Cover not available
Part of
Polylogues on The Mental Lexicon: An exploration of fundamental issues and directions
Edited by Gary Libben, Gonia Jarema and Victor Kuperman
[Not in series 238] 2021
► pp. 45–76

Chapter 3
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

Explaining semantics without semantics

| University of Alberta
Article outline
  • Thesis
  • Commentaries on Westbury thesis
    • Ray Jackendoff commentary on Westbury thesis
    • James Myers commentary on Westbury thesis
    • Dorit Ravid commentary on Westbury thesis
    • Russel Richie commentary on Westbury thesis
    • Benjamin Tucker commentary on Westbury thesis
  • The article
    • What makes an explanation non-dormitive?
    • Mapping lexical semantics into other domains
      • Domain 1: Co-occurrence of linguistic units
      • Domain 2: Extensions to discriminative learning
      • Domain 3: Word form
      • Domain 4: Action in the real world
      • Domain 5: Real world simulation
      • Domain 6: Embodied human experience
      • Domain 7: Metaphorical extensions of embodied human experience
      • Domain 8: Affect
    • Semantics as a mapping from multiple domains
      • a.Semantic representations are not unitary
      • b.Semantic access is not one single process
    • Explaining semantics without semantics
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.238.03wes
References (77)
References
Adelman, J. S., and Estes, Z. (2013). Emotion and memory: A recognition advantage for positive and negative words independent of arousal. Cognition, 129(3), 530–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463–98. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourget, D., & Chalmers, D. J. (2014). What do philosophers believe?. Philosophical Studies, 170(3), 465-500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, L., Westbury, C., & Burgess, C. (2001). Characterizing Semantic Space: Neighbourhood Effects in Word Recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin And Review, 8(3), 531–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dagleish, T. (2004). The emotional brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 582–589.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durda, K., & Buchanan, L. (2008). WINDSORS: Windsor improved norms of distance and similarity of representations of semantics. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 705–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive science, 33(4), 547–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. (1948). On sense and Reference. The Philosophical Review, 57:3, 209–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freud, S. (1891). On Aphasia. [E. Stengel, Trans.] New Southgate, NH: The Cheswick Press.Google Scholar
Fincher-Kiefer, R. (2001). Perceptual components of situation models. Memory and Cognition 29, 336–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The Theory of Affordances. In: Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology (p. 127–143). [R. Shaw and J. Bransford, Eds.] Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565. DOI logoGoogle 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, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301–307. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollis, G., & Westbury, C. (2016). The principals of meaning: Extracting semantic dimensions from co-occurrence models of semantics. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(6), 1744–1756. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollis, G., Westbury, C., & Lefsrud, L. (2017). Extrapolating Human Judgments from Skip-gram Vector Representations of Word Meaning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(8), 1603–1619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, W. (1890/1950). The Principle of Psychology, Volumes One and Two. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Knowing through the body. Philosophical Psychology, 4, 3–18. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 203–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of The Living. Drodrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKinley, M. J. & Johnson, A. K. (2004). The physiological regulation of thirst and fluid intake. News in Physiological Sciences, 19, 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Retrieved from arXiv: 1301.3781.Google 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, USA: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moliere. (1673/2003). The Imaginary Invalid [La Malade Imaginaire]. Downloaded October 1, 2015 from: [URL]
Morris, C. W. (1946). Signs, language, and behavior. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E. (1952). The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 197–237. DOI logoGoogle 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: [URL]
Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 253–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reilly, J., Hung, J., & Westbury, C. (2017). Non-Arbitrariness in Mapping Word Form to Meaning: Cross-Linguistic Formal Markers of Word Concreteness. Cognitive science, 41(4), 1071–1089. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, D. K. & Pentland, A. P. (2002). Learning words from sights and sounds: A computational model. Cognitive Science, 26, 113–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. (1979). Some problems with the notion of literal meanings. In: A. Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, p. 71–82.Google Scholar
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2008). HiDEx: The high dimensional explorer. Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from [URL]
(2010). Exploring lexical co-occurrence space using HiDEx. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 393–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). HiDEx: The High Dimensional Explorer. In: Applied Natural Language Processing and Content Analysis: Identification, Investigation, and Resolution. Editors P. McCarthy and C. Boonthum. IGI Global, 230–246.Google 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. & You, C. (2008). Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situtaional statistics. Cognition, 106, 1558–1568. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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., and Rosch, E. (1993). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science And Human Experience. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 219–247. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar