Suppr超能文献

一词多义如何影响具体性评级:以隐喻为例。

How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings: The Case of Metaphor.

作者信息

Reijnierse W Gudrun, Burgers Christian, Bolognesi Marianna, Krennmayr Tina

机构信息

Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen.

Department of Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

出版信息

Cogn Sci. 2019 Aug;43(8):e12779. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12779.

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

1
How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings: The Case of Metaphor.
Cogn Sci. 2019 Aug;43(8):e12779. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12779.
2
Metaphors are physical and abstract: ERPs to metaphorically modified nouns resemble ERPs to abstract language.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Feb 10;9:28. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00028. eCollection 2015.
3
Concreteness effects in single-meaning, multi-meaning and newly acquired words.
Brain Res. 2013 Nov 13;1538:135-50. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2013.09.015. Epub 2013 Sep 21.
4
Polysemy Advantage with Abstract But Not Concrete Words.
J Psycholinguist Res. 2016 Feb;45(1):143-56. doi: 10.1007/s10936-014-9337-z.
5
On abstraction: decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity.
Cogn Process. 2020 Aug;21(3):365-381. doi: 10.1007/s10339-020-00965-9. Epub 2020 Mar 16.
7
Concrete processing of action metaphors: Evidence from ERP.
Brain Res. 2019 Jul 1;1714:202-209. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2019.03.005. Epub 2019 Mar 7.
8
CONcreTEXT norms: Concreteness ratings for Italian and English words in context.
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 20;18(10):e0293031. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293031. eCollection 2023.
9
Non-Arbitrariness in Mapping Word Form to Meaning: Cross-Linguistic Formal Markers of Word Concreteness.
Cogn Sci. 2017 May;41(4):1071-1089. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12361. Epub 2016 Mar 14.
10
Novel metaphor comprehension: Semantic neighbourhood density interacts with concreteness.
Mem Cognit. 2017 Feb;45(2):296-307. doi: 10.3758/s13421-016-0650-7.

引用本文的文献

1
Specificity ratings for English data.
Cogn Process. 2025 May;26(2):283-302. doi: 10.1007/s10339-024-01239-4. Epub 2024 Nov 8.
2
What we mean when we say semantic: Toward a multidisciplinary semantic glossary.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 Feb;32(1):243-280. doi: 10.3758/s13423-024-02556-7. Epub 2024 Sep 4.
3
CONcreTEXT norms: Concreteness ratings for Italian and English words in context.
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 20;18(10):e0293031. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293031. eCollection 2023.
4
A test of indirect grounding of abstract concepts using multimodal distributional semantics.
Front Psychol. 2022 Oct 4;13:906181. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906181. eCollection 2022.
5
On abstraction: decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity.
Cogn Process. 2020 Aug;21(3):365-381. doi: 10.1007/s10339-020-00965-9. Epub 2020 Mar 16.

本文引用的文献

1
The Glasgow Norms: Ratings of 5,500 words on nine scales.
Behav Res Methods. 2019 Jun;51(3):1258-1270. doi: 10.3758/s13428-018-1099-3.
2
Word prevalence norms for 62,000 English lemmas.
Behav Res Methods. 2019 Apr;51(2):467-479. doi: 10.3758/s13428-018-1077-9.
3
Are subjective ratings of metaphors a red herring? The big two dimensions of metaphoric sentences.
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Apr;50(2):759-772. doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0903-9.
4
The Calgary semantic decision project: concrete/abstract decision data for 10,000 English words.
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Apr;49(2):407-417. doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0720-6.
5
The impact of word prevalence on lexical decision times: Evidence from the Dutch Lexicon Project 2.
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2016 Mar;42(3):441-58. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000159. Epub 2015 Oct 26.
6
Examining assortativity in the mental lexicon: Evidence from word associations.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2015 Dec;22(6):1717-24. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0832-5.
7
Small telescopes: detectability and the evaluation of replication results.
Psychol Sci. 2015 May;26(5):559-69. doi: 10.1177/0956797614567341. Epub 2015 Mar 23.
8
The neural correlates of semantic richness: evidence from an fMRI study of word learning.
Brain Lang. 2015 Apr;143:69-80. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2015.02.005. Epub 2015 Mar 19.
9
Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas.
Behav Res Methods. 2014 Sep;46(3):904-11. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5.
10
Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability.
Cognition. 2012 Dec;125(3):452-65. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010. Epub 2012 Aug 27.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验