Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-2vtd9 Total loading time: 0.436 Render date: 2022-06-28T04:36:16.105Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Toward a theory of semantic representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Gabriella Vigliocco*
Affiliation:
University College London
Lotte Meteyard
Affiliation:
University College London
Mark Andrews
Affiliation:
University College London
Stavroula Kousta
Affiliation:
University College London
*
Correspondence addresses: Gabriella Vigliocco, Cognitive, Perceptual and Brain Sciences Research Department, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H OAP, UK. E-mail: g.vigliocco@ucl.ac.uk.

Abstract

We present an account of semantic representation that focuses on distinct types of information from which word meanings can be learned. In particular, we argue that there are at least two major types of information from which we learn word meanings. The first is what we call experiential information. This is data derived both from our sensory-motor interactions with the outside world, as well as from our experience of own inner states, particularly our emotions. The second type of information is language-based. In particular, it is derived from the general linguistic context in which words appear. The paper spells out this proposal, summarizes research supporting this view and presents new predictions emerging from this framework.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2009

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

Adolphs, R., Baron-Cohen, S. & Tranel, D.. 2002. Impaired recognition of social emotions following amygdala damage. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 14. 12641274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Algom, D., Chajut, E. & Lev, S.. 2004. A rational look at the Emotional Stroop phenomenon: A generic slowdown, not a Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133. 323338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altarriba, J., & Bauer, L. M.. 2004. The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: A comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. American Journal of Psychology 117. 389410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, M. A., Vinson, D. P. & Vigliocco, G.. 2009. Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review 116. 463498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balota, D., Cortese, M., Hutchison, K., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J., Nelson, D., Simpson, G., Treiman, R. & Yap, M.. 2007. The English Lexicon Project. Behaviour Research Methods 39(3). 445459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Brain and Behavioural Sciences 22. 577660.Google ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W., Barbey, A. K., Simmons, W. Kyle & Wilson, C. D.. 2003. Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(2). 8491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K. & Wilson, C. D.. in press. Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In Vega, M. De, Glenberg, A. M. & Graesser, A. C. (eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. 1998. Language acquisition in its developmental context. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. S. (eds.), Handbook of child psychology 2, 309370. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. & Ramscar, M.. 2002. The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science 13. 185188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boulenger, V., Deprez, V., Jeannerod, M., Nazir, T. A., Paulignan, Y. & Roy, A. C.. 2006. Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behaviour in the first 200msec of processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18(10). 16071615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J.. 1999. Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Stimuli, instruction manual and affective ratings (Technical report C-1). Gainesville, FL: The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Bradley, M. M. & Lang, P. J.. 2000. Affective reactions to acoustic stimuli. Psychophysiology 37. 204215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bretherton, I. & Beeghly, M.. 1982. Talking about internal states: The acquisition of an explicit theory of mind. Developmental Psychology 18. 906921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britten, K. H., Movshon, J. A., Newsome, W. T. & Shadlen, M. N.. 1992. The analysis of visual motion: A comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance. Journal of Neuroscience 12. 47454765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G. R., Fadiga, L.., Fogassi, L., Gallese, L., Seitz, V., Zilles, R. J., Rizzolatti, G. & Freund, H. J.. 2001. Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: An fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience 13. 400404.Google Scholar
Buccino, G., Riggio, L., Melli, G., Binkofski, F., Gallese, V. & Rizzolatti, G.. 2005. Listening to action-related sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: A combined TMS and behavioural study. Cognitive Brain Research 24. 355363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, C. & Lund, K.. 1997. Modeling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context-space. Language and Cognitive Processes 12. 177210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, G., Luu, P. & Posner, M. I.. 2000. Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in Cognitive Science 4. 215222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, A. M. & Loftus, E. F.. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82(6). 407428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S. 2000. Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cree, G. S. & McRae, K.. 2003. Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132. 163201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crutch, S. & Warrington, E.. 2005. Abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different representational frameworks. Brain 128. 615627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Decety, J. & Grezes, J.. 2006. The power of simulation: Imagining one's own and other's behaviour. Cognitive Brain Research. 1079. 414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, R. J. 2002. Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science 298(5596). 11911194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estes, Z. & Adelman, J. S.. 2008. Automatic vigilance for negative words is categorical and general. Emotion 8. 453457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eviatar, Z. & Zaidel, E.. 1991. The effects of word length and emotionality on right hemisphere contribution to lexical decision. Neuropschologia 29(5). 415428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farah, M. J. & McClelland, J. L.. 1991. A computational model of semantic memory impairment: Modality-specificity and emergent category specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 120. 339357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. 1976. The language of thought. Sussex: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., Garrett, M. F., Parkes, C. H. & Walker, E. C. T.. 1980. Against definitions. Cognition 8. 263367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firth, J. R. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. Studies in Linguistic Analysis. 132. Special Volume, Philological Society.Google Scholar
Gaillard, R., Cohen, L., Dehaene, S., Cul, A. Del, Naccache, L. & Vinckier, F.. 2006. Nonconscious semantic processing of emotional words modulates conscious access. PNAS 103. 75247529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallese, V. & Lakoff, G.. 2005. The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology 22. 455479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, R. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A. & Trueswell, J. C.. 2005. Hard words. Language Learning and Development 1. 2364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. & Robertson, D. A.. 2000. Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory & Language 43. 379401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. & Kaschak, M. P.. 2003. The body's contribution to language. In Ross, B. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 43, 93126. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. & Gallese, V.. submitted. Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension and production.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., Cattaneo, L. & Sato, M.. 2008. Use-induced motor plasticity affects the processing of abstract and concrete language. Current Biology 18. R290R291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graesser, A. C., Hopkinson, P. L. & Schmid, C.. 1987. Differences in interconcept organization between nouns and verbs. Journal of Memory and Language 26. 242253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, B. F. 1961. Figure coherence in the kinetic depth Effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology 62. 272282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, T. L., Steyvers, M. & Tenenbaum, J. B.. 2007. Topics in semantic representation. Psychological Review 114. 211244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harnad, S. 1990. The symbol grounding problem. Physica 42. 335.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. 1954. Distributional structure. Word 10. 146162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I. & Pulvermuller, F.. 2004. Somatotopic representation of actions words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 41. 301307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinton, G. E. & Shallice, T.. 1993. Lesioning an attractor network: Investigations of acquired dyslexia. Psychological Review 98. 7495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J. & Lui, F.. 1979. The semantic organization of some simple nouns and verbs. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 141179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendof, R. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanske, P. & Kotz, S. A.. 2007. Concreteness in emotional words: ERP evidence from a hemifield study. Brain Research 1138. 138148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., Aveyard, M., Blanchard, A. A., Madden, C. J., Therriault, D. J., Yaxley, R. H. & Zwaan, R.. 2005. Perception of motion affects language processing. Cognition 94. B79B89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaschak, M. P., Aveyard, M., Yaxley, R. H. & Zwaan, R.. 2006. Perception of auditory motion affects language processing. Cognitive Science 30. 733744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemmerer, D., Castillo, J. G., Talavage, T., Patterson, S. & Wiley, C.. 2007. Neuroanatomical distribution of five semantic components of verbs: evidence from fMRI, Brain and Language 107. 1643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kousta, S.-T., Vinson, D. P. & Vigliocco, G.. 2009. Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition 112. 473481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kousta, S., Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G. & Vinson, D. P. (submitted). The representation of abstract word meanings. Why emotion matters.Google Scholar
Lakof, G. & Johnson, M.. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. & Dumais, S.. 1997. A solutions to Plato's problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104. 211240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M. & Cuthbert, B. N.. 1990. Emotion, attention, and the startle reflex. Psychological Review 97. 377395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsen, R. J., Balota, D. A. & Mercer, K. A.. 2006. Lexical characteristics of words used in emotional Stroop experiments. Emotion 6. 6272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, E. & Sekuler, R.. 1976. Adaptation alters perceived direction of motion. Vision Research 16. 779781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Meyer, A. S. & Roelofs, A.. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, K. & Burgess, C.. 1996. Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers 28. 203208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, K., de Sa, V. R. & Seidenberg, M. S.. 1997. On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 126. 99130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meteyard, L., Baharami, B. & Vigliocco, G.. 2007. The perceptual grounding of motion verbs. Psychological Science 11. 10071013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meteyard, L. & Vigliocco, G.. 2008. The role of sensory and motor information in semantic representation: A review. In Calvo, P. and Gomila, A. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Meteyard, L., Bahrami, B., Vigliocco, G. & Zokaei, N.. 2008. Now you see it: Visual motion interferes with lexical decision on motion words. Current Biology 18. R732733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naccache, L., Adam, C., Baulac, M., Clemenceau, S., Cohen, L., Dehaene, S., Gaillard, R. & Hasboun, D.. 2005. A direct intracranial record of emotions evoked by subliminal words. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102. 77137717.Google Scholar
Nakamura, K., Hanajima, R., Hara, N., Kouider, S., Sakai, K., Takayama, Y. & Ugawa, Y.. 2003. Task-guided selection of the dual neural pathways for reading. Neuron 52. 557564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, D., McEvoy, C. & Schreiber, T.. 1996. Word association norms. http://u3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/.Google Scholar
Oliveri, M., Caramazza, A., Finocchiaro, C., Gangitano, M., Pascual-Leone, A. & Shapiro, K.. 2004. All talk and no action: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study of motor cortex activation during action word production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16(3). 374381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paivio, A. 1986. Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., Hauk, O., Ilmoniemi, R. J. & Nikulin, V. V.. 2005. Functional links between motor and language systems. European Journal of Neuroscience 21. 793797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ridgeway, D., Kuczaj, S. A. II & Waters, E.. 1985. Acquisition of emotion-descriptive language: Receptive and productive vocabulary norms for ages 18 months to 6 years. Developmental Psychology 21. 9013–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzolatti, G & Craighero, L.. 2004. The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience 27. 169192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. B.. 1975. Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7. 573605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabsevitz, D. S., Medler, D. A., Seidenberg, M. & Binder, J. R.. 2005. Modulation of the semantic system by word imageability. NeuroImage 27. 188200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scase, M. O., Braddick, O. J. & Raymond, J. E.. 1996. What is noise for the motion system? Vision Research 36. 25792586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schutze, H. 1992. Dimensions of meaning. IEEE Computer Society Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P. 1991. Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In Schwanenflugel, P. (ed.), The psychology of word meanings, 223250. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Simmons, K., Hamann, S. B., Harenski, C. N., Hu, X. P. & Barsalou, L. W.. 2008. fMRI evidence for word association and situation simulation in conceptual processing.Google Scholar
Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H. & Davis, C. J.. 2006. The Bristol norms for age of acquisition, imageability and familiarity. Behavior Research Methods 38. 598605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tettamanti, M., Buccino, G., Danna, M., Gallese, V., Saccuman, M. C. & Scifo, P.et al. 2005. Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17(2). 273281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsushima, Y., Sasaki, Y. & Watanabe, T.. 2006. Greater disruption due to failure of inhibitory control on an ambiguous distractor. Science 15(314). 17861788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. & Fauconnier, G.. 2000. Metaphor, metonymy, and binding. In Barcelona, A. (ed.), Metonymy and metaphor at the crossroads. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Damian, M. F., Vinson, D. P. & Levelt, W.. 2002. Semantic distance effects on object and action naming. Cognition 85. B61B69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W. & Garrett, M. F.. 2004. The meanings of object and action words. Cognitive Psychology 48. 422488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vigliocco, G., Warren, J., Siri, S., Arciuli, J., Scott, S. & Wise, R.. 2006. The role of semantics and grammatical class in the neural representation of words Cerebral Cortex 16. 17901796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G. & Vinson, D. P.. 2007. Semantic representation. In Gaskell, G. (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vinson, D. P., Vigliocco, G., Cappa, S. F. & Siri, S.. 2003. The breakdown of semantic knowledge: Insights from a statistical model of meaning representation. Brain and Language 86. 347442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Warrington, E. K. & McCarthy, R. A.. 1994. Multiple meaning systems in the brain: A case for visual semantics. Neuropsychologia 32. 14651473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wellman, H. M., Banerjee, M., Harris, P. L. & Sinclair, A.. 1995. Early understandings of emotion: Evidence from natural language. Cognition and Emotion 9. 117149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. 2004. The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In Ross, B. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 44. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
155
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Toward a theory of semantic representation
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Toward a theory of semantic representation
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Toward a theory of semantic representation
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *