Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2015
…
11 pages
1 file
By the mainstream view in psychology and neuroscience, concepts are informational units, rather stable, and are represented in propositional format. In the view I will outline, instead, concepts correspond to patterns of activation of the perception, action and emotional systems which are typically activated when we interact with the entities they refer to. Starting from this embodied and grounded approach to concepts, I will focus on different research lines and present some experimental evidence concerning concepts of objects, concepts of actions, and abstract concepts. I will argue that, in order to account for abstract concepts, embodied and grounded theories should be extended.
Journal of Physiology-Paris
Many studies have demonstrated that the sensory and motor systems are activated during conceptual processing. Such results have been interpreted as indicating that concepts, and important aspects of cognition more broadly, are embodied. That conclusion does not follow from the empirical evidence. The reason why is that the empirical evidence can equally be accommodated by a 'disembodied' view of conceptual representation that makes explicit assumptions about spreading activation between the conceptual and sensory and motor systems. At the same time, the strong form of the embodied cognition hypothesis is at variance with currently available neuropsychological evidence. We suggest a middle ground between the embodied and disembodied cognition hypotheses -grounding by interaction. This hypothesis combines the view that concepts are, at some level, 'abstract' and 'symbolic', with the idea that sensory and motor information may 'instantiate' online conceptual processing.
Frontiers in Psychology
Journal of Physiology-paris, 2008
Many studies have demonstrated that the sensory and motor systems are activated during conceptual processing. Such results have been interpreted as indicating that concepts, and important aspects of cognition more broadly, are embodied. That conclusion does not follow from the empirical evidence. The reason why is that the empirical evidence can equally be accommodated by a 'disembodied' view of conceptual representation that makes explicit assumptions about spreading activation between the conceptual and sensory and motor systems. At the same time, the strong form of the embodied cognition hypothesis is at variance with currently available neuropsychological evidence. We suggest a middle ground between the embodied and disembodied cognition hypotheses -grounding by interaction. This hypothesis combines the view that concepts are, at some level, 'abstract' and 'symbolic', with the idea that sensory and motor information may 'instantiate' online conceptual processing.
Philosophical Psychology, 2019
According to the embodied cognition hypothesis, the mental symbols used for higher cognitive reasoning, such as the making of deductive and inductive inferences, both originate and reside in our sensory-motor-introspective and emotional systems. The main objection to this view is that it cannot explain concepts that are, by definition, detached from perception and action, i.e., abstract concepts such as TRUTH or DEMOCRACY. This objection is usually merely taken for granted and has yet to be spelled out in detail. In this paper, I distinguish three different versions of this objection (one semantic and two epistemic versions). Once these distinctions are in place, we can begin to see the solutions offered in the literature in a new, more positive, light.
In the last years, Embodied and Grounded Cognition (EGC) Theories have been proved to successfully account for a great variety of phenomena pertaining cognitive processes as diverse as perception, action, and language comprehension. In this chapter we will overview and discuss recent evidence favouring an EGC approach to language and concepts, keeping in mind that one of the greatest problem that EGC has to face is the representation in mind of abstract concepts, such as FREEDOM or FANTASY. Since abstract concepts lack a single and concrete referent, the re-enactment of the different experiences connected to each concept could be more difficult than for concrete concepts. We argue that language can be the tool that helps us to keep together the variety of heterogeneous experiences evoked by abstract concepts. The input of others, who can help us to understand the word meaning, for example explaining it to us, can be more crucial for the acquisition of abstract than of concrete concepts. In the last part of the chapter we discuss the implications for educational theories and practice of an EGC view that highlights not only the importance of sensorimotor information but also of the bodily and social aspects of language. In our view not only sensorial and motor processes, but also linguistic and social experiences may be considered as constitutive for the individual cognitive development, in order to improve abstract reasoning and categorization.
2011
In the last 10–15 years, the embodied and grounded (E and G) cognition approach has become widespread in all fields related to cognitive (neuro) science, and a lot of evidence has been collected. The approach proposes that cognitive activity is grounded in sensory–motor processes and situated in specific contexts and situations. This special topic had two aims: first, give an idea of the field in its broadness. Second, focus on some challenges for E and G theories.
Grounding cognition: The role of perception and …, 2005
In the last decade many researchers have obtained evidence for the idea that cognition shares processing mechanisms with perception and action. Most of the evidence supporting the grounded cognition framework focused on representations of concrete concepts, which leaves open the question how abstract concepts are grounded in sensory-motor processing. One promising idea is that people simulate concrete situations and introspective experiences to represent abstract concepts [Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher, & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 129–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.], although this has not yet been investigated a lot. A second idea, which more researchers have investigated, is that people use metaphorical mappings from concrete to abstract concepts [Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.]. According to this conceptual metaphor theory, image schemas structure and provide sensory-motor grounding for abstract concepts. Although there is evidence that people automatically activate image schemas when they process abstract concepts, we argue that situations are also needed to fully represent meaning.
A great deal of research has focused on the question of whether or not concepts are embodied as a rule. Supporters of embodiment have pointed to studies that implicate affective and sensorimotor systems in cognitive tasks, while critics of embodiment have offered nonembodied explanations of these results and pointed to studies that implicate amodal systems. Abstract concepts have tended to be viewed as an important test case in this polemical debate. This essay argues that we need to move beyond a pretheoretical notion of abstraction. Against the background of current research and theory, abstract concepts do not pose a single, unified problem for embodied cognition but, instead, three distinct problems: the problem of generalization, the problem of flexibility, and the problem of disembodiment. Identifying these problems provides a conceptual framework for critically evaluating, and perhaps improving upon, recent theoretical proposals.
Frontiers in Cognition, 2011
This essay proposes and defends a pluralistic theory of conceptual embodiment. Our concepts are represented in at least two ways: (i) through sensorimotor simulations of our interactions with objects and events and (ii) through sensorimotor simulations of natural language processing. Linguistic representations are “dis-embodied” in the sense that they are dynamic and multimodal but, in contrast to other forms of embodied cognition, do not inherit semantic content from this embodiment. The capacity to store information in the associations and inferential relationships among linguistic representations extends our cognitive reach and provides an explanation of our ability to abstract and generalize. This theory is supported by a number of empirical considerations, including the large body of evidence from cognitive neuroscience and neuropsychology supporting a multiple semantic code explanation of imageability effects.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Anthropology and Philosophy, 2006
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2013
Neuropsychologia, 2017
British Journal of Psychology, 99: 157–164, 2008
La nuova critica
Mind, Culture, and Activity, 2011
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2018
RIFL - Rivista Italiana Filosofia del Linguaggio, 2013
Acta Psychologica, 2005
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 2014
Psychological Bulletin, 2017
Psychology of Language and Communication, 2018
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 2015
Applications of Mathematics in …, 2010