Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:31:02.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Situating Abstract Concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2009

By
Lawrence W. Barsalou  and
Katja Wiemer-Hastings
Edited by
Diane Pecher  and
Rolf A. Zwaan
Lawrence W. Barsalou
Affiliation:
Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Katja Wiemer-Hastings
Affiliation:
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA
Diane Pecher
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Rolf A. Zwaan
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access

Summary

Roughly speaking, an abstract concept refers to entities that are neither purely physical nor spatially constrained. Such concepts pose a classic problem for theories that ground knowledge in modality-specific systems (e.g., Barsalou, 1999, 2003a,b). How could these systems represent a concept like TRUTH? Abstract concepts also pose a significant problem for traditional theories that represent knowledge with amodal symbols. Surprisingly, few researchers have attempted to specify the content of abstract concepts using feature lists, semantic networks, or frames. It is not enough to say that an amodal node or a pattern of amodal units represents an abstract concept. It is first necessary to specify the concept's content, and then to show that a particular type of representation can express it. Regardless of how one might go about representing TRUTH, its content must be identified. Then the task of identifying how this content is represented can begin.

The primary purpose of this chapter is to explore the content of three abstract concepts: TRUTH, FREEDOM, and INVENTION. In an exploratory study, their content will be compared to the content of three concrete concepts – BIRD, CAR, and SOFA – and also to three intermediate concepts that seem somewhat concrete but more abstract than typical concrete concepts – COOKING, FARMING, and CARPETING. We will first ask participants to produce properties typically true of these concepts. We will then analyze these properties using two coding schemes.

Type
Chapter
Information
Grounding Cognition
The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking
 , pp. 129 - 163
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 577–609Google ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. (2003a). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences 358, 1177–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2003b). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes 18, 513–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Niedenthal, P. M., Barbey, A., & Ruppert, J. (2003). Social embodiment. In B. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning & Motivation, Vol. 43 (pp. 43–92). San Diego: Academic PressCrossRef
Barsalou, L. W., Sloman, S. A., & Chaigneau, S. E. (in press). The HIPE theory of function. In L. Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Representing functional features for language and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13, 185–188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1973). Considerations of some problems of comprehension. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual Information Processing. New York: Academic PressCrossRef
Bransford, J. D., & McCarrell, N. S. (1974). A sketch of a cognitive approach to comprehension: Some thoughts about understanding what it means to comprehend. In W. B. Weimer & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the Symbolic Processes (pp. 377–399). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1997). Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes 12, 177–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132, 163–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113, 464–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galbraith, R. C., & Underwood, B. J. (1973). Perceived frequency of concrete and abstract words. Memory and Cognition 1, 56–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology 25, 524–575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glaser, W. R. (1992). Picture naming. Cognition 42, 61–106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9, 558–569CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 441–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kan, I. P., Barsalou, L. W., Solomon, K. O., Minor, J. K., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2003). Role of mental imagery in a property verification task: fMRI evidence for perceptual representations of conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology 20, 525–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krauth-Gruber, S., Ric, F., Niedenthal, P. M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). The representation of emotion concepts: The role of perceptual simulation. Manuscript under review
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's Problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104, 211–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin 129, 592–615CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A. (2001). Functional neuroimaging of semantic memory. In. R. Cabeza & A. Kingstone (Eds.), Handbook of Functional Neuroimaging of Cognition (pp. 153–186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
McCloskey, M., & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories: Well-defined or fuzzy sets?Memory and Cognition 6, 462–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, K., & Cree, G. S. (2002). Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In E. M. E. Forde & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Category-specificity in mind and brain (pp. 211–249). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press
Medin, D. L., & Ross, B. H. (1989). The specific character of abstract thought: Categorization, problem-solving, and induction. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, Vol. 5, (pp. 189–223). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. (1978). A context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 85, 207–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (1997). Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition 62, 99–108CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review 92, 289–316CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, K. (Ed.) (1986). Event representations: Structure and Function in Development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York: Oxford University Press
Peterson, S. E., Fox, P. T., Posner, M. I., Mintus, M. A., & Raichle, M. E. (1989). Positron emission tomographic studies of the processing of single words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1, 153–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain's language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 253–336CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, D. C., Spivey, M. J., Barsalou, L. W., & McRae, K. (2003). Spatial representations activated during real-time comprehension of verbs. Cognitive Science 27, 767–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, B. H., & Kilbane, M. C. (1997). Effects of principle explanation and superficial similarity on analogical mapping in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 427–440Google Scholar
Ross, B. H., Perkins, S. J., & Tenpenny, P. L. (1990). Reminding-based category learning. Cognitive Psychology 22, 460–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K., & Stowe, R. W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 499–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1991). Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The Psychology of Word Meaning (pp. 223–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9, 82–102Google Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Stowe, R. W. (1989). Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words in sentences. Reading Research Quarterly 24, 114–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory & Cognition 32, 244–259CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson-Schill, S. L., D'Esposito, M., Aguirre, G. K., & Farah, M. J. (1997). Role of left prefrontal cortex in retrieval of semantic knowledge: A reevaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 94, 14792–14797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review 80, 352–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattenmaker, W. D., & Shoben, E. J. (1987). Context and the recallability of concrete and abstract sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13, 140–150Google Scholar
Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Graesser, A. C. (1998). Contextual representation of abstract nouns: A neural network approach. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1036–1042). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Graesser, A. C. (2000). Representing abstract concepts with abstract structures. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 983–989). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Wiemer-Hastings, K., Krug, J., & Xu, X. (2001). Imagery, context availability, contextual constraint, and abstractness. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 1134–1139. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2004). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Manuscript under review
Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). New York: Macmillan
Wu, L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property generation. Manuscript in review
Yeh, W., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). The situated character of concepts. Manuscript in review

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×