Accounting for graded structure in adjective categories with valence-based opposition relationships

References

• Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13, 263–308. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11, 211–227. doi:10.3758/BF03196968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 629–654. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.11.1-4.629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernat, E., Bunce, S., & Shevrin, H. (2001). Event-related brain potentials differentiate positive and negative mood adjectives during both supraliminal and subliminal visual processing. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42(1), 11–34. doi:10.1016/S0167-8760(01)00133-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bierwisch, M. (1967). Some semantic universals of German adjectivals. Foundations of Language, 3, 1–36.
   Google Scholar
• Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. F. (1997). Modern multidimensional scaling. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment Manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49–59. doi:10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Stimuli, instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical report C-1 Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.
   Google Scholar
• Church, K., Gale, W., Hanks, P., & Hindle, D. (1991). Using statistics in lexical analysis. In U. Zernik (Ed.), Lexical acquisition: Exploiting on-line resources to build a lexicon (pp. 115–164). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240–247. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80069-1
   Google Scholar
• Cruse, D. A. (2004). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., Navarro, D., & Storms, G. (2012). Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single word associations. Behavior Research Methods, Advance online publication. 10.3758/s13428-012-06260-7
   Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., Peirsman, Y., & Storms, G. (2009). Sources of semantic similarity. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1834–1839). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., & Storms, G. (2008). Word associations: Norms for 1,424 Dutch words in a continuous task. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 198–205. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.1.198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., Verheyen, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Dry, M. J., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. (2008). Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1030–1048. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.4.1030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., Voorspoels, W., Verheyen, S., Navarro, D., & Storms, G. (2011). Graded structure in adjective categories. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1834–1839). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• den Boon, T., & Geeraerts, D. (2005). Van Dale Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse Taal [Van Dale's Great Dictionary of the Dutch Language] (14th ed.). Utrecht/Antwerpen: Van Dale Lexicografie.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, R. (1982). Where have all the adjectives gone? The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Dry, M., & Storms, G. (2009). Similar but not the same: A comparison of the utility of directly rated and feature-based similarity measures for generating spatial models of conceptual data. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 889–900. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.3.889
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual spaces – the geometry of thought, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, W. R. (1992). Picture naming. Cognition, 42, 61–105. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(92)90040-O
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, D., & Miller, K. (1990). Adjectives in WordNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 3, 265–277. doi:10.1093/ijl/3.4.265
   Google Scholar
• Grühn, D., & Smith, J. (2008). Characteristics for 200 words rated by young and older adults: Age-dependent evaluations of German adjectives (AGE). Behaviour Research Methods, 40, 1088–1097. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.4.1088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 441–461. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90246-9
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A. (1981). An investigation on the nature of abstract concepts. Memory & Cognition, 9(2), 149–156. doi:10.3758/BF03202329
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A. (1993). Prototype models of concept representation. In I. Van Mechelen, J. A. Hampton, R. S. Michalski & P. Theunis (Eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical reviews and inductive data analysis, London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A., & Gardiner, M. M. (1983). Measures of internal category structure: A correlational analysis of normative data. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 491–516. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1983.tb01882.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heit, E., & Barsalou, L. W. (1996). The instantiation principle in natural categories. Memory, 4, 413–452. doi:10.1080/096582196388915
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herbert, C., Kissler, J., Junghofer, M., Peyk, P., & Rockstroh, B. (2006). Processing of emotional adjectives: Evidence from startle EMG and ERPs. Psychophysiology, 43, 197–206. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2006.00385.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutchinson, S., Datla, V., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Social networks are encoded in language. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 491–496). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Janczura, G. A., & Nelson, D. L. (1999). Concept accessibility as the determinant of typicality judgments. The American Journal of Psychology, 112(1), 1–19. doi:10.2307/1423622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, D., & Kellas, G. (1978). Typicality as a dimension of encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 4(1), 78–85. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.1.78
   Google Scholar
• Kensinger, E., & Corkin, S. (2004). Two routes to emotional memory: Distinct processes for valence and arousal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 3310–3315. doi:10.1073/pnas.0306408101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kousta, S.-T., Vigliocco, G., Del Campo, E., Vinson, D. P., & Andrews, M. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14–34. doi:10.1037/a0021446
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kousta, S.-T., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 112(3), 473–481. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.06.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruskal, J. (1964). Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 29(2), 115–129. doi:10.1007/BF02289694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. (1985). Language and experience, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
   Google Scholar
• Larochelle, S., & Pineau, H. (1994). Determinants of response times in the semantic verification task. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 796–823. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larochelle, S., Richard, S., & Soulières, I. (2000). What some effects might not be: The time to verify membership in “well-defined” categories. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 43, 929–961.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, P. A., Critchley, H. D., Rotshtein, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2007). Neural correlates of processing valence and arousal in affective words. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 742–748. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhk024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwerse, M. M. (2011). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition topics in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 273–302. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01106.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwerse, M. M., & Benesh, N. (2012). Representing spatial structure through maps and language: Lord of the rings encodes the spatial structure of middle Earth. Cognitive Science, 36, 1556–1569. doi:10.1111/cogs.12000
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: Linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. Cognitive Science, 35, 381–398. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01157.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 558–564. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.2.558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C., & Smith, E. E. (1982). The role of familiarity in determining typicality. Memory & Cognition, 10(1), 69–75. doi:10.3758/BF03197627
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medin, D. L., Lynch, E. B., & Solomon, K. O. (2000). Are there kinds of concepts?. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 121–147. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.121
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meng, X., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 172–175. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mervis, C. B., Catlin, J., & Rosch, E. (1976). Relationships among goodness-of-example, category norms, and word frequency. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 283–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mervis, C. B., Catlin, J., & Rosch, E. R. (1981). Relationships among goodness-of-example, category norms, and word frequency. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 283–284.
   Google Scholar
• Minda, J., & Smith, J. (2010). Formal approaches in categorization. In E. Pothos & A. Wills (Eds.), Prototype models of categorization: Basic formulation, predictions, and limitations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, G. L., & Andrew, J. M. (1993). The conceptual basis of antonymy and synonymy in adjectives. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 301–319. doi:10.1006/jmla.1993.1016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 39–57. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.115.1.39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 14, 700–708. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.4.700
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosofsky, R. M. (1991). Typicality in logically defined categories: Exemplar-similarity versus rule instantiation. Memory & Cognition, 19(2), 131–150. doi:10.3758/BF03197110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osgood, C., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Plant, C., Webster, J., & Whitworth, A. (2011). Category norm data and relationships with lexical frequency and typicality within verb semantic categories. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 424–440. doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0051-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulman, S. (1983). Word meaning and belief. London: Croom Helm.
   Google Scholar
• Raskin, V., & Nirenburg, S. (1996). Lexical semantics of adjectives: A Microtheory of adjectival meaning. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science, Computing Research Laboratory, New Mexico State University.
   Google Scholar
• Rips, L. J. (1975). Inductive judgments about natural categories. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 14, 665–681. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80055-7
   Google Scholar
• Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren vol. 1 (Ed.), Studies in cross cultural psychology (pp. 1–49). London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1999). Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real-world domain. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 495–553. doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0712
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruts, W., De Deyne, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Verbeemen, T., & Storms, G. (2004). Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 506–515. doi:10.3758/BF03195597
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shepard, R. N. (1964). Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), 54–87. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(64)90017-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317–1323. doi:10.1126/science.3629243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., & Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. Cognitive Science, 12, 485–527. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1204_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storms, G., De Boeck, P., & Ruts, W. (2000). Prototype and exemplar based information in natural language categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(1), 51–73. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, J. (2003). Linguistic categorization, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Dantzig, S., Cowell, R. A., Zeelenberg, R., & Pecher, D. (2011). A sharp image or a sharp knife: Norms for the modality-exclusivity of 774 concept-property items. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 145–154. doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0038-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheyen, S., De Deyne, S., Linsen, S., & Storms, G. (2013). Rare, broad, available: Linguistic and experiental norms for 1,000 Dutch adjectives. ( Unpublished manuscript).
   Google Scholar
• Verheyen, S., Stukken, L., De Deyne, S., Dry, M. J., & Storms, G. (2011). The generalized polymorphous concept account of graded structure in abstract categories. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1117–1132. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0083-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voorspoels, W., Storms, G., & Vanpaemel, W. (2013). Idealness and similarity in goal-derived categories: A computational examination. Memory & Cognition, 41, 312–327. doi:10.3758/s13421-012-0252-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voorspoels, W., Vanpaemel, W., & Storms, G. (2008). Exemplars and prototypes in natural language concepts: A typicality-based evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 630–637. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.3.630
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voorspoels, W., Vanpaemel, W., & Storms, G. (2011). A formal ideal-based account of typicality. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1006–1014. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0122-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar