Non-Arbitrariness in Mapping Word Form to Meaning: Cross-Linguistic Formal Markers of Word Concreteness

Cognitive Science

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 1071-1089

  Reilly, Jamie ^a   Hung, Jinyi ^a   Westbury, Chris ^b  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Arbitrary Symbolism; Concreteness; Cross Linguistic; Imageability; Phonology; Psycholinguistics; Semantic Memory

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; SYMBOLISM; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LANGUAGE; MALE; SYMBOLISM; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84961218696     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: 15516709     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12361     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. doi:10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705.
2. Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5
3. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
4. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers. Special Issue: Web-Based Archive of Norms, Stimuli, and Data: Part 1, 36(3), 371–383.
5. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497–505.
6. Crutch, S. J., Troche, J., Reilly, J., & Ridgway, G. R. (2013). Abstract conceptual feature ratings: The role of emotion, magnitude, and other cognitive domains in the organization of abstract conceptual knowledge. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 186. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00186
7. Durieux, G., & Gillis, S. (2001). Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, lexical, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition, Volume 1. In J. Weissenborn & B. Höhle (Eds.), Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, lexical, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition (1st ed.) (pp. 189–229). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8. Eprime 2.0 Professional [Computer software]. (2015). Sharpsburg, PA: Available from https://www.pstnet.com/eprime.cfm
9. Kelly, M. H. (1992). Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments. Psychological Review, 99(2), 349–364.
10. Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (1997). Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(3), 295–311.
11. Koriat, A. (1975). Phonetic symbolism and feeling of knowing. Memory & Cognition, 3(5), 545–548. doi:10.3758/BF03197529
12. Kousta, S.-T. T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 140(1), 14–34. doi:2010-26153-001 [pii]10.1037/a0021446
13. Langenmayr, A., Gozutok, M., & Gust, J. (2001). Remembering more nouns than verbs in lists of foreign-language words as an indicator of syntactic phonetic symbolism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93(3), 843–850.
14. Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (2015). Summary by language size. In Ethnologue: Languages of the World (19th ed.) (online version). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Retrieved February 22, 2016 from http://www.ethnologue.com
15. Lewis, M., Sugarman, E., & Frank, M. (2014). The structure of the lexicon reflects principles of communication. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 845–850).
16. Love, J. (2014). English vs. English: On the concrete and the abstract, the Germanic and the Latinate. Retrieved March 15, 2015, from https://theamericanscholar.org/english-vs-english/VR6yelPF8Xk
17. Monaghan, P., Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). The differential role of phonological and distributional cues in grammatical categorisation. Cognition, 96(2), 143–182.
18. Monaghan, P., Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2007). The phonological-distributional coherence hypothesis: Cross-linguistic evidence in language acquisition. Cognitive Psychology, 55(4), 259–305.
19. Monaghan, P., Christiansen, M. H., & Fitneva, S. A. (2011). The arbitrariness of the sign: Learning advantages from the structure of the vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 140(3), 325–347. doi:10.1037/a0022924
20. Monaghan, P., Shillcock, R. C., Christiansen, M. H., & Kirby, S. (2014). How arbitrary is language? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369(20130299), 1–12.
21. Nygaard, L. C., Cook, A. E., & Namy, L. L. (2009). Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition, 112(1), 181–186.
22. Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2011). Reply to Reilly and Kean: Clarifications on word length and information content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(20), E109–E109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1103550108
23. R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/
24. Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science, 29(6), 1007–1028.
25. Reilly, J. (2005). A tale of two imageabilities: An interaction of sound and meaning in natural language perception. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, US. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct&true%26db=psyh%26AN=2005-99024-143%26site=ehost-live
26. Reilly, J., Cross, K., Troiani, V., & Grossman, M. (2007). Single-word semantic judgements in semantic dementia: Do phonology and grammatical class count? Aphasiology, 21(6-8), 558–569. doi:10.1080/02687030701191986
27. Reilly, J., & Kean, J. (2007). Formal distinctiveness of high- and low-imageability nouns: Analyses and theoretical implications. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 157–168. doi:10.1080/03640210709336988
28. Reilly, J., & Kean, J. (2011). Information content and word frequency in natural language: Word length matters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 108(20), doi:1103035108 [pii]10.1073/pnas.1103035108
29. Reilly, J., Peelle, J. E., Garcia, A., & Crutch, S. J. (2016, in press). Linking somatic and symbolic representation in semantic memory: The Dynamic Multilevel Reactivation Framework. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.
30. Reilly, J., Westbury, C., Kean, J., & Peelle, J. E. (2012). Arbitrary symbolism in natural language revisited: When word forms carry meaning. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42286. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042286
31. Saffran, J. R., & Thiessen, E. D. (2003). Pattern induction by infant language learners. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 484–494.
32. Saussure, F. de (1916). Cours de linguistique generale. Lausanne, Paris: Payot.
33. Shi, R., Morgan, J. L., & Allopenna, P. (1998). Phonological and acoustic bases for earliest grammatical category assignment: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Child Language, 25(01), 169–201.
34. Shi, R., Werker, J. F., & Morgan, J. L. (1999). Newborn infants’ sensitivity to perceptual cues to lexical and grammatical words. Cognition, 72(2), B11–B21. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00047-5
35. St. Clair, M. C., Monaghan, P., & Christiansen, M. H. (2010). Learning grammatical categories from distributional cues: Flexible frames for language acquisition. Cognition, 116(3), 341–360.
36. Swaab, T. Y., Boudewyn, M. A., Long, D. L., Luck, S. J., Kring, A. M., Ragland, J. D., Ranganath, C., Lesh, T., Niendam, T., Solomon, M., Mangum, G. R., & Carter, C. S. (2013). Spared and impaired spoken discourse processing in schizophrenia: Effects of local and global language context. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(39), 15578–15587. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0965-13.2013
37. Van Riper, C. (1963). Speech correction (4th ed.). Englewoood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
38. Vinson, D., Thompson, R. L., Skinner, R., & Vigliocco, G. (2015). A faster path between meaning and form? Iconicity facilitates sign recognition and production in British Sign Language. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 56–85. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.002
39. Westbury, C., & Moroschan, G. (2009). Imageability x phonology interactions in lexical access. The Mental Lexicon, 4(1), 115–145.
40. Wickens, T. D. (2002). Elementary signal detection theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
41. Zipf, G. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Addison Wesley.