Statistical relationships between surface form and sensory meanings of English words influence lexical processing.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1037/xhp0001209
Greig I de Zubicaray, Elaine Kearney, Frank Guenther, Katie L McMahon, Joanne Arciuli
{"title":"Statistical relationships between surface form and sensory meanings of English words influence lexical processing.","authors":"Greig I de Zubicaray, Elaine Kearney, Frank Guenther, Katie L McMahon, Joanne Arciuli","doi":"10.1037/xhp0001209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Across spoken languages, there are some words whose acoustic features resemble the meanings of their referents by evoking perceptual imagery, i.e., they are iconic (e.g., in English, \"splash\" imitates the sound of an object hitting water). While these sound symbolic form-meaning relationships are well-studied, relatively little work has explored whether the sensory properties of English words also involve systematic (i.e., statistical) form-meaning mappings. We first test the prediction that surface form properties can predict sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 monosyllabic and disyllabic words (Juhasz & Yap, 2013), confirming they explain a significant proportion of variance. Next, we show that iconicity and sensory form typicality, a statistical measure of how well a word's form aligns with its sensory experience rating, are only weakly related to each other, indicating they are likely to be distinct constructs. To determine whether form typicality influences processing of sensory words, we conducted regression analyses using lexical decision, word recognition, naming and semantic decision tasks from behavioral megastudy data sets. Across the data sets, sensory form typicality was able to predict more variance in performance than sensory experience or iconicity ratings. Further, the effects of typicality were consistently inhibitory in comprehension (i.e., more typical forms were responded to more slowly and less accurately), whereas for production the effect was facilitatory. These findings are the first evidence that systematic form-meaning mappings in English sensory words influence their processing. We discuss how language processing models incorporating Bayesian prediction mechanisms might be able to account for form typicality in the lexicon. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Across spoken languages, there are some words whose acoustic features resemble the meanings of their referents by evoking perceptual imagery, i.e., they are iconic (e.g., in English, "splash" imitates the sound of an object hitting water). While these sound symbolic form-meaning relationships are well-studied, relatively little work has explored whether the sensory properties of English words also involve systematic (i.e., statistical) form-meaning mappings. We first test the prediction that surface form properties can predict sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 monosyllabic and disyllabic words (Juhasz & Yap, 2013), confirming they explain a significant proportion of variance. Next, we show that iconicity and sensory form typicality, a statistical measure of how well a word's form aligns with its sensory experience rating, are only weakly related to each other, indicating they are likely to be distinct constructs. To determine whether form typicality influences processing of sensory words, we conducted regression analyses using lexical decision, word recognition, naming and semantic decision tasks from behavioral megastudy data sets. Across the data sets, sensory form typicality was able to predict more variance in performance than sensory experience or iconicity ratings. Further, the effects of typicality were consistently inhibitory in comprehension (i.e., more typical forms were responded to more slowly and less accurately), whereas for production the effect was facilitatory. These findings are the first evidence that systematic form-meaning mappings in English sensory words influence their processing. We discuss how language processing models incorporating Bayesian prediction mechanisms might be able to account for form typicality in the lexicon. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

英语单词表面形式和感官意义之间的统计关系影响词汇加工。
在各种口语中,有些词的声音特征通过唤起知觉意象而与其所指的意义相似,即它们具有标志性(例如,在英语中,"splash "模仿物体撞击水面的声音)。虽然这些声音符号的形式-意义关系已经得到了充分的研究,但对于英语单词的感官属性是否也涉及系统性(即统计性)的形式-意义映射,研究相对较少。我们首先检验了表面形式属性可以预测 5000 多个单音节和双音节单词的感官体验评分这一预测(Juhasz & Yap, 2013),证实它们可以解释很大一部分变异。接下来,我们证明了标志性和感官形式典型性(一种衡量单词形式与其感官体验评分一致性的统计量度)之间的关系很弱,这表明它们很可能是不同的建构。为了确定形式典型性是否会影响对感官词汇的处理,我们使用行为大研究数据集中的词汇决策、词汇识别、命名和语义决策任务进行了回归分析。在所有数据集中,感官形式典型性比感官经验或图标性评级更能预测成绩差异。此外,典型性对理解的影响始终是抑制性的(即对更典型的形式反应更慢、更不准确),而对生产的影响则是促进性的。这些发现首次证明了英语感觉词中的系统形式-意义映射会影响其处理过程。我们讨论了包含贝叶斯预测机制的语言处理模型如何能够解释词典中的形式典型性。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信