title: Argument structure and the representation of abstract semantics.
abstract: According to the dual coding theory, differences in the ease of retrieval between concrete and abstract words are related to the exclusive dependence of abstract semantics on linguistic information. Argument structure can be considered a measure of the complexity of the linguistic contexts that accompany a verb. If the retrieval of abstract verbs relies more on the linguistic codes they are associated to, we could expect a larger effect of argument structure for the processing of abstract verbs. In this study, sets of length- and frequency-matched verbs including 40 intransitive verbs, 40 transitive verbs taking simple complements, and 40 transitive verbs taking sentential complements were presented in separate lexical and grammatical decision tasks. Half of the verbs were concrete and half were abstract. Similar results were obtained in the two tasks, with significant effects of imageability and transitivity. However, the interaction between these two variables was not significant. These results conflict with hypotheses assuming a stronger reliance of abstract semantics on linguistic codes. In contrast, our data are in line with theories that link the ease of retrieval with availability and robustness of semantic information.
authors.affiliation: Departament de Psicologia Bàsica, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour (IR3C), Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
authors.forename: Javier
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Rodríguez-Ferreiro
authors.affiliation: Cognitive Neuroscience and Information Technologies Research Program, IN3, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
authors.forename: Llorenç
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Andreu
authors.affiliation: Departament de Psicologia Bàsica, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
authors.forename: Mònica
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Sanz-Torrent
mesh_terms: D032882:Comprehension / Q000502:physiology; D003657:Decision Making / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D012660:Semantics
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2008 Jun;105(3):175-84
references.pmid: 18063022
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2012 Apr;50(5):880-91
references.pmid: 22313624
references.citation: Cortex. 1969 Jun;5(2):104-19
references.pmid: 5824429
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2008 Oct;107(1):16-43
references.pmid: 17977592
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Nov;19(11):1753-67
references.pmid: 17958479
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2005 Nov;37(4):665-71
references.pmid: 16629300
references.citation: Br J Psychol. 2000 May;91 ( Pt 2):167-80
references.pmid: 10832512
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2012 Mar;120(3):251-8
references.pmid: 22041121
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2013 Jun;67(2):117-29
references.pmid: 23046416
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2001 Jul;78(1):128-39
references.pmid: 11803979
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1997 Sep;23(5):1083-105
references.pmid: 9293623
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1990 Jul;39(1):14-32
references.pmid: 2207618
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1990 Jan;38(1):21-47
references.pmid: 2302544
references.citation: Brain. 1999 Dec;122 ( Pt 12):2337-44
references.pmid: 10581226
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Jun;17(6):905-17
references.pmid: 16021798
references.citation: J Commun Disord. 2012 Jan-Feb;45(1):20-34
references.pmid: 22055614
references.citation: Cortex. 2009 Sep;45(8):930-42
references.pmid: 19303593
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 May;19(5):855-65
references.pmid: 17488209
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol. 1975 Nov;27(4):635-57
references.pmid: 1197619
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2004 May;22(1):164-70
references.pmid: 15110006
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1999 Dec;70(3):421-36
references.pmid: 10600228
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2005 Aug 1;27(1):188-200
references.pmid: 15893940
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2011 Jan;23(1):106-18
references.pmid: 20044889
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):
references.pmid: 24403724
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Feb;35(1):116-24
references.pmid: 12723786
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(1):62-70
references.pmid: 14615076
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2003 Dec;26(6):651-65; discussion 666-707
references.pmid: 15377127
references.citation: J Psycholinguist Res. 2008 Nov;37(6):443-52
references.pmid: 18452060
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45091
references.pmid: 23028775
references.citation: Hum Brain Mapp. 1999;7(4):225-33
references.pmid: 10408766
references.citation: Span J Psychol. 2012 Nov;15(3):891-900
references.pmid: 23156899
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1990 Jul;39(1):153-85
references.pmid: 2207619
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1992 Aug;43(2):240-74
references.pmid: 1393522
references.citation: Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Nov 27;6:315
references.pmid: 23205008
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995 Sep;21(5):1140-54
references.pmid: 8744959
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1984 Nov;12(6):590-606
references.pmid: 6533428
references.citation: J Neurolinguistics. 2003 Mar;16(2-3):151-167
references.pmid: 21274410
references.citation: Neuron. 2004 Jan 22;41(2):301-7
references.pmid: 14741110
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2013 Dec;45(4):1246-58
references.pmid: 23468181
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994 Jul;20(4):804-23
references.pmid: 8064248
references.citation: Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012 Nov-Dec;47(6):637-53
references.pmid: 23121524
references.citation: Hum Brain Mapp. 2002 Feb;15(2):124-34
references.pmid: 11835603