Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:06:25.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Swedish and English word ratings of imageability, familiarity and age of acquisition are highly correlated

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2015

Frida Blomberg  and
Carl Öberg
Frida Blomberg
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. [email protected]
Carl Öberg
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Sciences, Biomedical Centre, BMC F11, Sölvegatan 19, SE-221 84 Lund, Sweden. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

At present, there is no comprehensive psycholinguistic database containing Swedish words with ratings of word properties such as e.g. imageability, although researchers carrying out psycholinguistic studies in Swedish face the need to be able to control for and systematically vary such properties. The present study addressed this issue by investigating the possibility of transferring English word ratings to Swedish. Imageability, familiarity and age of acquisition (AoA) ratings were obtained for a sample of Swedish words (N = 99). These ratings were then compared with the corresponding English ratings from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Psycholinguistic Database (Coltheart 1981) using Spearman correlation. Swedish and English word ratings were found to be highly correlated for imageability and AoA, and moderately correlated for familiarity. Following these results, we suggest that, in general, ratings of these variables can be reliably transferred between the two languages, although some caution should be taken, since for some individual words, some ratings might differ substantially for their Swedish and English translations.

Keywords

word ratingsSwedishEnglishimageabilityage of acquisitionfamiliaritypsycholinguisticslexical database construction
Type
Short Communications
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , December 2015 , pp. 351 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2015 

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

Allwood, Jens. 1999. The Swedish Spoken Language Corpus at Göteborg University. Fonetik 99 (Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 81). Göteborg: University of Göteborg, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Altarriba, Jeanette, Bauer, Lisa M. & Benvenuto, Claudia. 1999. Concreteness, context availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavioral Research Methods 31, 578–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balota, David A., Pilotti, Maura & Cortese, Michael J.. 2001. Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory & Cognition 29, 639–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Helen, Franklin, Sue & Howard, David. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coltheart, Max. 1981. The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 33A, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortese, Michael J. & Khanna, Maya M.. 2008. Age of acquisition ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods 40, 791–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crutch, Sebastian, Troche, Joshua, Reilly, Jamie & Ridgway, Gerard R.. 2013. Abstract conceptual feature ratings: The role of emotion, magnitude, and other cognitive domains in the organization of abstract conceptual knowledge. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7:186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ejerhed, Eva, Källgren, Gunnel, Wennstedt, Ola & Åström, Magnus. 1992. The Linguistic Annotation System of the Stockholm–Umeå Corpus Project (Technical Report 33). Umeå: Department of General Linguistics, Umeå University.Google Scholar
Flieller, André & Tournois, Jocelyne. 1994. Imagery value, subjective and objective frequency, date of entry into the language, and degree of polysemy in a sample of 998 French words. International Journal of Psychology 29, 471–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fliessbach, Klaus., Weis, Susanne, Klaver, Peter, Elger, Christian E. & Weber, Bernd. 2006. The effect of word concreteness on recognition memory. NeuroImage 32, 1413–1421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghyselinck, Mandy, De Moor, Wendy & Brysbaert, Marc. 2000. Age-of-acquisition ratings for 2,816 Dutch four- and five-letter nouns. Psychologica Belgica 40, 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilhoolie, Ken J. & Logie, Robert H.. 1980. Meaning-dependent ratings of imagery, age of acquisition, familiarity, and concreteness for 387 ambiguous words. Behaviour Research Methods & Instrumentation 12 (4), 428–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, Marianne, Simonsen, Hanne Gram, Hansen, Pernille, Holm, Elisabeth & Mevik, Bjørn-Helge. 2015. Norwegian words: A lexical database for clinicians and researchers. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 29 (4), 276–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marques, J. Frederico, Fonseca, Fransisca L., Morais, A. Sofia & Pinto, Inês A.. 2007. Estimated age of acquisition norms for 834 Portuguese nouns and their relation with other psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods 39, 439–444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moroschan, Gail & Westbury, Chris. 2009. Imageability x phonology interactions during lexical access: Effects of modality, phonological neighborhood, and phonological processing efficiency. The Mental Lexicon 4 (1), 115–145.Google Scholar
Morrison, Catriona M., Chappell, Tameron D. & Ellis, Andrew W.. 1997. Age of acquisition norms for a large set of object names and their relation to adult estimates and other variables. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 50A, 528–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, Allan. 1986. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paivio, Allan. 2010. Dual coding theory and the mental lexicon. In Horne, Merle & Roll, Mikael (eds.), Words and their Meaning: A Deep Delve from Surface Distribution into Underlying Neural Representation: Special issue of The Mental Lexicon 5(2), 205–230.Google Scholar
Paivio, Allan, Yuille, John C. & Madigan, Stephen A.. 1968. Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Monograph Supplement 76 (1, Part 2), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sabsevitz, David S., Medler, David A., Seidenberg, Mark & Binder, Jeffrey R.. 2005. Modulation of the semantic system by word imageability. NeuroImage 27, 188–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonsen, Hanne Gram, Lind, Marianne, Hansen, Pernille, Holm, Elisabeth & Mevik, Bjørn-Helge. 2013. Imageability of Norwegian nouns, verbs and adjectives in a cross-linguistic perspective. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 27 (6–7), 435–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadthagen-Gonzalez, Hans & Davis, Colin J.. 2006. The Bristol norms for age of aquisition, imageability, and familiarity. Behavioral Research Methods 38 (4), 598–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warriner, Amy Beth, Kuperman, Victor & Brysbaert, Marc. 2013. Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods 45 (4), 1191–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westbury, Chris. 2013. You can't drink a word: Lexical and individual emotionality affect subjective familiarity judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 43 (5), 631–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westbury, Chris F., Shaoul, Cyrus, Hollis, Geoff, Smithson, Lisa, Briesemeister, Benny B., Hofmann, Markus J. & Jacobs, Arthur M.. 2013. Now you see it, now you don’t: On emotion, context, & the algorithmic prediction of human imageability judgments. Frontiers in Psychology 4:991.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed