Advertisement

Concreteness norms for 1,659 French words: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables and word recognition times

  • Patrick Bonin
  • Alain Méot
  • Aurélia Bugaiska
Article

Abstract

Words that correspond to a potential sensory experience—concrete words—have long been found to possess a processing advantage over abstract words in various lexical tasks. We collected norms of concreteness for a set of 1,659 French words, together with other psycholinguistic norms that were not available for these words—context availability, emotional valence, and arousal—but which are important if we are to achieve a better understanding of the meaning of concreteness effects. We then investigated the relationships of concreteness with these newly collected variables, together with other psycholinguistic variables that were already available for this set of words (e.g., imageability, age of acquisition, and sensory experience ratings). Finally, thanks to the variety of psychological norms available for this set of words, we decided to test further the embodied account of concreteness effects in visual-word recognition, championed by Kousta, Vigliocco, Vinson, Andrews, and Del Campo (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 14–34, 2011). Similarly, we investigated the influences of concreteness in three word recognition tasks—lexical decision, progressive demasking, and word naming—using a multiple regression approach, based on the reaction times available in Chronolex (Ferrand, Brysbaert, Keuleers, New, Bonin, Méot, Pallier, Frontiers in Psychology, 2; 306, 2011). The norms can be downloaded as supplementary material provided with this article.

Keywords

Concreteness Imageability Context availability Emotional valence Arousal Sensory experience ratings Word recognition 

Supplementary material

13428_2018_1014_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 22.6 kb)
13428_2018_1014_MOESM2_ESM.txt (86 kb)
ESM 2 (TXT 85 kb)
13428_2018_1014_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (192 kb)
ESM 3 (XLSX 192 kb)
13428_2018_1014_MOESM4_ESM.docx (27 kb)
ESM 4 (DOCX 27.3 kb)

References

  1. Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benvenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 578–602.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnon, I., McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). Digging up the building blocks of language: Age-of-acquisition effects for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barca, L., Burani, C., & Arduino, L.S. (2002). Word naming times and psycholinguistic norms for Italian nouns. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34, 424–434.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195471 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609, disc. 609–660.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 84–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00029-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Binder, J. R., Westbury, C. F., McKiernan, K. A., Possing, E. T., & Medler, D. A. (2005). Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 905–917.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bird, H., Franklin, S., & Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verbs and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33, 73–79.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonin, P., Gelin, M., & Bugaiska, A. (2014). Animates are better remembered than inanimates: Further evidence from word and picture stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 42, 370–382.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0368-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonin, P., Méot, A., Aubert, L., Malardier, N., Niedenthal, P., & Capelle-Toczek, M.-C. (2003). Normes de concrétude, de valeur d’imagerie, de fréquence subjective et de valence émotionnelle pour 866 mots [Concreteness, imageability, subjective frequency, and emotional valence norms for 866 words]. L’Année Psychologique, 104, 655–694.  https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2003.29658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonin, P., Méot, A., Boucheix, J. M., & Bugaiska, A. (2018). Psycholinguistic norms for 320 fixed expressions (idioms and proverbs) in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1310269
  11. Bonin, P., Méot, A., & Bugaiska, A. (2013). Norms and comprehension times for 305 French idiomatic expressions. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1259–1271.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0331-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonin, P., Méot, A., Ferrand, L., & Bugaiska, A. (2015). Sensory experience ratings (SERs) for 1,659 French words: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables and visual word recognition. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 813–825.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0503-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bonin, P., Méot, A., Ferrand, L., & Roux, S. (2011). L’imageabilité : Normes et relations avec d’autres variables psycholinguistiques [Imageability: Norms and relationships with other psycholinguistic variables]. L’Année Psychologique, 111, 327–357.  https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503311002041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonin, P., Perret, C., Méot, A., Ferrand, L., & Mermillod, M. (2008). Psycholinguistic norms and face naming times for photographs of celebrities in French. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 137–146.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.137 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bonner, M. F., Vesely, L., Price, C., Anderson, C., Richmond, L., Farag, C., … Grossman, M. (2009). Reversal of the concreteness effect in semantic dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 26, 568–579.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Boukadi, M., Zouaidi, C., & Wilson, M. A. (2016). Norms for name agreement, familiarity, subjective frequency, and imageability for 348 object names in Tunisian Arabic. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 585–599.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0602-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., De Deyne, S., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. (2014a). Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta Psychologica, 150, 80–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014b). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cameirão, M. L., & Vicente, S. G. (2010). Age-of-acquisition norms for a set of 1,749 Portuguese words. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 474–480.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.474 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Citron, F. M. M., Weekes, B. S., & Ferstl, E. C. (2014). How are affective word ratings related to lexico-semantic properties? Evidence from the Sussex Affective Word List. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35, 313–331.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125, 452–465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. de Groot, A. M. (1989). Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency as assessed through word association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 824–845.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.824 Google Scholar
  23. Decety, J., & Grèzes, J. (2006). The power of simulation: Imagining one’s own and other’s behavior. Brain Research, 1079, 4–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.115
  24. 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.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Dellantonio, S., Mulatti, C., Pastore, L., & Job, R. (2014). Measuring inconsistencies can lead you forward: Imageability and the x-ception theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 708.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferrand, L., Bonin, P., Méot, A., Augustinova, M., New, B., Pallier, C., & Brysbaert, M. (2008). Age-of-acquisition and subjective frequency estimates for all generally known monosyllabic French words and their relation with other psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1049–1054.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1049 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ferrand, L., Brysbaert, M., Keuleers, E., New, B., Bonin, P., Méot, A., … Pallier, C. (2011). Comparing word processing times in naming, lexical decision, and progressive demasking: Evidence from Chronolex. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 306.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00306 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, 488–496.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.488 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0165-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Fliessbach, K., Weis, S., Klaver, P., Elger, C. E., & Weber, B. (2006). The effect of word concreteness on recognition memory. NeuroImage, 32, 1413–1421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Friendly, M., Franklin, P. E., Hoffman, D., & Rubin, D. C. (1982). The Toronto Word Pool: Norms for imagery, concreteness, orthographic variables, and grammatical usage for 1,080 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 14, 375–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ghasisin, L., Yadegari, F., Rahgozar, M., Nazari, A., & Rastegarianzade, N. (2015). A new set of 272 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: Persian norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, and age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1148–1158.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0537-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Gilet, A.-L., Grühn, D., Studer, J., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2012). Valence, arousal, and imagery ratings for 835 French attributes by young, middle-aged, and older adults: The French Emotional Evaluation List (FEEL). Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 62, 173–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2012.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gobin, P., Camblats, A.-M., Faurous, W., & Mathey, S. (2017). Une base de l’émotionalité (valence, arousal, catégories) de 1286 mots français selon l’âge (EMA) [A base of emotionality (valence, arousal, category) of 1,286 French words according to age (EMA)]. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 67, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guasch, M., Ferré, P., & Fraga, I. (2016). Spanish norms for affective and lexico-semantic variables for 1,400 words. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 1358–1369.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0684-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hinojosa, J. A., Rincón-Pérez, I., Romero-Ferreiro, M. V., Martínez-García, N., Villalba-García, C., Montoro, P. R., & Pozo, M. A. (2016). The Madrid Affective Database for Spanish (MADS): Ratings of dominance, familiarity, subjective age of acquisition and sensory experience. PLoS ONE, 11, e0155866.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155866
  37. Juhasz, B. J., & Yap, M. J. (2013). Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono- and disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 160–168.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0242-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kroll, J. F., & Merves, J. S. (1986). Lexical access for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 92–107.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.1.92 Google Scholar
  40. Krosnick, J. A., & Presser, S. (2010). Questionnaire design. In J. D. Wright & P. V. Marsden (Eds.), Handbook of survey research (2nd ed.). West Yorkshire: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  41. Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzales, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 978–990.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Masterson, J., & Druks, J. (1998). Description of a set of 164 nouns and 102 verbs matched for printed word frequency, familiarity and age-of-acquisition. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11, 331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Monnier, C., & Syssau, A. (2014). Affective norms for French words (FAN). Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1128–1137.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0431-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B., & Mammarella, N. (2014). The adaptation of the Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW) for Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 887–903.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0405-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Nairne, J. S. (2010). Adaptive memory: Evolutionary constraints on remembering. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 53), pp. 1–32. Burlington: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. Nairne, J. S., VanArsdall, J. E., Pandeirada, J. N. S., Cogdill, M., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Adaptive memory: The mnemonic value of animacy. Psychological Science, 24, 2099–2105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  48. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255–287.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1966). Stimulus and response abstractness, imagery, and meaningfulness, and reported mediators in paired-associate learning. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 20, 362–377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Papagno, C., Capasso, R., Zerboni, H., & Miceli, G. (2007). A reverse concreteness effect in a subject with semantic dementia. Brain and Language, 103, 90–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Edwards, J. D., Henry, L. C., & Goodyear, B. G. (2007). Neural correlates of concreteness in semantic categorization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1407–1419.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1407 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Reilly, J., & Kean, J. (2007). Formal distinctiveness of high and low imageability nouns: Analyses and theoretical implications. Cognitive Science, 31, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Roediger, H. L., III (2012). Psychology’s woes and a partial cure: The value of replication. Observer. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from http://tinyurl.com/d4lfnwu
  57. Roxbury, T., McMahon, K., & Copland, D. A. (2014). An fMRI study of concreteness effects in spoken word recognition. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 10, 34.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-10-34 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1991). Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 223–250). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90022-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 82–102.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.9.1.82 Google Scholar
  61. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Stowe, R. W. (1989). Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words in sentences. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 114–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shao, Z., & Stiegert, J. (2016). Predictors of photo naming: Dutch norms for 327 photos. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 577–584.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0613-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Simon, D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174 Google Scholar
  65. Soares, A. P., Costa, A. S., Machado, J., Comesaña, M., & Oliveira, H. M. (2018). The Minho Word Pool: Norms for imageability, concreteness, and subjective frequency for 3,800 Portuguese words. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1065–1081.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0767-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. ter Doest, L., & Semin, G. R. (2005). Retrieval contexts and the concreteness effect: Dissociations in memory for concrete and abstract words. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 859–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S. T., Della Rosa, P. A., Vinson, D. P., Tettamanti, M., Devlin, J. T., & Cappa, S. F. (2014). The neural representation of abstract words: The role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 1767–1777.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S. T., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2013). The representation of abstract words: What matters? Reply to Paivio’s (2013) comment on Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 288–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1191–1207.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Yao, Z., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2018). Norms of valence, arousal, concreteness, familiarity, imageability, and context availability for 1,100 Chinese words. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1374–1385. 10.3758/s13428-016-0793-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yap, M. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2016). Semantic richness effects in syntactic classification: The role of feedback. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1394.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01394 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Yap, M. J., Pexman, P. M., Wellsby, M., Hargreaves, I. S., & Huff, M. J. (2012). An abundance of riches: Cross-task comparisons of semantic richness effects in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.971 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LEAD-CNRS (UMR 5022), Univ. Bourgogne Franche-ComtéDijon CedexFrance
  2. 2.Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, LAPSCOClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations