Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-995ml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T01:30:03.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Embodied Sentence Comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2009

Rolf A. Zwaan
Affiliation:
Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Carol J. Madden
Affiliation:
Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Diane Pecher
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Rolf A. Zwaan
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access

Summary

There are two views of cognition in general and of language comprehension in particular. According to the traditional view (Chomsky, 1957; Fodor, 1983; Pylyshyn, 1986), the human mind is like a bricklayer, or maybe a contractor, who puts together bricks to build structures. The malleable clay of perception is converted to the neat mental bricks we call words and propositions, units of meaning, which can be used in a variety of structures. But whereas bricklayers and contractors presumably know how bricks are made, cognitive scientists and neuroscientists have no idea how the brain converts perceptual input to abstract lexical and propositional representations – it is simply taken as a given that this occurs (Barsalou, 1999).

According to an alternative and emerging view, there are no clear demarcations between perception, action, and cognition. Interactions with the world leave traces of experience in the brain. These traces are (partially) retrieved and used in the mental simulations that make up cognition. Crucially, these traces bear a resemblance to the perceptual/action processes that generated them (Barsalou, 1999) and are highly malleable. Words and grammar are viewed as a set of cues that activate and combine experiential traces in the mental simulation of the described events (Zwaan, 2004). The main purpose of this chapter is to provide a discussion of this view of language comprehension. To set the stage for this discussion we first analyze a series of linguistic examples that present increasingly larger problems for the traditional view.

Type
Chapter
Information
Grounding Cognition
The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking
, pp. 224 - 245
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, 577–660Google ScholarPubMed
Black, J. B., Turner, E., & Bower, G. H. (1979). Point of view in narrative comprehension memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L. (2000). Pushing the limits on theories of word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 65, 124–135CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science 13, 185–188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bülthoff, H., & Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 89, 60–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 15, 17–29Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., & Carlson, G. N. (2001). Circumscribing referential domains in real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 30–49Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton
Christman, S., & Pinger, K. (1997). Lateral biases in pictorial preferences: pictorial dimensions and neural mechanisms. Laterality 2, 155–175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damasio, A. R. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. Harcourt Brace & Company
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Freyd, J. J. (1987) Dynamic mental representations. Psychological Review 94, 427–438CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20, 1–55Google ScholarPubMed
Glenberg, A., & Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9, 558–565CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7, 219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S. (1990). The Symbol Grounding Problem. Physica D 42, 335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. New York: Wiley
Hockett, C. F. (1959). Animal “languages” and human language. Human Biology 31, 32–39Google ScholarPubMed
Kaup, B., Yaxley, R. H., Madden, C. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (May, 2004). Perceptual Simulation of Negated Text Information
Kaup, B., Zwaan, R. A., & Lüdtke, J. (in press). The experiential view of language comprehension: How is Negation Represented? In F. Schmalhofer & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher Language Processes in the Brain. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Kintsch, W., & Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85, 363–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. 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
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12, 143–188Google Scholar
Maass, A., & Russo, A. (2003). Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events: nature or culture?Psychological Science 14, 296–301CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mamassian, P., & Goutcher, R. (2001). Prior knowledge on the illumination position. Cognition 81, B1–B9Google ScholarPubMed
Morrow, D. G., & Clark, H. H. (1988). Interpreting words in spatial descriptions. Language and Cognitive Processes 3, 275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1986). Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M. A. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in Neurosciences 21, 188–194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 3, 417–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science 12, 153–156CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, J., & Perona, P. (1998). Where is the sun?Nature Neuroscience 1, 183–184CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swinney, D. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 645–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1996). Fictive motion in language and “ception.” In P. Bloom, L. Nadel, & M. A. Peterson (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 211–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Talmy, L. (2000a). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1, Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Talmy, L. (2000b). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 2, Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Tarr, M. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2, 55–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ter Meulen, A. G. B. (1995). Representing Time in Natural Language: The Dynamic Interpretation of Tense and Aspect, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language. A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
Wallis, G., & Bülthoff, H. (1999). Learning to recognize objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3, 22–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwaan, R. A. (1996). Processing narrative time shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22, 1196–1207Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 44. (pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press
Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., & Aveyard, M. (2004). Moving words: Language comprehension produces representational motion. Cognitive Science 28, 611–619Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123, 162–185CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Do language comprehenders routinely represent the shapes of objects?Psychological Science 13, 168–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic-relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 954–958CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Hemispheric differences in semantic-relatedness judgments. Cognition 87, B79–B86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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
×