Concreteness and word production

Abstract

Two experiments are reported that investigated the effect of concreteness on the ability to generate words to fit sentence contexts. When participants attempted to retrieve words from dictionary definitions in Experiment 1, abstract words were associated with more omissions and more alternates than were concrete words. These findings are consistent with the view that the semantic-lexical weights in the word production system are weaker for abstract than for concrete words. We found no evidence that greater competition from semantic neighbors was an additional reason why abstract words were harder to produce. Participants also reported more positive tip-of-the-tongue states (TOTs) when attempting to produce abstract words from their definitions, consistent with more phonological retrieval problems for abstract than for concrete words. In Experiment 2, participants attempted to generate words to fit into a sentence that described a specific event. The difference between the numbers of abstract and concrete words recalled was significantly smaller in the event condition than in the definition condition, and evidence no longer emerged of greater phonological retrieval failure for abstract words. Overall, the results are consistent with the view that the semantic-lexical weights, but not the lexicalphonological weights, are weaker for abstract than for concrete words in the word production system. Keywords Concreteness effect . Word production . Tip-of-the-tongue statesIn this study, we investigated the way in which rated concreteness influences the processes that are involved in word production. Experiments examining the effects on word production of variables such as frequency and age of acquisition have often employed tests of picture naming (e.g., Johnston, Dent, Humphreys, & Barry, 2010). Because it is not feasible to present abstract words in pictorial form, a few studies have instead used definition tasks to compare concrete and abstract word retrieval (Allen & Hulme, 2006;Hanley & Kay, 1997;Newton & Barry, 1997). Participants are presented with dictionary definitions of concrete and abstract words, and they attempt to recall the word that fits each definition. Allen and Hulme reported significantly better concrete than abstract word production on this task, even though their sets of concrete and abstract words were matched for frequency, morphemic complexity, age of acquisition, familiarity, neighborhood size, and word length.As Allen and Hulme (2006) pointed out, generating words from dictionary definitions involves several distinct processes. It first requires access to a target word's semantic representation in memory. In terms of a model of word production such as that put forward by Foygel and Dell (2000), activation of the word's lexical representation can then take place from its semantic representation, followed by activation of the word's phonological features. Gollan and Brown (2006) argued that the kinds of errors that participants make during word production make it possible to distinguis...

Evolution of word meanings through metaphorical mapping: Systematicity over the past millennium

“…Alternatively, our results may not reveal that abstract concepts are understood in terms of external and embodied concepts, per se, but rather, that external and embodied word meanings are easier to achieve shared reference for and to learn (Srinivasan & Carey, 2010;Thibodeau & Durgin, 2008) because of their salience and physical availability in experience. It is also possible that external meanings tend to be more frequent, and may thus be easier to retrieve for speakers who wish to communicate new ideas (Hanley et al, 2013;cf. Winter et al, 2014).…”

Multiplex model of mental lexicon reveals explosive learning in humans

“…We find (cf. Table 1) that words in the largest viable cluster (i) are more frequent in the Open Subtitles dataset 52 , (ii) acquired earlier according to AoA reports 42 , (iii) quicker to identify as words in lexical decision tasks 51 , (iv) rated as more concrete concepts 43 and thus more easily memorised 43,58,61 and (v) represent more meanings in different semantic areas 9,57 when compared to LVC-out words.…”

Evolution of word meanings through metaphorical mapping: Systematicity over the past millennium.

“…For example, it could be easier to communicate about something abstract -for which achieving shared reference is difficultby analogically referring to a more concrete meaning, for which shared reference is easier. Further, because concrete and embodied meanings tend to be frequent (Hanley et al, 2013;cf. Winter, Thompson, & Urban, 2014), they may be more readily retrieved as sources for meaning extension by speakers who need to communicate a new idea.…”