Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:28:53.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constructing meaning for up and down situated sentences: Is a sentence more than the sum of its words?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2015

MARTIN LACHMAIR ,
CAROLIN DUDSCHIG ,
IRMGARD DE LA VEGA  and
BARBARA KAUP
MARTIN LACHMAIR*
Affiliation:
Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien
CAROLIN DUDSCHIG
Affiliation:
Universität Tübingen
IRMGARD DE LA VEGA
Affiliation:
Universität Tübingen
BARBARA KAUP
Affiliation:
Universität Tübingen
*
†Address for correspondence: Martin Lachmair, Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Schleichstr. 6, 72076 Tübingen, Germany. tel.: +49 (0)7071 979273; fax: +49 (0)7071 979100; e-mail: m.lachmair@iwm-kmrc.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study was concerned with the question whether comprehension is based on mental simulation processes beyond the word level. In Experiment 1, participants were presented with coherent sentence pairs, consisting of a context sentence and a target sentence. Target sentences ended with a word referring to an entity with a typical location in the upper vertical space (e.g., bird in There she sees a bird). Context sentences either supported the target entity’s typical location or not (Anna looks to the sky vs. Anna looks to the ground, respectively). Participants responded to the final word of the sentence pair by pressing an up- or a down-key. The results showed a main effect of response direction (faster up compared to down responses) as well as an interaction between context location and response direction. In Experiment 2, participants were presented with incoherent sentence pairs with the same context sentences and different target sentences (whereby the target word was kept identical), but in an incoherent manner (target sentence: On the poster one sees a bird). Here, the results showed a main effect of response direction but no interaction. The same result was obtained in Experiment 3, in which participants were presented with word pairs consisting of an up- or down-context word (e.g., sky vs. ground) and an up-target word (e.g., bird). Overall, the results provide evidence for the view that comprehension involves simulation processes at the word level as well as simulation processes at the sentence or discourse level.

Keywords

language comprehensionexperiential simulationscompositional processes of sentences
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 604 - 628
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

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

references

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergen, B., Shane, L., Matlock, T., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 733–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergen, B., & Wheeler, K. (2010). Grammatical aspect and mental simulation. Brain and Language, 112(3), 150–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghi, A. M., Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Putting words in perspective. Memory & Cognition, 32(6), 863–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bub, D. N., & Masson, M. E. J. (2010). On the nature of hand-action representations evoked during written sentence comprehension. Cognition, 116, 394–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buccino, G., Baumgaertner, A., Colle, L., Buechel, C., Rizzolatti, G., & Binkofski, F. (2007). The neural basis for understanding non-intended actions. NeuroImage, 36, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buccino, G., Riggio, L., Melli, G., Binkofski, F., Gailee, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2005). Listening to action-related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: a combined TMS and behavioral study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudschig, C., de la Vega, I., & Kaup, B. (2014). Embodiment and second-language: automatic activation of motor responses during processing spatially associated L2 words and emotion L2 words in a vertical Stroop paradigm. Brain and Language, 132, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudschig, C., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., De Filippis, M., & Kaup, B. (2012). From top to bottom: spatial shifts of attention caused by linguistic stimuli. Cognitive Processing, 13, 151–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dudschig, C., Souman, J., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., & Kaup, B. (2013). Reading ‘sun’ and looking up: the influence of language on saccadic eye movements in the vertical dimension. PloS one, 8(2), e56872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, B. M., Kamide, Y., & Scheepers, C. (2014). Hearing ‘moon’ and looking up: word-related spatial associations facilitate saccades to congruent locations. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Quebec City, Canada.Google Scholar
Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Head up, foot down: object words orient attention to the object’s typical location. Psychological Science, 19, 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glenberg, A. M., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Riggio, L., Palumbo, D., & Buccino, G. (2008). Language modulates motor system activity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 905–919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaup, B., De Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., & Dudschig, C. (2012). When up-words meet down-sentences: evidence for word-or sentence-based compatibility effects? Cognitive Processing, 13, 203–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaup, B., de la Vega, I., Strozyk, J., & Dudschig, C. (2016). The role of sensorimotor processes in meaning composition. To appear in Fischer, M. H. & Coello, Y. (Eds.), Behavioural and neural foundations of embodied cognition. Oxford: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Madden, C. J., Therriault, D. J., Yaxley, R. H., Aveyard, M. E., Blanchard, A. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Perception of motion affects language processing. Cognition, 94, B79–B89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C., De Filippis, M., de la Vega, I., & Kaup, B. (2011). Root versus roof: automatic activation of location information during word processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1180–1188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Spatial language. In Nadel, L. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 131–137). London: Nature Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 253–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raposo, A., Moss, H. E., Stamatakis, E. A., & Tyler, L. K. (2009). Modulation of motor and premotor cortices by actions, action words and action sentences. Neuropsychologia, 47, 388–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richter, T., Zwaan, R. A., & Hoever, I. (2009). Acquiring experiential traces in word–referent learning. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1187–1196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornton, T., Loetscher, T., Yates, M. J., & Nicholls, M. E. (2013). The highs and lows of the interaction between word meaning and space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(4), 964–973.Google ScholarPubMed
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In Ross, B. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 44 (pp. 35–62): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Madden, C. J. (2005). Embodied sentence comprehension. In Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.), Grounding cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought (pp. 224–245). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2004). Lateralization of object-shape information in semantic processing. Cognition, 94, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed