Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English ...
This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality-exclusivity norms. Respondents rated the extent to which they experienced certain properties and concepts in Dutch through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Each word also bears a specific degree of modality-exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and a dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating. For comparison, the English norms were re-analyzed, thus unveiling a broad reproduction of... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | dataset |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2016 |
Verlag/Hrsg.: |
figshare
|
Schlagwörter: | Language / 179999 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences not elsewhere classified / FOS: Psychology / Linguistics / FOS: Languages and literature / 200302 English Language / 200310 Other European Languages / 80103 Computer Graphics / FOS: Computer and information sciences / 170299 Cognitive Science not elsewhere classified / 170204 Linguistic Processes incl. Speech Production and Comprehension / 200322 Comparative Language Studies |
Sprache: | unknown |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-28982996 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v15 |
This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality-exclusivity norms. Respondents rated the extent to which they experienced certain properties and concepts in Dutch through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Each word also bears a specific degree of modality-exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and a dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating. For comparison, the English norms were re-analyzed, thus unveiling a broad reproduction of results (see also Louwerse & Connell, 2011). First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic words were quite related, whereas auditory words showed greater independence. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension. Third, the three modalities also presented differences in modality-exclusivity, with ...