Article published in:
New Questions for the Next Decade
Edited by Gonia Jarema, Gary Libben and Victor Kuperman
[The Mental Lexicon 11:3] 2016
► pp. 350–374

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

Explaining semantics without semantics

| University of Alberta
There is a distinction in scientific explanation between the explanandum, statements describing the empirical phenomenon to be explained, and the explanans, statements describing the evidence that allow one to predict that phenomenon. To avoid tautology, these sets of statements must refer to distinct domains. A scientific explanation of semantics must be grounded in explanans that appeal to entities from non-semantic domains. I consider as examples eight candidate domains (including affect, lexical or sub-word co-occurrence, mental simulation, and associative learning) that could ground semantics. Following Wittgenstein (1954), I propose adjudicating between these different domains is difficult because of the reification of a word’s ‘meaning’ as an atomistic unit. If we abandon the idea of the meaning of a word as being an atomistic unit and instead think of word meaning as a set of dynamic and disparate embodied states unified by a shared label, many apparent problems associated with identifying a meaning’s ‘true’ explanans disappear. Semantics can be considered as sets of weighted constraints that are individually sufficient for specifying and labeling a subjectively-recognizable location in the high dimensional state space defined by our neural activity.
Published online: 31 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.11.3.02wes
References

References

Adelman, J.S., & Estes, Z.
(2013) Emotion and memory: A recognition advantage for positive and negative words independent of arousal. Cognition, 129(3), 530–535. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
American Psychiatric Association
(2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D.
(2009) Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463–498. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aziz-Zadeh, L., Fiebach, C.J., Naranayan, S., Feldman, J., Dodge, E., & Ivry, R.B.
(2008) Modulation of the FFA and PPA by language related to faces and places. Social Neuroscience, 3(3–4), 229–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L.W.
(2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Milin, P., Filipović Đurđević, D., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M.
(2011) An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118, 438–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R.H., Shaoul, C., Willits, J., & Ramscar, M.
2016). Comprehension without segmentation: A proof of concept with naive discrimination learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 106–128. Crossref
Bateson, G.
(1972) Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N.
(2013) Embodied construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 168–190). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, P.
(2000) How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., & Burgess, C.
(2001) Characterizing semantic space: Neighbourhood effects in word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin And Review, 8(3), 531–544. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L.J., & Meehl, P.E.
(1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dagleish, T.
(2004) The emotional brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 582–589.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel
(1991) Consciousness explained. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Desai, R.H., Conant, L.L., Binder, J.R., Park, H., & Seidenberg, M.S.
(2013) A piece of the action: Modulation of sensory-motor regions by action idioms and metaphors. Neuroimage, 83, 862–869. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R.W.
(1972) The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Durda, K., & Buchanan, L.
(2008) Windsor: Windsor improved norms of distance and similarity of representations of semantics. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 705–712. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J.L.
(2009) On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 547–582. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G.
(1948) On sense and reference. The Philosophical Review, 57(3), 209–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freud, S.
(1891) On aphasia. Trans. by E. Stengel. New Southgate, NH: The Cheswick Press.Google Scholar
Fincher-Kiefer, R.
(2001) Perceptual components of situation models. Memory and Cognition 29, 336–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J.J.
(1977) The Theory of Affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology (pp. 127–143). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A.M.
(1997) What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A.M., & Kaschak, M.P.
(2002) Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, V.D.
(1997) Freud and his aphasia book: Language and the sources of psychoanalysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Z.
(1970) Papers on syntax. H. Hiz (Ed). Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, Fx
(2004) Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hebb, D.
(1949) The organization of behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hempel, C.G., & Oppenheim, P.
(1948) Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hollis, G., & Westbury, C.
In press). The principals of meaning: Extracting semantic dimensions from co-occurrence models of semantics. Accepted for publication in: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
Hollis, G., Westbury, C., & Lefsrud, L.
In press). Extrapolating human judgments from skip-gram vector representations of word meaning. Accepted for publication in: The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
James, W.
(1890/1950) The principle of psychology (vol. 1 and 2). New York, NY: Dover Publications Inc.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Knowing through the body. Philosophical Psychology, 4, 3–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johns, B.T., & Jones, M.N.
(2015) Generating structure from experience: A retrieval-based model of language processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3), 233–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M.N., & Mewhort, D.J.K.
(2007) Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. Psychological Review, 114, 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kousta, S.-T., Vinson, D.P., & Vigliocco, G.
(2009) Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 112, 473–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kugler, P.N. & Turvey, M.T.
(1987) Information, natural law, and the self-assembly of rhythmic movement. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kussmaul, A.
(1877) Die störungen der sprache: Versuch einer pathologie der sprache. Leipsig, Germany: Vogel.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
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(2), 211–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lifchitz, A., Jhean-Larose, S., & Denhière, G.
(2009) Effect of tuned parameters on an LSA multiple choice questions answering model. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1201–1209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lund, K., & Burgess, C.
(1996) Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 203–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H. & Varela, F.
(1980) Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McKinley, M.J., & Johnson, A.K.
(2004) The physiological regulation of thirst and fluid intake. News in Physiological Sciences, 19, 1–6.Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J.
(2013) Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Retrieved from arXiv: 1301.3781Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G.S., & Dean, J.
(2013) Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in neural information processing systems 26 (pp. 3111–3119). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mingers, J.
(1995) Self-Producing Systems: Implications and Applications of Autopoiesis. New York: Plenum Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moliere
(1673/2003) The Imaginary Invalid [La Malade Imaginaire]. Downloaded October 1 2015 from: http://​www​.gutenberg​.org​/9​/0​/7​/9070.
Morris, C.W.
(1946) Signs, language, and behavior. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C.E.
(1952) The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 197–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., & Tannenbaum, P.H.
(1957).The measurement of meaning. Urbana, Il: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Plaster, K., & Polinsky, M.
(2007) Women are not dangerous things: Gender and categorization. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, 12. Downloaded September 10, 2016 from: http://​scholar​.harvard​.edu​/files​/mpolinsky​/files​/Dyirbal​.pdf.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F.
(1999) Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 253–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, J., Westbury, C., Kean, J., & Peele, J.
(2012) Arbitrary symbolism in natural language revisited: When word forms carry meaning. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, J., Hung, J., & Westbury, C.
In press). Non‐Arbitrariness in mapping word form to meaning: Cross‐linguistic formal markers of word concreteness. Accepted for publication in: Cognitive science.
Rescorla, R.A., & Wagner, A.R.
(1972) A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A.H. Black & W.F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R.A.
(1988) Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think. American Psychologist, 43(3), 151–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roy, D.K., & Pentland, A.P.
(2002) Learning words from sights and sounds: A computational model. Cognitive Science, 26, 113–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D.E.
(1979) Some problems with the notion of literal meanings. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 71–82). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C.
(2008) HiDEx: The high dimensional explorer. Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from http://​www​.psych​.ualberta​.ca​/~westburylab​/downloads​.html.Google Scholar
(2010) Exploring lexical co-occurrence space using HiDEx. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 393–413. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) HiDEx: The high dimensional explorer. In P. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 230–246). IGI Global. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L.B., Suanda, S.H., & Yu, C.
(2014) The unrealized promise of infant statistical word-referent learning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 18(5), 251–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. & You, C.
(2008) Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situtaional statistics. Cognition, 106, 1558–1568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Speer, N.K., Reynolds, J.R., Swallow, K.M., & Zacks, J.M.
(2009) Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor experiences. Psychological Science, 20(8), 989–999. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E. & Smith, L.B.
(1994) A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E.
(1993) The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Boston, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S.
(2009) Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 219–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Westbury, C.
(2013) You can’t drink a word: Lexical and individual emotionality affect subjective familiarity judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43(5), 631–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Westbury, C., Keith, J., Briesemeister B.B., Hofmann M.J., & Jacobs A.M.
(2015) Avoid violence, rioting and outrage; Approach celebration, delight, and strength: Using large text corpora to compute valence, arousal, and the basic emotions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1599–1622. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Westbury, C.F., Shaoul, C., Hollis, G., Smithson, L., Briesemeister, B.B., Hofmann, M.J., & Jacobs, A.M.
(2013) Now you see it, now you don’t: On emotion, context, & the algorithmic prediction of human imageability judgments. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(991). Crossref.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.
(1958) Philosophical investigations. New York, NY: McMillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Yu, C. & Ballard, D.H.
(2007) A unified model of early word learning: Integrating statistical and social cues. Neurocomputing, 70, 2149–2165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R.A.
(2004) The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B.H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

Günther, Fritz & Marco Marelli
2020. Trying to make it work: Compositional effects in the processing of compound “nonwords”. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 73:7 ► pp. 1082 ff. Crossref logo
Günther, Fritz, Marco Marelli & Jens Bölte
2020. Semantic transparency effects in German compounds: A large dataset and multiple-task investigation. Behavior Research Methods 52:3 ► pp. 1208 ff. Crossref logo
Günther, Fritz, Marco Alessandro Petilli & Marco Marelli
2020. Semantic transparency is not invisibility: A computational model of perceptually-grounded conceptual combination in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language 112 ► pp. 104104 ff. Crossref logo
Günther, Fritz, Marco Alessandro Petilli, Alessandra Vergallito & Marco Marelli
2020. Images of the unseen: extrapolating visual representations for abstract and concrete words in a data-driven computational model. Psychological Research Crossref logo
Günther, Fritz, Luca Rinaldi & Marco Marelli
2019. Vector-Space Models of Semantic Representation From a Cognitive Perspective: A Discussion of Common Misconceptions. Perspectives on Psychological Science 14:6 ► pp. 1006 ff. Crossref logo
Hofmann, Markus J., Chris Biemann, Chris Westbury, Mariam Murusidze, Markus Conrad & Arthur M. Jacobs
2018. Simple Co-Occurrence Statistics Reproducibly Predict Association Ratings. Cognitive Science 42:7 ► pp. 2287 ff. Crossref logo
Hollis, Geoff & Chris Westbury
2018. When is best-worst best? A comparison of best-worst scaling, numeric estimation, and rating scales for collection of semantic norms. Behavior Research Methods 50:1 ► pp. 115 ff. Crossref logo
Jacobs, Arthur M.
2019. Sentiment Analysis for Words and Fiction Characters From the Perspective of Computational (Neuro-)Poetics. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 6 Crossref logo
Jacobs, Arthur M. & Annette Kinder
2019. Computing the Affective-Aesthetic Potential of Literary Texts. AI 1:1 ► pp. 11 ff. Crossref logo
Kumar, Abhilasha A.
2020. Semantic memory: A review of methods, models, and current challenges. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Crossref logo
Petilli, Marco A., Fritz Günther, Alessandra Vergallito, Marco Ciapparelli & Marco Marelli
2021. Data-driven computational models reveal perceptual simulation in word processing. Journal of Memory and Language 117 ► pp. 104194 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 february 2021. 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.