Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Episodic affordances contribute to language comprehension

  • Arthur M. Glenberg (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4), Raymond Becker (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4), Susann Klötzer (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4), Lidia Kolanko (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4), Silvana Müller (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4) and Mike Rinck (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4)...

Abstract

We demonstrate how a particular type of knowledge about objects, their spatial locations and thus how to direct actions toward them, contributes to the comprehension of language about those objects. In four experiments, participants judged if sentences were about normal objects (e.g., “The apple has a stem”) or odd objects (e.g., “The apple has an antenna”). The Normal response key was either on the left of a response box or on the right. The named objects were themselves either on the left or the right of the response box. We demonstrate a compatibility effect in which responding Normal to the side where the object was located was faster than responding Normal to the opposite side. Furthermore, this effect was equally strong for sentences describing states of the objects (as above) and sentences describing actions (e.g., “Touch the apple at the stem”); the compatibility effect was found when the objects were removed; the effect required compatibility between actions, not just spatial locations; and the effect was found in both English and German. The results are discussed in relation to how action systems are used in language comprehension.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Correspondence addresses: Arthur Glenberg, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. E-mail: glenberg@asu.edu.

References

Hide All
Barsalou, L. W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 577660.
Borghi, A. M., Glenberg, A. M. & Kaschak, M. P.. 2004. Putting words in perspective. Memory & Cognition 32. 863873.
Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Gallese, V., Melli, G., Riggio, L. & Rizzolatti, G.. 2005. Listening to action-related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: A combined TMS and behavioral study. Cognitive Brain Research 24. 355363.
Buccino, G., Benuzzi, F., Lagravinese, G., Lui, F., Pateri, I., Porro, C. A. & Rizzolatti, G.. 2004. Neural circuits involved in the recognition of actions performed by nonconspecifics: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16. 114126.
Burgess, C. & Lund, K.. 1997. Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language & Cognitive Processes 12. 177210.
Chambers, C. G., Carlson, G. N., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H. & Tanenhaus, M. K.. 2002. Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 3049.
Chambers, C. G., Magnuson, J. S. & Tanenhaus, M. K. 2004. Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 30. 687696.
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, A. M. & Loftus, E. F.. 1975. Spreading activation theory of semantic memory. Psychological Review 82. 407428.
Coventry, K. & Garrod, S. C. 2003. Saying, seeing, and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. New York: The Psychology Press.
Cumming, G. 2008. Replication and p intervals: p values predict the future only vaguely, but confidence intervals do much better. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3. 286300.
De Vega, M., Glenberg, A. M., Kaschak, M. P., Rinck, M. & Robertson, D. A.. 2004. On doing two things at once: Temporal constraints on Actions in language comprehension. Memory and Cognition 32. 10331043.
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Glenberg, A. M. 1997. What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20. 119.
Glenberg, A. M., Buccino, G., Cattaneo, L., Palumbo, D., Riggio, L. & Sato, M.. 2008. Processing abstract language modulates motor system activity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61. 905919.
Glenberg, A. M. & Kaschak, M. P.. 2002. Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9. 558565.
Glenberg, A. M. & Robertson, D. A.. 1999. Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes 28. 126.
Glenberg, A. M. & Robertson, D. A.. 2000. Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43. 379401.
Grubb, J. D. & Reed, C. L.. 2002. Trunk orientation induces neglect-like lateral biases in covert attention. Psychological Science 13. 553556.
Harnad, S. 1990. The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42. 335346.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I. & Pulvermüller, F.. 2004. Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 41. 301307.
Kaschak, M. P. & Glenberg, A. M.. 2000. Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 43. 508529.
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M. & Haywood, S. L.. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49. 133156.
Kelly, S. D., Barr, D. J., Church, R. B. & Lynch, K.. 1999. Offering a hand to pragmatic understanding: The role of speech and gesture in comprehension and memory. Journal of Memory and Language 40. 577592.
Kintsch, W. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructionintegration model. Psychological Review 95. 163182.
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. 211240.
Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S.. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 169225.
Pulvermüller, F. 2008. Grounding language in the brain. In de Vega, M., Glenberg, A. M., & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning, 85116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raaijmakers, J. G., Gremmen, F. & Schrijnemakers, J. M. C.. 1999. How to deal with ‘The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy’: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language 41. 416426.
Richardson, D. C. & Spivey, M. J.. 2000. Representation, space and Hollywood Squares: Looking at things that aren't there anymore. Cognition 76. 269295.
Rizzolatti, G. & Arbib, M. A.. 1998. Language within our grasp. Trends in Neuroscience 21. 188194.
Rizzolatti, G., Dascola, I., Riggio, L. & Umiltà, C.. 1987. Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia 25. 3140.
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L. & Gallese, V.. 1997. The space around us. Science 277. 190191.
Searle, J. R. 1980. Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3. 417424.
Simon, J. R. 1990. The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In Proctor, R. W. and Reeve, T. G. (eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective, 3186. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Tucker, M. & Ellis, R.. 1998. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24. 930–846.
Vigliocco, G., Garrett, M. F., Lewis, W. & Vinson, D. P.. 2004. Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology 48. 422488.
Wilson, M. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9. 625636.

Keywords

Episodic affordances contribute to language comprehension

  • Arthur M. Glenberg (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4), Raymond Becker (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4), Susann Klötzer (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4), Lidia Kolanko (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4), Silvana Müller (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4) and Mike Rinck (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed