Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:55:13.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ideomotor recycling theory for language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

Arnaud Badets
Arnaud Badets*
Affiliation:
CNRS, Institut de Neurosciences Cognitives et Intégratives d'Aquitaine (UMR 5287), Université de Bordeaux, France. arnaud.badets@u-bordeaux.frhttp://www.incia.u-bordeaux1.fr/spip.php?article255
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For language acquisition and processing, the ideomotor theory predicts that the comprehension and the production of language are functionally based on their expected perceptual effects (i.e., linguistic events). This anticipative mechanism is central for action–perception behaviors in human and nonhuman animals, but a recent ideomotor recycling theory has emphasized a language account throughout an evolutionary perspective.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. A. (1971) A closed-loop theory of motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior 3:111–50.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. L. (2010) Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34:245–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badets, A., Koch, I. & Philipp, A. M. (2016) A review of ideomotor approaches to perception, cognition, action, and language: Advancing a cultural recycling hypothesis. Psychological Research 80:1–15. doi: 10.1007/s00426-014-0643-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badets, A. & Osiurak, F. (2015) A goal-based mechanism for delayed motor intention: Considerations from motor skills, tool use and action memory. Psychological Research 79:345–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Badets, A. & Rensonnet, C. (2015) Une approche idéomotrice de la cognition. L'Année psychologique 115:591–635.Google Scholar
Cisek, P. & Kalaska, J. F. (2001) Common codes for situated interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24:883–84.Google Scholar
Corballis, M. C. (2009) Mental time travel and the shaping of language. Experimental Brain Research 192:553–60.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2004) Cooperation and the evolution of symbolic communication. In: Evolution of communication systems, ed. Oller, D. K. & Griebel, U., pp. 237–56. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. & Vrba, E. S. (1982) Exaptation: A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8:4–15.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. (1970) Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review 77:73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. (1972) On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology 94:52–57.Google Scholar
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G. & Prinz, W. (2001) The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24:849–78.Google Scholar
Kashima, Y., Bekkering, H. & Kashima, E. S. (2013) Communicative intentions can modulate the linguistic perception-action link. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36:33–34.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2013a) An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36: 329–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W. & Capaldi, E. J. (2010) A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin 136:943–74.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. M., Diedrichsen, J. & Flanagan, J. R. (2011) Principles of sensorimotor learning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12:739–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolpert, D. M., Ghahramani, Z. & Flanagan, J. R. (2001) Perspectives and problems in motor learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5:487–94.Google Scholar