» Articles » PMID: 40032746

Contrasting the Organization of Concrete and Abstract Word Meanings

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2025 Mar 3
PMID 40032746
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Concepts have traditionally been categorized as either concrete (e.g., ROSE) or abstract (e.g., ROMANCE) based on whether they have a direct connection to external sensory experience or not. However, there is growing consensus that these conceptual categories differ in their reliance on various additional sources of semantic information, such as motor, affective, social, and linguistic experiences, and this is reflected in systematic differences in the semantic properties that typically contribute to their informational content. However, it remains unclear whether concrete and abstract concepts also differ in how their constituent semantic properties relate to one another. To explore this, we compared the organization of 15 semantic dimensions underlying concrete and abstract concept knowledge using data-driven network analyses. We found striking differences in both (1) the centrality of conceptual properties and (2) their pairwise partial correlations. Distinct sensorimotor dimensions emerged as pivotal in organizing each concept type: haptic information for concrete concepts, and interoception and mouth action for abstract concepts. Social content was higher in abstract concepts. However, it played a more central role in structuring concrete meanings, suggesting distinct contributions of social experience to each concept type. Age of acquisition was related exclusively to dimensions quantifying sensorimotor and affective experiences, with sensorimotor properties supporting the acquisition of concrete concepts and affective properties contributing more to the acquisition of abstract concepts. Overall, our findings offer novel insights into the interplay between the diverse sources of semantic information proposed by multiple representation theories in shaping both abstract and concrete concept knowledge.

References
1.
Borghi A, Barca L, Binkofski F, Castelfranchi C, Pezzulo G, Tummolini L . Words as social tools: Language, sociality and inner grounding in abstract concepts. Phys Life Rev. 2018; 29:120-153. DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2018.12.001. View

2.
Borghi A, Binkofski F, Castelfranchi C, Cimatti F, Scorolli C, Tummolini L . The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychol Bull. 2017; 143(3):263-292. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000089. View

3.
Brysbaert M, New B . Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):977-90. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977. View

4.
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

5.
Craig A . Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2003; 13(4):500-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-4388(03)00090-4. View