Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: Cognition, language and communication
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi and Gerard J. Steen
[Human Cognitive Processing 65] 2019
► pp. 75–99

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.
Keywords: blindness, bodily mimesis, conceptual development, embodied simulations, gesture, mental simulations
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
Published online: 6 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.65.05jel
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, T. C, & D’Oliveiro, L. 2003. PsyScript: a Macintosh Application for Scripting Experiments. Behavior Research Methods 35(4), 565–576.Google Scholar
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
2015. Embodiment, Simulation and Meaning, In N. Riemer (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Semantics (142–157). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Bolognesi, M., & Steen, G. 2018. Abstract Concepts: Structure, Processing and Modeling. Editors’ introduction. Topics in Cognitive Science 10(3), 490–500.Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M, & Pecher, D. 2011. Introduction to the Special Topic Embodied and Grounded Cognition, Frontiers in Psychology 2 (1–3), 187.Google Scholar
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
Calbris, G. 2003. From Cutting an Object to a Clear Cut Analysis. Gesture 3(1), 19–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. 2015. Image Schemas and Mimetic Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics and Gesture Studies, Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11(2), 417–432.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A. R. 1994. Descartes’ error: Emotion, rationality and the human brain. New York: Avon BooksGoogle Scholar
Donald, M. 1991. Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Harvard: University Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Gallese, V., & Sinigaglia, C. 2011. What is so special about embodied simulation? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 512–519.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. & Kaschak, M. 2002. Grounding Language in Action, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9(3), 558–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S. 1990. The Symbol Grounding Problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 42(1–3), 335–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Hostetter, A. & Alibali, M. 2008. Visible Embodiment: Gestures as Simulated Action, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 15(3), 495–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jelec, A. 2014. Are Abstract Concepts Like Dinosaur Feathers? Poznań, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 2012. Explaining Embodied Cognition Results. Topics in Cognitive Science 4(4), 773–785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Marstaller, L., & Burianová, H. 2015. A Common Functional Neural Network for Overt Production of Speech and Gesture, Neuroscience 284(0), 29–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and Mind. Chicago: University Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. 2007. Mind and Its Evolution: a Dual Coding Theoretical Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. 1962. Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York and London: Norton.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. W. 2007. Things and Places: How the Mind Connects with the World. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Schutze, H. 1992. Dimensions of meaning. Supercomputing, 787–796.Google Scholar
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
Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with Case Studies. Academy of Management Journal 50(1), 20–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S. 2014a. Toward a Theory of Semantic Representation, Language and Cognition 1(2), 219–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Wattenmaker, W. & Shoben, S. 1987. Context and the Recallability of Concrete and Abstract Sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology 13(1), 140–150.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Embodiment, language and mimesis. Body, Language and Mind 1, 297–337.Google Scholar
2013. The Mimesis Hierarchy of Semiotic Development: Five Stages of Intersubjectivity in Children. Public Journal of Semiotics 4(2), 47–70.Google Scholar
2014. Image Schemas, Mimetic Schemas and Children’s Gestures. Cognitive Semiotics 7(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. 2016. Situation Models, Mental Simulations, and Abstract Concepts in Discourse Comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 23(4), 1028–1034. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Dyrmo, Tomasz
2022. Gestural metaphorical scenarios and coming out narratives. Metaphor and the Social World 12:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 october 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.