当前位置: X-MOL 学术Language and Cognition › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Varieties of abstract concepts and their multiple dimensions
Language and Cognition ( IF 2.660 ) Pub Date : 2019-08-13 , DOI: 10.1017/langcog.2019.23
CATERINA VILLANI , LUISA LUGLI , MARCO TULLIO LIUZZA , ANNA M. BORGHI

abstractThe issue of how abstract concepts are represented is widely debated. However, evidence is controversial, also because different criteria were used to select abstract concepts – for example, imageability and abstractness were equated. In addition, for many years abstract concepts have been considered as a unitary whole. Our work aims to address these two limitations. We asked participants to evaluate 425 abstract concepts on 15 dimensions: abstractness, concreteness, imageability, context availability, Body-Object-Interaction, Modality of Acquisition, Age of Acquisition, Perceptual modality strength, Metacognition, Social metacognition, Interoception, Emotionality, Social valence, Hand and Mouth activation. Results showed that conceiving concepts only in terms of concreteness/abstractness is too simplified. More abstract concepts are typically acquired later and through the linguistic modality and are characterized by high scores in social metacognition (feeling that others can help us in understanding word meaning), while concrete concepts obtain high scores in Body-Object-Interaction, imageability, and context availability. A cluster analysis indicated four kinds of abstract concepts: philosophical-spiritual (e.g., value), self-sociality (e.g., politeness), emotive/inner states (e.g., anger), and physical, spatio-temporal, and quantitative concepts (e.g., reflex). Overall, results support multiple representation views indicating that sensorimotor, inner, linguistic, and social experience have different weights in characterizing different kinds of abstract concepts.

中文翻译:

各种抽象概念及其多维

摘要抽象概念如何表示的问题引起了广泛的争论。然而,证据是有争议的,也因为使用了不同的标准来选择抽象概念——例如,形象性和抽象性是等同的。此外,多年来,抽象概念一直被视为一个整体。我们的工作旨在解决这两个限制。我们要求参与者在 15 个维度上评估 425 个抽象概念:抽象性、具体性、可形象性、上下文可用性、身体-对象-交互、习得模态、习得年龄、知觉模态强度、元认知、社会元认知、内感受、情感、社会效价,手和嘴激活。结果表明,仅根据具体性/抽象性来构思概念过于简单。更抽象的概念通常是后来通过语言模式获得的,其特点是社会元认知(感觉别人可以帮助我们理解词义)得分高,而具体概念在身体-对象-交互、形象性和上下文可用性。聚类分析表明四种抽象概念:哲学-精神(例如,价值)、自我社会性(例如,礼貌)、情绪/内心状态(例如,愤怒),以及物理、时空和数量概念(例如, ,反射)。总体而言,结果支持多种表示观点,表明感觉运动、内在、语言和社会经验在表征不同种类的抽象概念方面具有不同的权重。
更新日期:2019-08-13
down
wechat
bug