Literature DB >> 15099798

Representing the meanings of object and action words: the featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis.

Gabriella Vigliocco1, David P Vinson, William Lewis, Merrill F Garrett.   

Abstract

This paper presents the Featural and Unitary Semantic Space (FUSS) hypothesis of the meanings of object and action words. The hypothesis, implemented in a statistical model, is based on the following assumptions: First, it is assumed that the meanings of words are grounded in conceptual featural representations, some of which are organized according to modality. Second, it is assumed that conceptual featural representations are bound into lexico-semantic representations that provide an interface between conceptual knowledge and other linguistic information (syntax and phonology). Finally, the FUSS model employs the same principles and tools for objects and actions, modeling both domains in a single semantic space. We assess the plausibility of the model by showing that it can capture generalizations presented in the literature, in particular those related to category-related deficits, and show that it can predict semantic effects in behavioral experiments for object and action words better than other models such as Latent Semantic Analysis (Landauer & Dumais, 1997) and similarity metrics derived from Wordnet (Miller & Fellbaum, 1991). Copyright 2003 Elsevier Inc.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15099798     DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Psychol        ISSN: 0010-0285            Impact factor:   3.468


  84 in total

1.  Differential interference effects of negative emotional states on subsequent semantic and perceptual processing.

Authors:  Michiko Sakaki; Marissa A Gorlick; Mara Mather
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2011-12

2.  Flexibility in embodied lexical-semantic representations.

Authors:  Wessel O van Dam; Margriet van Dijk; Harold Bekkering; Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Now you see it ... and now again: semantic interference reflects lexical competition in speech production with and without articulation.

Authors:  Rasha Abdel Rahman; Sabrina Aristei
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-10

4.  Saying the right word at the right time: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic interference in sentence production.

Authors:  Gary S Dell; Gary M Oppenheim; Audrey K Kittredge
Journal:  Lang Cogn Process       Date:  2008-06

5.  Language and imagery: effects of language modality.

Authors:  Gabriella Vigliocco; David P Vinson; Tyron Woolfe; Matthew W G Dye; Bencie Woll
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis.

Authors:  Niels Janssen; Walter Schirm; Bradford Z Mahon; Alfonso Caramazza
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Attractor dynamics and semantic neighborhood density: processing is slowed by near neighbors and speeded by distant neighbors.

Authors:  Daniel Mirman; James S Magnuson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Uninformative memories will prevail: the storage of correlated representations and its consequences.

Authors:  Emilio Kropff; Alessandro Treves
Journal:  HFSP J       Date:  2007-10-09

9.  A common mechanism in verb and noun naming deficits in Alzheimer's patients.

Authors:  Amit Almor; Justin M Aronoff; Maryellen C MacDonald; Laura M Gonnerman; Daniel Kempler; Houri Hintiryan; Unja L Hayes; Sudha Arunachalam; Elaine S Andersen
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2009-08-21       Impact factor: 2.381

10.  Refractory access disorders and the organization of concrete and abstract semantics: do they differ?

Authors:  A Cris Hamilton; H Branch Coslett
Journal:  Neurocase       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 0.881

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.