首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Psychology >Manipulating Objects and Telling Words: A Study on Concrete and Abstract Words Acquisition
【24h】

Manipulating Objects and Telling Words: A Study on Concrete and Abstract Words Acquisition

机译:操作对象和说单词:具体和抽象单词习得研究

获取原文
       

摘要

Four experiments (E1–E2–E3–E4) investigated whether different acquisition modalities lead to the emergence of differences typically found between concrete and abstract words, as argued by the words as tools (WAT) proposal. To mimic the acquisition of concrete and abstract concepts, participants either manipulated novel objects or observed groups of objects interacting in novel ways (Training 1). In TEST 1 participants decided whether two elements belonged to the same category. Later they read the category labels (Training 2); labels could be accompanied by an explanation of their meaning. Then participants observed previously seen exemplars and other elements, and were asked which of them could be named with a given label (TEST 2). Across the experiments, it was more difficult to form abstract than concrete categories (TEST 1); even when adding labels, abstract words remained more difficult than concrete words (TEST 2). TEST 3 differed across the experiments. In E1 participants performed a feature production task. Crucially, the associations produced with the novel words reflected the pattern evoked by existing concrete and abstract words, as the first evoked more perceptual properties. In E2–E3–E4, TEST 3 consisted of a color verification task with manual/verbal (keyboard–microphone) responses. Results showed the microphone use to have an advantage over keyboard use for abstract words, especially in the explanation condition. This supports WAT: due to their acquisition modality, concrete words evoke more manual information; abstract words elicit more verbal information. This advantage was not present when linguistic information contrasted with perceptual one. Implications for theories and computational models of language grounding are discussed.
机译:四个实验(E1-E2-E3-E4)调查了不同的获取方式是否会导致具体词和抽象词之间出现差异,正如工具一词(WAT)建议所指出的那样。为了模仿具体和抽象概念的获得,参与者要么操纵新颖的物体,要么观察到以新颖方式相互作用的物体组(训练1)。在测试1中,参与者决定两个元素是否属于同一类别。后来他们阅读了类别标签(培训2)。标签可能附带其含义的解释。然后,参与者观察到先前看到的示例和其他元素,并被问到可以给它们命名的标签(测试2)。在整个实验中,要形成抽象要比具体类别更困难(测试1);即使添加标签,抽象词仍然比具体词困难(测试2)。测试3在整个实验中有所不同。在E1中,参与者执行了特征制作任务。至关重要的是,与新单词产生的联想反映了现有具体和抽象单词所引起的模式,因为第一个引起了更多的感知特性。在E2-E3-E4中,TEST 3包括一个带有手动/语音(键盘-麦克风)响应的颜色验证任务。结果表明,对于抽象单词,使用麦克风比使用键盘具有优势,尤其是在解释条件下。这支持了WAT:由于其获取方式,具体的词语可以唤起更多的手册信息;抽象词会引出更多口头信息。当语言信息与感知信息形成对比时,这种优势就不存在了。讨论了语言基础的理论和计算模型的含义。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号