MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3125297587 · doi:10.29038/eejpl.2019.6.1.gor

Psycholinguistic Meanings of Playfulness

2019· article· en· W3125297587 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Кобзєва Юлія

Notice bibliographique

RevueEast European Journal of Psycholinguistics · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePsycholinguistics and Behavioral Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversität ZürichUniversity of Ottawa
Mots-clésPsychologyWord AssociationAge of AcquisitionPopulationConsciousnessSocial psychologyFlirtingStimulus (psychology)Developmental psychologyCognitionLinguisticsCognitive psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The aim of the article is to describe psycholinguistic meanings of the word-stimulus “playfulness” in the linguistic world-image of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine. The main method of the conducted research was the psycholinguistic experiment. The sample according to the criteria “gender” (males and females – included both age groups) and “age” (18-35 and 36-60) included 1,600 respondents with 400 people in each sub-group of respondents. The overall number of reactions to stimulus “playfulness” comprised 1,600 associative reactions with 475 unique associations including word combinations and sentences, where 159 reactions have frequency over 1,316 individual associations, and 0 refusals. The semantic interpretation of the results of the free association test made it possible to single out 19 psycholinguistic meanings, 12 out of them accounted for more than 1%: 1) “cheerful and joyful state”, 2) “intention to attract the attention of the opposite or one’s own sex”, 3) “child-like spontaneity”, 4) “agility, physical activity of an animal”, 5) “daring and provocative behavior”, 6) “agility, physical behavior of a human being”, 7) “ease”, 8) “changeability”, 9) “behavior during a sexual intercourse”, 10) “carelessness”, 11) “mental activity”, 12) “deliberate deceit”. Taking into account the respondents’ verbal behavior, the following components of playfulness were identified: flirting, impishness, humor, fugue (eccentricity), ease, imagination. The formulated psycholinguistic meanings of playfulness can be fully considered as such that give the most adequate and reliable model of the systemic significance of the studied word and which reflects the reality of linguistic consciousness. References Barnett, L. A. (2007). The nature of playfulness in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 949-958. Bowman, J. R. (1987). Making work play. In: Meaningful play, playful meanings. (pp. 61-71). G.A. Fine (Ed.), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Bundy, A. C. (1996). Play and playfulness: what to look for. In: Play in Occupational Therapy for Children, (pp. 52-66). D. L. Parham & L. S. Fazio (Eds.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Chandler, B. E. (1997). The essence of play: a child’s occupation. Bethesda, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc. Glynn, M. A., Webster, J. (1992). The adult playfulness scale: An initial assessment. Psycho­logical Reports, 71(1), 83-103. Gordiienko-Mytrofanova, I. V. (2014a). Leksikograficheskoie znacheniie slova “igrivost” (podgo­to­­­vitelnyi etap psikholingvisticheskogo eksperimenta) [The lexicographic meaning of the word “playfulness” (the preparatory stage of the psycholinguistic experiment)]. Psychological Prospects Journal, 24, 65-77. Gordiienko-Mytrofanova, I. V. (2014b). Psikhologicheskoie soderzhaniie leksikograficheskikh znachenii slova “igrivyi” (podgotovitelnyi etap psikholingvisticheskogo eksperimenta) [The psychological content of the lexicographic meanings of the word “playful” (the preparatory stage of the psycholinguistic experiment)]. Problemy suchasnoi pedahohichnoi osvity – Problems of Modern Pedagogical Education, 45(2), 419-430. Gordiienko-Mytrofanova, I. V. (2014c). Psikhologicheskaia interpretatsiia leksikograficheskogo opisaniia slova “igrivyi” [Psychological interpretation of the lexicographic description of the word “playful”]. Problemy Suchasnoi Psykholohii – Problems of Modern Psychology, 25, 83-98. Gordienko-Mytrofanova, I., Sypko, A. (2015). Playfulness as a relevant lexeme in the bilingual linguistic consciousness of Ukrainian people. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2(1), 43-51. Gordienko-Mytrofanova, I., Sauta, S. (2016). Playfulness as a peculiar expression of sexual relationships (semantic interpretation of the results of the psycholinguistic experi­ment). European Humanities Studies: State and Society, 1, 46-62. Gordienko-Mytrofanova, I., Kobzieva, I. (2017). Humor as a component of ludic competence. Visnyk [Journal] of the Hryhorii Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University, 57, 40-56. Gordienko-Mytrofanova, I., Kobzieva, I. (2018). Concept «Holy Fool» in the Linguistic World-Image of the Russian-Speaking Population of Ukraine. Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 118-133. Gordiienko-Mytrofanova, I., Pidchasov, Y., Sauta, S. Kobzieva, I. (2018). The problem of sample representativeness for conducting experimental and broad psychological research. Psycholinguistics, 23(1), 11-46. Guitard, P., Ferland, F., & Dutil, É. (2005). Toward a better understanding of playfulness in adults. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 25(1), 9-22. Kondakov, N. I. (1975). The Logical Dictionary-Reference. Moscow: Nauka. Proyer, R. T. (2012). A Psycho-linguistic Study on Adult Playfulness: Its Hierarchical Structure and Theoretical Considerations. Journal of Adult Development, 19(3), 141-149. Proyer, R.T. (2014). A Psycho-Linguistic Approach For Studying Adult Playfulness: A Replication and Extension Toward Relations With Humor, The Journal of Psychology, 148(6), 717-735. Proyer, R.T. (2017). A new structural model for the study of adult playfulness: Assessment and exploration of an understudied individual differences variable. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 113-122. Rudakova, A. V. (2015). On the concept of an integrated lexicographic meaning of a word and the methodology of its description. Culture of Communication and Its Formation: Interuniversity Collection of Scientific Works, 31, 109-115. Schaefer, C. & Greenberg, R. (1997). Measurement of Playfulness: A Neglected Therapist Variable. International Journal of Play Therapy, 6(2), 21-31. Shen, X. (2010). Adult playfulness as a personality trait: Its conceptualization, measurement, and relationship to psychological well-being. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from Pennsylva­nia State University Library Catalog (OCLC No. 859524715). Sternin, I.A., & Rudakova, A.V. (2011). Psikholingvisticheskoie znacheniie slova i yego opisaniie [Psycholinguistic meaning of the word and its description]. Voronezh: Lambert. Tsuji, Hit., Tsuji, Hei., Yamada, S., Natsuno, Y., Morita, Y., Mukoyama, Y., Hata, K., Fujishima, Y. (1996). Standardization of the Five Factor Personality Questionnaire: Factor structure. International Journal of Psychology, 31. Proceedings from the XXVI International Congress of Psychology. August 16–21, 1996, Montreal, Canada. (103-217). Ufimtseva, N. V. (2009). Obraz mira russkikh: sistemnost i soderzhaniie [Image of the world of Russians: the systemic characteristics and the content]. Yazyk i kultura – Language and Culture, 98-111. Yarnal, C., & Qian, X. (2011). Older-adult Playfulness: An innovative construct and measure­ment for healthy aging research. American Journal of Play, 4(1), 52-79. Yue, X. D., Leung, C. L., Hiranandani, N. A. (2016). Adult Playfulness, Humor Styles, and Subjective Happiness. Psychological Reports, 119(3), 630-640.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,004
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2019
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEast European Journal of PsycholinguisticsMême sujetPsycholinguistics and Behavioral StudiesTravaux en français237 207