Non‐Arbitrariness in Mapping Word Form to Meaning: Cross‐Linguistic Formal Markers of Word Concreteness
Cognitive Science 41 (4):1071-1089 (2017)
AbstractArbitrary symbolism is a linguistic doctrine that predicts an orthogonal relationship between word forms and their corresponding meanings. Recent corpora analyses have demonstrated violations of arbitrary symbolism with respect to concreteness, a variable characterizing the sensorimotor salience of a word. In addition to qualitative semantic differences, abstract and concrete words are also marked by distinct morphophonological structures such as length and morphological complexity. Native English speakers show sensitivity to these markers in tasks such as auditory word recognition and naming. One unanswered question is whether this violation of arbitrariness reflects an idiosyncratic property of the English lexicon or whether word concreteness is a marked phenomenon across other natural languages. We isolated concrete and abstract English nouns, and translated each into Russian, Arabic, Dutch, Mandarin, Hindi, Korean, Hebrew, and American Sign Language. We conducted offline acoustic analyses of abstract and concrete word length discrepancies across languages. In a separate experiment, native English speakers with no prior knowledge of these foreign languages judged concreteness of these nouns. Each naïve participant heard pre-recorded words presented in randomized blocks of three foreign languages following a brief listening exposure to a narrative sample from each respective language. Concrete and abstract words differed by length across five of eight languages, and prediction accuracy exceeded chance for four of eight languages. These results suggest that word concreteness is a marked phenomenon across several of the world's most widely spoken languages. We interpret these findings as supportive of an adaptive cognitive heuristic that allows listeners to exploit non-arbitrary mappings of word form to word meaning.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
The Representation of Abstract Words: Why Emotion Matters.Stavroula-Thaleia Kousta, Gabriella Vigliocco, David P. Vinson, Mark Andrews & Elena Del Campo - 2011 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 140 (1):14-34.
Sound to Meaning Correspondences Facilitate Word Learning.Lynne C. Nygaard, Allison E. Cook & Laura L. Namy - 2009 - Cognition 112 (1):181-186.
Uncovering the Richness of the Stimulus: Structure Dependence and Indirect Statistical Evidence.Florencia Reali & Morten H. Christiansen - 2005 - Cognitive Science 29 (6):1007-1028.
The Arbitrariness of the Sign: Learning Advantages From the Structure of the Vocabulary.Padraic Monaghan, Morten H. Christiansen & Stanka A. Fitneva - 2011 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 140 (3):325-347.
Citations of this work
The Linguistic Dimensions of Concrete and Abstract Concepts: Lexical Category, Morphological Structure, Countability, and Etymology.Bodo Winter, Marianna Bolognesi & Francesca Strik Lievers - 2021 - Cognitive Linguistics 32 (4):641-670.
A Cross‐Modal and Cross‐Lingual Study of Iconicity in Language: Insights From Deep Learning.Andrea Gregor de Varda & Carlo Strapparava - 2022 - Cognitive Science 46 (6):e13147.
Similar books and articles
The Specificity of Sound Symbolic Correspondences in Spoken Language.Christina Y. Tzeng, Lynne C. Nygaard & Laura L. Namy - 2017 - Cognitive Science:2191-2220.
On the Nature and Composition of Abstract Concepts: The X-Ception Theory and Methods for Its Assessment.Remo Job, Claudio Mulatti, Sara Dellantonio & Luigi Pastore - 2015 - In Woosuk Park, Ping Li & Lorenzo Magnani (eds.), Philosophy and Cognitive Science Ii. Springer Verlag.
Division of Labor in Vocabulary Structure: Insights From Corpus Analyses.Morten H. Christiansen & Padraic Monaghan - 2016 - Topics in Cognitive Science 8 (3):610-624.
On Function Of Word Order In English And Serbian.Slobodanka Kitic - 2002 - Facta Universitatis, Series: Linguistics and Literature 9 (2):303-312.
Wordform Similarity Increases With Semantic Similarity: An Analysis of 100 Languages.Isabelle Dautriche, Kyle Mahowald, Edward Gibson & Steven T. Piantadosi - 2017 - Cognitive Science:2149-2169.
Concreteness of Peg Words in Two Mnemonic Systems.Dennis J. Delprato & Elizabeth J. Baker - 1974 - Journal of Experimental Psychology 102 (3):520.
Formal Distinctiveness of High‐ and Low‐Imageability Nouns: Analyses and Theoretical Implications.Jamie Reilly & Jacob Kean - 2007 - Cognitive Science 31 (1):157-168.
Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience.Barbara Malt & Phillip M. Wolff (eds.) - 2010 - Oxford University Press USA.
Abstract Morphemes and Lexical Representation: The CV-Skeleton in Arabic.Sami Boudelaa & William D. Marslen-Wilson - 2004 - Cognition 92 (3):271-303.
Estimation of Word Frequency in Continuous and Discrete Tasks.Ian Begg - 1974 - Journal of Experimental Psychology 102 (6):1046.
Perceived Frequency of Concrete and Abstract Words.Richard C. Galbraith & Benton J. Underwood - 1973 - Memory and Cognition 1 (1):56-60.
Multimodal Word Meaning Induction From Minimal Exposure to Natural Text.Angeliki Lazaridou, Marco Marelli & Marco Baroni - 2017 - Cognitive Science 41 (S4):677-705.
Arbitrariness, Iconicity, and Systematicity in Language.Mark Dingemanse, Damián E. Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H. Christiansen & Padraic Monaghan - 2015 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (10):603-615.
Strength of Perceptual Experience Predicts Word Processing Performance Better Than Concreteness or Imageability.Louise Connell & Dermot Lynott - 2012 - Cognition 125 (3):452-465.