engleski

Word imageability from a cross-linguistic perspective

Imageability ratings are obtained by asking people to evaluate the degree to which they think a word can be mentally depicted (Paivio et al., 1968). People with aphasia retrieve high-imageability words more accurately than low-imageability words (Luzzatti et al., 2002 ; for the reverse pattern see Berndt et al., 2002). Therefore, it seems necessary to control for this variable when designing test materials, as failing to do so may affect our overall interpretation of the results. Furthermore, imageability ratings may grant a better understanding of differences at the semantic/lexical level (Bastiaanse & Van Zonneveld, 2004), as high-imageability words are richer in perceptual features than low- imageability words (Plaut & Shallice, 1993). After the pioneering norms by Paivio and colleagues (1968), extensive databases have been constructed for English (e.g., Bird et al., 2001 ; Coltheart, 1981 ; Cortese et al., 2004), Italian (Rofes et al., 2015), Swedish (Blomberg & Öberg, 2015), Norwegian (Simonsen et al., 2013), and other languages. However, there is a lack of understanding on how consistent imageability ratings are across languages. Understanding imageability ratings in different languages may provide stronger grounds to advocate for lexical/semantic similarities across languages. In fact, it may be reasonable to think that concepts such as ‘apple’ and ‘house’ are easy to imagine for speakers of the same language and also for people who speak different languages. However, this may not be true for concepts that are dependent on cultural or socio-economic factors, such as ‘table’ or ‘priest’. For example, Blomberg and Öberg (2015) reported a strong positive correlation between English and Swedish imageability ratings and argued that imageability ratings “can be reliably transferred between the two languages, although some caution should be taken, since for some individual words, some ratings might differ substantially”. Existing ratings in one language may also be used as approximate measures for other languages. For example, the validity of new ratings obtained in a less studied language may be compared with those of semantically equivalent words of a more studied language. In the present study, members of Working Group 2 of the Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists [COST IS1208] joined efforts to compare imageability ratings between English and nine other languages (Catalan, Croatian, Hungarian, Italian, Norwegian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, and Turkish), and across two different English databases. We expected to find strong positive correlations between the different databases provided that the words entered in the correlations refer to concepts that have a similar meaning.

imageability, aphasia

nije evidentirano