A quantitative empirical analysis of the abstract/concrete distinction

Cognitive Science

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 162-177

  Hill, Felix ^a   Korhonen, Anna ^a   Bentz, Christian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cognitive architecture; Computer science; Concepts; Concreteness; Psychology; Representation; Semantics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COGNITION; COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURE; COMPUTER; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONCEPTS; CONCRETENESS; HUMAN; MOTIVATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY; REPRESENTATION; SEMANTICS;

COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURE; COMPUTER SCIENCE; CONCEPTS; CONCRETENESS; PSYCHOLOGY; REPRESENTATION; SEMANTICS;

ASSOCIATION; COGNITION; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMANS; MOTIVATION;

EID: 84893016875     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12076     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Adorni, R., & Proverbio, A. (2012). The neural manifestation of the word concreteness effect: An electrical neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 880-891.
2. Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic represenations. Psychological Review, 116(3), 463-498.
3. Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-609.
4. Barsalou, L., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought (pp. 129-163). New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Begg, I., & Paivio, A. (1969). Concreteness and imagery in sentence memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 821-827.
6. Binder, J., Westbury, C., McKiernan, K., Possing, E., & Medler, D. (2005). Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(6), 905-917.
7. Breedin, S., Saffran, E., & Coslett, H. (1994). Reversal of the concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 617-660.
8. Caramelli, N., Setti, A., & Maurizzi, D. (2004). Concrete and abstract concepts in school age children. Psychology of Language and Communication, 8(2), 6-9.
9. Crutch, S., Connell, S., & Warrington, E. (2009). The different representational frameworks underpinning abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from odd-one-out judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7), 1377-1388.
10. Crutch, S., Ridha, B., & Warrington, E. (2006). The different frameworks underlying abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from a bilingual patient with a semantic refractory access dysphasia. Neurocase, 12(3), 151-163.
11. Crutch, S., & Warrington, E. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128(3), 615-627.
12. Crutch, S., & Warrington, E. (2010). The differential dependence of abstract and concrete words upon associative and similarity-based information: Complementary semantic interference and facilitation effects. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27(1), 46-71.
13. De Groot, A. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 1001-1018.
14. Duñabeitia, J., Avilés, J., Afonso, A., & Scheeper, O. (2009). Qualitative differences in the representation of abstract versus concrete words: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 110, 284-292.
15. Felbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 2. Language, thought, and culture (pp. 301-334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45-56.
18. Gopnik, A., & Schulz, L. (2004). Mechanisms of theory formation in young children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(8), 372-377.
19. Griffiths, T., Steyvers, M., & Tenembaum, J. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114(2), 211-244.
20. Holmes, M., & Langford, J. (1976). Comprehension and recall of abstract and concrete sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 15, 559-566.
21. Huang, H., Lee, C., & Federmeier, K. (2010). Imagine that! ERPs provide evidence for distinct hemispheric contributions to the processing of concrete and abstract concepts. NeuroImage, 49(1), 1116-1123.
22. James, C. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 104, 130-136.
23. Kucera, H., & Francis, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
24. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25. Landauer, T., & Dumais, S. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review, 104, 11-140.
26. Lin, D. (1998). An information-theoretic definition of similarity. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML '98), Madison, WI.
27. Markman, A., & Gentner, D. (1993). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 517-535.
28. Markman, A, & Stilwell, C. (2001). Role-governed categories. Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Artificial Intelligence, 13, 329-358.
29. Markman, A., & Wisniewski, E. (1997). Similar and different: The differentiation of basic level categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23(1), 54-70.
30. McRae, K., de Sa, V., & Seidenberg, M. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 99-130.
31. McRae, K., Khalkhali, S., & Hare, M. (2012). Semantic and associative relations: Examining a tenuous dichotomy. In V. Reyna, S. Chapman, & J. Dougherty (Eds.), The adolescent brain: Learning, reasoning, and decision making (pp. 39-66). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
32. Medin, D. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44, 1469-1481.
33. Michelbaker, L., Evert, S., & Schütze, H. (2011). Asymmetry in corpus-derived and human word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(2), 245.
34. Moeser, S. (1974). Memory for meaning and wording in concrete and abstract sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 682-697.
35. Nelson, D., & McEvoy, C. (2012). The University of South Florida Word Association, Rhyme and Word Fragment Norms. Available at: http://web.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/Intro.html. Accessed August 1, 2012.
36. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
37. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
38. Paivio, A., Yuille, J., & Madigan, S. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76(1, Pt. 2), 1-25.
39. Plaut, D. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a distributed attractor network. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 37-42) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Plaut, D., & Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10, 377-500.
41. Prinz, J. (2002). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Quillian, M. (1968). Semantic memory. In M. Minsky (Ed.), Semantic information processing (pp. 227-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Resnik, P. (1995). Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. Proceedings of IJCAI-95, 448-453, Montreal, Canada.
44. Resnik, P. (1999). Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: An information based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11, 95-130.
45. Rogers, T., & McLelland, J. (2003). Semantic cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), (September 1975), 192-233.
47. Rubenstein, H., & Goodenough, J. (1965). Contextual correlates of synonymy. Communications of the ACM, 8(10), 627-633.
48. Ruiz-Casado, M., Alfonseca, E., & Castells, P. (2005). Using context-window overlapping in synonym discovery and ontology extension. Proceedings of RANLP-2005, Borovets, Bulgaria.
49. Schickel-Zuber, V., & Faltings, B. (2007). Using hierarchical clustering for learning the ontologies used in recommendation systems. Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ACM, San Jose, CA.
50. Schwanenflugel, P. (1991). Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In P. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 223-250). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Schwanenflugel, P., & Shoben, E. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 9, 82-102.
52. Shepard, R. (1957). Stimulus and response generalization: A stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Psychometrika, 22, 325-345.
53. Steyvers, M., & Griffiths, T. (2007). Probabilistic topic models. In T. Landauer, D. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Latent semantic analysis: A road to meaning (pp. 427-448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Steyvers, M., & Tennembaum, J. (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic networks: Statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29(1), 41-78.
55. Taylor, K., Devereux, B., & Tyler, L. (2011). Conceptual structure: Towards an integrated neuro-cognitive account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1368-1401.
56. Taylor, K., Moss, H., & Tyler, L. (2007). The conceptual structure account: A cognitive model of semantic memory and its neural instantiation. In J. Hart & M. Kraut (Eds.), Neural basis of semantic memory (pp. 265-301). London: Cambridge University Press.
57. Toglia, M., & Battig, W. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
58. Turney, P, & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 37, 141-188.
59. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
60. Tyler, L., & Moss, H. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(6), 244-252.
61. Tyler, L., Moss, H., & Jennings, F. (1995). Abstract word deficits in aphasia: Evidence from semantic priming. Neuropsychology, 9(3), 354-363.
62. Warrington, E. (1975). The selective impairment of semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27(4), 635-657.
63. Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(5), 719-736.
64. Wilson-Mendenhall, C., Simmons, W., Martin, A., & Barsalou, L. (2013). Contextual processing of abstract concepts reveals neural representations of non-linguistic semantic content. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(6), 920-935.
65. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
66. Wu, L., & Barsalou, L. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132, 173-189.