The organisation of concepts in the mental lexicon is a widely studied research topic in experimental psychology. For instance, several studies have shown that whereas concrete concepts are organised according to semantic similarity, abstract concepts are organised according to verbal association. However, these results are not systematically replicated, mainly due to a lack of normative database especially in French. To that end, we introduce a French word-association database for 1,100 cues with varying levels of concreteness from abstract to concrete concepts. Analyses from the word-association task revealed stronger association strength for concrete concepts compared with abstract concepts. Additional results showed that cues tend to elicit responses of a similar level of concreteness. The database will be useful for investigators interested in French verbal associations for abstract and concrete concepts. The data (available on OSF https://osf.io/dhuqs/) introduce responses organised according to association strength and provides cue concreteness.
AndrewsM.FrankS.ViglioccoG. (2014). Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12096
2.
AndrewsM.ViglioccoG.VinsonD. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016261
3.
Barrón-MartínezJ. B.Arias-TrejoN. (2014). Word association norms in Mexican Spanish. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.91
BarsalouL. W. (2020). Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition, 3, Article 31. http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.116
6.
BarsalouL. W.Wiemer-HastingsK. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In PecherD.ZwaanR. A. (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 129–163). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.007
7.
BoninP.MéotA.BugaiskaA. (2018). Concreteness norms for 1,659 French words: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables and word recognition times. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2366–2387. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1014-y
8.
BoninP.MéotA.FerrandL.BugaïskaA. (2013). Normes d’associations verbales pour 520 mots concrets et étude de leurs relations avec d’autres variables psycholinguistiques [Verbal association norms for 520 concrete words and relationships with other psycholinguistic variables]. L’Année Psychologique, 113, 63–92. https://doi.org/10.3917/anpsy.131.0063
9.
BorghiA. M.BinkofskiF.CastelfranchiC.CimattiF.ScorolliC.TummoliniL. (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089
BrysbaertM.WarrinerA. B.KupermanV. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5
12.
BugaiskaA.MorsonS.MoulinC. J. A.SouchayC. (2011). Metamemory, recollection and familiarity in Alzheimer’s disease. Revue Neurologique, 167, 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2010.03.001
13.
ChedidG.BrambatiS. M.BedettiC.ReyA. E.WilsonM. A.ValletG. T. (2019). Visual and auditory perceptual strength norms for 3,596 French nouns and their relationship with other psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 2094–2105. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01254-w
14.
ColtheartM. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33, 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748108400805
15.
CrutchS. J.ConnellS.WarringtonE. K. (2009). The different representational frameworks underpinning abstract and concrete knowledge: Evidence from odd-one-out judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1377–1390. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802483834
16.
CrutchS. J.JacksonE. C. (2011). Contrasting graded effects of semantic similarity and association across the concreteness spectrum. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1388–1408. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.543285
17.
CrutchS. J.WarringtonE. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain, 128, 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awh349
18.
CrutchS. J.WarringtonE. K. (2010). The differential dependence of abstract and concrete words upon associative and similarity-based information: Complementary semantic interference and facilitation effects. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27, 46–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2010.491359
19.
De DeyneS.NavarroD. J.PerforsA.BrysbaertM.StormsG. (2019). Measuring the associative structure of English: The “Small World of Words” norms for word association. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 987–1006. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1115-7
20.
De DeyneS.NavarroD. J.StormsG. (2013). Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single-word associations. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 480–498. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0260-7
21.
De DeyneS.StormsG. (2008). Word associations: Network and semantic properties. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 213–231. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.213
22.
De DeyneS.VerheyenS.StormsG. (2016). Structure and organization of the mental lexicon: A network approach derived from syntactic dependency relations and word associations. Understanding Complex Systems, 99, 47–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47238-5_3
23.
Della RosaP. A.CatricalàE.ViglioccoG.CappaS. F. (2010). Beyond the abstract-concrete dichotomy: Mode of acquisition, concreteness, imageability, familiarity, age of acquisition, context availability, and abstractness norms for a set of 417 Italian words. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 1042–1048. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1042
24.
DuñabeitiaJ. A.AvilésA.AfonsoO.ScheepersC.CarreirasM. (2009). Qualitative differences in the representation of abstract versus concrete words: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 110, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.012
25.
DuschererK.MounoudP. (2006). Normes d’associations verbales pour 151 verbes d’action [Word association norms for 151 action verbs]. L’Année Psychologique, 106, 397–413. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503306003046
26.
EakinD. K. (2005). Illusions of knowing: Metamemory and memory under conditions of retroactive interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 526–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.009
27.
EvertS.BaroniM. (2005). Testing the extrapolation quality of word frequency models. In Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics. http://www.corpus.bham.ac.uk/PCLC
28.
FernándezÁ.DíezE.AlonsoM. Á.BeatoM. S. (2004). Free-association norms for the Spanish names of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 577–583. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195604
29.
FerrandL. (2001). Normes d’associations verbales pour 260 mots « abstraits » [Word association norms for 260 “abstract” words]. L’Année Psychologique, 101, 683–721. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2001.29575
30.
FerrandL.AlarioF. X. (1998). Normes d’association verbables pour 366 noms d’objets concrets [Word association norms for 366 names of objects]. L’Année Psychologique, 98, 659–709. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.1998.28564
31.
FerrandL.MéotA.SpinelliE.NewB.PallierC.BoninP.DufauS.MathôtS.GraingerJ. (2018). MEGALEX: A megastudy of visual and auditory word recognition. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1285–1307. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0943-1
32.
FerrandL.NewB. (2003). Semantic and associative priming in the mental lexicon. In BoninP. (Ed.), The mental lexicon: Some words to talk about words (pp. 25–43). Nova Science Publisher.
33.
FerrandL.NewB.BrysbaertM.KeuleersE.BoninP.MéotA.AugustinovaM.PallierC. (2010). The French lexicon project: Lexical decision data for 38,840 French words and 38,840 pseudo words. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 488–496. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.488
34.
FerrettiT. R.McRaeK.HatherellA. (2001). Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 516–547. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2728
GengJ.SchnurT. T. (2015). The representation of concrete and abstract concepts: Categorical versus associative relationships. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037430
37.
GimenesM.NewB. (2016). Worldlex: Twitter and blog word frequencies for 66 languages. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 963–972. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0621-0
GüntherF.MarelliM.TureskiS.PetilliM. A. (2022). ViSpa (Vision Spaces): A computer-vision-based representation system for individual images and concept prototypes, with large-scale evaluation. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000392
40.
HamiltonA. C.CoslettH. B. (2008). Refractory access disorders and the organization of concrete and abstract semantics: Do they differ?Neurocase, 14, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554790802032218
41.
HarrisZ. (1954). Distributional hypothesis. Word World, 10, 146–162.
HutchisonK. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 785–813. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196544
JoyceT. (2005). Constructing a large-scale database of Japanese word associations. Glottometrics, 10, 82–99.
46.
JungJ.LiN.AkamaH. (2010). Network analysis of Korean word associations. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 First Workshop on Computational Neurolinguistics (pp. 27–35). http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W/W10/W10-0604
47.
KieferM.PulvermüllerF. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48, 805–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006
48.
KircherT.WhitneyC.KringsT.HuberW.WeisS. (2008). Hippocampal dysfunction during free word association in male patients with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 101, 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2008.02.003
KoustaS. T.ViglioccoG.VinsonD. P.AndrewsM.Del CampoE. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021446
51.
KwongO. Y. (2013). Exploring the Chinese Mental Lexicon with Word Association Norms. In Proceedings of the 27th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (p. 153). Taipei, Taiwan.
52.
LakhzoumD.IzauteM.FerrandL. (2021). Semantic similarity and associated abstractness norms for 630 French word pairs. Behavior Research Methods, 53, 1166–1178. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01488-z
53.
LandauerT. K.DumaisS. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
54.
LeechG.GarsideR.BryantM. (1994). CLAWS4: The tagging of the British National Corpus. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Computational linguistics-Volume 1 (pp. 622–628). Kyoto, Japan: Association for Computational Linguistics.
55.
LenciA.LebaniG. E.PassaroL. C. (2018). The emotions of abstract words: A distributional semantic analysis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10, 550–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12335
LundK.BurgessC. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 203–208. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204766
58.
LynottD.ConnellL.BrysbaertM.BrandJ.CarneyJ. (2020). The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: Multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 1271–1291. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01316-z
59.
McNamaraT. P. (1992). Theories of priming: I. Associative distance and lag. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1173–1190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.6.1173
60.
McRaeK.BoisvertS. (1998). Automatic semantic similarity priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 558–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.3.558
61.
MeteyardL.CuadradoS. R.BahramiB.ViglioccoG. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48, 788–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.002
62.
MikolovT.ChenK.CorradoG.DeanJ. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1301.3781. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1301.3781
63.
MollinS. (2009). Combining corpus linguistic and psychological data on word co-occurrences: Corpus collocates versus word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5, 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2009.008
64.
MossH.OlderL. (1996). Birkbeck word association norms. Psychology Press.
65.
NelsonD. L.McEvoyC. L.SchreiberT. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195588
66.
NewB.PallierC.BrysbaertM.FerrandL. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 516–524. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195598
67.
OstarekM.HuettigF. (2019). Six challenges for embodiment research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 593–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419866441
68.
PaivioA.YuilleJ. C.MadiganS. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025327
69.
PereaM.RosaE. (2002). The effects of associative and semantic priming in the lexical decision task. Psychological Research, 66, 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0086-5
70.
PlautD. C. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a distributed attractor network. In Cognitive Science Society (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 37–42). Lawrence Erlbaum.
71.
PriorA.BentinS. (2008). Word associations are formed incidentally during sentential semantic integration. Acta Psychologica, 127, 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.01.002
72.
PulvermüllerF. (2013). How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004
SchlossB.LiP. (2016). Disentangling narrow and coarse semantic networks in the brain: The role of computational models of word meaning. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1582–1596. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0807-0
75.
SchwanenflugelP. J.HarnishfegerK. K.StoweR. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90022-8
TaconnatL.RazN.ToczéC.BouazzaouiB.SauzéonH.FayS.IsingriniM. (2009). Ageing and organisation strategies in free recall: The role of cognitive flexibility. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802296413
78.
Thompson-SchillS. L.KurtzK. J.GabrieliJ. D. E. (1998). Effects of semantic and associative relatedness on automatic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 440–458. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1006/jmla.1997.2559
79.
VillaniC.LugliL.LiuzzaM. T.NicolettiR.BorghiA. M. (2021). Sensorimotor and interoceptive dimensions in concrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 116, 104–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104173
80.
WestJ. T.MulliganN. W. (2019). Prospective metamemory, like retrospective metamemory, exhibits under confidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45, 22–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000708
81.
WingfieldC.ConnellL. (2022a). Sensorimotor distance: A grounded measure of semantic similarity for 800 million concept pairs. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01965-7
82.
WingfieldC.ConnellL. (2022b). Understanding the role of linguistic distributional knowledge in cognition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37, 1220–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2069278
83.
YarkoniT.BalotaD.YapM. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 971–979. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.971
84.
ZwaanR. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation—Advances in Research and Theory, 44, 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(03)44002-4
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
