Abstract

Certain modified color terms encountered in a multi-language corpus of unconstrained color-naming data, elicited with 65 Color-aid Corporation tiles, can be glossed into English as “bright (or vivid) X” (e.g., Estonian “ere-X”), while other modifiers are glossed “light” or “dark.” However, translation between languages or into the terms of colorimetry is never assured. We address the problem empirically by examining the denotata of each modified term and treating its uses as a distribution across a metric color space in which tiles are located as points. We compared each distribution with that of the unmodified term X, identifying the latter with the focus of X (the within-language consensus about the most prototypical exemplar of X). In some cases the modifiers operate as “bright” in the sense of “intense” or “saturated,” so “bright-X” and “X” share a centroid, but this is not universal.

© 2020 Optical Society of America

Individual variations in color-concept space replicate across languages

David Bimler and Mari Uusküla
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 35(4) B184-B191 (2018)

“Clothed in triple blues”: sorting out the Italian blues

David Bimler and Mari Uusküla
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 31(4) A332-A340 (2014)

Quantitative approach for defining basic color terms and color category best exemplars

Nicole Fider, Louis Narens, Kimberly A. Jameson, and Natalia L. Komarova
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 34(8) 1285-1300 (2017)

Bidirectional relationships between semantic words and hues in color vision normal and deuteranopic observers

Keizo Shinomori, Honami Komatsu, and Ippei Negishi
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 37(4) A181-A201 (2020)

Blue hues don't bring the blues: questioning conventional notions of color–emotion associations

Karen B. Schloss, Christoph Witzel, and Leslie Y. Lai
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 37(5) 813-824 (2020)