Reijnierse W Gudrun, Burgers Christian, Bolognesi Marianna, Krennmayr Tina
Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Department of Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Cogn Sci. 2019 Aug;43(8):e12779. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12779.
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.
具体性评级经常用于各种学科,以明确具体词汇和抽象词汇及概念之间的差异。然而,大多数评级研究都是单独呈现项目,从而忽略了词汇可能存在的一词多义现象。因此,对多义词的评级可能会混淆,这对具体性评级研究的有效性构成了威胁。这对于隐喻性词汇尤为重要,因为隐喻性词汇通常用更具体的事物来描述抽象的事物。为了研究隐喻性词义与非隐喻性词义的具体性评级是否存在差异,我们收集了230名参与者对96个英语名词的具体性评级。结果表明,当触发隐喻性(而非非隐喻性)意义时,名词被认为具体性较低。因此,我们建议在未来的具体性评级研究中考虑隐喻性,以进一步提高此类研究的质量和可靠性,以及依赖这些评级的实证研究的一致性。