Symbol systems and perceptual representations

Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages

  Kintsch, Walter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Language; Meaning; Memory; Symbol systems; Verbal meaning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922760782     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0008     Document Type: Chapter

References (37)

1. Barsalou L (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
2. Bransford JD, Franks JJ (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331-50.
3. Bruner JS (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Ceci SJ, Bruck M (1995). Jeopardy in the Courtroom: The Scientific Analysis of Children s Testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Chomsky N (1966). Cartesian Linguistics. New York, NY: Harper.
6. DeLoache JS (2004). Becoming symbol-minded. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 66-70.
7. Donald M (1991). Origins of the Modern Nind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Feldman J, Narayanan S (2004). Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain and Language, 89, 385-92.
9. Franzke M, Kintsch E, Caccamise D, Johnson N, Dooley S (2005). Summary Street®:computer support for comprehension and writing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33, 53-80.
10. Glenberg AM, Robertson DA (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: a comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 379-401.
11. Goldstone RL, Feng Y, Rogosky B (2005). Connecting concepts to the world and each other. In D Pecher, RA Zwaan, Eds. Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking (pp. 292-314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Harnad S (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42, 335-46.
13. Howell SR, Jankowicz D, Becker S (2005). A model of grounded language acquisition:Sensorimotor features improve lexical and grammatical learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 258-76.
14. Jones MN, Mewhort DJK (2007). Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychological Review, 114, 1-37.
15. Jones MN, Kintsch W, Mewhort DJK (2006). High-dimensional semantic space accounts of priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 534-52.
16. Karmiloff-Smith A (1992). Beyond Modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Kintsch W (1974). The Representation of Meaning in Memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Kintsch W (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Kintsch W (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25, 173-202.
20. Kintsch W (2007). Meaning in context. In TK Landauer, D McNamara, S Dennis, W Kintsch, Eds. The Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (pp. 89-106). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
21. Kintsch W (in press). How the mind computes the meaning of metaphor: a simulation based on LSA. In R Gibbs, Ed. Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22. Kintsch W, Bowles AR (2002). Metaphor comprehension: what makes a metaphor difficult to understand? Metaphor and Symbol, 17, 249-62.
23. Landauer TK, Dumais ST (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-40.
24. Landauer TK, McNamara D, Dennis S, Kintsch W, Eds (2006). The Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Louwerse MM (2007). Symbolic and embodied representations: a case for symbol interdependency In TK Landauer, D McNamara, S Dennis, W Kintsch, Eds. The Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (pp. 107-20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Lund K, Burgess C (1996) Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical cooccurrence. Behaviour Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers 28, 203-8.
27. Mangalath P (2006). Beyond Latent Semantic Analysis: Cognitive Component Resolution with Independent Component Analysis [doctoral thesis]. Denver, CO: University of Colorado.
28. Nelson K (1996). Language in Cognitive Development The Emergence of the Mediated Mind. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29. J Nivre, J Hall, J Nilsson (2006). MaltParser: a data-driven parser-generator for dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2006), May 24-26,2006, Genoa, Italy.
30. Paivio A (1969). Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 76, 241-63.
31. Salomon KO, Barsalou LW (2001). Representing properties locally. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 129-69.
32. Shepard RN (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317-23.
33. Steyvers M, Griffiths T (2007). Probabilistic topic models. In TK Landauer, D McNamara, S Dennis, W Kintsch, Eds. The Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis (pp. 427-48). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Stone JV (2004). Independent Component Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Wade-Stein D, Kintsch E (2004). Summary Street: interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 333-62.
36. Yamada H, Matsumoto Y (2003). Statistical dependency analysis with support vector machines. Proceedings of IWPT (pp. 195-206). Nancy, France: IWPT.
37. Zwaan RA, Madden CJ, Yaxley RH, Aveyard ME (2004). Moving words: dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611-19.