Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T18:57:26.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are abstract and concrete concepts organized differently? Evidence from the blocked translation paradigm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2012

XIAOHONG ZHANG ,
ZAIZHU HAN  and
YANCHAO BI
XIAOHONG ZHANG
Affiliation:
Beijing Normal University
ZAIZHU HAN
Affiliation:
Beijing Normal University
YANCHAO BI*
Affiliation:
Beijing Normal University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Yanchao Bi, National Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using the blocked-translation paradigm with healthy participants, we examined Crutch and Warrington's hypothesis that concrete and abstract concepts are organized by distinct principles: concrete concepts by semantic similarities and abstract ones by associations. In three experiments we constructed two types of experimental blocking (similar vs. associative) for both abstract and concrete words. In Experiment 1, we first attempted to transfer previous findings observed in patients by Crutch and Warrington with semantic impairment to healthy participants. In Experiment 2 only noun stimuli were used, and we further included two semantically categorical conditions that differed by a degree of semantic similarity (close vs. distant). In Experiment 3, verbs were used exclusively. Consistent results were obtained across all three experiments: Significant interference effects were observed for abstract items that were blocked by an associative relationship and by a semantic similarity, and for concrete items that were blocked by a semantic similarity (category) but not when they were blocked by an association. The effect of similarity-close was greater than that of similarity-distant in the noun experiment. We argue that the results are in conflict with Crutch and Warrington's proposals, and can be accommodated by a theory of cooperating similarity and association connections for concrete and abstract concepts, with the association bearing more weight for abstract concepts.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , September 2013 , pp. 1059 - 1092
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2007). When bees hamper the production of honey: L interference from associates in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 604–614.Google Scholar
Alario, F. A., Segui, J., & Ferrand, L. (2000). Semantic and associative priming in picture naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 741–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bachoud-Lévy, A. C., & Dupoux, E. (2003). An influence of syntactic and semantic variables on word form retrieval. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedny, M., Caramazza, A., Grossman, E., Pascual-Leone, A., & Rebecca, S. (2008). Concepts are more than percepts: The case of action verbs. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 11347–11353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belke, E., Meyer, A., & Damian, M. F. (2005). Refractory effect in picture naming as assessed in a semantic blocking paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 58, 667–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bi, Y., Han, Z., Shu, H., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Nouns, verbs, objects, actions, and the animate/inanimate effect. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 485–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biegler, K. A., Crowther, J. E., & Martin, R. C. (2008). Consequences of an inhibition deficit for word production and comprehension: Evidence from the semantic blocking paradigm. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 493–527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, H., Howard, D., & Franklin, S. (2001). Noun–verb differences? A question of semantics: A response to Shapiro and Caramazza. Brain and Language, 76, 213–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloem, I., & La Heij, W. (2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 468–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breedin, S. D., Saffran, E. M., & Coslett, H. B. (1994). Reversal of the concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 617–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A., & Hillis, A. E. (1991). Lexical organization of nouns and verbs in the brain. Nature, 349, 788–790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cipolotti, L., & Warrington, E. K. (1995). Semantic memory and reading abilities: A case report. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 1, 104–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coltheart, M., Patterson, K. E., & Marshall, J. C. (1980). Deep dyslexia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crutch, S. J. (2006). Qualitatively different semantic representations for abstract and concrete words: Further evidence from the semantic reading errors of deep dyslexic patients. Neurocase, 12, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crutch, S. J., Connell, S., & Warrington, E. K. (2009). The different representational frameworks underpinning abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from odd-one-out judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1377–1390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crutch, S. J., Ridha, B. H., & Warrington, E. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128, 615–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damian, M. F. (2003). Articulatory duration in single-word speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 119–132.Google ScholarPubMed
Damian, M. F., & Als, L. C. (2005). Long-lasting semantic context effects in the spoken production of object names. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1372–1384.Google ScholarPubMed
Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Locus of semantic interfence in picture-word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damian, M. F., Vigliocco, G., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). Effects of semantic context in the naming of pictures and words. Cognition, 81, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 284–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D. (1981). Some interesting differences between verbs and nouns. Cognition and Brain Theory, 4, 161–178.Google Scholar
Hamilton, A. C., & Coslett, H. B. (2008). Refractory access disorders and the organization of concrete and abstract semantics: Do they differ? Neurocase, 14, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, D., Nickels, L., Coltheart, M., & Cole-Virtue, J. (2006). Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: Experimental and computational studies. Cognition, 100, 464–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huttenlocher, J., & Lui, F. (1979). The semantic organization of some simple nouns and verbs. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferies, E., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2006). Semantic impairment in stroke aphasia versus semantic dementia: A case-series comparison. Brain, 129, 2132–2147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F., & Merves, J. S. (1986). Lexical access for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 92–102.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 13, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
La Heij, W., Dirkx, J., & Kramer, P. (1990). Categorical interference and associative priming in picture naming. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Heij, W., Hooglander, A., Kerling, R., & Van der Velden, E. (1996). Nonverbal context effects in forward and backward word translation: Evidence for concept mediation. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 648–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T., & Dumais, S.. (1997). A solutions to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laiacona, M., & Caramazza, A. (2004). The noun/verb dissociation in language production: Varieties of causes. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 103–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupker, S. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the Picture–Word Interference Task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 485–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macoir, J. (2009). Is a plum a memory problem? Longitudinal study of the reversal of concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 47, 518–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maess, B., Friederici, A. D., Damian, M. F., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Semantic category interference in overt picture naming: Sharpening current density localization by PCA. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 455–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K., & Caramazza, A. (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.Google Scholar
Markman, A. B., & Stilwell, C. H. (2001). Role-governed categories. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 13, 329–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, J., Pring, T., Chiat, S., & Robson, J. (1996). Calling a salad a federation: An investigation of semantic jargon. Part 1. Nouns. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 9, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattioli, F. (2008). The reverse of the concreteness effect. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Conference of the Academy of Aphasia Turku (Finland), October 19–21.Google Scholar
McCarthy, R., & Warrington, E. K. (1985). Category specificity in an agrammatic patient: The relative impairment of verb retrieval and comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 23, 709–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noppeney, U., & Price, C. J. (2004). Retrieval of abstract semantics. NeuroImage, 22, 164–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual Coding Theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papagno, C., Capasso, R., & Miceli, G. (2009). Reversed concreteness effect for nouns in a subject with semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1138–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaut, D. C. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a distributed attractor network. Paper presented at 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Plaut, D. C., & Shallice, T. (1991). Effects of word abstractness in a connectionist model of deep dyslexia. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
Plaut, D. C., & Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10, 377–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, B., & Caramazza, A. (1998). A case of selective difficulty in writing verbs. Neurocase, 4, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosinski, R. R. (1977). Picture–word interference is semantically based. Child Development, 46, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabsevitz, D. S., Medler, D. A., Seidenberg, M., & Binder, J. R. (2005). Modulation of the semantic system by word imageability. NeuroImage, 27, 188–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnur, T. T., Schwartz, M. F., Brecher, A., & Hodgson, C. (2006). Semantic interference during blocked-cyclic naming: Evidence from aphasia. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture–word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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
Shapiro, K., Shelton, J., & Caramazza, A. (2000). Grammatical class in lexical production and morpho-logical processing: Evidence from a case of fluent aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17, 665–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirigu, A., Duhamel, J. R., & Poncet, M. (1991). The role of sensorimotor experience in object recognition. Brain, 114, 2555–2573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokowicz, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Number of meanings and concreteness: Consequences of ambiguity within and across languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 727–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolentino, L. C., & Tokowicz, N. (2009). Are pumpkins better than heaven? An ERP investigation of order effects in the concrete-word advantage. Brain and Language, 110, 12–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition, 1, 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Barber, H., Druks, J., & Cappa, S. F. (in press). Nouns and verbs in the brain? A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Damian, M. F., & Levelt, W. (2002). Semantic distance effects on object and action naming. Cognition, 85, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2002). A semantic analysis of noun–verb dissociations in aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15, 317–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, I., & Hulme, C. (1999). Concrete words are easier to recall than abstract words: Evidence for a semantic contribution to short-term serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1256–1271.Google Scholar
Warrington, E. K. (1975). The selective impairment of semantic memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 635–657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warrington, E. K. (1981). Concrete word dyslexia. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 175–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeldon, L., & Monsell, S. (1994). Inhibition of spoken word production by priming a semantic competitor. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 332–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yi, H. A., Moore, P., & Grossman, M. (2007). Reversal of the concreteness effect for verbs in patients with semantic dementia. Neuropsychology, 21, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, S., Zhu, X., Wang, H., & Zhang, Y. (1998). The grammatical knowledge base of contemporary Chinese—A complete specification. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q., Guo, C., Ding, J., & Wang, Z. (2006). Concreteness effects in the processing of Chinese words. Brain and Language, 96, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed