Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:52:10.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A cross-linguistic comparison of Spanish and English semantic norms: Looking at core features

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2020

Jorge Vivas Open the ORCID record for Jorge Vivas [Opens in a new window] ,
Boris Kogan Open the ORCID record for Boris Kogan [Opens in a new window] ,
Sofía Romanelli ,
Francisco Lizarralde  and
Luis Corda
Jorge Vivas*
Affiliation:
National University of Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Boris Kogan
Affiliation:
National University of Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and National Agency of Scientific and Technological Promotion, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Sofía Romanelli
Affiliation:
National University of Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Francisco Lizarralde
Affiliation:
National University of Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Luis Corda
Affiliation:
National University of Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been suggested that human communities that share their basic cultural foundations evince no remarkable differences concerning the characterization of core concepts. However, the small but existing differences among them reflect their sociocultural diversity. This study compares 219 concrete concepts common to both Spanish and English semantic feature norms in order to assess whether core features of concepts follow a universal or cultural language-specific pattern. Concepts were compared through a geometric technique of vector comparison in the Euclidean n-dimensional space alongside the calculation of the network’s degree of centrality. The role of cognate status was also explored by repeating the former analysis separating cognate from noncognate words. Taken together, our data show that languages are structurally similar independent of the cognate status of words, further suggesting that there are some sort of core features common to both languages.

Keywords

comparisonconceptual representationcore featurescross-linguisticfeature norms
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , March 2020 , pp. 285 - 297
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2020

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

Al Farsi, B. (2018). Word meaning in word identification during reading: Co-occurrence-based semantic neighborhood density effects. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39, 779–809. doi: 10.1017/S0142716417000583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M., & Lenci, A. (2010). Distributional memory: A general framework for corpus-based semantics. Computational Linguistics, 36, 673–721. doi: 10.1162/coli_a_00016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M., Murphy, B., Barbu, E., & Poesio, M. (2010). Strudel: A corpus-based semantic model based on properties and types. Cognitive Science, 34, 222–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolognesi, M. (2017). Using semantic feature norms to investigate how the visual and verbal modes afford metaphor construction and expression. Language and Cognition, 9, 525–552. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2016.27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, M., & Steen, G. (Eds.) (2018). Abstract concepts: Structure, processing and modeling. TopiCS in Cognitive Science, 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis [Computer software]. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
Buchanan, E. M., Holmes, J. L., Teasley, M. L., & Hutchison, K. A. (2012). English semantic word-pair norms and a searchable Web portal for experimental stimulus creation. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 746–757. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0284-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, E. M., Valentine, K. D., & Maxwell, N. (2019). English semantic feature production norms: An extended database of 4,436 concepts. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cree, G. S., McNorgan, C., & McRae, K. (2006). Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 643.Google Scholar
Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 163–201. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Deyne, S., Verheyen, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Dry, M. J., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. (2008). Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1030–1048. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.4.1030CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Groot, A. M. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1001–1018. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1001Google Scholar
Devereux, B. J., Tyler, L. K., Geertzen, J., & Randall, B. (2014). The Centre for Speech, Language and the Brain (CSLB) concept property norms. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1119–1127. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0420-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R. (1915). Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika, 10, 507–521. doi: 10.2307/2331838Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Whither whorf. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphreys, G. W., & Forde, E. (2001). Category specificity in mind and brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25, 173–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremer, G., & Baroni, M. (2011). A set of semantic norms for German and Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 97–109. doi: 10.3758/s13428-010-0028-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamas, V., Vivas, J., & Vorano, A. (2012). Comparación de atributos semánticos entre diferentes lenguas. In Vigaro, A. (Ed.), IV Congreso Internacional de Investigación en Psicología. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Univesidad Nacional de La Plata, Facultad de Psicologia.Google Scholar
Lenci, A. (2018). Distributional models of word meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4, 151–171. doi: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenci, A., Baroni, M., Cazzolli, G., & Marotta, G. (2013). BLIND: A set of semantic feature norms from the congenitally blind. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1218–1233. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0323-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2009). Concepts and categories: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective. Annual Review Psychology, 60, 27–51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547–559. doi: 10.3758/BF03192726CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moldovan, C., Ferré, P., Demestre, J., & Sánchez-Casas, R. (2015). Semantic similarity: Normative ratings for 185 Spanish noun triplets. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 788–799. doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0501-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0405-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., & Taylor, K. I. (2009). Conceptual structure. In Gaskell, M. G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A., MacWhinney, B., & Kroll, J. F. (2007). Translation norms for English and Spanish: The role of lexical variables, word class, and L2 proficiency in negotiating translation ambiguity. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 1029–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulvermüller, F. (2018). Neurobiological mechanisms for semantic feature extraction and conceptual flexibility. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10, 590–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riordan, B., & Jones, M. (2011). Redundancy in perceptual and linguistic experience: Comparing feature-based and distributional models of semantic representation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 303–345. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01111.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, T. T., Garrad, P., McClelland, J. L., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Bozeat, S., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2004). Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111, 205–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruts, W., De Deyne, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Verbeemen, T., & Storms, G. (2004). Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 506–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sartori, G., Polezzi, D., Mameli, F., & Lombardi, L. (2005). Feature type effects in semantic memory: An event related potentials study. Neuroscience Letters, 390, 139–144. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2005.08.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, L. M., & de Azevedo Gomes, C. F. (2009). Normas brasileiras para listas de palavras associadas: Associação semântica, concretude, frequência e emocionalidade. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 25, 537–546.Google Scholar
Taylor, K. I., Moss, H. E., & Tyler, L. K. (2007). The conceptual structure account: A cognitive model of semantic memory and its neural instantiation. In Hart, J. & Kraut, M. (Eds.), The neural basis of semantic memory (pp. 265–301). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 193–211. doi: 10.1017/S1366728998000352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., & Filipovic, L. (2004). From mind in the mouth to language in the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition, 1, 219–247. doi: 10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of objects and events. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 183–190. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.1.183CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vivas, J., Vivas, L., Comesaña, A., García Coni, A., & Vorano, A. (2017). Spanish semantic feature production norms for 400 concrete concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1095–1106. doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0777-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vorano, A., Zapico, G., Corda, L., Vivas, J., & Vivas, L. (2014). Comparación de atributos semánticos entre castellano rioplatense e inglés. VI Congreso Marplatense de Psicología. Mar del Plata, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Psicilogia.Google Scholar
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1998). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wu, L.-L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. ActaPsychologica, 132, 173–189.Google ScholarPubMed
Zannino, G. D., Perri, R., Pasqualetti, P., Di Paola, M., Caltagirone, C., & Carlesimo, G. (2006). Neuropsichologia, 44, 1017–1028. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.11.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar