The Upbeat of Language: Linguistic Context and Embodiment Predict Processing Valence Words

Building Bridges Across Cognitive Sciences Around the World - Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2012

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1709-1714

  Hutchinson, Sterling ^a   Louwerse, Max M ^a  

^a University of Memphis   (United States)

Author keywords

embodied cognition; gender differences; linguistic context; symbol interdependency; symbolic cognition; valence words

Indexed keywords

EMBODIED COGNITION; GENDER-DIFFERENCES; INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES; LINGUISTIC APPROACH; LINGUISTIC CONTEXT; NON-TRIVIAL; SYMBOL INTERDEPENDENCY; SYMBOLIC COGNITION; VALENCE WORD; VERTICAL CONFIGURATIONS;

EID: 84938518886     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Baayen, R., Davidson, D., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412.
2. Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
3. Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. de Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 245-283). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4. Brants, T., & Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram version 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
5. Crawford, E., Margolies, S., Drake, J., & Murphy, M. (2006). Affect biases memory of location: Evidence for the spatial representation of affect. Cognition & Emotion, 20, 1153-1169.
6. de Vega, M., Glenberg, A. M., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (2008). Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1-55.
8. rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1313-1318). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
9. Kimura, D. (2000). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
10. Kramer, J. H., Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & O'Donnell, L. (1997). Developmental sex differences in verbal learning. Neuropsychology, 11, 577-584.
11. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1981). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
13. Landauer, T., McNamara, D., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Linn, M. C., & Peterson, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479-1498.
15. Littell, R. C., Stroup, W., & Freund, R. J. (2002). SAS system for linear models. Cary, NC: SAS Publishing.
16. Louwerse, M. M. (2007). Symbolic or embodied representations: A case for symbol interdependency. In T. Landauer, D. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 107-120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Louwerse, M. M. (2008). Embodied relations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 838-844.
18. Louwerse, M. M. (2011). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. TopiCS in Cognitive Science, 3, 273-302.
19. Louwerse, M. M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: Linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. Cognitive Science, 35, 381-398.
20. Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114, 96-104.
21. Meier, B., Hauser, D., Robinson, M., Friesen, C., & Schjeldahl, K. (2007). What's "up" with god? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 699-710.
22. Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up. Psychological Science, 15, 243-247.
23. Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2008). The metaphorical representation of affect. Metaphor and Symbol, 20, 239-257.
24. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25. Pecher, D., van Dantzig, S., Boot, I., Zanzolie, K., & Huber, D. E. (2010). Congruency between word position and meaning is caused by task Induced spatial attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1-8.
26. Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A., (Eds.). (2005). Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27. Prinz, J. (2004). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Santana, E., & de Vega, M. (2011). Metaphors are embodied, and so are their literal counterparts. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1-12.
29. Schnall, S., & Clore, G. (2004). Emergent meaning in affective space: Conceptual and spatial congruence produces positive evaluations. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 1209-1214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbam.
30. Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1-21.
31. Semin, G., & Smith, E., (Eds.). (2008). Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
32. Stepper, S., & Strack, F. (1993). Proprioceptive determinants of emotional and nonemotional feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 211-220.
33. Wapner, S., & Werner, H. (1957). The effect of success and failure on space localization. Journal of Personality, 25, 752-756.
34. Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 35-62.