Symbol Grounding and Meaning: A Comparison of High-Dimensional and Embodied Theories of Meaning

Glenberg, Arthur M.; Robertson, David A.

doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2714

Cited by 617 publications

(413 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

378

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Experimental research provided evidence that such assignment of thematic roles is a rapid online process that heavily depends on syntactic information but may also take into account verb-based semantic requirements (Ferreira et al, 1986;Altmann et al, 1988;Marslen-Wilson et al, 1988;Clifton, 1993;Caplan et al, 1994;Osterhout et al, 1994;McElree et al, 1995;Frazier et al, 1997;McElree et al, 1998;Glenberg et al, 2000;Kaschak et al, 2000;Clifton et al, 2003;Kuperberg et al, 2003b;Kuperberg et al, 2005a). Most importantly, this research suggests that when comprehenders use verbbased semantic requirements to help them in determining relationships between concepts in a sentence, the engaged neurocognitive processes might be different from those that mediate mapping of the input on graded semantic representations.…”

Section: Verb-based Semantic Requirements In Language Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The processing distinctions between semantic requirements of verbs and graded semantic representations were more carefully examined in a series of studies by Glenberg and colleagues (Glenberg et al, 2000;Kaschak et al, 2000). In these experiments, participants' judgments suggested that they relied on their knowledge of verb-based semantic requirements when asked to comprehend verbally-described unusual events i .…”

Section: Behavioral Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

23 Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Human Comprehension

Sitnikova¹,

Holcomb²,

Kuperberg³

2008

Understanding Events

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter begins with a discussion of evidence for distinctions between two semantic comprehension systems in the language domain: a system that maps the perceived information on graded semantic representations and a system that utilizes particular semantic requirements of verbs. It then reviews similar research using static and motion pictures. It argues that the two mechanisms of language comprehension might be analogous to the systems that use graded semantic representations and action-based requirements to make sense of the visual world. The experiments that are reviewed in this chapter examine questions of both how comprehenders understand relationships between the elements within individual events and how they understand the relationships between events. Experiments that have used event-related potentials (ERPs) are also highlighted.

show abstract

Section: Verb-based Semantic Requirements In Language Comprehensionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Behavioral Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

23 Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Human Comprehension

Sitnikova¹,

Holcomb²,

Kuperberg³

2008

Understanding Events

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using object names induces similar action planning effects as seeing the objects themselves (Tucker & Ellis, 2004;Borghi, Glenberg & Kaschak, 2004). Depending on linguistic context, different object features can be activated for action planning, as indicated by facilitated manual responses or ''affordance effects'' (e.g., Borghi, 2004;Glenberg & Robertson, 2000;Zwaan, 2004). Similarly, different action intentions direct attention differently to object features for processing (e.g., Bekkering & Neggers, 2002;Fischer & Hoellen, 2004;Symes, Tucker, Ellis, Vainio, & Ottoboni, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vision, action and language unified through embodiment

Caligiore

Fischer

2012

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Similarly, it would need to know which words needed to be associated with which pictures. See Glenberg and Robertson (2000) for further discussion and empirical evidence. and behavior evolved by selection for survival, that is, they are in the service of action that enhances survival and reproduction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Few believe the world is flat: How embodiment is changing the scientific understanding of cognition.

Glenberg

2015

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

170

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Science has changed many of our dearly held and commonsensical (but incorrect) beliefs. For example, few still believe the world is flat, and few still believe the sun orbits the earth. Few still believe humans are unrelated to the rest of the animal kingdom, and soon few will believe human thinking is computer-like.Instead, as with all animals, our thoughts are based on bodily experiences, and our thoughts and behaviors are controlled by bodily and neural systems of perception, action, and emotion interacting with the physical and social environments. We are embodied; nothing more. Embodied cognition is about cognition formatted in sensorimotor experience, and sensorimotor systems make those thoughts dynamic.Even processes that seem abstract, such as language comprehension and goal understanding are embodied. Thus, embodied cognition is not limited to one type of thought or another: It is cognition.3 Throughout history, careful observation and thinking-science-has changed long-held, cherished, and seemingly obvious beliefs. For example, because of science, few still believe the world is flat, although it looks that way to casual observation. Similarly, notions of human exceptionalism have a continuing history of being overthrown by science. In the sixteenth century, the idea that the heavenly bodies revolved around us on earth was challenged by Copernicus; in the seventeenth century Galileo was punished for supporting the idea, but eventually science prevailed over church dogma. In the nineteenth century, Darwin challenged the notion that humans were unrelated to other species. Science continues to support notions of evolution and the descent of humans, but even in the twenty-first century, many (including a startling large number of elected officials in the US) refuse to acknowledge evolution.Another cherished aspect of human exceptionalism is that our thinking is special. As Mahon (2014) has put it, "it is the independence of thought from perception and action that makes human cognition special…" One goal of the embodied approach to cognition is to show that this idea, although cherished and seemingly obvious, is also wrong.

show abstract

Symbol Grounding and Meaning: A Comparison of High-Dimensional and Embodied Theories of Meaning

Cited by 617 publications

References 23 publications

23 Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Human Comprehension

23 Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Human Comprehension

Vision, action and language unified through embodiment

Few believe the world is flat: How embodiment is changing the scientific understanding of cognition.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About