Startseite Sensory experience ratings (SERs) for 1,130 Chinese words: relationships with other semantic and lexical psycholinguistic variables
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Sensory experience ratings (SERs) for 1,130 Chinese words: relationships with other semantic and lexical psycholinguistic variables

  • Chenggang Wu EMAIL logo und Xin Mu
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 10. Oktober 2023
Linguistics Vanguard
Aus der Zeitschrift Linguistics Vanguard Band 9 Heft 1

Abstract

Sensory experience rating (SER) is a subjective semantic variable that measures the extent to which a word generates a sensory experience when a reader processes the word, and it has been explored in English, French, and Spanish. The present study collected the SERs of 1,130 Chinese words and explored the correlation between SER and other lexical and semantic variables. SER was significantly associated with concreteness, age of acquisition (AoA), context diversity, and word frequency. The results confirmed both the reliability and the validity of SER. However, SER failed to predict lexical decision performance in reaction time and accuracy rate. It is possible that SER is not as powerful in influencing word recognition as previous studies have assumed, at least for Chinese.

Keywords: sensory experience rating; grounded cognition; lexical variable; semantic variable; Chinese norms
Corresponding author: Chenggang Wu, School of Education, Shanghai International Studies University, Songjiang Campus, 1550 Wenxiang Road, Shanghai 201620, China, E-mail:

Funding source: Shanghai Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2020EYY004

  1. Research funding: This article was funded by Shanghai Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project, 2020EYY004.

Appendix: Instructions

非常感谢您参加本次汉语词汇感觉经验的评定。请仔细阅读以下说明后, 判断每个词汇是否能够引发您的感觉经验及引发程度的强弱。1代表没有引发任何感觉, 4代表引发了中等程度的感觉, 7代表引发了强烈的感觉。

说明: 感觉经验是指一种您可以感受得到的某种事实上的感觉 (如味觉、触觉、视觉、听觉等)。比如您看到大蒜一词, 如果您认为它引发了您的味觉, 就说明该词有一定程度的感觉经验。又比如厕所一词, 如果您认为它引发了您的嗅觉, 则说明它也含有一定程度感觉经验。请根据自身感觉选择引发程度的强弱 (特别注意: 感觉不等于情感, 您不需要考虑情感因素)。

答案没有正误之分, 我们只想知道您基于这些词汇的个人感觉经验。你的作答是匿名的, 仅供研究使用, 请放心作答。

The English translation of the Chinese instructions is as follows:

It is highly appreciated that you could take part in our rating study on sensory experience of Chinese words. Please carefully read the following instructions and decide if and the degree to which each Chinese words can evoke in sensory experience. 1 denotes no sensation was evoked, 4 denotes a medium level of sensation was evoked, and 7 denotes extremely strong sensation.

Note: Sensory experience is a sensation (e.g., taste, touch, sight, sound, etc.) that you can have in reality. When you read garlic, if you think it induces a taste for you, it means that the word garlic has some sensory experience. Take another example, when you read toilet, if you think it provokes your sense of smell, it shows that the word toilet has some sensory experience. Please choose the degree of sensory experience based on your personal sensation. Be alert that sensation does not equal to emotion, so please do not consider emotions.

References

Altarriba, Jeanette, Lisa M. Bauer & Claudia Benvenuto. 1999. Concreteness, context availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 31(4). 578–602. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200738.Suche in Google Scholar

Balota, David A., Melvin J. Yap, Keith A. Hutchison, Michael J. Cortese, Brett Kessler, Bjorn Loftis, James H. Neely, Douglas L. Nelson, Greg B. Simpson & Rebecca Treiman. 2007. The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods 39. 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014.Suche in Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 577–610. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149.Suche in Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 59. 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.Suche in Google Scholar

Bennett, Stephen D. R., A. Nicole Burnett, Paul D. Siakaluk & Penny M. Pexman. 2011. Imageability and body–object interaction ratings for 599 multisyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods 43(4). 1100–1109. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0117-5.Suche in Google Scholar

Bonin, Patrick, Alain Méot & Aurélia Bugaiska. 2018. Concreteness norms for 1,659 French words: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables and word recognition times. Behavior Research Methods 50(6). 2366–2387. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1014-y.Suche in Google Scholar

Bonin, Patrick, Alain Méot, Ludovic Ferrand & Aurélia Bugaiska. 2014. Sensory experience ratings (SERs) for 1,659 French words: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables and visual word recognition. Behavior Research Methods 47(3). 813–825. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0503-x.Suche in Google Scholar

Brysbaert, Marc & Boris New. 2009. Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 41. 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977.Suche in Google Scholar

Brysbaert, Marc, Amy Beth Warriner & Victor Kuperman. 2014. Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods 46(3). 904–911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5.Suche in Google Scholar

Cai, Qing & Marc Brysbaert. 2010. SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS One 5. e10729. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010729.Suche in Google Scholar

Díez-Álamo, Antonio M., Emiliano Diez, Dominika Zofia Wojcik, María Angeles Alonso & Angel Fernandez. 2018. Sensory experience ratings for 5,500 Spanish words. Behavior Research Methods 51(3). 1205–1215. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1057-0.Suche in Google Scholar

Glenberg, Arthur M. 2011. How reading comprehension is embodied and why that matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 4(1). 5–18.Suche in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Robert F., Charles A. Perfetti & Walter Schneider. 2006. Perceptual knowledge retrieval activates sensory brain regions. Journal of Neuroscience 26(18). 4917–4921. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.5389-05.2006.Suche in Google Scholar

González, Julio, Alfonso Barros-Loscertales, Friedemann Pulvermüller, Vanessa Meseguer, Ana Sanjuán, Vicente Belloch & César Ávila. 2006. Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions. Neuroimage 32(2). 906–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.03.037.Suche in Google Scholar

Hinojosa, José A., Juan Haro, Sara Magallares, Jon Andoni Duñabeitia & Pilar Ferré. 2021. Iconicity ratings for 10,995 Spanish words and their relationship with psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods 53(3). 1262–1275. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01496-z.Suche in Google Scholar

Hinojosa, José A., Irene Rincón-Pérez, Mª Verónica Romero-Ferreiro, Natalia Martínez-García, Cristina Villalba-García, Pedro R. Montoro & Miguel A. Pozo. 2016. The Madrid Affective Database for Spanish (MADS): Ratings of dominance, familiarity, subjective age of acquisition and sensory experience. PLoS One 11(5). e0155866. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155866.Suche in Google Scholar

Juhasz, Barbara J. & Melvin J. Yap. 2013. Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono- and disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods 45(1). 160–168. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0242-9.Suche in Google Scholar

Juhasz, Barbara J., Melvin Yap, Joanna Dicke, Sarah C. Taylor & Margaret M. Gullick. 2011. Tangible words are recognized faster: The grounding of meaning in sensory and perceptual systems. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64. 1683–1691. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.605150.Suche in Google Scholar

Keuleers, Emmanuel, Paula Lacey, Kathleen Rastle & Marc Brysbaert. 2012. The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods 44(1). 287–304. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0118-4.Suche in Google Scholar

Kuperman, Victor, Hans Stadthagen-Gonzalez & Marc Brysbaert. 2012. Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods 44(4). 978–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4.Suche in Google Scholar

Lynott, Dermot & Louise Connell. 2009. Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods 41(2). 558–564. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.558.Suche in Google Scholar

Lynott, Dermot, Louise Connell, Marc Brysbaert, James Brand & James Carney. 2020. The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: Multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods 52(3). 1271–1291. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01316-z.Suche in Google Scholar

Montefinese, Maria, Ettore Ambrosini, Beth Fairfield & Nicola Mammarella. 2014. The adaptation of the affective norms for English words (ANEW) for Italian. Behavior Research Methods 46(3). 887–903. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0405-3.Suche in Google Scholar

Paivio, Allan, John C. Yuille & Stephen A. Madigan. 1968. Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology 76(1, pt. 2). 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025327.Suche in Google Scholar

Pexman, Penny M., Emiko Muraki, David M. Sidhu, Paul D. Siakaluk & Melvin J. Yap. 2019. Quantifying sensorimotor experience: Body–object interaction ratings for more than 9,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods 51(2). 453–466. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1171-z.Suche in Google Scholar

Schwanenflugel, Paula J., Carolyn Akin & Wei-Ming Luh. 1992. Context availability and the recall of abstract and concrete words. Memory & Cognition 20(1). 96–104. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03208259.Suche in Google Scholar

Sidhu, David M. & Penny M. Pexman. 2018. Lonely sensational icons: Semantic neighbourhood density, sensory experience and iconicity. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33(1). 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1358379.Suche in Google Scholar

Tsang, Yiu-Kei, Jian Huang, Ming Lui, Mingfeng Xue, Yin-Wah Fiona Chan, Suiping Wang & Hsuan-Chih Chen. 2018. MELD-SCH: A megastudy of lexical decision in simplified Chinese. Behavior Research Methods 50(5). 1763–1777. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0944-0.Suche in Google Scholar

Warriner, Amy Beth, Victor Kuperman & Marc Brysbaert. 2013. Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods 45(4). 1191–1207. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x.Suche in Google Scholar

Winter, Bodo, Marcus Perlman, Lynn K. Perry & Gary Lupyan. 2017. Which words are most iconic? Iconicity in English sensory words. Interaction Studies 18(3). 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.3.07win.Suche in Google Scholar

Xiao, Wen & Rebecca Treiman. 2012. Iconicity of simple Chinese characters. Behavior Research Methods 44(4). 954–960. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0191-3.Suche in Google Scholar

Xu, Xu & Jiayin Li. 2020. Concreteness/abstractness ratings for two-character Chinese words in MELD-SCH. PLoS One 15. e0232133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232133.Suche in Google Scholar

Xu, Xu, Jiayin Li & Huilin Chen. 2022. Valence and arousal ratings for 11,310 simplified Chinese words. Behavior Research Methods 54(1). 26–41. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01607-4.Suche in Google Scholar

Xu, Xu, Jiayin Li & Shulun Guo. 2021. Age of acquisition ratings for 19,716 simplified Chinese words. Behavior Research Methods 53(2). 558–573. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01455-8.Suche in Google Scholar

Yao, Zhao, Jia Wu, Yanyan Zhang & Zhenhong Wang. 2017. Norms of valence, arousal, concreteness, familiarity, imageability, and context availability for 1,100 Chinese words. Behavior Research Methods 49(4). 1374–1385. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0793-2.Suche in Google Scholar

Zdrazilova, Lenka & Penny M. Pexman. 2013. Grasping the invisible: Semantic processing of abstract words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20(6). 1312–1318. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0452-x.Suche in Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0083).

Received: 2021-11-05
Accepted: 2023-02-28
Published Online: 2023-10-10

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Editorial 2023
  4. Research Articles
  5. Tapped /r/ in RP: a corpus-based sociophonetic study across the twentieth century
  6. Revisiting English written VP-ellipsis and VP-substitution: a dependency-based analysis
  7. Agreeing objects in Zulu can be indefinite and non-specific
  8. On the semantics of (negated) approximative kaada in Classical Arabic: a case for embedded exhaustification
  9. Imperatives as persuasion strategies in political discourse
  10. Primate origins of discourse-managing gestures: the case of hand fling
  11. Basic word order typology revisited: a crosslinguistic quantitative study based on UD and WALS
  12. The effect of L2 German on grammatical gender access in L1 Polish: proficiency matters
  13. Validation of two measures for assessing English vocabulary knowledge on web-based testing platforms: brief assessments
  14. Validation of two measures for assessing English vocabulary knowledge on web-based testing platforms: long-form assessments
  15. Cerebral asymmetries in the processing of opaque compounds in L1 Polish and L2 English
  16. Are preschool children sensitive to the function of accessibility markers? A visual world study with German-speaking three- to four-year-olds
  17. Sensory experience ratings (SERs) for 1,130 Chinese words: relationships with other semantic and lexical psycholinguistic variables
  18. A corpus-based study of quoi in French native speech
  19. The overlooked effect of amplitude on within-speaker vowel variation
  20. Contextualized word senses: from attention to compositionality
  21. Words of scents: a linguistic analysis of online perfume reviews
  22. Constraction: a tool for the automatic extraction and interactive exploration of linguistic constructions
  23. The Red Hen Anonymizer and the Red Hen Protocol for de-identifying audiovisual recordings
  24. Novel metaphor and embodiment: comprehending novel synesthetic metaphors
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0083
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
sensory experience rating; grounded cognition; lexical variable; semantic variable; Chinese norms

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Editorial 2023
  4. Research Articles
  5. Tapped /r/ in RP: a corpus-based sociophonetic study across the twentieth century
  6. Revisiting English written VP-ellipsis and VP-substitution: a dependency-based analysis
  7. Agreeing objects in Zulu can be indefinite and non-specific
  8. On the semantics of (negated) approximative kaada in Classical Arabic: a case for embedded exhaustification
  9. Imperatives as persuasion strategies in political discourse
  10. Primate origins of discourse-managing gestures: the case of hand fling
  11. Basic word order typology revisited: a crosslinguistic quantitative study based on UD and WALS
  12. The effect of L2 German on grammatical gender access in L1 Polish: proficiency matters
  13. Validation of two measures for assessing English vocabulary knowledge on web-based testing platforms: brief assessments
  14. Validation of two measures for assessing English vocabulary knowledge on web-based testing platforms: long-form assessments
  15. Cerebral asymmetries in the processing of opaque compounds in L1 Polish and L2 English
  16. Are preschool children sensitive to the function of accessibility markers? A visual world study with German-speaking three- to four-year-olds
  17. Sensory experience ratings (SERs) for 1,130 Chinese words: relationships with other semantic and lexical psycholinguistic variables
  18. A corpus-based study of quoi in French native speech
  19. The overlooked effect of amplitude on within-speaker vowel variation
  20. Contextualized word senses: from attention to compositionality
  21. Words of scents: a linguistic analysis of online perfume reviews
  22. Constraction: a tool for the automatic extraction and interactive exploration of linguistic constructions
  23. The Red Hen Anonymizer and the Red Hen Protocol for de-identifying audiovisual recordings
  24. Novel metaphor and embodiment: comprehending novel synesthetic metaphors
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 7.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0083/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen