Measuring inconsistencies can lead you forward: Imageability and the x-ception theory

Abstract

According to the traditional view, both imageability and concreteness ratings reflect the way word meanings rely on information mediated by the senses. As a consequence, the two measures should and do correlate. The link between these two indexes was already hypothesized and demonstrated by Paivio et al. (1968) in a seminal article, where they introduced the idea of imageability ratings for the first time. However, in this first study, they also noted a contrasting pattern in the ratings for imageability and concreteness with some words that refer to affective attitudes or emotional states receiving high imageability but low concreteness ratings. Recent studies confirm this inconsistency (e.g., Altarriba and Bauer, 2004) leading to the claim that emotion words form a particular class of terms different from both concrete and abstract words. Here we use the MRC psycholinguistic database to show that the there are other classes of terms for which imageability and concreteness are uncorrelated. We show that the common feature of these word classes is that they directly or indirectly refer to proprioceptive, interoceptive, or affective states, i.e., to internal, body-related, sensory experiences. Thus, imageability and concreteness can no longer be considered interchangeable constructs; rather, imageability is a different, and perhaps more interesting, measure: it not only reflects the ease with which memories of external events come to mind, as previously hypothesized, but also reflects the ease with which memories of internal events come to mind.

Dimensions of Metaphorical Meaning

“…Of special note, the database includes 4,295 words rated with degrees of abstractness, these ratings ranging from 158 (meaning highly abstract) to 670 (meaning highly concrete), and also 9,240 words rated for degrees of imageability, which can be defined as how easily a word can evoke mental imagery, these ratings also ranging between 100 and 700 (a higher score indicating greater imageability). It should be noted that it has long been known that the concreteness and imageability scores are highly correlated (Paivio et al, 1968), however, there are interesting differences between these sets of scores (Dellantonio et al, 2014), and we are currently investigating these differences in further studies (see Section (4) below). These scores have been used extensively for work that is similar to ours, e.g.…”

The Minho Word Pool: Norms for imageability, concreteness, and subjective frequency for 3,800 Portuguese words

“…Although these subjective variables are not independent from each other, an increasing body of studies suggest that they theoretically and empirically constitute distinct constructs (e.g., Connell & Lynott, 2012;Dellantonio, Mullatti, Pastore, & Job, 2014;Kousta et al, 2011). For example, although imageability is highly correlated with concreteness (.83 in Paivio's work and around that value in subsequent studies-e.g., Altarriba et al, 1999;Connell & Lynott, 2012;Gilhooly & Logie, 1980;Toglia & Battig, 1978), which has supported the interchangeable use of both measures in experimental research (see, e.g., Fliessbach, Weis, Klaver, Elger, & Weber, 2006), a growing body of evidence has suggested that imageability and concreteness capture different word properties (e.g., Connell & Lynott, 2012;Dellantonio et al, 2014;Kousta et al, 2011).…”

Psycholinguistic estimates of 3000 words of Croatian: concreteness and imageability

“…U novije se vrijeme neki istra`iva~i vra}aju emocionalnoj obojenosti (npr. Altarriba, Bauer i Benvenuto 1999), dok Dellantonio i suradnici (Dellantonio et al 2014) pak pro{iruju navedeni zaklju~ak te pokazuju da se konkretnost i predo~ivost ne razlikuju samo kod rije~i koje su emocionalno obojene nego i kod onih koje se odnose na proprioceptivno i interoceptivno iskustvo (npr. rije~i poput glad, koja se odnosi na unutarnje osjetilno iskustvo, za razliku od rije~i slan, koja se odnosi na izvanjsko osjetilno iskustvo).…”

“…I u na{oj se bazi, kao i u dosada{njim istra`ivanjima, uo~avaju primjeri rije~i niske konkretnosti, a visoke predo~ivosti. Razlika u veli~ini korelacije izme|u konkretnosti i predo~ivosti za apstraktne i konkretne rije~i u skladu je s rezultatima koje su dobili Dellantonio et al (2014). Ipak, neformalnim uvidom u to koje su rije~i u na{oj bazi procijenjene kao niskokonkretne, a visokopredo~ive te sude}i prema njihovu malenom broju, ne ~ini se da je ta razlika sasvim u skladu s rezultatima vezanima uz proprioceptivno i interoceptivno iskustvo (kao {to tvrde Dellantonio et al 2014).…”

“…Razlika u veli~ini korelacije izme|u konkretnosti i predo~ivosti za apstraktne i konkretne rije~i u skladu je s rezultatima koje su dobili Dellantonio et al (2014). Ipak, neformalnim uvidom u to koje su rije~i u na{oj bazi procijenjene kao niskokonkretne, a visokopredo~ive te sude}i prema njihovu malenom broju, ne ~ini se da je ta razlika sasvim u skladu s rezultatima vezanima uz proprioceptivno i interoceptivno iskustvo (kao {to tvrde Dellantonio et al 2014). Neke od takvih rije~i u na{oj bazi, s prosje~nim vrijednostima, bile su: mi{ljenje (K(onkretnost) = 1,27, P(redo~ivost) = 4,17), reinkarnacija (K = 1,33, P = 4,07), obe}anje (K = 1,7, P = 4,47), tajanstven (K = 1,67, P = 4,3), zadesiti (K = 1,93, P = 4,63), za koje je te{ko jednozna~no utvrditi emocionalnu obojenost ili vezanost uz proprioceptivno i interoceptivno iskustvo.…”