Indexical understanding of instructions

Discourse Processes

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 1-26

  Glenberg, Arthur M ^a   Robertson, David A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002534230     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01638539909545067     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, P. N. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 723-767.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
3. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
4. Chiesi, H. I., Spilich, G. J., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 275-290.
5. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Clark, H. H. (1997). Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes, 23, 567-598.
7. Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (1995). Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8. Fillmore, C. J. (1997). Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
9. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
10. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1-19.
11. Glenberg, A. M. (1998, August). Indexical understanding: An embodied approach to sentence meaning. In N. Newton (Chair), Embodiment as a basis for cognition. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Madison, WI.
12. Glenberg, A. M., & Langston, W. E. (1992). Comprehension of illustrated text: Pictures help to build mental models. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 129-131.
13. Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (in press). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language.
14. Glenberg, A. M., Robertson, D. A., Jansen, J. L., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (in press). Not propositions. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research.
15. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
16. Langston, W., Kramer, D. C., & Glenberg, A. M. (1998). The representation of space of mental models derived from text. Memory & Cognition, 26, 246-262.
17. MacWhinney, B. (1998). The emergence of language from embodiment. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 213-256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
18. Mani, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1982). The mental representation of spatial descriptions. Memory & Cognition, 2, 181-187.
19. Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64-73.
20. Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 31-43.
21. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
22. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Mills, C. B., Diehl, V. A., Birkmire, D. P., & Mou, L.-C. (1995). Reading procedural texts: Effects of purpose for reading and predictions of reading comprehension models. Discourse Processes, 20, 79-107.
24. Müller, H. M., & Kutas, M. (1996). What's in a name? Electrophysiological differences between spoken nouns, proper nouns, and one's own name. NeuroReport, 8, 221-225.
25. Newton, N. (1996). Foundations of understanding. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
26. Rinck, M., Hähnel, A., Bower, G., & Glowalla, U. (1997). The metrics of spatial situation models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 622-637.
27. Robertson, D. A., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Robertson, R. R. W. (1999). Advantage of referential specificity, first mention, and suppression and enhancement affect memory for characters in sentences. Manuscript submitted for publication.
28. Robertson, D. A., Glenberg, A. M., & Members of the 1997/98 Honors Seminar in Cognitive Psychology. (1999). Grounding symbols and computing meaning: A supplement to Glenberg & Robertson. Available: http://psych.wisc.edu/glenberg/supplement_jml_g&r.html
29. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.
30. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.