Advertisement

Levels of Abstractness in Semantic Noun and Verb Processing: The Role of Sensory-Perceptual and Sensory-Motor Information

  • Jet M. J. VonkEmail author
  • Loraine K. Obler
  • Roel Jonkers
Article

Abstract

Effects of concreteness and grammatical class on lexical-semantic processing are well-documented, but the role of sensory-perceptual and sensory-motor features of concepts in underlying mechanisms producing these effects is relatively unknown. We hypothesized that processing dissimilarities in accuracy and response time performance in nouns versus verbs, concrete versus abstract words, and their interaction can be explained by differences in semantic weight—the combined amount of sensory-perceptual and sensory-motor information to conceptual representations—across those grammatical and semantic categories. We assessed performance on concrete and abstract subcategories of nouns and verbs with a semantic similarity judgment task. Results showed that when main effects of concreteness and grammatical class were analyzed in more detail, the grammatical-class effect, in which nouns are processed more accurately and quicker than verbs, was only present for concrete words, not for their abstract counterparts. Moreover, the concreteness effect, measured at different levels of abstract words, was present for both nouns and verbs, but it was less pronounced for verbs. The results do not support the grammatical-class hypothesis, in which nouns and verbs are separately organized, and instead provide evidence in favor of a unitary semantic space, in which lexical-semantic processing is influenced by the beneficial effect of sensory-perceptual and sensory-motor information of concepts.

Keywords

Grammatical class Imageability Concreteness Semantics Comprehension Mental lexicon 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adorni, R., & Proverbio, A. M. (2012). The neural manifestation of the word concreteness effect: An electrical neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 880–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bak, T. H., & Hodges, J. R. (2003). Kissing and dancing—A test to distinguish the lexical and conceptual contributions to noun/verb and action/object dissociation. Preliminary results in patients with frontotemporal dementia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16(2), 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber, H. A., Kousta, S., Otten, L. J., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Event-related potentials to event-related words: Grammatical class and semantic attributes in the representation of knowledge. Brain Research, 1332, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barresi, B. A., Nicholas, M., Tabor Connor, L., Obler, L. K., & Albert, M. L. (2000). Semantic degradation and lexical access in age-related naming failures. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 7(3), 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berndt, R. S., Haendiges, A., Burton, M., & Mitchum, C. (2002). Grammatical class and imageability in aphasic word production: Their effects are independent. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15(3–5), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breedin, S. D., Saffran, E. M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1998). Semantic factors in verb retrieval: An effect of complexity. Brain and Language, 63(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., De Deyne, S., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. (2014). Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta Psychologica, 150, 80–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buzzeo, N. M., Connelly, E., Obler, L. K., Saloner, R., & Vonk, J. M. J. (2017). The weight of sensory-perceptual features in lexical processing and conceptual imageability. Poster presented at the Annual Graduate Student Research Poster Day of the Hunter College Communication Sciences and Disorders Program, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Caramazza, A., & Hillis, A. E. (1991). Lexical organization of nouns and verbs in the brain. Nature, 349(6312), 788–790.  https://doi.org/10.1038/349788a0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Corp, I. B. M. (2015). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 23. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  11. Crepaldi, D., Berlingeri, M., Paulesu, E., & Luzzatti, C. (2011). A place for nouns and a place for verbs? A critical review of neurocognitive data on grammatical-class effects. Brain and Language, 116(1), 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Croft, W. (2000). Parts of speech as language universals and as language-particular categories. In B. C. P. M. Vogel (Ed.), Approaches to the typology of word classes (pp. 65–102). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2004). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128(3), 615–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniele, A., Giustolisi, L., Silveri, M. C., Colosimo, C., & Gainotti, G. (1994). Evidence for a possible neuroanatomical basis for lexical processing of nouns and verbs. Neuropsychologia, 32(11), 1325–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hillis, A. E., & Caramazza, A. (1995). Representation of grammatical categories of words in the brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(3), 396–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoffman, P. (2016). The meaning of ‘life’ and other abstract words: Insights from neuropsychology. Journal of Neuropsychology, 10(2), 317–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howard, D., & Patterson, K. (1992). Pyramids and palm trees: A test of semantic access from pictures and words. Bury St Edmonds: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar
  18. James, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 104, 130–136.Google Scholar
  19. Janczyk, M., & Kunde, W. (2012). Visual processing for action resists similarity of relevant and irrelevant object features. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 412–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jonkers, R. (1998). Comprehension and production of verbs in aphasic speakers (Dissertation). Groningen: Grodil.Google Scholar
  21. Kellenbach, M. L., Wijers, A. A., Hovius, M., Mulder, J., & Mulder, G. (2002). Neural differentiation of lexico-syntactic categories or semantic features? Event-related potential evidence for both. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(4), 561–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kemmerer, D. (2014). Word classes in the brain: Implications of linguistic typology for cognitive neuroscience. Cortex, 58, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kemmerer, D., Castillo, J. G., Talavage, T., Patterson, S., & Wiley, C. (2008). Neuroanatomical distribution of five semantic components of verbs: Evidence from fMRI. Brain and Language, 107(1), 16–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keuleers, E., Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new measure for Dutch word frequency based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kousta, S., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kremin, H., Perrier, D., De Wilde, M., Dordain, M., Le Bayon, A., Gatignol, P., et al. (2001). Factors predicting success in picture naming in Alzheimer’s disease and primary progressive aphasia. Brain and Cognition, 46(1), 180–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, C., & Federmeier, K. D. (2008). To watch, to see, and to differ: An event-related potential study of concreteness effects as a function of word class and lexical ambiguity. Brain and Language, 104(2), 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. (2001). WebCelex. Retrieved from http://celex.mpi.nl/.
  30. Moseley, R. L., & Pulvermüller, F. (2014). Nouns, verbs, objects, actions, and abstractions: Local fMRI activity indexes semantics, not lexical categories. Brain and Language, 132, 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pulvermüller, F., Mohr, B., & Schleichert, H. (1999). Semantic or lexico-syntactic factors: What determines word-class specific activity in the human brain? Neuroscience Letters, 275(2), 81–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reilly, J., & Kean, J. (2007). Formal distinctiveness of high-and low-imageability nouns: Analyses and theoretical implications. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sabsevitz, D. S., Medler, D. A., Seidenberg, M., & Binder, J. R. (2005). Modulation of the semantic system by word imageability. NeuroImage, 27(1), 188–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Shapiro, K., Shelton, J., & Caramazza, A. (2000). Grammatical class in lexical production and morphological processing: Evidence from a case of fluent aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17(8), 665–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silveri, M. C., & Di Betta, A. M. (1997). Noun-verb dissociations in brain-damaged patients: Further evidence. Neurocase, 3(6), 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siri, S., Tettamanti, M., Cappa, S. F., Rosa, P. D., Saccuman, C., Scifo, P., et al. (2007). The neural substrate of naming events: Effects of processing demands but not of grammatical class. Cerebral Cortex, 18(1), 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tranel, D., Martin, C., Damasio, H., Grabowski, T. J., & Hichwa, R. (2005). Effects of noun–verb homonymy on the neural correlates of naming concrete entities and actions. Brain and Language, 92(3), 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Loon-Vervoorn, W. A. (1985). Voorstelbaarheidswaarden van Nederlandse woorden: 4600 substantieven, 1000 verba en 500 adjectieven. Lisse, NL: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  40. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., & Cappa, S. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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(4), 422–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vigliocco, G., Warren, J., Siri, S., Arciuli, J., Scott, S., & Wise, R. (2006). The role of semantics and grammatical class in the neural representation of words. Cerebral Cortex, 16(12), 1790–1796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2002). A semantic analysis of grammatical class impairments: Semantic representations of object nouns, action nouns and action verbs. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15(3), 317–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vinson, D. P., Vigliocco, G., Cappa, S., & Siri, S. (2003). The breakdown of semantic knowledge: Insights from a statistical model of meaning representation. Brain and Language, 86(3), 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vonk, J. M. J. (2015). The contribution of semantic features to the white matter pathways of tool processing. The Journal of Neuroscience35(37), 12609–12611.  https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2453-15.2015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Vonk, J. M. J. (2017). Cognitive and neurobiological degeneration of the mental lexicon in primary progressive aphasia. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  47. Vonk, J. M. J., Flores, R. J., Rosado, D., Qian, C., Cabo, R., Habegger, J., et al. (2018). Semantic network function captured by word frequency in nondemented APOE ε4 carriers. Neuropsychology.  https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000508.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Warburton, E., Wise, R. J., Price, C. J., Weiller, C., Hadar, U., Ramsay, S., et al. (1996). Noun and verb retrieval by normal subjects: Studies with PET. Brain, 119(1), 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang, Q., Guo, C., Ding, J., & Wang, Z. (2006). Concreteness effects in the processing of Chinese words. Brain and Language, 96(1), 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurology, Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer’s Disease and the Aging BrainColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Speech-Language-Hearing SciencesThe Graduate Center of the City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations