Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Pilar Ferré

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Note: All values are rounded to the last decimal. Ent, number of dictionary entries. Sen, number of dictionary senses. NOM, number of meanings. ROM, relatedness of meanings. *The correlations with ROM were only conducted with the ambiguous words (N= 252), but the correlation between the other variables were conducted with all the words (N = 504). **p <.01. ***p <.001.

Table 3 Note: All values are rounded to the last decimal. Ent, number of dictionary entries. Sen, number of dictionary senses. NOM, number of meanings. ROM, relatedness of meanings. *The correlations with ROM were only conducted with the ambiguous words (N= 252), but the correlation between the other variables were conducted with all the words (N = 504). **p <.01. ***p <.001.

Related Figures (7)

Note: DSI, dominance-subordination index. M1, first/dominant meaning. M2, second/subordinate meaning. NOM, number of meanings. ROM, relatedness of meanings. IREM, index of the relative emotionality of meaning. Table 1. Description and source of each measure included in the database
Note: DSI, dominance-subordination index. M1, first/dominant meaning. M2, second/subordinate meaning. NOM, number of meanings. ROM, relatedness of meanings. IREM, index of the relative emotionality of meaning. Table 1. Description and source of each measure included in the database
Note: All values are rounded to the last decimal. Val, valence in isolation. Ent, number of dictionary entries. Sen, number of dictionary senses. NOM, number of meanings. ROM, relatedness of meanings. DSI, dominance-subordination index. MNVR, minimum number of valid responses when questionnaires were used.
Note: All values are rounded to the last decimal. Val, valence in isolation. Ent, number of dictionary entries. Sen, number of dictionary senses. NOM, number of meanings. ROM, relatedness of meanings. DSI, dominance-subordination index. MNVR, minimum number of valid responses when questionnaires were used.
Note: The value indicated is the mean of all the stimuli in each condition and the standard deviations are in parentheses. Neg, negative. Neu, neutral. Pos, positive. Val, valence in isolation. Ent, number of dictionary entries. Sen, number of dictionary senses. NOM, number of meanings. Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the 252 unambiguous words by emotional categories
Note: The value indicated is the mean of all the stimuli in each condition and the standard deviations are in parentheses. Neg, negative. Neu, neutral. Pos, positive. Val, valence in isolation. Ent, number of dictionary entries. Sen, number of dictionary senses. NOM, number of meanings. Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the 252 unambiguous words by emotional categories
Figure 1. Distribution of ambiguous words in the affective space defined by the valences of the dominant meaning and the subordinate meaning. Emotional categories are based on the division of the 9-point valence dimension as follows: negative (i.e., valence < 4), neutral (i.e., 4< valence < 6), and positive (i.e., valence > 6).
Figure 1. Distribution of ambiguous words in the affective space defined by the valences of the dominant meaning and the subordinate meaning. Emotional categories are based on the division of the 9-point valence dimension as follows: negative (i.e., valence < 4), neutral (i.e., 4< valence < 6), and positive (i.e., valence > 6).
Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the 252 ambiguous words by emotional categories Note: The value indicated is the mean of all the stimuli in each condition and the standard deviations are in parentheses. Neg-neg, negative-negative. Neg-neu, negative-neu negative-postive. Neu-neg, neutral-negative. Neu-neu, neutral-neutral. Neu-pos, neutral-positive. Pos-neg, positive-negative. Pos-neu, positive-neutral. Pos-pos, positive-positive. \ isolation, Val-M1, valence of the dominant meaning. Val-M2, valence of the subordinate meaning. Ent, number of dictionary entries. Sen, number of dictionary senses. NOI meanings. ROM, relatedness of meanings. DSI, dominance-subordination index. IREM, index of the relative emotionality of meanings.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the 252 ambiguous words by emotional categories Note: The value indicated is the mean of all the stimuli in each condition and the standard deviations are in parentheses. Neg-neg, negative-negative. Neg-neu, negative-neu negative-postive. Neu-neg, neutral-negative. Neu-neu, neutral-neutral. Neu-pos, neutral-positive. Pos-neg, positive-negative. Pos-neu, positive-neutral. Pos-pos, positive-positive. \ isolation, Val-M1, valence of the dominant meaning. Val-M2, valence of the subordinate meaning. Ent, number of dictionary entries. Sen, number of dictionary senses. NOI meanings. ROM, relatedness of meanings. DSI, dominance-subordination index. IREM, index of the relative emotionality of meanings.
Note: All values are rounded to the last decimal. In all models, N = 252. Table 6. Linear regression models for the prediction of valence in isolation
Note: All values are rounded to the last decimal. In all models, N = 252. Table 6. Linear regression models for the prediction of valence in isolation
Figure 2. Distribution of the three valences (valence of the word in isolation, of the dominant meaning, and of the subordinate meaning) of some ambiguous words. Two example ambiguous words are pre- sented for each category (e.g., metro and lima for the neutral-neutral category). In each category, the first example is a case where the valence of the word presented in isolation is very similar to the valence of the dominant meaning, while this is not the case for the second example.
Figure 2. Distribution of the three valences (valence of the word in isolation, of the dominant meaning, and of the subordinate meaning) of some ambiguous words. Two example ambiguous words are pre- sented for each category (e.g., metro and lima for the neutral-neutral category). In each category, the first example is a case where the valence of the word presented in isolation is very similar to the valence of the dominant meaning, while this is not the case for the second example.
Related topics:
PsychologyApplied PsycholinguisticsLanguage Culture and CommunicationPsychology and Cognitive Sciences
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved