Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Problem of Definition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Words as Social Tools: An Embodied View on Abstract Concepts

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Psychology ((BRIEFSCOGNIT))

Abstract

The chapter deals with the problem of differentiating concrete and abstract concepts and words. We propose that abstract concepts and words differ from concrete ones because: (a) they are differently grounded; (b) they are more complex, since they typically do not refer to single objects but rather to relations; (c) their meaning is more variable, both within and across subjects. We distinguish abstract concepts from superordinate level concepts, clarifying that the focus on the book is on the first ones, i.e. on abstractness and not on abstraction. The rest of the chapter is mostly dedicated to the analysis of how psycholinguistic research has dealt with the problem of defining abstract concepts and words: we described the criteria proposed to identify abstract words (concreteness, imageability, contextual availability, perceptual strength), and then we discussed whether and to what extent emotional terms can be considered as abstract. This analysis revealed that there is not a criterion which has been consistently used to select abstract concepts. This reflects the complexity of the topic but also invites us to a great caution in analyzing experimental results. The difficulty of definition depends also on the fact that the domain of abstract concepts is not unitary and cohesive. This renders it difficult, to accept the idea that concrete and abstract concepts can be considered as dichotomically opposed. We therefore favor the idea that concrete and abstract concepts are arranged along a continuum and we argue that more fine-grained analyses of sub-sets of concepts differing in degree of abstractness are necessary.

There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality.

Picasso

I hardly need to abstract things, for each object is unreal enough already, so unreal that I can only make it real by means of painting.

Max Beckmann

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Altarriba, J., & Bauer, L. M. (2004). The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: a comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. American Journal of Psychology, 117, 389–410. doi:10.2307/4149007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Altarriba, J., Bauer, L. M., & Benvenuto, C. (1999). Concreteness, context availability, and imageability ratings and word associations for abstract, concrete, and emotion words. Behavior Research Methods, 31, 578–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, H. A., Otten, L. J., Kousta, S. T., & Vigliocco, G. (2013). Concreteness in word processing: ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 125(1), 47–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barca, L., Burani, C., & Arduino, L. S. (2002). Word naming times and psycholinguistic norms for Italian nouns. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 424–434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Brain and Behavioural Sciences, 22, 577–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 358, 1177–1187.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.

    Article  PubMed  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 Science, 7, 84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, J. R., Westbury, C. F., McKiernan, K. A., Possing, E. T., & Medler, D. A. (2005). Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 905–917. doi:10.1162/0898929054021102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M. (2005). Object concepts and action. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 8–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., Caramelli, N., & Setti, A. (2005). Conceptual information on objects’ locations. Brain and Language, 93, 140–151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., & Caruana, F. (in press). Embodiment theories. In J. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). (S. Cappa (Ed.), Section of cognitive neuroscience).

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., & Pecher, D. (2011). Introduction to the special topic embodied and grounded cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 187. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00187

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., & Pecher, D. (2012). Special topic on embodied and grounded cognition. Lousanne: Frontiers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cangelosi, A., & Harnad, S. (2000). The adaptive advantage of symbolic theft over sensorimotor toil: Grounding language in perceptual categories. Evolution of Communication, 4(1), 117–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cangelosi, A., & Parisi, D. (1998). The emergence of a “language” in an evolving population of neural networks. Connection Science, 10, 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caramelli, N., Borghi, A. M., & Setti, A. (2006). The identification of definition strategies in children of different ages. Linguistica Computazionale, 26, 155–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125(3), 452–465.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crutch, S. J., & Warrington, E. K. (2005). Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational framework. Brain, 128, 615–627.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duñabeitia, J. A., Avilés, A., Afonso, O., Scheepers, C., & Carreiras, M. (2009). Qualitative differences in the representation of abstract versus concrete words: Evidence from the visual-world paradigm. Cognition, 110, 284–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ghio, M., Vaghi, M. M. S., & Tettamanti, M. (2013). Fine-grained semantic categorization across the abstract and concrete domains. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e67090. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067090

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, G. W., & Forde, E. M. (2001). Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “category-specific” neuropsychological deficits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 453–476. (discussion 476–509).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kalénine, S., Bonthoux, F., & Borghi, A. M. (2009). How action and context priming influence categorization: a developmental study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 717–730.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousta, S., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., & Andrews, M. (2009). Happiness is… an abstract word. The role of affect in abstract knowledge representation. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Amsterdam: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kousta, S. T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 14–34.

    Article  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. (eScholarID:1d19006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 516–526. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0267-0. (eScholarID:171330).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marques, F. J., & Nunes, L. D. (2012). The contribution of language and experience to the representation of abstract and concrete words: different weights but similar organization. Memory and Cognition, 40(8), 1266–1275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G. L., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1989). Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: What a superordinate is good for. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 572–586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myachykov, A., Scheepers, C., Fischer, M. H., & Kessler, K. (2013). TEST: A tropic, embodied, and situated theory of cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5, 1–19. doi:10.1111/tops.12024

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, D. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1992). Word concreteness and word structure as independent determinants of recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 237–260. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90013-N

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (2013). Dual coding theory, word abstractness, and emotion: a critical review of Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 282–287. doi:10.1037/a0027004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1, Pt.2), 1–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Edwards, J. D., Henry, L. C., & Goodyear, B. G. (2007). Neural correlates of concreteness in semantic categorization. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1407–1419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roversi, C., Borghi, A. M., & Tummolini, L. (2013). A marriage is an artefact and not a walk that we take together: An experimental study on the categorization of artefacts. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4(3), 527–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabsevitz, D. S., Medler, D. A., Seidenberg, M., & Binder, J. R. (2005). Modulation of the semantic system by word imageability. Neuroimage, 27, 188–200. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwanenflugel, P. J., Akin, C., & Luh, W. M. (1992). Context availability and the recall of abstract and concrete words. Memory and Cognition, 20, 96–104.

    Article  PubMed  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, 499–520. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(88)90022-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 82–102. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.9.1.82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Stowe, R. W. (1989). Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words in sentences. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 114–126. doi:10.2307/748013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setti A, & Caramelli, N. (2005) Different domains in abstract concepts. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S., Vinson, D., Andrew, M., & Del Campo, E. (2013). The representation of abstract words: what matters? Reply to Paivio’s (2013) comment on Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 288–291. doi:10.1037/a0028749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer-Hastings, K., Krug, J., & Xu, X. (2001). Imagery, context availability, contextual constraints and abstractness. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1106–1111). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2005). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 719–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Anna M. Borghi

  2. Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Italian National Research Council, Rome, Italy

    Anna M. Borghi

  3. RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Ferdinand Binkofski

Authors
  1. Anna M. Borghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ferdinand Binkofski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna M. Borghi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Borghi, A.M., Binkofski, F. (2014). The Problem of Definition. In: Words as Social Tools: An Embodied View on Abstract Concepts. SpringerBriefs in Psychology(). Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9539-0_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation