Cover not available

In:Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: Cognition, language and communication
Edited by Marianna Bolognesi and Gerard J. Steen
[Human Cognitive Processing 65] 2019
► pp. 1–13

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Introduction

Published online: 6 June 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.65.01bol
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.Contributions to the volume
  • 3.Conclusions
  • References
References (41)
References
Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. 2009. Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review 116, 463–498. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asmuth, J., & Gentner, D. 2017. Relational categories are more mutable than entity categories. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 70(10), 2007–2025. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 2016. On staying grounded and avoiding quixotic dead ends. Psychonomic Bulletin Review 23, 1122–1142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, K. W., & Wilson, C. D. 2008. Language and simulations in conceptual processing. In M. de Vega,  A. M. Glenberg, and A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment and meaning (245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. 2009. Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex 19(12), 2767–2796. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolognesi, M., & Steen, G. 2018a. Abstract Concepts: Structure, Processing and Modeling. Editors’ introduction. Topics in Cognitive Science 10(3), 490–500.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(Eds.), 2018b. Abstract Concepts: Structure, Processing and Modeling. Topics in Cognitive Science 10(3).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M., & Cimatti, F. 2009. Words as tools and the problem of abstract words meanings. In N. Taatgen, & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society, 2304–2309.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M., & Binkofski, F. 2014. Words as Social Tools: An Embodied View on Abstract Concepts . Berlin; New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. 2001. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43, 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. 2014. Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods 46, 3, 904–911. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Vega, M., Glenberg,  A. M., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.), 2008. Symbols, embodiment and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donald, M. 1991. Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition. Harvard: University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dove, G. 2016. Three symbol ungrounding problems: abstract concepts and the future of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin Review 23, 1109–1121. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D. 1982. Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Vol. 2. Language, thought, and culture (301–334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goetz, E. T., Sadoski, M., Stricker, A. G., White, T. S., & Wang, Z. 2007. The role of imagery in the production of written definitions. Reading Psychology 28, 241–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M., & Tenenbaum, J. B. 2007. Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review 114, 211–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hickok, G. & Mahon, B. Z. 2016. Arguments about the nature of concepts: Symbols, embodiment, and beyond. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23, 941–958. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. 2016. The meaning of “life” and other abstract words: Insights from neuropsychology. Journal of Neuropsychology 10(2), 317–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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, 1206–1218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferies, E., Frankish, C., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. 2006. Lexical and semantic binding in verbal short-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language 54, 81–98. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, M. N., Johns, B. T., & Recchia, G. 2012. The role of semantic diversity in lexical organization. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 66, 115–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kounios, J., & Holcomb, P. J. 1994. Concreteness effects in semantic processing – ERP evidence supporting dual-coding theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition 20, 804–823. Google Scholar logo with link to 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, 211–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. 2018. Knowing the meaning of a word by the linguistic and perceptual company it keeps. Topics in Cognitive Science 10(3) 573–589. .Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 3, 273–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. 1996. Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical cooccurrence. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers 28, 203–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marconi, D. 1997. Lexical Competence. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDonough, C., Song, L., Pasek, K. H., Golinkoff, R. M., & Lannon, R. 2012. An image is worth a thousand words: Why nouns tend to dominate verbs in early word learning. Developmental Science 14(2), 181–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pecher, D. 2018. Curb your embodiment. Topics in Cognitive Science 10(3), 501–517.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pecher, D., Boot, I., & Van Dantzig, S. 2011. Abstract concepts: Sensory-motor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation Vol. 54. (217–248). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recchia, G., & Jones, M. N. 2012. The semantic richness of abstract concepts. Frontiers in human neuroscience 6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romani, C., McAlpine, S., & Martin, R. C. 2008. Concreteness effects in different tasks: Implications for models of short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61, 292–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. 1983. Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 9(1), 82–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Akin, C., & Luh, W. M. 1992. Context availability and the recall of abstract and concrete words. Memory and Cognition 20, 96–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strain, E., Patterson, K., & Seidenberg, M. S. 1995. Semantic effects in single-word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 21, 1140–1154.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, L. K., Voice, J. K., & Moss, H. E. 2000. The interaction of meaning and sound in spoken word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 7, 320–326. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Norbury, C. & Ponari, M. 2017. How do young children learn abstract concepts? – Final public report. Project report. Nuffield foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiemer-Hastings, K., & Xu, X. 2005. Content differences for abstract and concrete concepts. Cognitive Science 29, 719–736. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winawer, J, Witthoft, N, Frank, MC, Wu, L, Wade, A, & Boroditsky, L. 2007. Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 104, 7780–7785. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. 2008. The Co-Evolution of Intersubjectivity and Bodily Mimesis. In J., Zlatev, Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., and Itkonen, E. (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (215–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue