Chapter 4
Are abstract concepts grounded in bodily mimesis?
In this chapter I address the role of mental simulations for processing and representing abstract concepts, suggesting that abstract concepts are grounded in mimetic schemas: dynamic, concrete and preverbal representations that have been observed in early childhood development. The analysis is based on recordings of gesture and speech of a congenitally blind child gathered over the course of three years. The child displayed an early preference for using mimetic strategies to explain abstract concepts but drifted toward more language-centered strategies as she grew older. Through behavioral data collected in a case-study, I provide empirical evidence to support the hypothesis that embodied mental simulation play a crucial role in abstract concepts’ cognitive grounding.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.How do concepts get their meaning?
- 2.1Are abstract concepts amodal?
- 2.2Mental simulations: Meaning construction inside and outside the body
- 2.2.1Concepts and language
- 2.2.2Concepts and sensory perception
- 2.2.3Concepts and action
- 2.2.4Concepts and emotion
- 2.3Experiential evidence for mental simulations
- 3.Are abstract concepts grounded in bodily mimesis?
- 3.1Situated cognition – concepts in context
- 3.2Bodily mimesis, mimetic schemas and concepts
- 3.3Mimesis vs. mental simulation
- 3.4Finding mimesis
- 4.Method
- 5.Analysis
- 5.1Gestures
- 5.2Mimetic behavior
- 6.Results
- 6.1To mime or not to mime: Explanations of abstract concepts
- 6.1.1Cross-modality
- 6.1.2Representation
- 6.1.3Volition
- 6.1.4Communicative function
- 6.2Intersubjectivity
- 7.Discussion
- 8.Conclusions
-
Notes
-
References
References (54)
References
Barsalou, L. W. 2015. Situated Conceptualization: Theory & Application, In Y Coello, MH Fischer (Eds.), Perceptual and Emotional Embodiment: Foundations of Embodied Cognition. East Sussex: Psychology Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barsalou, L. W, & Wiemer-Hastings, K. 2005. Situating Abstract Concepts, In D. Pecher, R. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding Cognition: the Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. (129–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barsalou, L. W., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., Simmons, K., & Hamann, B. 2005. Multimodal Simulation in Conceptual Processing. In W. Ahn, R. Goldstone, B. Love, A. Markman & P. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization Inside and Outside the Lab (249–270). Washington: American Psychological Association. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bates, T. C, & D’Oliveiro, L. 2003. PsyScript: a Macintosh Application for Scripting Experiments. Behavior Research Methods 35(4), 565–576.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergen, B. 2005. Mental Simulation in Literal and Figurative Language Understanding, In S. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.). The Literal and Nonliteral in Language and Thought (255–280). New York: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergen, B. 2015. Embodiment, Simulation and Meaning, In N. Riemer (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Semantics (142–157). London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergen, B., & Feldman, J. 2008. Embodied concept learning. In P. Calvo & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach (pp.313–332). San Diego: Elsevier. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bolognesi, M., & Steen, G. 2018. Abstract Concepts: Structure, Processing and Modeling. Editors’ introduction. Topics in Cognitive Science 10(3), 490–500.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Borghi, A. M, & Pecher, D. 2011. Introduction to the Special Topic Embodied and Grounded Cognition, Frontiers in Psychology 2 (1–3), 187.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brugman, H., & Russel, A. 2004. Annotating Multi-media/Multi-modal Resources with ELAN. In: Proceedings of LREC 2004, Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Casasanto, D. & Lozano, S. 2007. Meaning and Motor Action. Proceedings of 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.149–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chen, M., & Bargh, J. 1999. Consequences of Automatic Evaluation: Immediate Behavioral Predispositions to Approach or Avoid the Stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25(2), 215–224. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cienki, A. 2015. Image Schemas and Mimetic Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics and Gesture Studies, Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(2), 417–432.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cienki, A J, & Müller, C. 2008. Metaphor, Gesture, and Thought, in R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.483–501). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Damasio, A. R. 1994. Descartes’ error: Emotion, rationality and the human brain. New York: Avon Books![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Donald, M. 1991. Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Harvard: University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. 2005. The Brain’s Concepts: The Role of the Sensory-Motor System in Conceptual Knowledge, Cognitive Neuropsychology 22(3–4), 455–479. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gallese, V., & Sinigaglia, C. 2011. What is so special about embodied simulation? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 512–519.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glenberg, A. Havas, D., Becker, R., & Rinck, M. 2005. Grounding Language in Bodily States: The Case for Emotion. In D. Pecher and R. Zwaan, Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking
(115–128). Cambridge: University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Glenberg, A. & Kaschak, M. 2002. Grounding Language in Action, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9(3), 558–565. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harnad, S. 1990. The Symbol Grounding Problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 42(1–3), 335–346. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoffman, P., Jones, R.W. & Lambon Ralph, M.A. 2013. Be concrete to be comprehended: consistent imageability effects in semantic dementia for nouns, verbs, synonyms and associates. Cortex 49(5), 1206–1218.![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hostetter, A. & Alibali, M. 2008. Visible Embodiment: Gestures as Simulated Action, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 15(3), 495–514. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jelec, A. 2014. Are Abstract Concepts Like Dinosaur Feathers? Poznań, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jelec, A. & Jaworska, D. 2011. Mind: Meet Network. In V. Solovyev and V. Polyakov (Eds.), Proceeding of The XIII-th International Conference Cognitive Modeling in Linguistics (34–36), Kazan: KSU.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jelec, A. & Jaworska, D. 2014. Thoughts on the Table: Gesture as a Tool for Thinking in Blind and Visually Impaired Children. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting 1, 73–88. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture. Cambridge: University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G. 2012. Explaining Embodied Cognition Results. Topics in Cognitive Science 4(4), 773–785. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lausberg, H., Zaidel, E., Cruz, R., & Ptito, A. 2007. Speech-Independent Production of Communicative Gestures: Evidence from Patients with Complete Callosal Disconnection, Neuropsychologia 45(13), 3092–3104. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lenci, A., Baroni, M., Cazzolli, G., & Marotta, G. 2013. BLIND: a Set of Semantic Feature Norms From the Congenitally Blind. Behavior Research Methods 45(4), 1218–1233. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marghetis, T., & Bergen, B. 2014. Embodied Meaning, Inside and Out: The Coupling of Gesture and Mental Simulation, In C. Müller, A. J Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H Ladewig, D. McNeill (Eds.), Body – Language – Communication. Berlin, München, Boston: Walter de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marstaller, L., & Burianová, H. 2015. A Common Functional Neural Network for Overt Production of Speech and Gesture, Neuroscience 284(0), 29–41. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and Mind. Chicago: University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Moseley, R., & Pulvermüller, F. 2014. Nouns, Verbs, Objects, Actions, and Abstractions: Local fMRI Activity Indexes Semantics, Not Lexical Categories. Brain and Language 132, 28–42. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Paivio, A. 2007. Mind and Its Evolution: a Dual Coding Theoretical Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pecher, D., & Zeelenberg, R. 2015. Embodied Knowledge, In R. Scott, S. Kosslyn and M. Buchmann (Eds.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. (1–15) Hoboken: NJ: John Wiley and Sons. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Piaget, J. 1962. Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York and London: Norton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pulvermüller, F., Cook, C., Hauk, O. 2012. Inflection in Action: Semantic Motor System Activation to Noun- and Verb-Containing Phrases Is Modulated by the Presence of Overt Grammatical Markers, NeuroImage 60(2), 1367–1379 ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pulvermüller, F., Hauk, O., Nikulin, V., & Ilmoniemi, R. 2005. Functional Links Between Motor and Language Systems. European Journal of Neuroscience 21(3), 793–797. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pylyshyn, Z. W. 2007. Things and Places: How the Mind Connects with the World. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roxbury, T., McMahon, K., & Copland, D. 2014. An fMRI Study of Concreteness Effects in Spoken Word Recognition, Behavioral and Brain Functions. 10(1), 34. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schutze, H. 1992. Dimensions of meaning. Supercomputing
, 787–796.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schwanenflugel, P., & Shoben, E. 1983. Differential Context Effects in the Comprehension of Abstract and Concrete Verbal Materials, Journal of Experimental Psychology 9(1), 82–102.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with Case Studies. Academy of Management Journal 50(1), 20–24. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Dantzig, S., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. 2008. Perceptual Processing Affects Conceptual Processing. Cognitive Science: a Multidisciplinary Journal 32(3), 579–590. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S. 2014a. Toward a Theory of Semantic Representation, Language and Cognition 1(2), 219–247. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S. T., Della Rosa, P. A., Vinson, D. P., Tettamanti, M., Devlin, J. T., & Cappa, S. F W., 2014b. The neural representation of abstract words: the role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex 24(7), 1767–1777. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wattenmaker, W. & Shoben, S. 1987. Context and the Recallability of Concrete and Abstract Sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology 13(1), 140–150.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zlatev, J. 2005. What’s in a Schema? Bodily Mimesis and the Grounding of Language. In B. Hampe and J. E. Grady (Eds.), From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. 314 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zlatev, J. 2007. Embodiment, language and mimesis. Body, Language and Mind 1, 297–337.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zlatev, J. 2013. The Mimesis Hierarchy of Semiotic Development: Five Stages of Intersubjectivity in Children. Public Journal of Semiotics 4(2), 47–70.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zlatev, J. 2014. Image Schemas, Mimetic Schemas and Children’s Gestures. Cognitive Semiotics 7(1), 3–29.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zwaan, R. A. 2016. Situation Models, Mental Simulations, and Abstract Concepts in Discourse Comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 23(4), 1028–1034. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.