DMCA
Grounding language in action (2002)
| Venue: | Psychonomic Bulletin & Review |
| Citations: | 353 - 16 self |
BibTeX
@ARTICLE{Glenberg02groundinglanguage,
author = {Arthur M. Glenberg and Michael P. Kaschak},
title = {Grounding language in action},
journal = {Psychonomic Bulletin & Review},
year = {2002},
pages = {558--565}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
We report a new phenomenon associated with language comprehension: the action–sentence compatibility effect (ACE). Participants judged whether sentences were sensible by making a response that required moving toward or away from their bodies. When a sentence implied action in one direction (e.g., “Close the drawer ” implies action away from the body), the participants had difficulty making a sensibility judgment requiring a response in the opposite direction. The ACE was demonstrated for three sentences types: imperative sentences, sentences describing the transfer of concrete objects, and sentences describing the transfer of abstract entities, such as “Liz told you the story. ” These data are inconsistent with theories of language comprehension in which meaning is represented as a set of relations among nodes. Instead, the data support an embodied theory of meaning that relates the meaning of sentences to human action. How language conveys meaning remains an open question. The dominant approach is to treat language as a symbol manipulation system: Language conveys meaning by using abstract, amodal, and arbitrary symbols (i.e., words) combined by syntactic rules (e.g., Burgess & Lund, 1997; Chomsky, 1980; Fodor, 2000; Kintsch, 1988; Pinker, 1994). Words are abstract in that the same word, such as “chair, ” is used for big chairs and little chairs, words are amodal in that the same word is used when chairs are spoken about or written about, and words are arbitrarily related to their referents in that the phonemic and orthographic characteristics of a word bear no relationship to the physical or functional characteristics of the word’s referent. An alternative view is that linguistic meaning is
Keyphrases
language comprehension language conveys symbol manipulation system open question concrete object drawer implies action burgess lund dominant approach action sentence compatibility effect imperative sentence abstract entity syntactic rule sensibility judgment little chair opposite direction functional characteristic word referent data support embodied theory alternative view arbitrary symbol big chair orthographic characteristic human action sentence type linguistic meaning new phenomenon
