![]() ![]() However, many existing methods for mapping semantic space, such as Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), involve dissimilarity metrics which do not take antonymy adequately into account (Samsonovich & Ascoli, 2010). Antonyms have also been estimated to make up approximately 30% of all whole word substitution errors in healthy spontaneous speech (Hotopf, 1980 see Murphy, 2003). 1 Antonymous relations are an important dimension of abstract words, and constitute approximately a quarter of responses coded in free association norms (Hutchison, 2003). Antonyms are words which hold opposite meanings (e.g. However, association and similarity are not the only types of relationship which must be accounted for by models of conceptual knowledge. Indeed, recent data indicate a graded relationship between concreteness and these two types of semantic relationship: the effect of semantic similarity increases with concreteness whilst the effect of semantic association decreases with concreteness (Crutch & Jackson, 2011). These studies suggest that abstract words have a relatively greater reliance upon the representation of associative information, whereas concrete words have a relatively greater reliance upon the representation of similarity-based information. The comprehension of synonymous and non-synonymous associates have been directly contrasted in a series of studies investigating the difference between abstract and concrete words (Crutch and Warrington, 2005, Crutch and Warrington, 2007, Crutch et al., 2009, Duñabeitia et al., 2009. The current study addresses this issue by directly comparing the comprehension and properties of words linked by three different types of semantic relationship: antonymous associates (hereafter termed ‘antonyms’), synonymous associates (hereafter termed ‘synonyms’) and non-antonymous, non-synonymous associates (hereafter termed ‘NANSAs’). concepts or ideas which have no direct material basis, such as ‘pity’ or ‘thought’). Considerably less attention has been directed toward other semantic relationship types, particularly as pertaining to abstract words (i.e. Neuropsychological studies of conceptual knowledge have tended to concentrate upon semantic similarity, particularly among concrete entities which share features or belong to a common taxonomic class. niece–aunty May–January), and association (e.g. ![]() cattle–animals hours–time), coordinacy (e.g. These semantic relationships may be defined by superordinacy (e.g. A critical component of that knowledge base is the representation of many different types of semantic relationship which exist between these entities. Human conceptual knowledge encompasses information about an exceptionally diverse range of objects, facts and ideas. It is also suggested that mapping abstract semantic space requires the identification and quantification of the contribution made to abstract concepts by not only sensorimotor and emotional information but also a host of other cognitive dimensions. It is argued that polarity is a critical semantic attribute of abstract words, and that simple ‘dissimilarity’ metrics mask fundamental consistencies in the semantic representation of antonyms. ![]() The results of Experiment 2 provide a possible explanation for the novel pattern of neuropsychological data observed in Experiment 1, namely that polarity information is more important than other semantic attributes when discriminating the meaning of abstract words. Discrepancy analyses revealed that antonyms were as or more similar to one another than synonyms on all but one measure: polarity. Experiment 2 aimed to explore the content or semantic attributes of the abstract words used in Experiment 1 through the generation of control ratings across nine cognitive dimensions (sensation, action, thought, emotion, social interaction, space, time, quantity and polarity). Contrary to expectations, all three patients showed superior antonym comprehension compared with synonyms or NANSAs, discriminating antonyms with a similar level of accuracy as unrelated words. Experiment 1 tested the comprehension of pairs of abstract words in three patients with global aphasia using a spoken word to written word matching paradigm. The comprehension and semantic properties of these words were examined using two distinct methodologies. good–great), non-antonymous, non-synonymous associates (NANSAs e.g. This study describes an investigation of different types of semantic relationship among abstract words: antonyms (e.g. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |