Modality exclusivity norms for 747 properties and concepts in Dutch: a replication of English (in prep.)

This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality exclusivity norms. Their English properties and concepts were translated into Dutch, then independently tested as follows. Forty-two respondents rated the auditory, haptic, and visual strength of those words. Mean ratings were then computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Based on the three modalities, each word also features a specific modality exclusivity, and a dominant modality. The norms also include external measures of word frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage. Starting with the results, unimodal, bimodal, and tri-modal words appear. Visual and haptic experience are quite related, leaving a more independent auditory experience. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension (Louwerse &amp; Connell, 2011). Auditory and visual words tend towards unimodality, whereas haptic words tend towards multimodality. Likewise, properties are more unimodal than concepts. The form of words is not quite as arbitrary as we used to think. It is connected to their meaning. This 'sound symbolism' was tested by means of a regression: Auditory strength predicts lexical properties of the words (frequency, distinctiveness...) better than the other modalities do, or else with a different polarity. Last, words from these norms were used as the stimuli for an experiment, in which switches across modalities incurred processing costs (Bernabeu, Willems, &amp; Louwerse, 2017). - Dashboard for using Dutch modality norms (336 properties, 411 concepts) and exploring various analyses with them.<br>A summary may be found here.The entire data set and analysis code are available.<b><br></b> References Bernabeu, P., Willems, R. M., &amp; Louwerse, M. M. (2017). Modality switch effects emerge early and increase throughout conceptual processing: Evidence from ERPs. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, &amp; E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), <i>Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society</i> (pp. 1629-1634). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Louwerse, M., &amp; Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <i>Cognitive Science, 35, </i>2, 381-98. Lynott, D., &amp; Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <i>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </i>2, 558-564. Lynott, D., &amp; Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<i> Behavior Research Methods, 45</i>, 516-526.