Symbolic or Embodied Representations: A Case for Symbol Interdependency

Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 107-120

  Louwerse, Max M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79751498035     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203936399-11     Document Type: Chapter

References (59)

1. Anderson, J. R. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Worth.
2. Bobrow, D. G., and Winograd, T. (1977). An overview of KRL-0, a knowledge representation language. Cognitive Science, 1, 3-46.
3. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
4. Bloom, P. (2000).Howchildrenlearn themeanings ofwords. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1-28.
6. Bransford, J. D., and Franks, J. J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331-350.
7. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
8. Collins, A., and Quillian, M. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240-248.
9. Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the human brain. London: Allen Lane.
10. Fikes, R. E., and Kehler, T. (1985). The role of frame-based representation in knowledge representation and reasoning. Communications of the ACM, 28, 904-920.
11. Fincher-Kiefer, R. (2001). Perceptual components of situation models. Memory and Cognition, 29, 336-343
12. Fodor, J. A. (1980). Methodological solipsism considered as a research strategy in cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 63-109.
13. Foltz, P.W., Kintsch, W., andLandauer, T.K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285-307.
14. Glenberg, A.M. (1997). Whatmemoryis for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1-55.
15. Glenberg, A. M., and Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 558-565.
16. Glenberg, A. M., and 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.
17. Goldstone, R., and Barsalou, L.W. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65, 231-262.
18. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., and Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
19. Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Harter, D., andPerson, N., andthe TRG. (2000). Using latent semantic analysis to evaluate the contributions of students in AutoTutor. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 128-148.
20. Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammarwith particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H.Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73-113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Griffiths, T., and Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 5228-5235.
22. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42, 335-346.
23. Kaschak, M. P., Madden, C. J., Therrriault, D. J., Yaxley, R. H., Aveyard, M. E., Blanchard, A. A., et al. (2004). Perception of motion affects language processing. Cognition, 94, B79-B89.
24. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension:Acomputational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 257-266.
27. Kintsch, W., andKeenan, J. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number ofpropositions inthe base structure of the text. CognitivePsychology, 5, 257-274.
28. Klatzky, R. L., Pellegrino, J. W., McCloskey, D. P., and Doherty, S. (1989). Can you squeeze a tomato? The role of motor representations in semantic sensibility judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 56-77
29. Kruskal, J. B., and Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage University Series.
30. Lakoff, G., andJohnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
31. Landauer, T.K. (2002). On the computational basis of learning and cognition: Arguments from LSA. In N. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 43-84). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
32. Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T. (1997). Asolution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
33. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P.W., and Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
34. Lenat, D. B., and Guha, R. V. (1990). Building large knowledge-based systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
35. Louwerse, M. M. (2004). Semantic variation in idiolect and sociolect: Corpus linguistic evidence from literary texts. Computers and the Humanities, 38, 207-221.
36. Louwerse, M. M., Hu, X., Cai, Z., Ventura, M., andJeuniaux, P. (in press). The embodiment of amodal symbolic knowledge representations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools.
37. Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., McNamara, D. S., andGraesser, A.C. (2004). Variations in language and cohesion across written and spoken registers. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, and T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 843-848). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. Louwerse, M. M., and Ventura, M. (2005). How children learn the meaning of words and how LSA does it (too). Journal of Learning Sciences, 14, 301-309.
39. Lund, K., andBurgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces fromlexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 28, 203-208.
40. Matlock, T, Ramscar, M., andBoroditsky, L. (2005). The experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science, 29, 655-664.
41. McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B.andBoonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy trainer for active reading and thinking. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 222-233.
42. Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211-277). New York: McGraw-Hill.
43. Pecher, D., andZwaan, R.A. (Eds.). (2005). Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Peirce, C. S. (1923). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A. Burks, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973). What the mind’s eye tells the mind’s brain: A critique of mental imagery. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 1-24.
46. Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1984). Computation and cognition: Towards a foundation for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
47. Quesada, J. F., Kintsch, W., and Gomez, E. (2002). Acomputational theory of complex problem solving using Latent Semantic Analysis. In W. D. Gray and C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 750-755). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Quillian, M. (1966). Semantic memory. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.
49. Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350.
50. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. RoschandB. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51. Rumelhart, D., andOrtony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. Anderson, R. Spiro, and W. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 99-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Saussure, F. de. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale [Course in general linguistics]. Lausanne: Payot.
53. Schank, R. C., andAbelson, R. P. (1977) Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54. Searle, J.R. (1980). Minds, brains, andprograms. Behavioral andBrainSciences, 3, 417-57.
55. Smith, E. E., Rips, L. J., and Shoben, E. J. (1974). Semantic memory and psychological semantic. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 8, 1-45. New York: Academic Press.
56. Wanner, E. (1975). On remembering, forgetting, and understanding sentences. The Hague: Mouton.
57. Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 35-62). New York: Academic Press.
58. Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., and Yaxley. R. H. (2002). Do language comprehenders routinely represent the shapes of objects? Psychological Science, 13, 168-171.
59. Zwaan, R. A., and Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic-relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 954-958.