The nouns of our language refer to either concrete entities (like a table) or abstract concepts (like justice or love), and cognitive psychology has established that concreteness influences how words are processed. Accordingly, understanding how concreteness is represented in our mind and brain is a central question in psychology, neuroscience, and computational linguistics. While the advent of powerful language models has allowed for quantitative inquiries into the nature of semantic representations, it remains largely underexplored how they represent concreteness. Here, we used behavioral judgments to estimate semantic distances implicitly used by humans, for a set of carefully selected abstract and concrete nouns. Using Representational Similarity Analysis, we find that the implicit representational space of participants and the semantic representations of language models are significantly aligned. We also find that both representational spaces are implicitly aligned to an explicit representation of concreteness, which was obtained from our participants using an additional concreteness rating task. Importantly, using ablation experiments, we demonstrate that the human-to-model alignment is substantially driven by concreteness, but not by other important word characteristics established in psycholinguistics. These results indicate that humans and language models converge on the concreteness dimension, but not on other dimensions.

ChatGPT is a publicly available chatbot that can quickly generate texts on given topics, but it is unknown whether the chatbot is really superior to human writers in all aspects of writing and whether its writing quality can be prominently improved on the basis of updating commands. Consequently, this study compared the writing performance on a narrative topic by ChatGPT and Chinese intermediate English (CIE) learners so as to reveal the chatbot's advantage and disadvantage in writing. The data were analyzed in terms of five discourse components using Coh-Metrix (a special instrument for analyzing language discourses), and the results revealed that ChatGPT performed better than human writers in narrativity, word concreteness, and referential cohesion, but worse in syntactic simplicity and deep cohesion in its initial version. After more revision commands were updated, while the resulting version was facilitated in syntactic simplicity, yet it is still lagged far behind CIE learners' writing in deep cohesion. In addition, the correlation analysis of the discourse components suggests that narrativity was correlated with referential cohesion in both ChatGPT and human writers, but the correlations varied within each group.

However, word concreteness is not an attribute that a A single word in the human language has many complex computer can directly compute. One means of assessing dimensions such as semantics, parts of speech, lexical type, the characteristics of words is by having humans rate them imagability, concreteness, familiarity, etc. It is important to on the dimensions of interest. Humans are proficient in know the dimensions of words in languages so that we can categorizing words into linguistic dimensions, but it is develop a better theoretical understanding of language and impractical to have humans rating tens of thousands of also to build tools that simulate human intelligence and words that we would need for psycholinguistic research.