Situating abstract concepts

Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 129-163

  Barsalou, Lawrence W ^a   Wiemer Hastings, Katja ^b  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928424039     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.007     Document Type: Chapter

References (55)

1. Barsalou, L.W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 577–609.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (2003a). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences 358, 1177– 1187.
3. Barsalou, L. W. (2003b). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes 18, 513–562.
4. Barsalou, L.W., Niedenthal, P. M., Barbey, A., & Ruppert, J. (2003). Social embodiment. In B. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning&Motivation, Vol. 43 (pp. 43–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
5. Barsalou, L. W., Sloman, S. A., & Chaigneau, S. E. (in press) The HIPE theory of function. In L. Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Representing functional features for language and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Boroditsky, L., & Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13, 185–188.
7. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1973). Considerations of some problems of comprehension. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual Information Processing. New York: Academic Press.
8. Bransford, J. D., & McCarrell, N. S. (1974). A sketch of a cognitive approach to comprehension: Some thoughts about understanding what it means to comprehend. InW. B.Weimer & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and the Symbolic Processes (pp. 377–399). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1997). Modelling parsing constraints with highdimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes 12, 177–210.
10. Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132, 163–201.
13. Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113, 464–486.
14. Galbraith, R. C., & Underwood, B. J. (1973). Perceived frequency of concrete and abstract words. Memory and Cognition 1, 56–60.
15. Gentner, D., Rattermann, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology 25, 524–575.
16. Glaser, W. R. (1992). Picture naming. Cognition 42, 61–106.
17. Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9, 558–569.
18. Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 441–461.
19. Kan, I. P., Barsalou, L. W., Solomon, K. O., Minor, J. K., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2003). Role of mental imagery in a property verification task: fMRI evidence for perceptual representations of conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology 20, 525–540.
20. Krauth-Gruber, S., Ric, F., Niedenthal, P. M., & Barsalou, L.W. (2004). The representation of emotion concepts: The role of perceptual simulation. Manuscript under review.
21. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s Problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104, 211–240.
24. Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin 129, 592–615.
25. Martin, A. (2001). Functional neuroimaging of semantic memory. In. R. Cabeza&A. Kingstone (Eds.), Handbook of Functional Neuroimaging of Cognition (pp. 153–186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. McCloskey, M., & Glucksberg, S. (1978). Natural categories:Well-defined or fuzzy sets? Memory and Cognition 6, 462–472.
27. McRae, K., & Cree, G. S. (2002). Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In E. M. E. Forde & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Categoryspecificity in mind and brain (pp. 211–249). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
28. Medin, D. L., & Ross, B. H. (1989). The specific character of abstract thought: Categorization, problem-solving, and induction. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, Vol. 5, (pp. 189–223). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. (1978). A context theory of lassification learning. Psychological Review 85, 207–238.
30. Murphy, G. L. (1997). Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition 62, 99–108.
31. Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review 92, 289–316.
32. Nelson, K. (Ed.) (1986). Event representations: Structure and Function in Development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations:ADual Coding Approach.NewYork: Oxford University Press.
34. Peterson, S. E., Fox, P. T., Posner, M. I., Mintus, M. A., & Raichle, M. E. (1989). Positron emission tomographic studies of the processing of single words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1, 153–170.
35. Pulvermüller, F. (1999).Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 253–336.
36. Richardson, D. C., Spivey, M. J., Barsalou, L.W., & McRae, K. (2003). Spatial representations activated during real-time comprehension of verbs. Cognitive Science 27, 767–780.
37. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 573–605.
38. Ross, B. H., & Kilbane, M. C. (1997). Effects of principle explanation and superficial similarity on analogical mapping in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 427–440.
39. Ross, B. H., Perkins, S. J., & Tenpenny, P. L. (1990). Reminding-based category learning. Cognitive Psychology 22, 460–492.
40. Schwanenflugel, P. J., Harnishfeger, K. K., & Stowe, R.W. (1988). Context availability and lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 499–520.
41. Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1991). Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The Psychology of Word Meaning (pp. 223–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abst act and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9, 82–102.
43. Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Stowe, R.W. (1989). Context availability and the processing of abstract and concrete words in sentences. Reading Research Quarterly 24, 114– 126.
44. Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L.W. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory & Cognition 32, 244–259.
45. Thompson-Schill, S. L., D’Esposito, M., Aguirre, G. K., & Farah, M. J. (1997). Role of left prefrontal cortex in retrieval of semantic knowledge: A reevaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 94, 14792–14797.
46. Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review 80, 352–373.
47. Wattenmaker, W. D., & Shoben, E. J. (1987). Context and the recallability of concrete and abstract sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13, 140–150.
48. Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Graesser, A. C. (1998). Contextual representation of abstract nouns: A neural network approach. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1036–1042). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Graesser, A. C. (2000). Representing abstract concepts with abstract structures. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 983–989). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Wiemer-Hastings, K., Krug, J., & Xu, X. (2001). Imagery, context availability, contextual constraint, and abstractness. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 1134–1139. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. (2004). Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Manuscript under review.
52. Wi ner, B. J. (1971). Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
53. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.).New York: Macmillan.
54. Wu, L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property generation. Manuscript in review.
55. Yeh, W., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). The situated character of concepts. Manuscript in review.