How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings: The Case of Metaphor

Overview

Journal Cogn Sci

Specialty Psychology

Date 2019 Aug 26

PMID 31446656

Citations 4

Authors

W Gudrun Reijnierse

Christian Burgers

Marianna Bolognesi

Tina Krennmayr

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Concreteness ratings are frequently used in a variety of disciplines to operationalize differences between concrete and abstract words and concepts. However, most ratings studies present items in isolation, thereby overlooking the potential polysemy of words. Consequently, ratings for polysemous words may be conflated, causing a threat to the validity of concreteness-ratings studies. This is particularly relevant to metaphorical words, which typically describe something abstract in terms of something more concrete. To investigate whether perceived concreteness ratings differ for metaphorical versus non-metaphorical word meanings, we obtained concreteness ratings for 96 English nouns from 230 participants. Results show that nouns are perceived as less concrete when a metaphorical (versus non-metaphorical) meaning is triggered. We thus recommend taking metaphoricity into account in future concreteness-ratings studies to further improve the quality and reliability of such studies, as well as the consistency of the empirical studies that rely on these ratings.

Citing Articles

Specificity ratings for English data.

Ravelli A, Bolognesi M, Caselli T Cogn Process. 2024; .

PMID: 39514144 DOI: 10.1007/s10339-024-01239-4.

What we mean when we say semantic: Toward a multidisciplinary semantic glossary.

Reilly J, Shain C, Borghesani V, Kuhnke P, Vigliocco G, Peelle J Psychon Bull Rev. 2024; 32(1):243-280.

PMID: 39231896 PMC: 11836185. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02556-7.

CONcreTEXT norms: Concreteness ratings for Italian and English words in context.

Montefinese M, Gregori L, Ravelli A, Varvara R, Radicioni D PLoS One. 2023; 18(10):e0293031.

PMID: 37862357 PMC: 10588859. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293031.

A test of indirect grounding of abstract concepts using multimodal distributional semantics.

Utsumi A Front Psychol. 2022; 13:906181.

PMID: 36267060 PMC: 9577286. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906181.

On abstraction: decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity.

Bolognesi M, Burgers C, Caselli T Cogn Process. 2020; 21(3):365-381.

PMID: 32180060 PMC: 7381448. DOI: 10.1007/s10339-020-00965-9.

References

Katja Wiemer-Hastings K, Xu X . Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cogn Sci. 2011; 29(5):719-36. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_33. View

Thibodeau P, Sikos L, Durgin F . Are subjective ratings of metaphors a red herring? The big two dimensions of metaphoric sentences. Behav Res Methods. 2017; 50(2):759-772. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0903-9. View

Connell L, Lynott D . Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition. 2012; 125(3):452-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010. View

Brysbaert M, Stevens M, Mandera P, Keuleers E . The impact of word prevalence on lexical decision times: Evidence from the Dutch Lexicon Project 2. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015; 42(3):441-58. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000159. View

Scott G, Keitel A, Becirspahic M, Yao B, Sereno S . The Glasgow Norms: Ratings of 5,500 words on nine scales. Behav Res Methods. 2018; 51(3):1258-1270. PMC: 6538586. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1099-3. View

Strain E, Patterson K, Seidenberg M . Semantic effects in single-word naming. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995; 21(5):1140-54. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.21.5.1140. View

Jefferies E, Hoffman P, Jones R, Lambon Ralph M . The impact of semantic impairment on verbal short-term memory in stroke aphasia and semantic dementia: A comparative study. J Mem Lang. 2008; 58(1):66-87. PMC: 2344152. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.004. View

Kaushanskaya M, Rechtzigel K . Concreteness effects in bilingual and monolingual word learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012; 19(5):935-41. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0271-5. View

Simonsohn U . Small telescopes: detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychol Sci. 2015; 26(5):559-69. DOI: 10.1177/0956797614567341. View

10.

Ferreira R, Gobel S, Hymers M, Ellis A . The neural correlates of semantic richness: evidence from an fMRI study of word learning. Brain Lang. 2015; 143:69-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.02.005. View

11.

Noble C . The meaning-familiarity relationship. Psychol Rev. 1953; 60(2):89-98. DOI: 10.1037/h0054823. View

12.

Kounios J, Holcomb P . Concreteness effects in semantic processing: ERP evidence supporting dual-coding theory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994; 20(4):804-23. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.20.4.804. View

13.

Van Rensbergen B, Storms G, De Deyne S . Examining assortativity in the mental lexicon: Evidence from word associations. Psychon Bull Rev. 2015; 22(6):1717-24. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0832-5. View

14.

Brysbaert M, Warriner A, Kuperman V . Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behav Res Methods. 2013; 46(3):904-11. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5. View

15.

Brysbaert M, Mandera P, McCormick S, Keuleers E . Word prevalence norms for 62,000 English lemmas. Behav Res Methods. 2018; 51(2):467-479. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1077-9. View

16.

Pexman P, Heard A, Lloyd E, Yap M . The Calgary semantic decision project: concrete/abstract decision data for 10,000 English words. Behav Res Methods. 2016; 49(2):407-417. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-016-0720-6. View

17.

Siakaluk P, Pexman P, Sears C, Wilson K, Locheed K, Owen W . The benefits of sensorimotor knowledge: body-object interaction facilitates semantic processing. Cogn Sci. 2011; 32(3):591-605. DOI: 10.1080/03640210802035399. View