Abstract
A data set is described that includes eight variables gathered for 13 common superordinate natural language categories and a representative set of 338 exemplars in Dutch. The category set contains 6 animal categories (reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds, fish, andinsects), 3 artifact categories (musical instruments, tools, andvehicles), 2 borderline artifact-natural-kind categories (vegetables andfruit), and 2 activity categories (sports andprofessions). In an exemplar and a feature generation task for the category nouns, frequency data were collected. For each of the 13 categories, a representative sample of 5–30 exemplars was selected. For all exemplars, feature generation frequencies, typicality ratings, pairwise similarity ratings, age-of-acquisition ratings, word frequencies, and word associations were gathered. Reliability estimates and some additional measures are presented. The full set of these norms is available in Excel format at the Psychonomic Society Web archive,www.psychonomic. org/archive/.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., &van Run, H. (1993).The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
Battig, W. F., &Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,80(3, Pt. 2), 1–46.
Borg, I., &Groenen, P. (1997).Modern multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Brown, G. D. A., &Watson, F. L. (1987). First in, first out: Wordlearning age and spoken word frequency as predictors of word familiarity and word naming latency.Memory & Cognition,15,208–216.
Brysbaert, M., Lange, M., &Van Wijnendaele, I. (2000). The effects of age-of-acquisition and frequency-of-occurrence in visual word recognition: Further evidence from the Dutch language.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,12,65–85.
Brysbaert, M., Van Wijnendaele, I., &De Deyne, S. (2000). Age-of-acquisition effects in semantic processing tasks.Acta Psychologica,104,215–226.
Burgess, C., &Lund, K. (2000). The dynamics of meaning in memory. In E. Dietrich & A. B. Markman (Eds.),Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines (pp. 117–156). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Center for Lexical Information (1993).The Celex lexical database. Nijmegen: Author.
Cohen, B. H., Bousfield, W. A., & Whitmarsh, G. A. (1957).Cultural norms for verbal items in 43categories (Tech. Rep. 22). University of Connecticut, Contract No. 631(00), Office of Naval Research.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., &Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). London: Academic Press.
Cree, G. S., &McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning ofchipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, andcello (and many other such concrete nouns).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,132,163–201.
de Groot, A. M. (1988). Woordassociatienormen met reactietijden [Word associations with reaction times].Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor de Psychologie en Haar Grensgebieden,43, 280–296.
De Moor, W., Ghyselinck, M., &Brysbaert, M. (2000). A validation study of the age-of-acquisition norms collected by Ghyselinck, De Moor, & Brysbaert.Psychologica Belgica,40, 99–114.
De Wilde, E., Vanoverberghe, V., Storms, G., &De Boeck, P. (2003). The instantiation principle re-evaluated.Memory,11,533–548.
Forster, K. I., &Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12,627–635.
Francis, W. N., &Kucera, H. (1982).Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Fromkin, V. A., &Rodman, R. (1998).An introduction to language (6th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gerhand, S., &Barry, C. (1999). Age of acquisition, word frequency, and the role of phonology in the lexical decision task.Memory & Cognition,27,592–602.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113,256–281.
Ghyselinck, M., Custers, R., &Brysbaert, M. (2003). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 2332 Dutch words from 49 different semantic categories.Psychologica Belgica,43-3, 181–241.
Ghyselinck, M., Custers, R., &Brysbaert, M. (2004). The effect of age of acquisition in visual word processing: Further evidence for the semantic hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30,550–554.
Gilhooly, K. J., &Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,12, 395–427.
Gilhooly, K. J., &Logie, R. H. (1981). Word age-of-acquisition, reading latencies and auditory recognition.Current Psychological Research,1, 251–262.
Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18,441–461.
Hampton, J. A. (1993). Prototype models of concept representations. In I. Van Mechelen, J. A. Hampton, R. S. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.),Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (pp. 67–95). London: Academic Press.
Hampton, J. A., &Gardiner, M. M. (1983). Measures of internal category structure: A correlational analysis of normative data.British Journal of Psychology,74, 498–516.
Heit, E., &Barsalou, L. W. (1996). The instantiation principle in natural language categories.Memory,4,413–451.
Humphreys, G. W., &Forde, E. M. E. (2001). Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,24,453–509.
Humphreys, G. W., &Riddoch, M. J. (2003). A case series analysis of “category-specific” deficits in living things: The HIT account.Cognitive Neuropsychology,20,263–306.
Keller, D., &Kellas, G. (1978). Typicality as a dimension of encoding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 78–85.
Kucera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Landauer, T. K., &Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge.Psychological Review,104,211–240.
Landauer, T. K., Ross, B. H., &Didner, R. S. (1979).Processing visually presented single words: A reaction time analysis [Technical memorandum]. Murray Hill, NJ: Bell Laboratories.
Larochelle, S., &Pineau, H. (1994). Determinants of response times in the semantic verification task.Journal of Memory & Language,33,796–823.
Malt, B. C., &Johnson, E. C. (1992). Do artifact concepts have cores?Journal of Memory & Language,31,195–217.
Malt, B. C., &Smith, E. E. (1984). Correlated properties in natural categories.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23,250–269.
McCloskey, M., &Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well defined or fuzzy sets?Memory & Cognition,6,462–472.
McEvoy, C. L., &Nelson, D. L. (1982). Category name and instance norms for 106 categories of various sizes.American Journal of Psychology,95,581–634.
McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126,99–130.
Morrison, C. M., Chappell, T. D., &Ellis, A.W. (1997). Age of acquisition norms for a large set of object names and their relation to adult estimates and other variables.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50A,528–559.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998).The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved October 13, 2003, fromhttp://w3.usf.edu/Free Association/.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, and the context theory of classification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10,104–114.
Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., López, A., &Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction.Psychological Review,97,185–200.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., &Madigan, S. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values of 925 nouns.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,76 (1, Pt. 2), 1–25.
Rips, L. J. (1975). Inductive judgments about natural categories.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,14,665–681.
Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J., &Smith, E. E. (1973). Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12,1–20.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference points.Cognitive Psychology,7,532–547.
Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.),Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–49). London: Academic Press.
Rosch, E., &Mervis, C.B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology,7,573–605.
Ruts, W., Storms, G., &Hampton, J. (2004). Linear separability in superordinate natural language concepts.Memory & Cognition,32,83–95.
Shrout, P. E., &Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Use in assessing rater reliability.Psychological Bulletin,86,420–428.
Smith, J. D., &Minda, J. P. (2000). Thirty categorization results in search of a model.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26,3–27.
Smits, T., Storms, G., Rosseel, Y., &De Boeck, P. (2002). Fruits and vegetables categorized: An application of the generalized context model.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9,836–844.
Springer, K., &Keil, F. C. (1991). Early differentiation of causal mechanisms appropriate to biological and non-biological kinds.Child Development,62,767–781.
Steyvers, M., Shiffrin, R. M., & Nelson, D. L. (in press). Word association spaces for predicting semantic similarity effects in episodic memory. In A. Healy (Ed.),Cognitive psychology and its applications: Festschrift in honor of Lyle Bourne, Walter Kintsch, and Thomas Landauer.
Storms, G. (2001). Flemish category norms for exemplars of 39 categories: A replication of the Battig and Montague (1969) category norms.Psychologica Belgica,41, 145–168.
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., &Ruts, W. (2000). Prototype and exemplar based information in natural language categories.Journal of Memory & Language,42,51–73.
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., &Ruts, W. (2001). Categorization of novel stimuli in well-known natural concepts: A case study.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8,377–384.
Storms, G., De Boeck, P., Van Mechelen, I., &Ruts, W. (1996). The dominance effect in concept conjunctions: Generality and interaction aspects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22,1–15.
Storms, G., Ruts, W., &Vandenbroucke, A. (1998). Dominance, overextensions, and the conjunction effect in different syntactic phrasings of concept conjunctions.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,10,337–372.
van Loon-Vervoorn, W. A. (1989).Eigenschappen van basiswoorden [Features of basic words]. Lisse: Swets und Zeitlinger.
Verbeemen, T., Vanoverberghe, V., Storms, G., &Ruts, W. (2001). Contrast categories in natural language concepts.Journal of Memory & Language,44,1–26.
Whaley, C. P. (1978). Word-nonword classification time.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17,143–154.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Simon De Deyne, Eef Ameel, Wolf Vanpaemel, Timothy Verbeemen, and Gert Storms dedicate this article to Wim Ruts, whose work on the project described here was invaluable, but who passed away sadly in a tragic traffic accident before he could see the article in print.
This research was partly supported by Grant G.0266.02 from the National Science Foundation-Flanders and by Grants OT/01/15 and IDO/02/004 from the Onderzoeksfonds K. U Leuven/Research Fund K. U. Leuven. S.D.D. and WR. contributed equally to this article; their order of authorship was determined randomly.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ruts, W., De Deyne, S., Ameel, E. et al. Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36, 506–515 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195597
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195597