Are There Qualitative Differences in the Representation of Abstract and Concrete Words? Within-Language and Cross-Language Evidence from the Semantic Priming Paradigm
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2015
Are There Qualitative Differences in the Representation of Abstract and Concrete Words? Within-Language and Cross-Language Evidence from the Semantic Priming Paradigm
The different organizational frameworks theory proposes that there is a qualitative difference between the representation of concrete and abstract words in memory: Concrete concepts would be primarily organized in terms of semantic similarity whereas abstract concepts would be mainly organized by their association with other concepts. Evidence in support of this proposal has been mostly obtained with neuropsychological populations and, to a lesser extent, with healthy participants. In the present work, we tested the different organizational frameworks theory by using, for the first time, a semantic priming paradigm both within language and across languages. The results revealed that there was priming for both semantically similar and associative relations when words were concrete. However, with abstract words, priming was only observed when pairs and targets were associated. These results do not support the proposal of Crutch and coworkers, suggesting that the experimental paradigm as well as the type of relations tested may modulate the pattern of effects obtained with concrete and abstract words.
AltarribaJ., & Basnight-BrownD. M. (2007). Methodological considerations in performing semantic- and translation-priming experiments across languages. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1–18.
2.
AndrewsM., ViglioccoG., & WilsonD. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463–498.
3.
BarberH. A., OttenL. J., KoustaS. T., & ViglioccoG. (2013). Concreteness in word processing: ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain & Language, 125, 47–53.
4.
BinderJ. R., WestburyC. F., McKiernanK. A., PossingE. T., & MedlerD. A. (2005). Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 905–917.
5.
BuenoS., & Frenck-MestreC. (2008). The activation of semantic memory: Effects of prime exposure, prime-target relationship, and task demands. Memory & Cognition, 36, 882–898.
6.
CrossleyS. (2013). Assessing automatic processing of hypernymic relations in first language speakers and advanced second language learners. A semantic priming approach. The Mental Lexicon, 8, 96–116.
7.
CrutchS. J. (2006). Qualitative different semantic representations for abstract and concrete words: Further evidence from the semantic reading errors of deep dyslexic patients. Neurocase, 12, 91–97.
8.
CrutchS. J., ConnellS., & WarringtonE. K. (2009). The different representational frameworks underpinning abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from odd-one-out judgements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1377–1390.
9.
CrutchS. J., & JacksonE. C. (2011). Contrasting graded effects of semantic similarity and association across the concreteness spectrum. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1388–1408.
10.
CrutchS. J., RidhaB. H., & WarringtonE. K. (2006). The different frameworks underlying abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from a bilingual patient with a semantic refractory access dysphasia. Neurocase, 12, 151–163.
11.
CrutchS. J., & WarringtonE. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128, 615–627.
12.
CrutchS. J., & WarringtonE. K. (2007). Semantic priming in deep-phonological dyslexia: Contrasting effects of association and similarity upon abstract and concrete word reading. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 1–20.
13.
CrutchS. J., & WarringtonE. K. (2010). The differential dependence of abstract and concrete words upon associative and similarity-based information: Complementary semantic interference and facilitation effects. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27, 46–71.
14.
DavisC. J., & PereaM. (2005). Buscapalabras: A program for deriving orthographic and phonological neighbourhood statistics and other psycholinguistic indices in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 665–671.
15.
De GrootA. M. B., & KeijzerR. (2000). What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of word concreteness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign-language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning, 50, 1–56.
16.
DuchonA., PereaM., Sebastián-GallésN., MartíA., & CarreirasM. (2013). EsPal: One-stop Shopping for Spanish Word Properties. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1246–1258.
17.
DuñabeitiaJ. A., AvilésA., AlfonsoO., ScheepersC., & CarreirasM. (2009). Qualitative differences in the representation of abstract versus concrete words: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 110, 284–292.
18.
FernándezA., DíezE., AlonsoA. M., & BeatoM. S. (2004). Free-association norms for the Spanish names of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 577–583.
19.
FerrandL., & NewB. (2003). Semantic and associative priming in the mental lexicon. In BoninP. (Ed.), Mental lexicon: Some words to talk about words (pp. 25–43). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
20.
ForsterK. I., & ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116–124.
21.
GengJ., & SchnurT. T. (2015). The representation of concrete and abstract concepts: Categorical vs. associative relationships. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. doi:10.1037/a0037430
22.
GuaschM., BoadaR., FerréP., & Sánchez-CasasR. (2013). NIM: A Web-based Swiss Army knife to select stimuli for psycholinguistic studies. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 765–771.
23.
GuaschM., Sánchez-CasasR., FerréP., & García-AlbeaJ. E. (2011). Effects of the degree of meaning similarity on cross-language semantic priming in highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 942–961.
24.
GuidaA., & LenciA. (2007). Semantic properties of word associations to Italian verbs. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 19, 293–326.
25.
HamiltonA. C., & CoslettH. B. (2008). Refractory access disorders and the organization of concrete and abstract semantics: Do they differ?Neurocase, 14, 131–140.
26.
HamiltonA. C., & MartinR. C. (2010). Inferring semantic organization from refractory access dysphasia: Further replication in the domains of geography and proper nouns but not concrete and abstract concepts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27, 614–635.
27.
HutchisonK. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 785–813.
28.
JonesL. L., & EstesZ. (2012). Lexical priming: Associative, semantic, and thematic influences on word recognition. In AdelmanJ. S. (Ed.), Visual word recognition Vol. 2 (pp. 44–72). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
29.
KotzS. A. (2001). Neurolinguistic evidence for bilingual language representation: A comparison of reaction times and event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 143–154.
30.
KotzS. A., & Elston-GüttlerK. E. (2004). The role of proficiency on processing categorical and associative information in the L2: Reaction times and event-related potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 215–235.
31.
KrollJ. K., & StewartE. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.
32.
LucasM. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 618–630.
33.
MahonB. Z., CostaA., PetersonR., VargasK. A., & CaramazzaA. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 503–535.
McRaeK., KhalkhaliS., & HareM. (2012). Semantic and associative relations in adolescents and young adults: Examining a tenuous dichotomy. In ReynaV. F., ChapmanS., DougerthyM., & ConfreyJ. (Eds.), The adolescent brain: Learning, reasoning, and decision making (pp. 39–66). Washington, DC: APA.
36.
MeyerD. E., SchvaneveldtR. W., & RuddyM. G. (1975). Loci of contextual effects on visual word-recognition. In RabbittP. & DornicS. (Eds.). Attention and performance V (pp. 98–118). New York: Academic Press.
37.
MurphyK., & HuntH. (2013). The time course of semantic and associative priming effects is different in an attentional blink task. Cognitive Processes, 14, 283–292.
38.
NelsonD. L., McEvoyC. L., & SchreiberT. A. (1998). University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved from http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation
39.
PaivioA. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
PereaM., & RosaE. (2002). The effects of associative and semantic priming in the lexical decision task. Psychological Research, 66, 180–194.
41.
PereaM., DuñabeitiaJ. A., & CarreirasM. (2008). Masked associative/semantic priming effects across languages with highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Memory & Language, 58, 916–930.
42.
RomaniC., McAlpineS., & MartinR. C. (2008). Concreteness effects in different tasks: Implications for models of short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 292–323.
43.
SachsO., WeisS., ZellaguiN., SassK., HuberW., ZvyagintsevM., et al. (2011). How different types of conceptual relations modulate brain activation during semantic priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1263–1273.
44.
SailorK., BrooksP. J., BrueningP. R., Seiger-GardnerL., & GutermanM. (2009). Exploring the time course of semantic interference and associative priming in the picture-word interference task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 789–801.
45.
Sánchez-CasasR., FerréP., DemestreJ., García-ChicoT., & García-AlbeaJ. E. (2012). Masked and unmasked priming effects as a function of semantic relatedness and associative strength. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 891–900.
46.
Sánchez-CasasR., FerréP., García-AlbeaJ. E., & GuaschM. (2006). The nature of semantic priming: Effects of the degree of semantic similarity between primes and targets in Spanish. The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 161–184.
47.
SchoonbaertS., DuyckW., BrysbaertM., & HartsuikerR. J. (2009). Semantic and translation priming from a first language to a second and back: Making sense of the findings. Memory & Cognition, 37, 569–586.
48.
SchwanenflugelP. J., & ShobenE. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 9, 82–102.
49.
SilverbergS., & SamuelA. G. (2004). The effect of age of second language acquisition on the representation and processing of second language words. Journal of Memory & Language, 51, 381–398.
50.
Van HellJ. G., & De GrootA. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 1, 193–211.
51.
ViglioccoG., VinsonD. P., LewisW., & GarrettM. F. (2004). Representing the meaning of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space (FUSS) hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422–488.
52.
ZhangX., HanZ., & BiY. (2013). Are abstract and concrete concepts organized differently?. Evidence from the blocked translation paradigm. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 1059–1092.
