What we mean when we say semantic: Toward a multidisciplinary semantic glossary
- PMID: 39231896
- PMCID: PMC11836185
- DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02556-7
What we mean when we say semantic: Toward a multidisciplinary semantic glossary
Abstract
Tulving characterized semantic memory as a vast repository of meaning that underlies language and many other cognitive processes. This perspective on lexical and conceptual knowledge galvanized a new era of research undertaken by numerous fields, each with their own idiosyncratic methods and terminology. For example, "concept" has different meanings in philosophy, linguistics, and psychology. As such, many fundamental constructs used to delineate semantic theories remain underspecified and/or opaque. Weak construct specificity is among the leading causes of the replication crisis now facing psychology and related fields. Term ambiguity hinders cross-disciplinary communication, falsifiability, and incremental theory-building. Numerous cognitive subdisciplines (e.g., vision, affective neuroscience) have recently addressed these limitations via the development of consensus-based guidelines and definitions. The project to follow represents our effort to produce a multidisciplinary semantic glossary consisting of succinct definitions, background, principled dissenting views, ratings of agreement, and subjective confidence for 17 target constructs (e.g., abstractness, abstraction, concreteness, concept, embodied cognition, event semantics, lexical-semantic, modality, representation, semantic control, semantic feature, simulation, semantic distance, semantic dimension). We discuss potential benefits and pitfalls (e.g., implicit bias, prescriptiveness) of these efforts to specify a common nomenclature that other researchers might index in specifying their own theoretical perspectives (e.g., They said X, but I mean Y).
Keywords: Abstraction; Concept; Concreteness; Lexical; Representation; Semantic memory.
© 2024. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethics approval: Not applicable (theoretical review/no human subjects). Consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent to publish: Not applicable. Conflict of interest: We, the authors, have no known conflicts of interest to report.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Linking somatic and symbolic representation in semantic memory: the dynamic multilevel reactivation framework.Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Aug;23(4):1002-14. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0824-5. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016. PMID: 27294419 Free PMC article. Review.
-
How does meaning come to mind? Four broad principles of semantic processing.Can J Exp Psychol. 2020 Dec;74(4):275-283. doi: 10.1037/cep0000235. Epub 2020 Oct 26. Can J Exp Psychol. 2020. PMID: 33104379
-
Building semantic memory from embodied and distributional language experience.Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2021 Sep;12(5):e1555. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1555. Epub 2021 Feb 2. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2021. PMID: 33533205 Review.
-
Semantic similarity and associated abstractness norms for 630 French word pairs.Behav Res Methods. 2021 Jun;53(3):1166-1178. doi: 10.3758/s13428-020-01488-z. Epub 2020 Oct 1. Behav Res Methods. 2021. PMID: 33006067
-
Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation.Cogn Neuropsychol. 2016 May-Jun;33(3-4):130-74. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2016.1147426. Epub 2016 Jun 16. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2016. PMID: 27310469
Cited by
-
A semantic strength and neural correlates in developmental dyslexia.Front Psychol. 2025 Feb 4;15:1405425. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1405425. eCollection 2024. Front Psychol. 2025. PMID: 39967994 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Visual processing of manipulable objects in the ventral stream is modulated by inputs from parietal action systems.bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2025 Jun 3:2025.06.01.657280. doi: 10.1101/2025.06.01.657280. bioRxiv. 2025. PMID: 40501973 Free PMC article. Preprint.
-
Specificity ratings for English data.Cogn Process. 2025 May;26(2):283-302. doi: 10.1007/s10339-024-01239-4. Epub 2024 Nov 8. Cogn Process. 2025. PMID: 39514144 Free PMC article.
-
A two-dimensional space of linguistic representations shared across individuals.bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2025 May 23:2025.05.21.655330. doi: 10.1101/2025.05.21.655330. bioRxiv. 2025. PMID: 40475410 Free PMC article. Preprint.
-
Abstract word dropout and cross-speaker misalignment of word concreteness are features of conversation in aging.Cortex. 2025 Jul 23;190:286-303. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2025.07.003. Online ahead of print. Cortex. 2025. PMID: 40749579
References
-
- Abrahamsen, A., & Bechtel, W. (2012). History and core themes. The Cambridge handbook of cognitive science (pp. 9–28). Cambridge University Press.
-
- Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes,24(5), 713–734. 10.1080/01690960802597250
-
- Alam, T. R. del J. G., Karapanagiotidis, T., Smallwood, J., & Jefferies, E. (2019). Degrees of lateralisation in semantic cognition: Evidence from intrinsic connectivity. NeuroImage, 202, Article 116089. - PubMed
-
- Albertella, L., Kirkham, R., Adler, A. B., Crampton, J., Drummond, S. P. A., Fogarty, G. J., Gross, J. J., Zaichkowsky, L., Andersen, J. P., Bartone, P. T., Boga, D., Bond, J. W., Brunyé, T. T., Campbell, M. J., Ciobanu, L. G., Clark, S. R., Crane, M. F., Dietrich, A., Doty, T. J., … Yücel, M. (2023). Building a transdisciplinary expert consensus on the cognitive drivers of performance under pressure: An international multi-panel Delphi study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1017675 - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials