The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing

Max M Louwerse, Patrick Jeuniaux

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Recent theories of cognition have argued that embodied experience is important for conceptual processing. Embodiment can be contrasted with linguistic factors such as the typical order in which words appear in language. Here, we report four experiments that investigated the conditions under which embodiment and linguistic factors determine performance. Participants made speeded judgments about whether pairs of words or pictures were semantically related or had an iconic relationship. The embodiment factor was operationalized as the degree to which stimulus pairs were presented in the spatial configurations in which they usually occur (i.e., an iconic configuration, e.g., attic presented above basement). The linguistic factor was operationalized as the frequency of the stimulus pairs in language. The embodiment factor predicted error rates and response time better for pictures, whereas the linguistic factor predicted error rates and response time better for words. These findings were modified by task, with the embodiment factor being strongest in iconicity judgments for pictures and the linguistic factor being strongest in semantic judgments for words. Both factors predicted error rates and response time for both semantic and iconicity judgments. These findings support the view that conceptual processing is both linguistic and embodied, with a bias for the embodiment or the linguistic factor depending on the nature of the task and the stimuli.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)96-104
Number of pages9
JournalCognition
Volume114
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Linguistics
linguistics
stimulus
Language
semantics
language
Embodiment
cognition
experiment
trend
performance
time
Stimulus
Response Time
experience

Keywords

  • Adult
  • Analysis of Variance
  • Choice Behavior
  • Cognition
  • Concept Formation
  • Humans
  • Judgment
  • Language
  • Language Tests
  • Photic Stimulation
  • Psychomotor Performance
  • Reaction Time
  • Regression Analysis
  • Visual Perception

Cite this

Louwerse, Max M ; Jeuniaux, Patrick. / The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. In: Cognition. 2010 ; Vol. 114, No. 1. pp. 96-104.
@article{90b1a150baf74215ac97d9a902610a66,
title = "The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing",
abstract = "Recent theories of cognition have argued that embodied experience is important for conceptual processing. Embodiment can be contrasted with linguistic factors such as the typical order in which words appear in language. Here, we report four experiments that investigated the conditions under which embodiment and linguistic factors determine performance. Participants made speeded judgments about whether pairs of words or pictures were semantically related or had an iconic relationship. The embodiment factor was operationalized as the degree to which stimulus pairs were presented in the spatial configurations in which they usually occur (i.e., an iconic configuration, e.g., attic presented above basement). The linguistic factor was operationalized as the frequency of the stimulus pairs in language. The embodiment factor predicted error rates and response time better for pictures, whereas the linguistic factor predicted error rates and response time better for words. These findings were modified by task, with the embodiment factor being strongest in iconicity judgments for pictures and the linguistic factor being strongest in semantic judgments for words. Both factors predicted error rates and response time for both semantic and iconicity judgments. These findings support the view that conceptual processing is both linguistic and embodied, with a bias for the embodiment or the linguistic factor depending on the nature of the task and the stimuli.",
keywords = "Adult, Analysis of Variance, Choice Behavior, Cognition, Concept Formation, Humans, Judgment, Language, Language Tests, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Regression Analysis, Visual Perception",
author = "Louwerse, {Max M} and Patrick Jeuniaux",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.002",
language = "English",
volume = "114",
pages = "96--104",
journal = "Cognition",
issn = "0010-0277",
publisher = "Elsevier Science BV",
number = "1",

}

The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. / Louwerse, Max M; Jeuniaux, Patrick.

In: Cognition, Vol. 114, No. 1, 01.2010, p. 96-104.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing

AU - Louwerse, Max M

AU - Jeuniaux, Patrick

PY - 2010/1

Y1 - 2010/1

N2 - Recent theories of cognition have argued that embodied experience is important for conceptual processing. Embodiment can be contrasted with linguistic factors such as the typical order in which words appear in language. Here, we report four experiments that investigated the conditions under which embodiment and linguistic factors determine performance. Participants made speeded judgments about whether pairs of words or pictures were semantically related or had an iconic relationship. The embodiment factor was operationalized as the degree to which stimulus pairs were presented in the spatial configurations in which they usually occur (i.e., an iconic configuration, e.g., attic presented above basement). The linguistic factor was operationalized as the frequency of the stimulus pairs in language. The embodiment factor predicted error rates and response time better for pictures, whereas the linguistic factor predicted error rates and response time better for words. These findings were modified by task, with the embodiment factor being strongest in iconicity judgments for pictures and the linguistic factor being strongest in semantic judgments for words. Both factors predicted error rates and response time for both semantic and iconicity judgments. These findings support the view that conceptual processing is both linguistic and embodied, with a bias for the embodiment or the linguistic factor depending on the nature of the task and the stimuli.

AB - Recent theories of cognition have argued that embodied experience is important for conceptual processing. Embodiment can be contrasted with linguistic factors such as the typical order in which words appear in language. Here, we report four experiments that investigated the conditions under which embodiment and linguistic factors determine performance. Participants made speeded judgments about whether pairs of words or pictures were semantically related or had an iconic relationship. The embodiment factor was operationalized as the degree to which stimulus pairs were presented in the spatial configurations in which they usually occur (i.e., an iconic configuration, e.g., attic presented above basement). The linguistic factor was operationalized as the frequency of the stimulus pairs in language. The embodiment factor predicted error rates and response time better for pictures, whereas the linguistic factor predicted error rates and response time better for words. These findings were modified by task, with the embodiment factor being strongest in iconicity judgments for pictures and the linguistic factor being strongest in semantic judgments for words. Both factors predicted error rates and response time for both semantic and iconicity judgments. These findings support the view that conceptual processing is both linguistic and embodied, with a bias for the embodiment or the linguistic factor depending on the nature of the task and the stimuli.

KW - Adult

KW - Analysis of Variance

KW - Choice Behavior

KW - Cognition

KW - Concept Formation

KW - Humans

KW - Judgment

KW - Language

KW - Language Tests

KW - Photic Stimulation

KW - Psychomotor Performance

KW - Reaction Time

KW - Regression Analysis

KW - Visual Perception

U2 - 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.002

DO - 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.09.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 19818435

VL - 114

SP - 96

EP - 104

JO - Cognition

JF - Cognition

SN - 0010-0277

IS - 1

ER -