对比具体和抽象词义的组织。

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Veronica Diveica, Emiko J Muraki, Richard J Binney, Penny M Pexman
{"title":"对比具体和抽象词义的组织。","authors":"Veronica Diveica, Emiko J Muraki, Richard J Binney, Penny M Pexman","doi":"10.3758/s13423-025-02671-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Concepts have traditionally been categorized as either concrete (e.g., ROSE) or abstract (e.g., ROMANCE) based on whether they have a direct connection to external sensory experience or not. However, there is growing consensus that these conceptual categories differ in their reliance on various additional sources of semantic information, such as motor, affective, social, and linguistic experiences, and this is reflected in systematic differences in the semantic properties that typically contribute to their informational content. However, it remains unclear whether concrete and abstract concepts also differ in how their constituent semantic properties relate to one another. To explore this, we compared the organization of 15 semantic dimensions underlying concrete and abstract concept knowledge using data-driven network analyses. We found striking differences in both (1) the centrality of conceptual properties and (2) their pairwise partial correlations. Distinct sensorimotor dimensions emerged as pivotal in organizing each concept type: haptic information for concrete concepts, and interoception and mouth action for abstract concepts. Social content was higher in abstract concepts. However, it played a more central role in structuring concrete meanings, suggesting distinct contributions of social experience to each concept type. Age of acquisition was related exclusively to dimensions quantifying sensorimotor and affective experiences, with sensorimotor properties supporting the acquisition of concrete concepts and affective properties contributing more to the acquisition of abstract concepts. Overall, our findings offer novel insights into the interplay between the diverse sources of semantic information proposed by multiple representation theories in shaping both abstract and concrete concept knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":20763,"journal":{"name":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contrasting the organization of concrete and abstract word meanings.\",\"authors\":\"Veronica Diveica, Emiko J Muraki, Richard J Binney, Penny M Pexman\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13423-025-02671-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Concepts have traditionally been categorized as either concrete (e.g., ROSE) or abstract (e.g., ROMANCE) based on whether they have a direct connection to external sensory experience or not. However, there is growing consensus that these conceptual categories differ in their reliance on various additional sources of semantic information, such as motor, affective, social, and linguistic experiences, and this is reflected in systematic differences in the semantic properties that typically contribute to their informational content. However, it remains unclear whether concrete and abstract concepts also differ in how their constituent semantic properties relate to one another. To explore this, we compared the organization of 15 semantic dimensions underlying concrete and abstract concept knowledge using data-driven network analyses. We found striking differences in both (1) the centrality of conceptual properties and (2) their pairwise partial correlations. Distinct sensorimotor dimensions emerged as pivotal in organizing each concept type: haptic information for concrete concepts, and interoception and mouth action for abstract concepts. Social content was higher in abstract concepts. However, it played a more central role in structuring concrete meanings, suggesting distinct contributions of social experience to each concept type. Age of acquisition was related exclusively to dimensions quantifying sensorimotor and affective experiences, with sensorimotor properties supporting the acquisition of concrete concepts and affective properties contributing more to the acquisition of abstract concepts. Overall, our findings offer novel insights into the interplay between the diverse sources of semantic information proposed by multiple representation theories in shaping both abstract and concrete concept knowledge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02671-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02671-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据概念是否与外部感官体验有直接联系,传统上可以将概念分为具体的(如ROSE)或抽象的(如ROMANCE)。然而,越来越多的人一致认为,这些概念类别对各种额外语义信息来源的依赖不同,如运动、情感、社会和语言经验,这反映在通常有助于其信息内容的语义属性的系统差异上。然而,目前尚不清楚具体和抽象概念是否在其组成语义属性如何相互关联方面也有所不同。为了探讨这一点,我们使用数据驱动的网络分析比较了具体和抽象概念知识的15个语义维度的组织。我们在(1)概念属性的中心性和(2)它们的两两偏相关性方面发现了显著的差异。不同的感觉运动维度在组织每一种概念类型中发挥了关键作用:具体概念的触觉信息,抽象概念的内感受和嘴部动作。抽象概念的社会性含量较高。然而,它在构建具体意义方面发挥了更重要的作用,表明社会经验对每种概念类型的独特贡献。习得年龄只与量化感觉运动和情感体验的维度相关,感觉运动特性支持具体概念的习得,情感特性更有助于抽象概念的习得。总的来说,我们的研究结果为多种表征理论在形成抽象和具体概念知识时提出的不同语义信息来源之间的相互作用提供了新的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contrasting the organization of concrete and abstract word meanings.

Concepts have traditionally been categorized as either concrete (e.g., ROSE) or abstract (e.g., ROMANCE) based on whether they have a direct connection to external sensory experience or not. However, there is growing consensus that these conceptual categories differ in their reliance on various additional sources of semantic information, such as motor, affective, social, and linguistic experiences, and this is reflected in systematic differences in the semantic properties that typically contribute to their informational content. However, it remains unclear whether concrete and abstract concepts also differ in how their constituent semantic properties relate to one another. To explore this, we compared the organization of 15 semantic dimensions underlying concrete and abstract concept knowledge using data-driven network analyses. We found striking differences in both (1) the centrality of conceptual properties and (2) their pairwise partial correlations. Distinct sensorimotor dimensions emerged as pivotal in organizing each concept type: haptic information for concrete concepts, and interoception and mouth action for abstract concepts. Social content was higher in abstract concepts. However, it played a more central role in structuring concrete meanings, suggesting distinct contributions of social experience to each concept type. Age of acquisition was related exclusively to dimensions quantifying sensorimotor and affective experiences, with sensorimotor properties supporting the acquisition of concrete concepts and affective properties contributing more to the acquisition of abstract concepts. Overall, our findings offer novel insights into the interplay between the diverse sources of semantic information proposed by multiple representation theories in shaping both abstract and concrete concept knowledge.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.90%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: The journal provides coverage spanning a broad spectrum of topics in all areas of experimental psychology. The journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of theory and review articles and brief reports of outstanding experimental work. Areas of coverage include cognitive psychology broadly construed, including but not limited to action, perception, & attention, language, learning & memory, reasoning & decision making, and social cognition. We welcome submissions that approach these issues from a variety of perspectives such as behavioral measurements, comparative psychology, development, evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and quantitative/computational modeling. We particularly encourage integrative research that crosses traditional content and methodological boundaries.
×
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