How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings: The Case of Metaphor

W. Gudrun Reijnierse, Christian Burgers, Marianna Bolognesi, Tina Krennmayr

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Concreteness ratings are frequently used in a variety of disciplines to operationalize differences between concrete and abstract words and concepts. However, most ratings studies present items in isolation, thereby overlooking the potential polysemy of words. Consequently, ratings for polysemous words may be conflated, causing a threat to the validity of concreteness-ratings studies. This is particularly relevant to metaphorical words, which typically describe something abstract in terms of something more concrete. To investigate whether perceived concreteness ratings differ for metaphorical versus non-metaphorical word meanings, we obtained concreteness ratings for 96 English nouns from 230 participants. Results show that nouns are perceived as less concrete when a metaphorical (versus non-metaphorical) meaning is triggered. We thus recommend taking metaphoricity into account in future concreteness-ratings studies to further improve the quality and reliability of such studies, as well as the consistency of the empirical studies that rely on these ratings.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere12779
Pages (from-to)1-11
Number of pages11
JournalCognitive Science
Volume43
Issue number8
Early online date30 Jul 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2019

Fingerprint

Metaphor
Concretes

Keywords

  • Concreteness
  • Familiarity
  • Metaphor
  • Norming data
  • Ratings

Cite this

Reijnierse, W. Gudrun ; Burgers, Christian ; Bolognesi, Marianna ; Krennmayr, Tina. / How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings : The Case of Metaphor. In: Cognitive Science. 2019 ; Vol. 43, No. 8. pp. 1-11.
@article{b71b7f779f7e4180ae25eb6cb0747ab5,
title = "How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings: The Case of Metaphor",
abstract = "Concreteness ratings are frequently used in a variety of disciplines to operationalize differences between concrete and abstract words and concepts. However, most ratings studies present items in isolation, thereby overlooking the potential polysemy of words. Consequently, ratings for polysemous words may be conflated, causing a threat to the validity of concreteness-ratings studies. This is particularly relevant to metaphorical words, which typically describe something abstract in terms of something more concrete. To investigate whether perceived concreteness ratings differ for metaphorical versus non-metaphorical word meanings, we obtained concreteness ratings for 96 English nouns from 230 participants. Results show that nouns are perceived as less concrete when a metaphorical (versus non-metaphorical) meaning is triggered. We thus recommend taking metaphoricity into account in future concreteness-ratings studies to further improve the quality and reliability of such studies, as well as the consistency of the empirical studies that rely on these ratings.",
keywords = "Concreteness, Familiarity, Metaphor, Norming data, Ratings",
author = "Reijnierse, {W. Gudrun} and Christian Burgers and Marianna Bolognesi and Tina Krennmayr",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/cogs.12779",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "1--11",
journal = "Cognitive Science",
issn = "0364-0213",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings : The Case of Metaphor. / Reijnierse, W. Gudrun; Burgers, Christian; Bolognesi, Marianna; Krennmayr, Tina.

In: Cognitive Science, Vol. 43, No. 8, e12779, 08.2019, p. 1-11.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings

T2 - The Case of Metaphor

AU - Reijnierse, W. Gudrun

AU - Burgers, Christian

AU - Bolognesi, Marianna

AU - Krennmayr, Tina

PY - 2019/8

Y1 - 2019/8

N2 - Concreteness ratings are frequently used in a variety of disciplines to operationalize differences between concrete and abstract words and concepts. However, most ratings studies present items in isolation, thereby overlooking the potential polysemy of words. Consequently, ratings for polysemous words may be conflated, causing a threat to the validity of concreteness-ratings studies. This is particularly relevant to metaphorical words, which typically describe something abstract in terms of something more concrete. To investigate whether perceived concreteness ratings differ for metaphorical versus non-metaphorical word meanings, we obtained concreteness ratings for 96 English nouns from 230 participants. Results show that nouns are perceived as less concrete when a metaphorical (versus non-metaphorical) meaning is triggered. We thus recommend taking metaphoricity into account in future concreteness-ratings studies to further improve the quality and reliability of such studies, as well as the consistency of the empirical studies that rely on these ratings.

AB - Concreteness ratings are frequently used in a variety of disciplines to operationalize differences between concrete and abstract words and concepts. However, most ratings studies present items in isolation, thereby overlooking the potential polysemy of words. Consequently, ratings for polysemous words may be conflated, causing a threat to the validity of concreteness-ratings studies. This is particularly relevant to metaphorical words, which typically describe something abstract in terms of something more concrete. To investigate whether perceived concreteness ratings differ for metaphorical versus non-metaphorical word meanings, we obtained concreteness ratings for 96 English nouns from 230 participants. Results show that nouns are perceived as less concrete when a metaphorical (versus non-metaphorical) meaning is triggered. We thus recommend taking metaphoricity into account in future concreteness-ratings studies to further improve the quality and reliability of such studies, as well as the consistency of the empirical studies that rely on these ratings.

KW - Concreteness

KW - Familiarity

KW - Metaphor

KW - Norming data

KW - Ratings

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070883410&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85070883410&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/cogs.12779

DO - 10.1111/cogs.12779

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 1

EP - 11

JO - Cognitive Science

JF - Cognitive Science

SN - 0364-0213

IS - 8

M1 - e12779

ER -