David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (3):294-304 (2010)
Traditionally, the language faculty was supposed to be a device that maps linguistic inputs to semantic or conceptual representations. These representations themselves were supposed to be distinct from the representations manipulated by the hearer’s perceptual and motor systems. Recently this view of language has been challenged by advocates of embodied cognition. Drawing on empirical studies of linguistic comprehension, they have proposed that the language faculty reuses the very representations and processes deployed in perceiving and acting. I review some of the evidence and arguments in favor of the embodied view of language comprehension, and argue that none of it is conclusive. Moreover, the embodied view itself blurs two important distinctions: first, the distinction between linguistic comprehension and its typical consequences; and second, the distinction between representational content and vehicles. Given that these distinctions are well-motivated, we have good reason to reject the embodied view of linguistic understanding.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Michael L. Anderson (2003). Embodied Cognition: A Field Guide. Artificial Intelligence 149 (1):91-130.
Lawrence W. Barsalou (1999). Perceptual Symbol Systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):577-660.
Kristin L. Borreggine & Michael P. Kaschak (2006). The Action–Sentence Compatibility Effect: It's All in the Timing. Cognitive Science 30 (6):1097-1112.
Andy Clark (2006). Language, Embodiment, and the Cognitive Niche. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (8):370-374.
Raymond W. Gibbs, Dinara A. Beitel, Michael Harrington & Paul E. Sanders (1994). Taking a Stand on the Meanings of Stand: Bodily Experience as Motivation for Polysemy. Journal of Semantics 11 (4):231-251.
Citations of this work BETA
Raymond W. Gibbs & Marcus Perlman (2010). Language Understanding is Grounded in Experiential Simulations: A Response to Weiskopf. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (3):305-308.
Phillip Wolff & Dedre Gentner (2011). Structure-Mapping in Metaphor Comprehension. Cognitive Science 35 (8):1456-1488.
Similar books and articles
Max Louwerse & Louise Connell (2011). A Taste of Words: Linguistic Context and Perceptual Simulation Predict the Modality of Words. Cognitive Science 35 (2):381-398.
Cory D. Wright (2008). Embodied Cognition: Grounded Until Further Notice? British Journal of Psychology 99:157-164.
Fred Adams (2010). Embodied Cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (4):619-628.
Shannon Spaulding (2010). Embodied Cognition and Mindreading. Mind and Language 25 (1):119-140.
Sergeiy Sandler (2011). Reenactment: An Embodied Cognition Approach to Meaning and Linguistic Content. [REVIEW] Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 11 (4):583-598.
Glen Hoffmann (2009). Nativism: In Defense of the Representational Interpretation. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (27):303-315.
Glen Hoffmann (2009). Nativism. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (3):303-315.
Max M. Louwerse (2011). Symbol Interdependency in Symbolic and Embodied Cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (2):273-302.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads51 ( #35,910 of 1,169,151 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #85,406 of 1,169,151 )
How can I increase my downloads?