedish from a Typological and Contrastive Perspective. Syntaxe et Sémantique, 20(1), 17–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New Yord: Springer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, B., Perlman, M., Perry, L. K., & Lupyan, G. (2017). Which words are most iconic? Iconicity in English sensory words. Interaction Studies, 18(3), 443–464. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zadrozny, W., Szummer, M., Jarecki, S., Johnson, D. E., & Morgenstern, L. (1995). NL Understanding with a Grammar of Constructions. In M. Nagao, International Conference on Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue