Author:
Bolognesi Marianna Marcella,Caselli Tommaso
Abstract
AbstractAbstraction enables us to categorize experience, learn new information, and form judgments. Language arguably plays a crucial role in abstraction, providing us with words that vary in specificity (e.g., highly generic: tool vs. highly specific: muffler). Yet, human-generated ratings of word specificity are virtually absent. We hereby present a dataset of specificity ratings collected from Italian native speakers on a set of around 1K Italian words, using the Best-Worst Scaling method. Through a series of correlation studies, we show that human-generated specificity ratings have low correlation coefficients with specificity metrics extracted automatically from WordNet, suggesting that WordNet does not reflect the hierarchical relations of category inclusion present in the speakers’ minds. Moreover, our ratings show low correlations with concreteness ratings, suggesting that the variables Specificity and Concreteness capture two separate aspects involved in abstraction and that specificity may need to be controlled for when investigating conceptual concreteness. Finally, through a series of regression studies we show that specificity explains a unique amount of variance in decision latencies (lexical decision task), suggesting that this variable has theoretical value. The results are discussed in relation to the concept and investigation of abstraction.
Funder
Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Psychology,Psychology (miscellaneous),Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference69 articles.
1. Barber, H. A., Otten, L. J., Kousta, S. T., & Vigliocco, G. (2013). Concreteness in word processing: ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 125, 47–53.
2. Blewitt, P. (1983). Dog versus collie: Vocabulary in speech to young children. Developmental Psychology, 19(4), 602–609.
3. Bolognesi, M., Burgers, C., & Caselli, T. (2020). On abstraction: Decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity. Cognitive Processing, 21(3), 365–381.
4. Bond, F., & Paik, K. (2012). A survey of wordnets and their licenses. In proceedings of the 6th global WordNet conference (GWC 2012) (pp. 64–71).
5. Bonin, P., Méot, A., & Bugaiska, A. (2018). Concreteness norms for 1,659 French words: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables and word recognition times. Behavior Research Methods, 50(6), 2366–2387.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献