Skip to main content

Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas

Abstract

Concreteness ratings are presented for 37,058 English words and 2,896 two-word expressions (such as zebra crossing and zoom in), obtained from over 4,000 participants by means of a norming study using Internet crowdsourcing for data collection. Although the instructions stressed that the assessment of word concreteness would be based on experiences involving all senses and motor responses, a comparison with the existing concreteness norms indicates that participants, as before, largely focused on visual and haptic experiences. The reported data set is a subset of a comprehensive list of English lemmas and contains all lemmas known by at least 85 % of the raters. It can be used in future research as a reference list of generally known English lemmas.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Indeed, M.B. would appreciate receiving suggestions of missing words that should have been included.

  2. 2.

    We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing us to this literature.

  3. 3.

    Arguably because people hear about myths.

References

  1. Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benvenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context availability, and image ability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, 31(4), 578–602.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463–498.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., ... Treiman, R. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barber, H. A., Otten, L. J., Kousta, S. T., & Vigliocco, G. (2013). Concreteness in word processing: ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 125(1), 47–53.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11, 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–90.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brysbaert, M., New, B., & Keuleers, E. (2012). Adding Part-of-Speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 991–997.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(3), 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125, 452–465.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128(3), 615–627.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word corpus of contemporary American English: Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Della Rosa, P. A., Catricalà, E., Vigliocco, G., & Cappa, S. F. (2010). Beyond the abstract—concrete dichotomy: Mode of acquisition, concreteness, imageability, familiarity, age of acquisition, context availability, and abstractness norms for a set of 417 Italian words. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 1042–1048.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A., Afonso, O., Scheepers, C., & Carreiras, M. (2009). Qualitative differences in the representation of abstract versus concrete words: evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 110(2), 284–292.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferré, P., Guasch, M., Moldovan, C., & Sánchez-Casas, R. (2012). Affective norms for 380 Spanish words belonging to three different semantic categories. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 395–403.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ferrand, L., New, B., Brysbaert, M., Keuleers, E., Bonin, P., Méot, A., ... Pallier, C. (2010). The French Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 38,840 French words and 38,840 pseudowords. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 488–496.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 825–850.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gianico-Relyea, J. L., & Altarriba, J. (2012). Word Concreteness as a Moderator of the Tip-of the-Tongue Effect. Psychological Record, 62, 763–776.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ghio, M., Vaghi, M. M. S., & Tettamanti, M. (2013). Fine-Grained Semantic Categorization across the Abstract and Concrete Domains. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e67090. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067090

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hanley, J. R., Hunt, R. P., Steed, D. A., & Jackman, S. (2013). Concreteness and word production. Memory & Cognition, 41, 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301–307.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kaushanskaya, M., & Rechtzigel, K. (2012). Concreteness effects in bilingual and monolingual word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 935–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Keuleers, E., Diependaele, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: A lexical decision study on 14,000 Dutch mono- and disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 174. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00174

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Keuleers, E., Lacey, P., Rastle, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 287–304.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kloumann, I. M., Danforth, C. M., Harris, K. D., Bliss, C. A., & Dodds, P. S. (2012). Positivity of the English language. PloS one, 7(1), e29484. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029484

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kousta, S. 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, 14–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30 thousand English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 978–990.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Laming, D. (2004). Human judgement: The eye of the beholder. London: Thompson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Loiselle, M., Rouleau, I., Nguyen, D. K., Dubeau, F., Macoir, J., Whatmough, C., & Joubert, S. (2012). Comprehension of concrete and abstract words in patients with selective anterior temporal lobe resection and in patients with selective amygdalo-hippocampectomy. Neuropsychologia, 50, 630–639.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 558–564.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (in press). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods.

  33. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2011). What drives the organization of object knowledge in the brain? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 97–103.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mate, J., Allen, R. J., & Baqués, J. (2012). What you say matters: Exploring visual–verbal interactions in visual working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 395–400.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nishiyama, R. (2013). Dissociative contributions of semantic and lexical-phonological information to immediate recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 642–648.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Oliveira, J., Perea, M. V., Ladera, V., & Gamito, P. (2013). The roles of word concreteness and cognitive load on interhemispheric processes of recognition. Laterality, 18, 203–215.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinchart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Paivio, A. (2013). Dual Coding Theory, Word Abstractness, and Emotion: A Critical Review of Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 282–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of experimental psychology, 76, 1–25.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rubin, D. C. (1980). 51 properties of 125 words: A unit analysis of verbal behavior. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 736–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schock, J., Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2012). Imageability estimates for 3,000 disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 374–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K., & Stowe, R. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 499–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Spreen, O., & Schulz, R. W. (1966). Parameters of abstraction, meaningfulness, and pronunciability for 329 nouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 459–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Davis, C. J. (2006). The Bristol norms for age of acquisition, imageability, and familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, 38(4), 598–605.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422–488.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (in press). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods.

  47. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Brysbaert.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material

(XLSX 2.09 MB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A.B. & Kuperman, V. Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behav Res 46, 904–911 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Concreteness
  • Ratings
  • Crowdsourcing
  • Word recognition