Cover not available

In:Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: Cognition, language and communication
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi and Gerard J. Steen
[Human Cognitive Processing 65] 2019
► pp. 167–184

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 8
Different degrees of abstraction from visual cues in processing concrete nouns

Published online: 6 June 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.65.09fra
Abstract
Concreteness has been defined as a semantic property related to physical perception. In this paper we tackle the concreteness issue from the viewpoint of countability by arguing that uncountable expressions (e.g., some cake), although concrete, are more abstract than countable ones (e.g., one cake) since the former entail the suppression of the reference to shape, which is a salient property in the representation of entities.
We report empirical data collected with preschool children in which we show that the uncountable reference is dispreferred. We discuss possible reasons for this phenomenon, which involve the roles played by shape and by language (and in particular grammar) in early perceptual processing, and we suggest how these factors may relate to our ability to abstract from perceptual experience.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.On countability
    • 2.1The distribution of countability in language use
    • 2.2The processing of countability in adults
    • 2.3The processing of countability in acquisition
      • 2.3.1A study relating countability and abstraction abilities in acquisition
  • 3.The relevance of boundaries in conceiving referential entities
  • 4.Conclusions
  • References
References (97)
References
Agrillo, C., Miletto Petrazzini, M. E. & Bisazza, A. 2014. Numerical acuity of fish is improved in the presence of moving targets, but only in the subitizing range. Animal Cognition 17(2), 307–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allan, K. 1980. Nouns and countability. Language 56, 541–567. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Allen, R., & Hulme, C. 2006. Speech and language processing mechanisms in verbal serial recall. Journal of Memory and Language 55(1), 64–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. 2005. Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97, 41–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A Collection of Very Large Linguistically Processed Web-Crawled Corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43 (3), 209–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baroni, M., & Ueyama, M. 2006. Building general-and special-purpose corpora by web crawling. In Proceedings of the 13th NIJL international symposium, language corpora: Their compilation and application, 31–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. 2003. Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(2), 84–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergelson, E., & Swingley, D. 2012. At 6–9 months, human infants know the meanings of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(9), 3253–3258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Binder, J. R., Conant, L. L., Humphries, C. J., Fernandino, L., Simons, S. B., Aguilar, M., & Desai, R. H. 2016. Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation. Cognitive neuropsychology 33(3–4), 130–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bisiacchi, P., Mondini, S., Angrilli, A., Marinelli, K., & Semenza, C. 2005. Mass and count nouns show distinct EEG cortical processes during an explicit semantic task. Brain and Language 95(1), 98–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bleasdale, F. A. 1987. Concreteness-dependent associative priming: Separate lexical organization for concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13(4), 582–594.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloom, P., & Kelemen, D. 1995. Syntactic cues in the acquisition of collective nouns. Cognition 56, 1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolognesi, M., & Steen, G. (Eds.), 2018. Abstract Concepts: Structure, Processing and Modeling. Editors’ introduction. Topics in Cognitive Science 10(3), 490–500.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bunt, H. C. 2006. Mass expressions. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics . Amsterdam: Elsevier. 5757–5760.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cantlon, J. F. & Brannon, E. M. 2006. Shared system for ordering small and large numbers in monkeys and humans. Psychological Science 17(5), 401–406. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carandini, M., Demb, J. B., Mante, V., Tolhurst, D. J., Dan, Y., Olshausen, B. A., Gallant, J. & Rust, N. C. 2005. Do we know what the early visual system does? Journal of Neuroscience 25(46), 10577–10597. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carey, S. 2009. The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Case, R. (1985). Intellectual Development from Birth to Adulthood. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, C. Y. (1973). Response to Moravcsik. J. Hintikka, J. M.E. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes (eds.). Approaches to Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 286-288.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiarelli, V., El Yagoubi, R., Mondini, S., Bisiacchi, P., & Semenza, C. 2011. The syntactic and semantic processing of mass and count nouns: An ERP study. PloS one 6(10), e25885. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chichy, R. M., Khosla, A., Pantazis, D., Torralba, A., & Oliva, A. (2016). Comparison of deep neural networks to spatio-temporal cortical dynamics of human visual object recognition reveals hierarchical correspondence. Scientific reports, 6, 27755.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., Patterson, K., & Marshall, J. C. 1987. Deep dyslexia since 1980. In M. Coltheart, K. Patterson, & J. C. Marshall (Eds.), Deep dyslexia (2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Routledge. 407–451.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crutch, S. J., & Jackson, E. C. 2011. Contrasting graded effects of semantic similarity and association across the concreteness spectrum. The Quarterly Journal of ExperimentalPsychology 64(7), 1388–1408.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crutch, S. J., Williams, P., Ridgway, G. R., & Borgenicht, L. 2012. The role of polarity in antonym and synonym conceptual knowledge: Evidence from stroke aphasia and multidimensional ratings of abstract words. Neuropsychologia 50(11), 2636–2644. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crutch, S. J., Troche, J., Reilly, J., & Ridgway, G. R. 2013. Abstract conceptual feature ratings: the role of emotion, magnitude, and other cognitive domains in the organization of abstract conceptual knowledge. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, E., & Shapiro, A. G. 2014. Paradoxical effect of spatially homogenous transparent fields on simultaneous contrast illusions. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 31(27), A307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dixon, E. L., & Shapiro, A. G. 2017. Spatial filtering, color constancy, and the color-changing dressDixon & Shapiro. Journal of Vision 17(3), 7–7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
El Yagoubi, R., Mondini, S., Bisiacchi, P., Chiarelli, V., Angrilli, A., & Semenza, C. 2006. The elctrophysiological basis of mass and count nouns. Brain and Language 99, 187–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franklin, S., Howard, D., & Patterson, K. 1995. Abstract word anomia. Cognitive Neuropsychology 12(5), 549–566. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Hauser, M. 2002. The representations underlying infants’ choice of more: Object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychological Science 13(2), 150–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franzon, F., Arcara, G., & Zanini, C. 2016. Lexical categories or frequency effects? A feedback from quantitative methods applied to psycholinguistic models in two studies on Italian. Corazza, Montemagni, & Semeraro (eds.).Proceedings of the Third Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2016. Accademia University Press, 152–156.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Franzon, F., Zanini, C., & Rugani, R. 2018. Do non-verbal number systems shape grammar? Numerical cognition and Number morphology compared. Mind and Language. 2018 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frisson, S., & Frazier, L. 2005. Carving up word meaning: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language 53(2), 277–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. 1985. He has too much hard questions: The acquisition of the linguistic mass-count distinction in much and many . Journal of Child Language 12(2), 395–415. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gillon, B., Kehayia, E., & Taler, V. 1999. The mass/count distinction: Evidence from on-line psycholinguistic performance. Brain and Language 68, 205–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilhooly, K., & Logie, R. 1980. Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods 12(4), 395–427. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giusti, G., & Leko, N. 2005. The categorial status of quantity expressions. In Linguistički Vidici. Sarajevo: Ed. Forum Bosne, 121–184.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, P. 1985. Evaluating the semantic categories hypothesis: The case of the count/mass distinction. Cognition 20(3), 209–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hespos, S. J., Ferry, A L., & Rips, L. J. 2009. Five-month-old infants have different expectations for solids and liquids. Psychological Science 20(5), 603–611. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hespos, S. J., & van Marle, K. 2012. Physics for infants: Characterizing the origins of knowledge about objects, substances, and number. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 3(1), 19–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of English. Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huntley-Fenner, G., Carey, S., & Solimando, A. 2002. Objects are individuals but stuff doesn’t count: Perceived rigidity and cohesiveness influence infants’ representations of small groups of discrete entities. Cognition 85(3), 203–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imai, M., & Gentner, D. 1997. A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition 62(2), 169–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R., (1991). Parts and Boundaries. Cognition 41, 9-45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. Kobenhavn: Host.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, R. B., & Goodglass, H. 1990. Deep dysphasia: Analysis of a rare form of repetition disorder. Brain and Language 39(1), 153–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katz, G., & Zamparelli, R. 2012. Quantifying Count/Mass Elasticity. J. Choi et al. (eds). Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 371–379.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kulkarni, R., Rothstein, S., & Treves, A. 2013. A Statistical Investigation into the Cross-Linguistic Distribution of Mass and Count Nouns: Morphosyntactic and Semantic Perspectives. Biolinguistics 7, 132–168.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. S. 1988. The importance of shape in early lexical learning. Cognitive development 3(3), 299–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, B., Smith, L. B., & Jones, S. 1992. Syntactic context and the shape bias in children’s and adults’ lexical learning. Journal of Memory and Language 31(6), 807–825. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landy, M. S., & Kojima, H. 2001. Ideal cue combination for localizing texture-defined edges. JOSA A 18(9), 2307–2320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leventhal, A. G., Wang, Y., Schmolesky, M. T., & Zhou, Y. 1997. Neural correlates of boundary perception. Visual neuroscience 15(6), 1107–1118.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcantonio, A. & Pretto, A. M. 2001. Il nome. L. Renzi, G. Salvi, & A., Cardinaletti (eds.). Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Bologna: Il Mulino. 329–346.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. 1990. Constraints Children Place on Word Meanings. Cognitive Science 14, 57–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, N., & Saffran, E. M. 1992. A computational account of deep dysphasia: Evidence from a single case study. Brain and Language 43(2), 240–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mély, D. A., Kim, J., McGill, M., Guo, Y., & Serre, T. 2016. A systematic comparison between visual cues for boundary detection. Vision research 120, 93–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondini, S., Angrilli, A., Bisiacchi, P., Spironelli, C., Marinelli, K., & Semenza, C. 2008. Mass and Count nouns activate different brain regions: An ERP study on early components. Neuroscience Letters 430, 48–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. 1986. Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 words. Journal of Experimental Psychology 76(Suppl.), 1–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papagno, C., Capasso, R., Zerboni, H., & Miceli, G. 2007. A reverse concreteness effect in a subject with semantic dementia. Brain and Language 103(1–2), 90–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pelletier, F. J. 2012. Lexical Nouns are Neither Mass nor Count, but they are Both Mass and Count. D. Massam (ed.). Oxford: OUP. 9–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prasada, S., Ferenz, K., & Haskell, T. 2002. Conceiving of entities as objects and as stuff. Cognition 83(2), 141–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rivest, J. A., Cavanagh, P. B. 1996. Localizing contours defined by more than one attribute, Vision Research 36 (1), 53–66 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roeltgen, D. P., Sevush, S., & Heilman, K. M. 1983. Phonological agraphia: Writing by the lexical-semantic route. Neurology 33(6), 755–765. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. 2010. Counting and the Mass/Count Distinction. Journal of Semantics 27(3), 343–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G. & Regolin, L. 2013. Numerical abstraction in young domestic chicks (gallus gallus). PLoS One 8(6), e65262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samuelson, L. K., & Horst, J. S. 2007. Dynamic noun generalization: moment-to-moment interactions shape children’s naming biases. Infancy 11(1), 97–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samuelson, L. K., & Smith, L. B. 1999. Early noun vocabularies: do ontology, category structure and syntax correspond? Cognition 73(1), 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiehlen, M., & Spranger, K. 2006. The Mass–Count Distinction: Acquisition and Disambiguation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (Vol. 277).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K., & Stowe, R. W. 1988. Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language,27(5), 499–520. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Soja, N. N. 1992. Inferences about the meanings of nouns: The relationship between perception and syntax. Cognitive development 7(1), 29–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Soja, N. N., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. 1991. Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition 38, 179–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Song, Y., & Baker, C. 2007. Neuronal response to texture- and contrast-defined boundaries in early visual cortex. Visual Neuroscience 24(1), 65–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spelke, E. S. 2000. Core knowledge. American psychologist 55(11), 1233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spelke, E., Lee, S. A., & Izard, V. 2010. Beyond core knowledge: Natural geometry. Cognitive science 34(5), 863–884. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York, Viking.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K., Pancheva, R., Newman, A. J., Gennari, S., & Ullman, M. T. 2001. How the mass counts: An electrophysiological approach to the processing of lexical features. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology 12(5), 999–1005.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strickland, B. 2017. Language Reflects “Core” Cognition: A New Theory About the Origin of Cross-Linguistic Regularities. Cognitive science 41(1), 70–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Troche, J., Crutch, S. J., & Reilly, J. 2014. Clustering, hierarchical organization, and the topography of abstract and concrete nouns. Frontiers in Psychology 5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Troche, J., & Reilly, J. 2016. Eye Tracking & Pupillometry as a Means to Determine the Validity of the Multidimensional Semantic Space. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uller, C., Carey, S., Huntley-Fenner, G., & Klatt, L. 1999. What representations might underlie infant numerical knowledge? Cognitive Development 14(1), 1–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Marle, K., & Wynn, K. 2011. Tracking and quantifying objects and non-cohesive substances. Developmental science 14(3), 502–515. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Walle, G. A., Carey, S., & Prevor, M. 2000. Bases for object individuation in infancy: Evidence from manual search. Journal of Cognition and Development 1(3), 249–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vermote, T., Lauwers, P., & De Cuypere, L. 2017. Transcending the lexical vs. grammatical divide regarding the mass/count distinction. Evidence from corpus studies and acceptability surveys in French and Dutch. Language Sciences 62, 37–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vianello, R., & Marin, M. L. 1997. Dal pensiero intuitivo al pensiero operatorio concreto: prove per la valutazione del livello di sviluppo. Bergamo: edizioni junior.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vianello, R., Lanfranchi, S., Pulina, F., & Bidinost, S. 2012. Italian standardization of the dynamic version of the Logical Operations and Conservation Test (LOC-DV). Life Span and Disability 15(1), 69–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, I., & Hulme, C. 1999. Concrete words are easier to recall than abstract words: Evidence for a semantic contribution to short-term serial recall. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25(5), 1256–1271.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warrington, E. K. 1975. The selective impairment of semantic memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 27(4), 635–657. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiemer-Hastings, K., Krug, J., & Xu, X. 2001. Imagery, context availability, contextual constraint and abstractness. Proceedings of the XXIII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Edinburgh, Scotland, August 1–4, 2001.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wynn, K. (1992). Addition and subtraction by human infants. Nature, 358(6389), 749.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yamins, D. L., Hong, H., Cadieu, C. F., Solomon, E. A., Seibert, D., & DiCarlo, J. J. 2014. Performance-optimized hierarchical models predict neural responses in higher visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(23), 8619–8624. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zanini, C., Benavides-Varela, S., Lorusso, R., & Franzon, F. 2017. Mass is more: The conceiving of (un) countability and its encoding into language in 5-year-old-children. Psychonomic bulletin & review 24(4), 1330–1340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Franzon, Francesca & Chiara Zanini
2023. The Entropy of Morphological Systems in Natural Languages Is Modulated by Functional and Semantic Properties. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 42 ff. DOI logo
Strik Lievers, Francesca, Marianna Bolognesi & Bodo Winter
2021. The linguistic dimensions of concrete and abstract concepts: lexical category, morphological structure, countability, and etymology. Cognitive Linguistics 32:4 ► pp. 641 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue