Flexible and fast: Linguistic shortcut affects both shallow and deep conceptual processing

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 542-550

  Connell, Louise ^a   Lynott, Dermot ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Concepts; Conceptual combination; ECCo; Linguistic distributional information; Linguistic system; Word frequency

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878493552     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0368-x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8- month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9, 321-324.
2. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2007. 12. 005.
3. Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 245-283). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. BNC Consortium. (2001). British National Corpus, Version 2 (BNC World). Retrieved from www. natcorp. ox. ac. uk.
5. Brants, T., & Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram Version 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
6. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977-990. doi: 10. 3758/BRM. 41. 4. 977.
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
8. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2011). Modality switching costs emerge in concept creation as well as retrieval. Cognitive Science, 35, 763-778. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1551-6709. 2010. 01168. x.
9. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2013). Principles of representation: Why you can't represent the same concept twice. Manuscript submitted for publication.
10. Estes, Z. (2003). Attributive and relational processes in nominal combination. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 304-319.
11. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11-15. doi: 10. 1111/1467-8721. 00158.
12. Gagné, C. L., & Shoben, E. J. (1997). Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 71-87.
13. Jones, L. L., & Golonka, S. (2012). Different influences on lexical priming for integrative, thematic, and taxonomic relations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 205. doi: 10. 3389/fnhum. 2012. 00205.
14. Kirkham, N. Z., Slemmer, J. A., & Johnson, S. P. (2002). Visual statistical learning in infancy: Evidence of a domain general learning mechanism. Cognition, 83, B35-B42.
15. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 104. 2. 211.
16. Locker, L., Hoffman, L., & Bovaird, J. A. (2007). On the use of multilevel modeling as an alternative to items analysis in psycholinguistic research. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 723-730.
17. Louwerse, M. M. (2011). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 273-302.
18. Louwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: Linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. Cognitive Science, 35, 381-398. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1551-6709. 2010. 01157. x.
19. Louwerse, M., & Hutchinson, S. (2012). Neurological evidence linguistic processes precede perceptual simulation in conceptual processing. Frontiers in Cognitive Science, 3, 385. doi: 10. 3389/fpsyg. 2012. 00385.
20. Louwerse, M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2008). Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 309-326). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2010a). The effect of prosody on conceptual combination. Cognitive Science, 34, 1107-1123.
22. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2010b). Embodied conceptual combination. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(216), 1-14.
23. Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119-124. doi: 10. 1111/1467-9280. t01-1-01429.
24. Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory & Cognition, 32, 244-259. doi: 10. 3758/BF03196856.
25. Tagalakis, G., & Keane, M. T. (2006). Familiarity and relational preference in the understanding of noun-noun compounds. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1285-1297. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193272.