Book contents
- The Freedom of Words
- The Freedom of Words
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Language and Its Power
- Part II Abstractness and Language
- Chapter 5 Different Varieties of Abstract Concepts
- Chapter 6 Abstractness and Language as a Physical Tool
- Chapter 7 Abstractness and Language as an Inner Tool
- Chapter 8 Abstractness and Language as a Social Tool
- Chapter 9 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Chapter 6 - Abstractness and Language as a Physical Tool
from Part II - Abstractness and Language
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 July 2023
Book contents
- The Freedom of Words
- The Freedom of Words
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I Language and Its Power
- Part II Abstractness and Language
- Chapter 5 Different Varieties of Abstract Concepts
- Chapter 6 Abstractness and Language as a Physical Tool
- Chapter 7 Abstractness and Language as an Inner Tool
- Chapter 8 Abstractness and Language as a Social Tool
- Chapter 9 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Chapter 6 illustrates why abstract concepts can be physical tools that modify our perception and interaction with the environment. It focuses on the relationship between abstract concepts and perception, both of the external world and the body. In section 6.1, I describe studies showing the importance of interoception, the ability to detect inner bodily signals for abstract concepts, particularly emotional ones, and contend that they might enhance this capability. The second section illustrates research showing how abstract concepts rely on sensorimotor experience through a metaphorical mapping mechanism. Although metaphorical mapping is powerful, other mechanisms beyond it, and primarily linguistic and social experience, might contribute to explaining abstractness. Finally, I describe how languages and cultures differently influence abstract concepts. A variety of examples, spanning from the concrete concept of container to the abstract concept of time, suggest that abstract concepts are more flexible and variable across languages than concrete concepts.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Freedom of WordsAbstractness and the Power of Language, pp. 182 - 208Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Arshamian, A., Gerkin, R. C., Kruspe, N., Wnuk, E., Floyd, S., O’Meara, C., … Majid, A. (2022). The perception of odor pleasantness is shared across cultures. Current Biology, 32(9), 2061–2066.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2022.02.062CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Athanasopoulos, P., Bylund, E., & Casasanto, D. (2016). Introduction to the Special Issue: New and interdisciplinary approaches to linguistic relativity. Language Learning, 66(3), 482–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, L. F. (2017). The theory of constructed emotion: An active inference account of interoception and categorization. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw154CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W., Dutriaux, L., & Scheepers, C. (2018). Moving beyond the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 373(1752). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0144Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R., eds., Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought. Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batisti, F. (2021). An argument for languages in languaging. Rivista Italiana Di Filosofia Del Linguaggio, 15(2).Google Scholar
Berlin, B. (1992/2002/2014). Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M., Barca, L., Binkofski, F., & Tummolini, L. (2018). Varieties of abstract concepts: Development, use and representation in the brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 373(1752). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0121Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Cimatti, F., Scorolli, C., & Tummolini, L. (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000089CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghi, A. M., Capirci, O., Gianfreda, G., & Volterra, V. (2014). The body and the fading away of abstract concepts and words: A sign language analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 811. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00811CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2018). Language and the construction of time through space. Trends in Neurosciences, 41(10), 651–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2018.08.004Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. (2011). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition, 118(1), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L., & Gaby, L. (2010). Remembrances of times East: Absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian aboriginal community. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1635–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13(2), 185–189.Google Scholar
Bylund, E., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2017). The Whorfian time warp: Representing duration through the language hourglass. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 146(7), 911–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000314CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callizo-Romero, C., Tutnjević, S., Pandza, M., Ouellet, M., Kranjec, A., Ilić, S., … Casasanto, D. (2020). Temporal focus and time spatialization across cultures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(6), 1247–1258.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D. (2008). Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind? Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.6.1047CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casasanto, D. (2016). Linguistic relativity. Routledge handbook of semantics. Routledge, pp. 158–174.Google Scholar
Casasanto, D., & Gordon, P. (2005). Crying “Whorf.” Science, 307(5716), 1721–1722. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.307.5716.1721Google Scholar
Conca, F., Borsa, V. M., Cappa, S. F., & Catricalà, E. (2021). The multidimensionality of abstract concepts: A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 127, 474–491.Google Scholar
Connell, L., Lynott, D., & Banks, B. (2018). Interoception: The forgotten modality in perceptual grounding of abstract and concrete concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 373(1752). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0143Google ScholarPubMed
Cowley, S. J. (2019). The return of languaging. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 15(4), 483–512.Google Scholar
Crow, K. M., van Mersbergen, M., & Payne, A. E. (2021). Vocal congruence: The voice and the self measured by interoceptive awareness. Journal of Voice, 35(2), 324–e15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, C. P., Altmann, G. T., & Yee, E. (2020). Situational systematicity: A role for schema in understanding the differences between abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37(1–2), 142–153.Google Scholar
De la Fuente, J., Santiago, J., Román, A., Dumitrache, C., & Casasanto, D. (2014). When you think about it, your past is in front of you: How culture shapes spatial conceptions of time. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1682–1690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614534695CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Livio, C., Fini, C., Mazzuca, C., & Borghi, A. M. (2022). The role of voice self-perception in the conceptual representation of gender. 18th Annual Conference of the Italian Association of Cognitive Sciences, Rovereto, Trento, December 15–17.Google Scholar
Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110(3), 412–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.016Google Scholar
Dove, G. (2020). More than a scaffold: Language is a neuroenhancement. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37(5–6), 288–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dove, G. (2021). The challenges of abstract concepts. In Robinson, M. D. & Thomas, L. E., eds., Handbook of embodied psychology. Springer, 171–195.Google Scholar
Dove, G. (2022). Abstract concepts and the embodied mind: Rethinking grounded cognition. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dove, G., Barca, L., Tummolini, L., & Borghi, A. M. (2020). Words have a weight: Language as a source of inner grounding and flexibility in abstract concepts. Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01438-6Google Scholar
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6(3–4), 169–200.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Majid, A., & Van Staden, M. (2006). Cross-linguistic categorisation of the body: Introduction. Language Sciences, 28(2–3), 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falandays, J. B., & Spivey, M. J. (2019). Abstract meanings may be more dynamic, due to their sociality: Comment on “Words as social tools: Language, sociality and inner grounding in abstract concepts” by Anna M. Borghi et al. Physics of Life Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2019.02.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farias, A. R., Garrido, M. V., & Semin, G. R. (2013). Converging modalities ground abstract categories: The case of politics. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e60971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060971CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuhrman, O., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. Cognitive Science, 34(8), 1430–1451. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01105.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallese, V., & Cuccio, V. (2018). The neural exploitation hypothesis and its implications for an embodied approach to language and cognition: Insights from the study of action verbs processing and motor disorders in Parkinson’s disease. Cortex, 100, 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.01.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennari, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83(1), 49–79.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2001). Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, 3, 215–256.Google Scholar
Ghandhari, M., Fini, C., Da Rold, F., & Borghi, A. M. (2020). Different kinds of embodied language: A comparison between Italian and Persian languages. Brain and Cognition, 142, 105581.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr, Lima, P. L. C., & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(7), 1189–1210.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2021). Metaphorical embodiment. In Robinson, M. D. & Thomas, L. E., eds., Handbook of embodied psychology. Springer, pp. 101–123.Google Scholar
Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L., & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition, 73(2), 135–176.Google Scholar
Hendricks, R. K., & Boroditsky, L. (2015). Constructing mental time without visual experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(8), 429–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.06.011Google Scholar
Hendricks, R. K., & Boroditsky, L. (2017). New space-time metaphors foster new nonlinguistic representations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12279CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huisman, J. L. A., Hout, R. van, & Majid, A. (2021). Patterns of semantic variation differ across body parts: Evidence from the Japonic languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 455–486. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0079Google Scholar
Jackson, J. C., Watts, J., Henry, T. R., List, J.-M., Forkel, R., Mucha, P. J., … Lindquist, K. A. (2019). Emotion semantics show both cultural variation and universal structure. Science, 366(6472), 1517–1522. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw8160Google Scholar
Jamrozik, A., McQuire, M., Cardillo, E. R., & Chatterjee, A. (2016). Metaphor: Bridging embodiment to abstraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1080–1089. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423–015-0861-0Google Scholar
Kemmerer, D. (2022). Grounded cognition entails linguistic relativity: A neglected implication of a major semantic theory. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1–33. doi:10.1111/tops.12628Google Scholar
Lakens, D., Semin, G. R., & Foroni, F. (2011). Why your highness needs the people: Comparing the absolute and relative representation of power in vertical space. Social Psychology, 42(3), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000064Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453–486.Google Scholar
Langland-Hassan, P. & Davis, C. (2023). A context-sensitive and non-linguistic approach to abstract concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378(1870), 20210355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Guen, O., & Pool Balam, L. (2012). No metaphorical timeline in gesture and cognition among Yucatec Mayas. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00271Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2013). The island of time: Yélî dnye, the language of Rossel Island. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 61. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00061Google Scholar
Lopez, A., Atran, S., Coley, J. D., Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. (1997). The tree of life: Universal and cultural features of folkbiological taxonomies and inductions. Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 251–295.Google Scholar
Lund, T. C., Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2019). Sensitivity to emotion information in children’s lexical processing. Cognition, 190, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.017Google Scholar
Majid, A. (2019). Mapping words reveals emotional diversity. Science, 366(6472), 1444–1445. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba1763Google Scholar
Majid, A., Boster, J. S., & Bowerman, M. (2008). The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition, 109(2), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009Google Scholar
Majid, A., & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130(2), 266–270.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Burenhult, N., Stensmyr, M., De Valk, J., & Hansson, B. S. (2018). Olfactory language and abstraction across cultures. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752), 20170139.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Jordan, F., & Dunn, M. (2015). Semantic systems in closely related languages. Language sciences, 49, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Roberts, S. G., Cilissen, L., Emmorey, K., Nicodemus, B., O’Grady, L., … Cansler, B. L. (2018). Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11369–11376.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., Gennari, S., Imai, M., Ameel, E., Tsuda, N., & Majid, A. (2008). Talking about walking: Biomechanics and the language of locomotion. Psychological Science, 19(3), 232–240.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., & Majid, A. (2013). How thought is mapped into words. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(6), 583–597.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., Gennari, S., Shi, M., & Wang, Y. (1999). Knowing versus naming: Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(2), 230–262.Google Scholar
Malt, B., & Wolff, P. (2010). Words and the mind: How words capture human experience. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mazzuca, C., Borghi, A. M., van Putten, S., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., & Majid, A. (2022). Gender is conceptualized in different ways across cultures. PsyArxiv Preprints. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/dpa8sGoogle Scholar
Mazzuca, C., Falcinelli, I., Michalland, A.-H., Tummolini, L., & Borghi, A. M. (2022). Bodily, emotional, and public sphere at the time of COVID-19. An investigation on concrete and abstract concepts. Psychological Research, 1–12.Google Scholar
Mazzuca, C., Majid, A., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., & Borghi, A. M. (2020). Gender is a multifaceted concept: Evidence that specific life experiences differentially shape the concept of gender. Language and Cognition, 12(4), 649–678.Google Scholar
Mehling, W. E., Acree, M., Stewart, A., Silas, J., & Jones, A. (2018). The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness, version 2 (MAIA-2). PLoS ONE, 13(12), e0208034.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, B., Kopecka, A., Bowerman, M., Gullberg, M., & Majid, A. (2012). Putting and taking events: A crosslinguistic perspective. Events of Putting and Taking: A Crosslinguistic Perspective, 595, 1–18.Google Scholar
Núñez, R., Cooperrider, K., Doan, D., & Wassmann, J. (2012). Contours of time: Topographic construals of past, present, and future in the Yupno valley of Papua New Guinea. Cognition, 124(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.007Google Scholar
Núñez, R. E., & Sweetser, E. (2006). With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 401–450. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_62Google Scholar
Olofsson, J. K., & Gottfried, J. A. (2015). The muted sense: Neurocognitive limitations of olfactory language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(6), 314–321.Google Scholar
Orsini, A., & Pezzuti, L. (2015). WAIS-4: Contributo alla taratura italiana (70–90 anni). Giunti OS.Google Scholar
Pecher, D. (2018). Curb your embodiment. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(3), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12311Google Scholar
Pecher, D., Boot, I., & Van Dantzig, S. (2011). Abstract concepts: Sensory-motor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. In Ross, B. H., ed., Psychology of learning and motivation, Elsevier, pp. 217–248.Google Scholar
Pezzuti, L., Dawe, J., & Borghi, A. M. (2021). Does mastering of abstract words decline with age? Educational Gerontology, 47(12), 527–542.Google Scholar
Rumiati, R. I., & Foroni, F. (2016). We are what we eat: How food is represented in our mind/brain. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1043–1054.Google Scholar
Santiago, J., Lupáñez, J., Pérez, E., & Funes, M. J. (2007). Time (also) flies from left to right. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 512–516.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2012). Language diversity and social action: A third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology, 53(3), 302–333. https://doi.org/10.1086/665697Google Scholar
Sinha, C., Sinha, V. D. S., Zinken, J., & Sampaio, W. (2011). When time is not space: The social and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture. Language and Cognition, 3(1), 137–169.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, 2, 1157–1249.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C., eds., Rethinking linguistic relativity Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–96. (Reprinted in modified form from Pragmatics, 1, 1991, pp. 7–26.)Google Scholar
Sullivan, K., & Bui, L.T. (2016). With the future coming up behind them: Evidence that time approaches from behind in Vietnamese. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 205–233.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, B., Roberts, S. G., & Lupyan, G. (2020). Cultural influences on word meanings revealed through large-scale semantic alignment. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 1029–1038.Google Scholar
Ulrich, R., & Maienborn, C. (2010). Left–right coding of past and future in language: The mental timeline during sentence processing. Cognition, 117(2), 126–138.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S.-T., Della Rosa, P. A., Vinson, D. P., Tettamanti, M., Devlin, J. T., & Cappa, S. F. (2013). The neural representation of abstract words: The role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex, 24(7), 1767–1777.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S.-T., Della Rosa, P. A., Vinson, D. P., Tettamanti, M., Devlin, J. T., & Cappa, S. F. (2014). The neural representation of abstract words: The role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex, 24(7), 1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht025Google Scholar
Villani, C., Lugli, L., Liuzza, M. T., & Borghi, A. M. (2019a). Le sotto-categorie dei concetti astratti: Uno studio empirico. Sistemi Intelligenti, 31(2), 235–252.Google Scholar
Villani, C., Lugli, L., Liuzza, M. T., & Borghi, A. M. (2019b). Varieties of abstract concepts and their multiple dimensions. Language and Cognition, 11(3), 403–430.Google Scholar
Villani, C., Lugli, L., Liuzza, M. T., Nicoletti, R., & Borghi, A. M. (2021). Sensorimotor and interoceptive dimensions in concrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 116, 104173.Google Scholar
Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107(3), 829–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, B. (2023). Abstract concepts and emotion: Cross-linguistic evidence and arguments against affective embodiment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378(1870), 20210368.Google Scholar
Winter, B., Marghetis, T., & Matlock, T. (2015). Of magnitudes and metaphors: Explaining cognitive interactions between space, time, and number. Cortex, 64, 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.10.015Google Scholar
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2011). Structure-mapping in metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1456–1488.Google Scholar
Yao, B., Keitel, A., Bruce, G., Scott, G. G., O’Donnell, P. J., & Sereno, S. C. (2018). Differential emotional processing in concrete and abstract words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(7), 1064.Google Scholar