The WAT Proposal and the Role of Language

Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Psychology book series (BRIEFSPSYCHOL)

Abstract

The chapter illustrates the words as social tools (WAT) theory on abstract concepts and words. The theory has five main tenets. (1) embodiment and grounding. Both concrete and abstract concepts and words are embodied and grounded in perception, action, and emotional systems; (2) importance of language. For the representation of abstract concepts, the linguistic mediation is more crucial than for the representation of concrete ones, given that the scaffolding function of the physical environment is less powerful for abstract than for concrete concepts; (3) acquisition modality. The acquisition modality of abstract concepts and words relies more on language than the acquisition of concrete concepts and words; (4) brain representation. While both activate the sensorimotor network, the linguistic network is activated more by abstract than by concrete concepts and words. (5) linguistic diversity. Abstract concepts and words are more affected by differences between languages than concrete ones; that is, their meaning changes more depending on the cultural and linguistic milieu in which they are learned. Overall, abstract concepts do not differ from concrete ones in embodiment, but differ from them in acquisition modality, in brain representation, in variability across languages, and they are also likely to differ in the assessment of quantity. Once outlined the main principles of the theory, in the rest of the chapter we discuss the reasons of the dominance of language and the role played by labels and linguistic explanations for abstract concepts and words, as well as the possible mechanisms underlying the activation of its motor counterpart, the mouth effector.

Keywords

Abstract concepts Abstract words Embodied cognition Labels Explanations Inner language 

References

  1. Andrews, M., Frank, S. & Vigliocco, G. (2013). Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science. Google Scholar
  2. Badets, A., & Pesenti, M. (2010). Creating number semantics through finger movement perception. Cognition, 115, 46–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought (pp. 129–163). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlin, B., Breedlove, D., & Raven, P. (1973). General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist, 74, 214–242.Google Scholar
  6. Borghi, A.M., & Caruana, F. (in press). Embodiment theories. In J. Wright (Ed.) International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). S. Cappa (Ed.) Section of cognitive neuroscience.Google Scholar
  7. Borghi, A. M., & Cimatti, F. (2009). Words as tools and the problem of abstract words meanings. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2304–2309). Amsterdam: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  8. Borghi, A.M., & Cimatti, F. (2012). Words are not just words: the social acquisition of abstract words. RIFL—ISSN: 2036-6728. doi: 10.4396/20120303
  9. Borghi, A. M., Flumini, A., Cimatti, F., Marocco, D., & Scorolli, C. (2011). Manipulating objects and telling words: A study on concrete and abstract words acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00015 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cangelosi, A., & Parisi, D. (1998). The emergence of a “language” in an evolving population of neural networks. Connection Science, 10, 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cienki, A., & Mittelberg, I. (2013). Creativity in the forms and functions of gestures with speech. In T. Veale, K. Feyaerts, & C. Forceville (Eds.), Creativity and the agile mind: A multi-disciplinary study of a multi-faceted phenomenon (applications of cognitive linguistics) (pp. 231–252). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind. Embodiment action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125(3), 452–465.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D’Ausilio, A., Pulvermueller, F., Salmas, P., Bufalari, I., Begliomini, C., & Fadiga, L. (2009). The motor somatotopy of speech perception. Current Biology, 19(5), 381–385.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deng, W., & Sloutsky, V.M. (2012). The role of linguistic labels in inductive generalization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.10.011
  17. Della Rosa, P.A., Catricalà, E., Vigliocco, G., & Cappa, S.F. (2010). Beyond the abstract-concrete dichotomy: mode of acquisition, concreteness, imageability, familiarity, age of acquisition, context availability, and abstractness norms for a set of 417 Italian words. Behavioral Research Methods, 42(4), 1042–1048Google Scholar
  18. Farias, A. R., Garrido, M. V., & Semin, G. R. (2013). Converging modalities ground abstract categories: The case of politics. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e60971. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060971 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer, M. H. (2008). Finger counting habits modulate spatial-numerical associations. Cortex, 44, 386–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer, M. H. (2011). The spatial mapping of numbers—its origin and flexibility. In Y. Coello & A. Bartolo (Eds.), Language and action in cognitive neurosciences. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fischer, M. H., & Brugger, P. (2011). When digits help digits: spatial–numerical associations point to finger counting as prime example of embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 260. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00260 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gallese, V., Fogassi, L., Fadiga, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. (1986). Categories and induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ghio, M., Vaghi, M.M.S., & Tettamanti, M. (2013). Fine-grained semantic categorization across the abstract and concrete omains. PLoS ONE, 8(6): e67090. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067090
  25. 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, 379–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Granito, C., Scorolli, C., & Borghi, A.M. (in preparation). Alice in Legoland: A study on abstract words acquisition.Google Scholar
  27. Gliga, T., Volein, A., & Csibra, G. (2010). Verbal labels modulate perceptual object processing in one-year-old infants. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2781–2789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review, 114(2), 211–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jirak, D., Menz, M., Buccino, G., Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. (2010). Grasping language. A short story on embodiment. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 711–720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Landauer, T., & Dumais, S. (1997). A solutions to Plato’s problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewkowicz, D. J. (1994). The development of intersensory perception in human infants. In D. J. Lewkowicz & R. Lickliter (Eds.), The development of perception: Comparative perspectives (pp. 165–203). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Lindemann, O., Alipour, A., & Fischer, M. H. (2011). Finger counting habits in Middle-Eastern and Western individuals: An online survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 566–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Louwerse, M. M. (2011). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lugli, L., Baroni, G., Gianelli, C., Borghi, A.M., Nicoletti, R. (2012). Self, others, objects: How this triadic interaction modulates our behavior. Memory and Cognition, 40, 1373–1386Google Scholar
  36. Lupyan, G. (2012). What do words do? Toward a theory of language-augmented thought. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 255–297). London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lupyan, G., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). The evocative power of words: Activation of concepts by verbal and nonverbal means. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 170–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Malt, B., Gennari, S., & Imai, M. (2010). Lexicalization patterns and the world to words mapping. In B. C. Malt & S. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the mind. How words capture new experience. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48, 788–804.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mittelberg, I. (2013). The exbodied mind: Cognitive-semiotic principles as motivating forces in gesture. In: C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S.H. Ladewig, D. McNeill & S. Tessendorf (eds.), Bodylanguagecommunication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Handbooks of linguistics and communication science (Vol. 38(1), pp. 750–779). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  41. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935, 1958). In: C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1–6 (1931–35), A. W. Burks (Ed.), vols. 7–8 (1958), Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prinz, J. J. (2002). Furnishing the mind concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Prinz, J. J. (2012). Beyond human nature. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  45. Ranzini, M., Lugli, L., Anelli, M., Carbone, R., Nicoletti, R., & Borghi, A.M. (2011). Graspable objects shape number processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, art.147, doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00147
  46. Reilly, J., Westbury, C., Kean, J., & Peelle, J. E. (2012). Arbitrary symbolism in natural language revisited: When word forms carry meaning. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42286. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042286 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192. Google Scholar
  48. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyews-Braem, P. (1976). Basic level in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sakreida, K., Scorolli, C., Menz, M.M., Heim, S., Borghi, A.M.,& Binkofski, F. (2013). Are abstract action words embodied? An fMRI investigation at the interface between language and motor cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 125Google Scholar
  50. Scorolli, C., Jacquet, P., Binkofski, F., Nicoletti, R., Tessari, A., & Borghi, A.M. (2012). Abstract and concrete phrases processing differently modulates cortico-spinal excitability. Brain Research, 1488, 60–71. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.10.004
  51. Sloutsky V.M., & Fisher, A.V. (2004). When development and learning decrease memory. Evidence against category-based induction in children. Psychological science, 15(8), 533–548Google Scholar
  52. Sloutsky V.M., & Napolitano, A.C. (2003). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Preference for auditory modality in children. Child Development, 74(3), 822–33Google Scholar
  53. van Elk, M., van Schie, H. T., & Bekkering, H. (2010). From left to right: Processing acronyms referring to names of political parties activates spatial associations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(11), 2202–2219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  55. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wauters, L.N., Tellings, A.E.J.M., van Bon, W.H.J., & van Haaften, A.W. (2003). Mode of acquisition of word meanings: The viability of a theoretical construct. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 385–406Google Scholar
  57. Waxman, S.R., & Markow, D.B. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: Evidence from 12–13-month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 257–302Google Scholar
  58. Yoshida, H. & Smith, L.B. (2005). Linguistic cues enhance the learning of perceptual cues. Psychological Science, 16(2), 90–95Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PsychologyUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Cognitive Sciences and TechnologiesItalian National Research CouncilRomeItaly
  3. 3.RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations