Normes d’imagerie et de fréquence subjective pour 1 760 mots monosyllabiques de la langue française.

Abstract

This study aimed at providing subjective frequency and imageability norms for a sample of 1,760 monosyllabic French words and thereby, increasing the pool of normative data available for research in cognitive science and language processing. The results indicate that the reliability of the estimates is high, with coefficients ranging between .93 and .99 for the frequency and imageability ratings. External validity was investigated by calculating correlations with ratings drawn from all similar studies and for which the number of shared items was sufficient. These coefficients vary between .73 and .88 for subjective frequency and between .64 and .97 for imageability. The correlation between subjective frequency and imageability in the present study was significant and relatively high (r = .64). The implications of these results for the selection of experimental stimuli for research are discussed.

A database of psycholinguistic and lexical properties for French adjectives referring to human and/or nonhuman attributes.

“…In line with previous work (e.g., Desrochers & Thompson, 2009; Gonthier, Desrochers, Thompson, & Landry, 2009), several reliability estimates were calculated to examine the internal consistency of the collected psycholinguistic ratings. Table 3 lists the average participant-sample correlation as well as Cronbach’s alpha.…”

Imageability and subjective frequency of the 500 rated nouns in the Croatian Lexical Database

“…Desrochers and Thompson (2009) analysed subjective frequency and imageability ratings for 3,600 French nouns and, like our study in Croatian, they found a low but significant positive correlation (r=0.26; p<0.001). In a study of 1,760 monosyllabic French words, Gonthier et al (2009) showed a stronger positive correlation between imageability and subjective frequency (r=0.64; p<0.001). Using linear regression, Gonthier et al (2009) showed that subjective frequency was a significant predictor of imageability only for less frequent words.…”

“…In a study of 1,760 monosyllabic French words, Gonthier et al (2009) showed a stronger positive correlation between imageability and subjective frequency (r=0.64; p<0.001). Using linear regression, Gonthier et al (2009) showed that subjective frequency was a significant predictor of imageability only for less frequent words.…”

Subjective frequency norms for 330 Spanish simple and compound words

“…There is reason to question the reliability or validity of objective frequency estimates for some words, and the validity of subjective frequency estimates has also been challenged. Balota et al (2001), for instance, reported results that suggested that subjective estimation of word frequency is codetermined by word characteristics other than the frequency with which words are encountered, such as meaningfulness and the familiarity of orthographic or phonological patterns (see also Baayen, Feldman, & Schreuder, 2006;Gonthier et al, 2009;. One way of identifying items with dubious validity may then be to obtain both objective and subjective frequency estimates for as large a number of words as possible and to cross-validate them against each other.…”

“…Of all the lexical charac-1995; Zeno, Ivenz, Millard, & Duvvuri, 1995;for Dutch, see, e.g., Baayen et al, 1995;for French, see, e.g., Lété, Sprenger-Charolles, & Colé, 2004;New, Pallier, Brysbaert, & Ferrand, 2004;for German, see, e.g., Baayen et al, 1995; for Greek, see, e.g., Ktori, van Heuven, & Pitchford, 2008; for Portuguese, see, e.g., Marques, Fonseca, Morais, & Pinto, 2007;for Spanish, see, e.g., Alameda & Cuetos, 1995;Sebastián-Gallés, Martí, Cuetos, & Carreiras, 2000). In comparison, the range of alphabetic languages for which subjective frequencies are available is limited (for English, see, e.g., Balota, Pilotti, & Cortese, 2001;Carroll, 1971;Shapiro, 1969;Tryk, 1968;for French, see, e.g., Bonin et al, 2003;Desrochers & Bergeron, 2000;Ferrand et al, 2008;Flieller & Tournois, 1994;Forget, 2005;Gonthier, Desrochers, Thompson, & Landry, 2009), as is the pool of words for which subjective frequency estimates are available in these languages. This imbalance may be attributed, in part, to the cost of collecting such ratings.…”