"Salty, tasty pig parts"

What's amazing about this New Scientist article is that it explains our understanding of language as a filtering process. 

According to the research, understanding words requires us to split them into composite sounds, based on auditory frequency, which are understood in separate parts of the brain. Also, the article comments that "mental imagery activates very similar networks."

That's pretty complicated. This means language isn't just about learned knowledge (meanings) and physical capabilities (ears and mouths). It also suggests, to me, anyway, that language and visualisation could be variations of the same thing. That thing being thinking-understanding. And emoting.

Is that why we consider good, clear, communicative writing to be that which is evocative and vivid?

In San Francisco's Ferry Building there's a smallgoods shop whose tagline reads "Salty, tasty pig parts". When I've been there (on different occasions), I've noticed that many passersby say this phrase when they see it.

Sure, it's a delightfully unpretentious phrase. But what is it that compels people to say "Salty, tasty pig parts"? The rhythm? The vivid sensations evoked by those words? Both? And once we've actually said the words, rather than simply "heard" them in our heads as we've read the sign, does that make them more sensual and evocative—visually, at least? Does it lodge them deeper in our minds?

I think so. I think verbage that compels a physical response (smiling, exclaiming, reading aloud, etc.) is ideal for lasting communicative impact. Maybe you're thinking, "Well duh—jingles. Old news." But I think the question here is, can that be achieved with written text only, and can it be done in a non-intrusive way that doesn't annoy the audience?

The answer? Salty, tasty pig parts!