2004
Volume 45, Issue 2/3
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

Experimental research into the effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interestingness and persuasiveness of texts is often carried out by comparing versions of texts that differ in terms of concreteness. However, in previous studies concreteness has been manipulated in various ways, making it difficult to compare the experimental outcomes. Therefore, Brysbaert et al. (2014) developed a list of concreteness scores for 30,000 words, based on judgements of students. This list helps researchers to compare the concreteness of texts that have been manipulated for experimental research. Nevertheless, Brysbaert et al.’s (2014) list is incomplete, in the sense that it lacks homonyms, multiword expressions, neologisms and proper names. We have collected concreteness scores for words and word groups in these categories to supplement the ‘Brysbaert’ list. We have also developed the TABLET tool, which gives words in a text a part-of-speech tag, and then searches for the lemma form of the words in the list of concreteness scores as collected by Brysbaert et al. (2014) and us. This tool facilitates the process of determining and manipulating the concreteness of (parts of) texts, and can be used freely by researchers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.0203.003.HUST
2023-12-15
2024-12-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/45/2/3/TVT2023.0203.003.HUST.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.0203.003.HUST&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bell, B.E., & Loftus, E. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 669-679.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bolognesi, M., Burgers, C., & Caselli, T. (2020). On abstraction: decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity. Cognitive Processing, 21, 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-020-00965-9
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brysbaert, M., Stevens, M., De Deyne, S., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. (2014). Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta Psychologica, 150, 80-84.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Douma, P. (1994). ‘Wees zo concreet mogelijk’. Schrijfadviseurs over concreet en abstract taalgebruik. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 16, 17-31.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Elliott, W. B., Rennekamp, K. M., & White, B. J. (2015). Does concrete language in disclosures increase willingness to invest?Review of Accounting Studies, 20(2), 839-865.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., Rooij, J. de & Toorn, M. van den (2019, januari). 5.9 Het onbepaald voornaamwoord (indefiniet pronomen). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. https://e-ans.ivdnt.org/topics/pid/ans0509lingtopic. (geraadpleegd 11januari2023).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Hansen, J. & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1576-1588.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hoeken, H., & O’Keefe, D. J. (2022). The reconstructability of persuasive message variables affects the variability of experimental effect sizes: evidence and implications. Human Communication Research, 48(4), 543-552.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hubers, F., Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Dijkstra, T. (2019). Normative data of Dutch idiomatic expressions: Subjective judgments you can bank on. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1075.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hustinx, L., Hofstra, I., & Janssen, A. (2019). Zijn concrete argumenten doorslaggevender? Een experiment naar het effect van mate van concreetheid op sociale oordelen. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 41(1), 129–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hustinx, L., & Spooren, W. (2019). Determinants of abstractness and concreteness and their persuasive effects. In M.Bolognesi, & G.J.Steen (Red.), Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: Cognition, Language and Communication (pp. 121-143). Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.65.07hus
    [Google Scholar]
  12. van Loon-Vervoorn, W. A. (1985). Voorstelbaarheidswaarden van Nederlandse woorden. Swetz and Zeitlinger.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Löhr, G. (2022). What are abstract concepts? On lexical ambiguity and concreteness ratings. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 13(3), 549–566.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Muraki, E. J., Abdalla, S., Brysbaert, M., & Pexman, P. M. (2022). Concreteness ratings for 62,000 English multiword expressions. Behavior Research Methods, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01912-6
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Nahari, G. (2018). The applicability of the verifiability approach to the real world. In P.Rosenfeld (Ed.), Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Verbal, Behavioral, and Biological Methods (pp. 329–350). Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-812729-2.00014-8
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Pettus, C. & Diener, E. (1977). Factors affecting the effectiveness of abstract versus concrete information. The Journal of Social Psychology, 103(2), 233-242. DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1977.9713322
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Bolognesi, M. & Krennmayr, T. (2019). How polysemy affects concreteness ratings: The case of metaphor. Cognitive Science, 43(8), 1-11, e12779.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Sadoski, M. (1999). Theoretical, empirical and practical considerations in designing informational text. Document Design, 1(1), 24-34.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 85-95.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Shedler, J. & Manis, M. (1986). Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 26-36.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Spooren, W.P.M.S., Hustinx, L.G.M.M., Aben, J.E.J. & Turkenburg, E. (2015). Concreetheid onder de loep. In M.Boogaard, B.van den Bogaerde, S.Bacchini, M.Curcic, N.de Jong, E.le Pichon & L.Rasier (Eds.), Proceedings of de achtste Anéla Conferentie Toegepaste Taalwetenschap 2015 (pp. 97-110). Eburon.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Vrij, A. (2018). Deception and truth detection when analyzing nonverbal and verbal cues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 160–167. doi:10.1002/acp.3457
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.0203.003.HUST
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2023.0203.003.HUST
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error