rstb.royalsocietypublishing.orgReview Cite this article: Dove G. 2018 Language as a disruptive technology: abstract concepts, embodiment and the flexible mind. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 373: 20170135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0135 Accepted: 12 December 2017 One contribution of 23 to a theme issue 'Varieties of abstract concepts: development, use and representation in the brain'. Subject Areas: neuroscience, cognition, behaviour Keywords: concepts, embodied cognition, grounded cognition, language, semantic memory Author for correspondence: Guy Dove e-mail: guy.dove@louisville.edu& 2018 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.Language as a disruptive technology: abstract concepts, embodiment and the flexible mind Guy Dove Department of Philosophy, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA GD, 0000-0003-0470-7006 A growing body of evidence suggests that cognition is embodied and grounded. Abstract concepts, though, remain a significant theoretical challenge. A number of researchers have proposed that language makes an important contribution to our capacity to acquire and employ concepts, particularly abstract ones. In this essay, I critically examine this suggestion and ultimately defend a version of it. I argue that a successful account of how language augments cognition should emphasize its symbolic properties and incorporate a view of embodiment that recognizes the flexible, multimodal and task-related nature of action, emotion and perception systems. On this view, language is an ontogenetically disruptive cognitive technology that expands our conceptual reach. This article is part of the theme issue 'Varieties of abstract concepts: development, use and representation in the brain'.1. Introduction What is the role of the language system in embodied cognition? This paper offers a theoretical framework for answering this pressing question. Building on Andy Clark's suggestion that we are natural-born cyborgs [1], it proposes that language can be thought of as a disruptive cognitive technology that transforms the embodied mind. Just as the adoption of new technologies often upends our social, cultural and economic lives, the acquisition of a natural language alters a child's cognitive purview. It disrupts embodied cognition by offering a new medium through which to capture experience [2]. Experience with language leads to the development of a distributed neural system able to manipulate linguistic symbols in a compositional and productive fashion. The neurologically realized language system amounts to a distributed action/perception control system that likely relies on hierarchically organized network hubs. Linguistic forms themselves are grounded because they involve actions, sights and sounds, but they are free to capture content in a manner that is not tied to their grounding [3]. On this view, language is an external symbol system-one that has the computational features associated with amodal symbol systems-that we learn to manipulate in an embodied and grounded way. It is just one of the externally sourced symbol technologies that we may acquire [4]. For example, learning how to perform long division on paper requires a similar grounded manipulation of, and interaction with, physical symbols [5,6]. The specialness of language has to do with the pervasive role that it plays in our cognitive lives and the way in which it complements embodied cognition by enhancing our capacity to encode information about the world that goes beyond our immediate experience. This proposal creates a number of predictions. First and foremost, it predicts that much of our conceptual system is not grounded in language but is instead directly grounded in action, emotion and perception systems. Importantly, such thinking without words has its own compositionality and productivity [7,8]. Second, while language is likely to contribute to all types of concepts, it is more likely to be helpful with abstract ones. Third, as a cognitive tool, the role of language should be flexible, context-sensitive and experience-dependent. Finally, because a natural rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil.T 2language is an acquired neuroenhancement, its influence should change over the course of development. The purpose of this essay is to outline and defend the disruptive technology view. The argument proceeds at two levels: the general and the specific. While much of the essay is aimed at the big picture and endeavours to show that the neuroenhancement view integrates and unifies seemingly disparate threads of current research, the last section examines the way in which it offers a promising explanation of a particular linguistic/conceptual phenomenon-metaphor. Together these elements provide a compelling case for thinking that language augments and extends the cognitive reach of the embodied mind. rans.R.Soc.B 373:201701352. Embodiment The idea that our concepts are fundamentally embodied has gained a great deal of currency in the psychological and brain sciences. Many hold that the neural mechanisms typically used to experience the world are also used to think about it. By these lights, cognition involves the selective reuse of action, emotion and perception systems to carry out situated simulations of our experience [9,10]. Because of their distal connection to experience, abstract concepts represent a particular challenge for this approach [11]. In this essay, I explore and defend the notion that language provides an especially important scaffold for embodied concepts in general and abstract ones in particular. A diverse body of evidence supports the thesis that our concepts are embodied and grounded [9,10,12]. For example, Pecher et al. [13] find a modality-switching cost associated with a property verification task. Participants verified verbally expressed facts involving one modality (such as the fact that leaves rustle) more rapidly after verifying a fact involving the same modality (such as the fact that blenders make noise) than after verifying a fact involving a different modality (such as the fact that cranberries are tart). Hearing motion-related verbs interferes with visual motion processing [14] and visual motion processing interferes with the processing of motionrelated verbs [15]. Neuroimaging data provide further evidence of conceptual embodiment. Reading odour-related words (e.g. cinnamon, garlic and jasmine) elicits increased activation in the primary olfactory cortex relative to neutral control words [16], and reading action words (e.g. lick, pick and kick) elicits increased activation in the cortical regions associated with performing the relevant movements [17]. The specificity of the modulated activity can be quite fine-grained. Rightand left-handers exhibit increased activation in the premotor areas that are contralateral to their dominant hands on lexical decisions involving manual action verbs [18]. In addition, the degree to which expert hockey players comprehend hockeyaction sentences better than controls correlates positively with activity in the left dorsal premotor cortex [19].3. The trouble with abstract concepts All concepts involve abstraction. Horizontal generalization from individual exemplars (e.g. specific dogs) to categories (e.g. the category of dog) lies at the very heart of conceptualization. Vertical generalization linking categories together creates conceptual hierarchies (e.g. pugs are a type of dog and dogs are a type of animal). The ubiquity of abstraction suggests that abstractconcepts such as DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM, LEPTON, NUMBER and TRUTH may simply represent one end of a spectrum. Researchers often demarcate abstract concepts by one of several measures, including body–object interaction [20], concreteness [21], context-availability [22], emotional valence [23], imageability [24], semantic richness [25] and strength of perceptual experience [26]. Importantly, while these measures correlate to some extent, they are not equivalent [23]. Such divergence suggests that abstract concepts may form a heterogeneous class. Indeed, a cogent argument can be made that researchers have been too cavalier in assuming that abstract concepts are homogeneous [27]. In this paper, I shall not make this assumption. My argument will simply be that language has an important role to play in concepts in general and abstract concepts in particular. This role may ultimately contribute to a pluralistic account of abstract concepts. When compared with concrete concepts, abstract concepts tend to refer to entities or events that are harder to perceive with our senses or manipulate with our actions [28], to involve more complex relations, introspective features or social interactions [7,9] and to exhibit greater variability across contexts [29]. Evidence suggests that they may be processed in a different manner from other concepts. For instance, abstract words in a semantic categorization task are associated with a particularly widespread pattern of cortical activation that includes temporal, parietal and frontal regions [30]. This distributed pattern could be explained by the reliance of abstract concepts on a network of association areas [31]. All of this raises a difficult question: How can one capture abstract content using grounded mechanisms? Certainly, one of the purported benefits of embodiment [7,32,33] is its ability to overcome the symbol grounding problem [34]. This problem arises because a system containing only abstract symbols and their interrelations struggles to explain how individual representations come to be associated with objects and events in the world. Supporters of embodiment propose that this problem is overcome by the experiential connections between the representations of modality-specific sensorimotor systems and our external environment (both physical and social). This benefit may come with a cost, however, because representational systems containing only modality-specific symbols face a corresponding symbol ungrounding problem [11]: that is, any theory that posits a central role for experiential mechanisms in our concepts must explain how we are able to acquire and understand concepts that go beyond our experience [35–37].4. The role of language Although, much of the initial research implicating sensorimotor and affective systems has focused on concrete concepts, researchers have begun to investigate tasks involving abstract ones. Evidence has come to light that implicates action [38,39] and emotion [23] systems with the processing of these concepts. As things stand, though, there is insufficient reason to think that abstract concepts rely exclusively on affective and motor activations. A number of theories propose that the language system, or at least our experience of language, plays a significant role in our conceptual system. Examples include embodied conceptual combination theory (ECCo) [40], language and situated simulation theory (LASS) [41], symbol interdependency theory [42] and word as social tool theory (WAT) [43]. Because I do not have the space to critically rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B 373:20170135 3evaluate each of these theories (for reviews, see [28,44]), my strategy instead will be to examine the core generalizations behind them and then offer an overarching theory that integrates these generalizations and exhibits both explanatory and predictive power. Embodied cognition posits an intimate link between cognition and experience, and a great deal of our experience is with language itself. Some have proposed that this raises the possibility of merging embodied and distributional approaches to word meaning [42,45–47]. Traditionally, these approaches have been viewed as competitors; embodied accounts have focused on situated interactions with the world and distributional accounts have focused on formal relationships between symbols [39]. Distributional models treat concepts in terms of knowledge of statistical patterns derived from spoken and written language. In addition to being particularly effective at capturing abstract concepts, they have enjoyed some success in explaining performance on both lexical access and lexical similarity tasks [48]. However, because they depend on the statistical relationships between abstract symbols, they struggle to overcome the symbol grounding problem [32]. Recognizing that linguistic and non-linguistic experiences can be treated as independent, yet complementary, sources of information about the world, several researchers have proposed that these approaches can be combined [42,45,47]. Indeed, there have been several demonstrations that hybrid embodied/distributional models can outperform similar models that limit themselves to either embodied or distributional information alone [49–51]. Furthermore, several behavioural studies identify independent language-based and embodied factors in conceptual processing [41,42]. Other theorists have explored the idea that linguistic forms themselves might influence embodied conceptualization. In one of the most detailed attempts to model the neurological mechanisms responsible for connecting the language and conceptual systems, Pulvermüller [52,53] proposes that linguistic forms play a constitutive role in the formation of action perception circuits. Learning a language, on this account, leads to the formation of these distributed circuits by means of Hebbian and anti-Hebbian mechanisms. In other words, linguistic forms serve as a means of stabilizing and organizing grounded representations. Lupyan & Bergen [54] similarly argue that language acts as a control system that, in their words, 'programmes the mind' by enabling the active manipulation of sensorimotor representations. This conception builds on previous behavioural data demonstrating that verbal cues (such as the spoken word dog) activate more general representations than non-verbal cues (such as the sound of a dog barking) [55,56]. What unites the different instances of this second type of approach is the recognition that an important feedback relationship may exist between linguistic forms and sensorimotor simulations [57]. A third approach emphasizes the role that the social experience of language plays in shaping our concepts. The most prominent version of this approach is the WAT theory [27]. This theory has four main tenets [28]. The first is that language-broadly construed to include pragmatic and discourse-related elements-is likely to play a greater scaffolding role in abstract concepts than in concrete ones. This tenet accords with psycholinguistic evidence on modality of acquisition indicating that the acquisition of abstract words tends to rely more on linguistic input and less on sensorimotor experience than other words [58]. The second tenet isthat differences in the modality of acquisition should lead to differences in how concepts are neurobiologically realized. In particular, WAT theory predicts that abstract concepts should exhibit a greater tendency to engage language areas [59,60]. The third tenet is that these neuroanatomical differences should lead to differences in embodiment: namely, the sensorimotor systems associated with speech production and perception should be more engaged by abstract concepts [61]. Finally, because of their greater reliance on linguistic input, abstract concepts should exhibit greater cross-linguistic variability than concrete ones. In sum, there are at least three distinct general conceptions in the literature of how language may augment our embodied cognitive abilities and help with abstract concepts. The first focuses on our language-based experience as an additional source of information about our physical and social worlds. On this conception, implicit knowledge of distributional patterns may scaffold certain cognitive activities. The second focuses on the way in which linguistic forms can facilitate and organize the neural implementation of our concepts. On this conception, language transforms the very neural mechanisms responsible for cognition. The third focuses on the social dimension of language acquisition. On this conception, language leverages our intersubjective experience to expand our cognitive horizons. Below I offer an account of how language augments cognition that combines and integrates these conceptions.5. A theoretical dilemma The task before us is to provide a theoretical framework for understanding the contribution of the language system to our concepts. I suggest that previous accounts face something of a theoretical dilemma: they tend to be guilty of either sins of omission or sins of commission with respect to the fundamental properties of the language system. The relevant sins of omission generally involve a failure to provide a rich enough account of what makes language special. Too often embodied theories make little mention of the structural properties of the language system and their connection to its ability to capture semantic content. Sins of commission are often associated with fuller accounts of the language system, because they tend to involve, either explicitly or implicitly, amodal representations that capture these all important structural properties. Such amodal representations seem incompatible with the basic tenets of embodied cognition [62]. I am going to adopt a twofold strategy in response to this dilemma. The first part involves outlining an expanded notion of embodiment that emphasizes the flexible character of the distributed representations employed in conceptual tasks. This expanded notion requires an embrace of what has become known as weak embodiment [63]. In strongly embodied theories, sensorimotor systems are directly implicated in conceptual processing [64,65]. Completely disembodied theories, on the other hand, locate concepts in amodal systems and view sensorimotor activations as epiphenomenal consequences of conceptual processing [37,66]. Weakly embodied theories retain a commitment to the proposition that conceptual representations are constituted at least in part by activity in sensorimotor systems while granting that dynamically coordinated activity across multiple distributed regions is central to cognition. Such theories often include activity in rstb.royalsocietypublishing.or 4cross-modal areas such as convergence zones [67] or network hubs [68,69]. This perspective should not be seen as completely novel or radical. Indeed, several recent reviews [11,63,70] suggest that weak embodiment has become the favoured view among supporters of embodied and grounded cognition. The second part of my strategy involves developing a theoretical account of the way in which our experience with language augments our concepts. The key idea will be that language not only provides access to new sources of information about the world, but also transforms us as thinkers. g Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B 373:201701356. The flexible mind One of the challenges facing embodied cognition is that embodiment means different things to different people. Broadly speaking, embodied approaches can be divided into one of two major categories: those that emphasize the influence of the body on the mind and those that emphasize the importance of body–world couplings. What we need is a framework for understanding embodied cognition that integrates ideas about embodiment that focus on body–mind connections with ideas about embodiment that focus on body–world connections. I offer two core conjectures: (i) that adaptive neural reuse is a central feature of the brain mechanisms responsible for cognition and (ii) that manipulation of external resources often serves to scaffold our cognitive endeavours. Rather than focusing exclusively on the contribution of sensory and motor areas, my approach focuses also on the context-sensitivity assumed by many embodied accounts of concepts [71,72]. It fits well with the growing evidence that conceptual representations may vary with stimulus [73,74], task [75–77] and context [78,79]. This framework identifies a number of characteristic features of the mechanisms responsible for our concepts. First, they are fundamentally multimodal. Not only is the interplay between modalities essential to how we perceive and act on the world, it is also important to how we conceptualize its contents. Second, this interplay often depends on mechanisms associated with the ongoing evaluation of incoming sensory input relative to the predictions generated by the motor system [80]. Hard-won experiential knowledge plays an important dynamical role in embodied simulations. Third, the selective nature of embodied simulations requires a hierarchical neuroanatomical organization, both internal to, and across, specific modalities [70,81]. Finally, this approach also holds that the degree and form of embodiment is likely to change over the course of development [82,83]. There will be some that argue that these features have been part of their conception of embodiment all along. After all, Barsalou [7] cites the ability to explain flexibility as a major benefit of his approach. Moreover, Connell & Lynott [84] contend that the dynamic influences that the body, the environment, the relevant goals and the task have on our conceptual representations imply that 'you can't represent the same concept twice'. Wilson & Golonka [71] propose that taskdependence is a central component of embodied cognition. My intention is not to claim exclusive priority but merely to codify what I see as the best approach. There will be others, though, who claim that the view outlined in this essay amounts to a disavowal of embodied cognition [62]. While I disagree with this assessment, not much hangs on this. The central role played by situated sensorimotor simulations in this account seems sufficient towarrant characterizing it as form of embodied cognition. Moreover, there is precedence for this ascription. Anderson [85], for instance, articulates a radically interactive view of neural reuse while explicitly remaining committed to embodiment. Nevertheless, one may think that the dependence of this approach on intermediate representations undermines the theoretical bite of embodiment [86]. My response to this worry is similar to the one offered above: what ultimately matters is getting the theory right. If the conjunction of the flexible mind hypothesis and the appeal to the language system amounts to an abandonment of authentic embodied cognition, then so be it.7. Language as a disruptive technology Zwaan & Madden [87] famously use a pair of analogies to highlight the difference between traditional computational views of cognition [88,89] and embodied ones. They liken the computational mind to a bricklayer that assembles structures out of well-defined mental units and the embodied mind to a beachcomber that builds structures out of whatever has washed up on shore. While beachcombers may shape and modify what they find, much of the original character remains. Situated sensorimotor simulations are similarly likely to preserve aspects of their experiential origins. Without making too much of the analogy itself (after all even driftwood is a structure composed of smaller parts), it is worth pointing out that one of the things that washes ashore is a collection of bricks (i.e. language). A supporter of embodied cognition thus faces a choice: either maintain that the language system is completely separate from our conceptual system or provide some explanation of how the two are integrated. Although the first of these seems contrary to the interactive spirit of embodied cognition, it has been the standard approach- words, phrases and sentences have been treated as mere elicitors of simulations. As we have seen, though, there has been some recent movement towards adopting the second option. What I propose is that language is a disruptive technology that transforms the embodied mind. This idea is intended to fit with, and build upon, earlier proposals. Vygotsky [90] proposes that internalized language can serve as scaffold for learning. On his view, inner speech can help the child organize, plan and remember actions [91]. Clark [92] emphasizes the degree to which language is a physical transformation of our 'cognitive niche' that extends the abilities of the embodied mind. The act of labelling, for instance, may help learners become attuned to perceptual commonalities and overcome the inherent complexity and noisiness of perceptual inputs [93,94]. More broadly, language creates a novel set of perceptual objects and targets for action. This enables us to model the world by means of the manipulation of an external and shared symbol system. The suggestion on the table is that language augments embodied cognition. Part of the impetus for this proposal is that the symbolic character of language-the fact that it is an externally derived symbol system that is both compositional and productive-offers a number of potential cognitive benefits. One of these is the common absence of a direct connection between linguistic representations and their referents. This semantic arbitrariness may help them anchor embodied and grounded knowledge. Giving voice to this idea, Zwaan [84] hypothesizes that distributed linguistic representations serve as symbolic placeholders for multimodal simulations. rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B 373:20170135 5An additional cognitive benefit may arise from the fact that linguistic symbols are syntactically re-combinable in a way that is independent of the combinatorial properties of non-linguistic embodied and grounded cognition. This independent structural flexibility may make it easier to generate new thoughts and encode unexpected connections between thoughts [95,96]. Developing this idea further, Lynott & Connell [97] propose that conceptual combination arises from the interaction between the linguistic and simulation systems. Some researchers who acknowledge that linguistic representations have a role to play in conceptual tasks suggest that this role is typically more superficial and less effective than that of other multimodal simulations [41,84,98]. In particular, linguistic symbols are seen as a quick and dirty heuristic that can be used when conditions do not require complex task performance. Of course, the notion of effectiveness is itself notoriously contextsensitive. Indeed, there are at least three problems with the dismissive assessment offered by these theorists: First, as symbolic placeholders, linguistic representations may be particularly effective at resolving the problem of generalization. Recall the studies by Lupyan and co-workers [54–57] demonstrating that verbal cues are more effective at eliciting general representations than modality-specific cues. Second, linguistic representations are associated with external symbols and are thus able to leverage the social character of language. Philosophers of language emphasize the degree to which the linguistic function of labels depends in part on their ability to track referents by means of socially determined causal links [99,100]. Abstract concepts would seem to be particularly good candidates for this sort of reliance on external support. Third, given the fact that abstract concepts often involve complex situations and relational properties, it is far from clear that linguistic representations are eliminable. Although researchers have found some surprising evidence that embodied and grounded representations are activated with abstract concepts during certain tasks, this does not demonstrate that linguistic representations are uninvolved. Furthermore, reviews of functional brain imaging research implicate language-related areas of the cortex in the processing of abstract words [59,60]. Finally, there is reason to think that linguistic representations may be needed for concepts that directly involve language use (e.g. ASSERT, CAJOLE and PROMISE). Few would deny that language provides a means to gain information about objects and events in the absence of direct experience, and most recognize that language enables us to leverage the knowledge of others. Much of the impetus for pluralistic embodied approaches that incorporate the language system is the idea that language itself can be a rich source of information about our physical and social environment. What distinguishes the current proposal from others is the explicit claim that the structural properties of language are central to its ability to augment cognition.8. A case study Thus far, I have defended the proposal that language augments cognition by outlining its broad theoretical promise and pointing to its success at integrating other current views. This proposal is intended to provide an overarching framework for understanding the role of language in our concepts. Given this, one might wonder whether or not it has any predictive bite. In this section, I hope to demonstrate that it does by examining a particularphenomenon in which language appears to scaffold our cognitive efforts. Metaphor is important for the purposes of this essay not only because it may play a role in the acquisition of some abstract concepts, but also because it serves as a useful test case for the disruptive technology approach. Metaphor has traditionally been seen as both a source of evidence for embodiment and a potential means of solving the problem abstract concepts. Working from observations concerning language use, cognitive linguists have shown that a great deal of our discourse is organized around experiential metaphors [101,102]. Several have proposed that we rely on embodied conceptual metaphors to understand abstract concepts [103–105]. Typically this is thought to depend on mappings from grounded conceptual domains to abstract ones. Perhaps the most well-attested embodied metaphor involves understanding the passage of time as a motion following a linear path along the back-to-front axis [106,107] or along the left-to-right axis [108–110]. Evidence of other embodied metaphors-such as understanding morality in terms of cleanliness [111], power in terms of verticality [112,113] and similarity in terms of closeness [114,115]-has also been found. Viewing language as a neuroenhancement predicts that the cognitive scaffolding due to conceptual metaphor will be somewhat circumscribed, because it treats metaphor as just one of the ways in which language can augment cognition. This is supported by developmental psycholinguistic research indicating that abstract concepts are part of the vocabularies of very young children but metaphors are not [36,116,117]. Indeed, children's comprehension of metaphor appears to remain poor until they reach 8–10 years of age [118]. Furthermore, there are also groups of people, such as high functioning individuals with an autism spectrum disorder, that acquire abstract concepts despite experiencing pronounced difficulties with metaphors [119]. According to the proposal under consideration, our use of metaphoric simulations should be context-sensitive and taskspecific. Some available neural evidence supports this prediction. A number of studies have found that metaphors and abstract concepts elicit different patterns of activation [120– 123]. In an event-related potential (ERP) study [124], participants made upward or downward movements with marbles as they read words that had literal (ascend and descend) or metaphorical (inspire and defeat) vertical associations. Congruency effects were found with both types of words when the associations matched the direction of the movements, but their time signatures were different: the effects emerged at 200–300 ms after word onset with the literal movement words but after 500 ms with the metaphoric movement words. The delay with the metaphors suggests that the relevant sensorimotor simulations are not automatically engaged in the same the way that they are with the literal action words. In keeping with the context-sensitivity and task-specificity found generally in embodied concepts [72], attention appears to influence congruency effects between affective evaluation and vertical space [125]. Boroditsky & Ramscar [107] find that people at an airport who are about to fly out or who have just arrived tend to employ an ego-moving perspective on time (to think of themselves moving through time) when answering questions about moving temporal events 'forward' while those who are just waiting to pick someone up tend to employ a time-moving perspective. An additional prediction associated with the disruptive technology view-one that is not typically associated with rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B 373:20170135 6embodied accounts of metaphor-isthat some uses of metaphor may not engage sensorimotor simulations but rather depend on linguistic associations. This prediction fits with the hypothesis that some metaphors may undergo a gradual process of conventionalization as they become more familiar [126]. Desai et al. [127] examine the brain activation elicited by four types of sentences: literal action sentences (The instructor is grasping the steering wheel very tightly.), non-idiomatic metaphor sentences (The congress is grasping the state of affairs.), idiomatic metaphor sentences (The congress is grasping at straws in the crisis.) and abstract sentences (The congress is causing a big trade deficit again.). They found that higher-level sensorimotor regions associated with the described actions showed increased activation with both the action and the non-idiomatic metaphor sentences but not with the idiomatic metaphor or abstract sentences. This suggests that sensorimotor simulations are not essential for the semantic processing of these idioms and fits with the notion that they are 'frozen' metaphors whose content is stored by means of linguistic associations. One potential objection to the disruptive technology view is that it seems to require a commitment to linguistic relativism (the idea that the natural language one possesses influences the thoughts one is likely to have). While I do not have the space to fully address this concern, some remarks seem warranted. First, a growing body of evidence supports at least a weak form linguistic relativism [128–130]. Second, given the centrality of non-linguistic embodied simulations to the current account, its commitment to relativism need not be full-throated. Third, even critics of linguistic relativism often grant that language influences thinking-for-speaking [131]. On the current proposal, though, the distinction between thinking and thinking-for-speaking is blurred [2]. In sum, a compelling argument can be made that the approach advocated in this essay strikes the right balance with respect to the influence of language on thought. Moreover, research on embodied metaphors provides support for this generalization. For instance, some behavioural studies implicate language-specific metaphors. Examples can be found in studies examining the timeas-space metaphor. Research indicates that speakers of Spanish tend to conceptualize time from left to right [110,132]. Hypothesizing that this might be due in part to the orientation of their writing system, Ouellet et al. [109] examine the responses of speakers of Hebrew (which is read from right to left) and speakers of Spanish to words presented auditorily in a temporal judgement task. Speakers of Spanish responded quicker when responding to words associated with the past with their left hand and words associated with the future with their right hand while speakers of Hebrew exhibited the opposite pattern. While the approach advocated here predicts that experience with particular natural languages should result in differences in embodied metaphors, it also predicts that embodied metaphors should be somewhat flexible and experience-dependent. This issupported by a recent experiment: after introducing a novel metaphor connecting time and weight (the past is heavy and the present is light), congruency effects were found in the weight judgements of books that appeared new or old [133]. It is also supported by the fact that providing participants with a brief exposure to mirror-reversed orthography can reverse the orientation of the congruency effects on temporal judgements associated with a particular language [134]. Some recent evidence also suggests that language-specific metaphors may build upon preexisting non-linguistic embodied mappings. Whereas speakers of Dutch tend to talk of musical pitch in terms of height (the way that we do in English), speakers of Farsi tend to talk of it in terms of thickness [135]. These different linguistic metaphors appear to influence how Dutch and Farsi speakers reproduce recently heard musical pitches in the presence of irrelevant spatial information involving either height or thickness [136]. A follow-up study finds that prelinguistic infants are sensitive to both the pitch–height and the pitch–thickness mappings [137]. Metaphor is often taken as just another data point in the larger case for embodied cognition. Treating it as the outcome of the interaction between an inherently flexible embodied cognitive system and an internalized language system enables us to go beyond the observation that some metaphors engage action, emotion and perception systems. In particular, it predicts that metaphor should emerge gradually in development; be circumscribed in scope, context-sensitive and task-specific; and involve both sensorimotor simulations of bodily experience and linguistic associations.9. Conclusion Abstract concepts represent a significant challenge for embodied cognition. The notion that language might help grounded agents acquire and use concepts in general, and abstract concepts in particular, has recently gained traction. Extant accounts, though, tend to commit one of two errors: they either treat language as just another experiential source of information or offer a conception of the language system that is incompatible with embodiment and grounding. This essay provides an account of how language scaffolds the embodied mind in which the symbolic character of language (underwritten by its combinatorial structural properties) is a feature not a bug. The acquisition of a natural language not only expands our access to information about the world, but also serves a neuroenhancement by providing a new medium of embodied thought. Data accessibility. This article has no additional data. Competing interests. I declare I have no competing interests. Funding. I received no funding for this study.References1. Clark A. 2003 Natural-born cyborgs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2. Dove G. 2014 Thinking in words: language as an embodied medium of thought. Topics Cogn. Sci. 6, 371 – 389. (doi:10.1111/ tops.12102)3. Dove G. 2011 On the need for embodied and disembodied cognition. Front. Psychol. 1, 242. (doi:10. 3389/fpsyg.2010.00242) 4. Clark A. 2011 Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.5. Landy D, Allen C, Zednik C. 2014 A perceptual account of symbolic reasoning. Front. Psychol. 5, 275. (doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00275) 6. Landy D, Goldstone RL. 2007 How abstract is symbolic thought? J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 33, 720 – 733. (doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.720) rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B 373:20170135 77. Barsalou L. 1999 Perceptual symbol systems. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 577 – 609. (doi:10.1017/S0140525X 9002149) 8. Barsalou LW, Prinz JJ. 1997 Mundane creativity in perceptual symbol systems. In Creative thought: an investigation of conceptual structures and processes (eds TB Ward, SM Smith, J Vaid), pp. 267 – 307. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 9. Barsalou LW. 2008 Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 617 – 645. (doi:10.1146/annurev.psych. 59.103006.093639) 10. Fischer MH, Zwaan RA. 2008 Embodied language: a review of the motor system in language comprehension. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 6, 825 – 850. (doi:10.1080/17470210701623605) 11. Dove G. 2016 Three symbol ungrounding problems: abstract concepts and the future of embodied cognition. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1109 – 1121. (doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0825-4) 12. Kemmerer D. 2010 How words capture visual experience: the perspective from cognitive neuroscience. In Words and the world: how words capture human experience (eds B Malt, P Wolff ), pp. 289 – 329. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 13. Pecher D, Zeelenberg R, Barsalou L. 2003 Verifying properties from different modalities for concepts produces switching costs. Psychol. Sci. 14, 119 – 124. (doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01429) 14. Meteyard L, Bahrami B, Vigliocco G. 2007 Motion detection and motion verbs. Language affects lowlevel visual perception. Psychol. Sci. 18, 1007 – 1013. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02016.x) 15. Meteyard L, Zokaei N, Bahrami B, Vigliocco G. 2008 Visual motion interferes with lexical decision on motion verbs. Curr. Biol. 18, R732 – R733. (doi:10. 1016/j.cub.2008.07.016) 16. Gonzalez J, Barros-Loscertales A, Pulvermuller F, Meseguer V, Sanjuan A, Belloch V, Avila C. 2006 Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions. Neuroimage 32, 906 – 912. (doi:10.1016/j. neuroimage.2006.03.037) 17. Hauk O, Johnsrtude I, Pulvermüller F. 2004 Somatopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 41, 301 – 307. (doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9) 18. Willems RM, Hagoort P, Casasanto D. 2010 Bodyspecific representation of action words: neural evidence from rightand left-handers. Psychol. Sci. 21, 67 – 74. (doi:10.1177/0956797609354072) 19. Beilock SL, Lyons IM, Mattarella-Micke A, Nusbaum HC, Small SL. 2008 Sports experience changes the neural processing of action language. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 13 269 – 13 273. (doi:10.1073/ pnas.0803424105) 20. Siakaluk P, Pexman P, Sears C, Wilson K, Locheed K, Owen W. 2008 The benefits of sensorimotor knowledge: body – object interaction facilitates semantic processing. Cogn. Sci. 32, 591 – 605. (doi:10.1080/03640210802035399) 21. Marschark M, Paivio A. 1977 Integrative processing of concrete and abstract sentences. J. Verb. Learn.Verb. Behav. 16, 217 – 231. (doi:10.1016/S00225371(77)80048-0) 22. Schwanenflugel PJ, Shoben E. 1983 Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. J. Exp. Psychol. 9, 82 – 102. (doi:10.1037/0278-7393.9.1.82) 23. Kousta S-T, Vigliocco G, Vinson DP, Andrews M, Del Campo E. 2011 The representation of abstract words: why emotion matters. J. Exp. Psychol. 140, 14 – 34. (doi:10.1037/a0021446) 24. Paivio A. 1986 Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 25. Recchia G, Jones MN. 2012 The semantic richness of abstract concepts. Front. Human Neurosci. 6, 315. (doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00315) 26. Connell L, Lynott D. 2012 Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition 125, 452 – 465. (doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010) 27. Borghi A, Binkofski F. 2014 Words as social tools: an embodied view on abstract concepts. New York, NY: Springer. 28. Borghi AM, Binkofski F, Castelfranchi C, Cimatti F, Scorolli C, Tummolini L. 2017 The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychol. Bull. 143, 263 – 292. (doi:10.1037/bul0000089) 29. Barsalou L. 1987 The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts. In Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (ed. U Neisser), pp. 101 – 140. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 30. Pexman PM, Hargreaves IS, Edwards JD, Henry LC, Goodyear BG. 2007 Neural correlates of concreteness in semantic categorization. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19, 1407 – 1419. (doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.8.1407) 31. Fernandino L, Binder JR, Desai RH, Pendl SL, Humphries CJ, Gross WL, Conant LL, Seidenberg MS. 2015 Concept representation reflects multimodal abstraction: a framework for embodied semantics. Cereb. Cortex 26, 2018 – 2034. (doi:10.1093/cercor/ bhv020) 32. Glenberg AM, Robertson DA. 2000 Symbol grounding and meaning: a comparison of highdimensional and embodied theories of meaning. J. Mem. Lang. 43, 379 – 401. (doi:10.1006/jmla. 2000.2714) 33. Prinz JJ. 2002 Furnishing the mind: concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 34. Harnad S. 1990 The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42, 335 – 346. (doi:10.1016/01672789(90)90087-6) 35. Chatterjee A. 2010 Disembodying cognition. Lang. Cogn. 2, 79 – 116. (doi:10.1515/langcog.2010.004) 36. Dove G. 2009 Beyond perceptual symbols: a call for representational pluralism. Cognition 110, 412 – 431. (doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.016) 37. Mahon BZ, Caramazza A. 2008 A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. J. Physiol. Paris 102, 59 – 70. (doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.004) 38. Glenberg AM, Sato M, Cattaneo L, Riggio L, Palumbo D, Buccino G. 2008 Processing abstractlanguage modulates motor system activity. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 61, 905 – 919. (doi:10.1080/ 17470210701625550) 39. Guan CQ, Meng W, Yao R, Glenberg AM. 2013 The motor system contributes to comprehension of abstract language. PLoS ONE 8, e75183. (doi:10. 1371/journal.pone.0075183) 40. Lynott D, Connell L. 2010 Embodied conceptual combination. Front. Psychol. 1, 212. (doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2010.00212) 41. Barsalou LW, Santos A, Simmons KW, Wilson CD. 2008 Language and simulations in conceptual processing. In Symbols, embodiment and meaning (eds M De Vega, AM Glenberg, AC Graesser), pp. 245 – 283. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 42. Louwerse MM, Jeuniaux P. 2010 The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition 114, 96 – 104. (doi:10.1016/j.cognition. 2009.09.002) 43. Borghi AM, Cimatti F. 2009 Words as tools and the problem of abstract words meanings. In Proc. 31st Ann. Conf. Cogn. Sci. Soc. (eds N Taatgen, H van Rijn), pp. 2304 – 2309. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Cognitive Science Society. 44. Pecher D, Boot I, van Dantzig S. 2011 Abstract concepts: sensory motor grounding, metaphors, and beyond. In The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 54 (ed. B Ross), pp. 217 – 248. Burlington, NJ: Academic Press. 45. Andrews M, Frank S, Vigliocco G. 2014 Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics Cogn. Sci. 6, 359 – 370. (doi:10. 1111/tops.12096) 46. Johns BT, Jones MN. 2012 Perceptual inference from global lexical similarity. Topics Cogn. Sci. 4, 103 – 120. (doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011. 01176.x) 47. Riordan B, Jones MN. 2010 Redundancy in linguistic and perceptual experience: comparing distributional and feature-based models of semantic representation. Topics Cogn. Sci. 3, 303 – 345. (doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01111.x) 48. Jones MN, Dye M, Johns BT. 2017 Context as an organizing principle of the lexicon. In The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 67 (ed. B Ross), pp. 239 – 283. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. 49. Andrews M, Vigliocco G, Vinson DP. 2009 Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychol. Rev. 116, 463 – 498. (doi:10.1037/a0016261) 50. Bruni E, Tran GB, Baroni M. 2011 Distributional semantics from texts and images. In Proc. EMNLP 2011 Geometrical Models for Natural Langauge Semantics (GEMS 2011) Workshop (eds S Pado, Y Peirsman), pp. 22 – 32. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. 51. Steyvers M. 2010 Combining feature norms and text data with topic models. Acta Psychol. 133, 234 – 243. (doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.10.010) 52. Pulvermüller F. 2013 How neurons make meaning: brain mechanisms for embodied and abstractrstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B 373:20170135 8symbolic semantics. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 458 – 470. (doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004) 53. Pulvermüller F. 2017 Neural reuse of action perception circuits for language, concepts, and communication. Prog. Neurobiol. 160, 1 – 44. (doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.07.001) 54. Lupyan G, Bergen B. 2016 How language programs the mind. Topics Cogn. Sci. 8, 408 – 424. 55. Edmiston P, Lupyan G. 2015 What makes words special? Words as unmotivated cues. Cognition 143, 93 – 100. (doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.06.008) 56. Lupyan G, Thompson-Schill SL. 2012 The evocative power of words: activation of concepts by verbal and nonverbal means. J. Exp. Psychol. 141, 170 – 186. (doi:10.1037/a0024904) 57. Lupyan G. 2012 Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: the label feedback hypothesis. Front. Cogn. 3, 54. (doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00054) 58. Wauters L, Tellings A, Van Bon W, Van Haaften A. 2003 Mode of acquisition of word meanings: the viability of a theoretical construct. Appl. Psycholing. 24, 385 – 406. (doi:10.1017/S01427 16403000201) 59. Binder JR., Desai RH, Graves WW, Conant LL. 2009 Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cereb. Cortex 19, 2767 – 2796. (doi:10.1093/ cercor/bhp055) 60. Wang J, Conder JA, Blitzer DN, Shinkareva SV. 2010 Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts: a meta-analysis of imaging studies. Hum. Brain Mapp. 31, 1459 – 1468. (doi:10.1002/hbm. 20950) 61. Borghi AM, Zarcone E. 2016 Grounding abstractness: abstract concepts and the activation of the mouth. Front. Psychol. 7, 1498. (doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016. 01498) 62. Arbib MA, Gasser B, Barres V. 2014 Language is handy but is it embodied? Neuropsychologia 55, 57 – 70. (doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.11. 004) 63. Meteyard L, Cuadrado SR, Bahrami B, Vigliocco G. 2012 Coming of age: a review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex 48, 788 – 804. (doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.002) 64. Gallese V, Lakoff G. 2005 The brain's concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 22, 455 – 479. (doi:10.1080/02643290442000310) 65. Glenberg AM. 2015 Few believe the world is flat: how embodiment is changing the scientific understanding of cognition. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 69, 165 – 171. (doi:10.1037/cep0000056) 66. Mahon BZ. 2015 What is embodied about cognition? Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 30, 420 – 429. (doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.987791) 67. Damasio A.R. 1989 The brain binds entities and events by multiregional activation from convergence zones. Neural Comput. 1, 123 – 132. (doi:10.1162/ neco.1989.1.1.123) 68. Sporns O, Honey CJ, Kotter R. 2007 Identification and classification of hubs in brain networks. PLoS ONE 2, e1049. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001049)69. van den Heuvel MP, Sporns O. 2013 Network hubs in the human brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 683 – 696. (doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.012) 70. Barsalou LW. 2016 On staying grounded and avoiding quixotic dead ends. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1122 – 1142. (doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1028-3) 71. Wilson AD, Golonka S. 2013 Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Front. Psychol. 4, 58. (doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00058) 72. Yee E, Thompson-Schill SL. 2016 Putting concepts into context. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1015 – 1027. (doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0948-7) 73. Sidhu DM, Kwan R, Pexman PM, Siakaluk PD. 2014 Effects of relative embodiment in lexical and semantic processing of verbs. Acta Psychol. 149, 32 – 39. (doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.02.009) 74. Taikh A, Hargreaves IS, Yap M, Pexman PM. 2015 Semantic classification of pictures and words. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 68, 1502 – 1518. (doi:10.1080/ 17470218.2014.975728) 75. Connell L, Lynott D. 2014 I see/hear what you mean: semantic activation in visual word recognition depends on perceptual attention. J. Exp. Psychol. 143, 527 – 533. (doi:10.1037/ a0034626) 76. Pexman PM, Hargreaves IS, Siakaluk PD, Bodner GE, Pope J. 2008 There are many ways to be rich: effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 15, 161 – 167. (doi:10.3758/PBR.15.1.161) 77. Sidhu DM, Heard A, Pexman PM. 2016 Is more always better for verbs? Semantic richness effects and verb meaning. Front. Psychol. 7, 798. (doi:10. 3389/fpsyg.2016.00798) 78. Lebois LAM, Wilson-Mendenhall CD, Barsalou LW. 2015 Putting everything in context. Cogn. Sci. 39, 1987 – 1995. (doi:10.1111/cogs.12295) 79. Yee E, Ahmed S, Thompson-Schill SL. 2012 Colorless green ideas (can) prime furiously. Psychol. Sci. 23, 364 – 369. (doi:10.1177/0956797 611430691) 80. Pickering MJ, Andy C. 2014 Getting ahead: forward models and their place in cognitive architecture. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18, 451 – 456. (doi:10.1016/j.tics. 2014.05.006) 81. Binder JR. 2016 In defense of abstract conceptual representations. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1096 – 1108. (doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0909-1) 82. Kontra C, Goldin-Meadow S, Beilock SL. 2012 Embodied learning across the life span. Topics Cogn. Sci. 4, 731 – 739. (doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012. 01221.x) 83. Pexman PM. In press. The role of embodiment in conceptual development. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. (doi:10.1080/23273798.2017.1303522) 84. Connell L, Lynott D. 2014 Principles of representation: why you can't represent the same concept twice. Topics Cogn. Sci. 6, 390 – 406. (doi:10.1111/tops.12097) 85. Anderson ML. 2014 After phrenology: neural reuse and the interactive brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 86. Dove G. 2013 Intermediate representations exclude embodiment. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 353 – 354. (doi:10.1017/S0140525X12002555)87. Zwaan RA, Madden CJ. 2005 Embodied sentence comprehension. In Grounding cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought (eds D Pecher, R Zwaan), pp. 224 – 245. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 88. Fodor JA. 1975 The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 89. Pylyshyn ZW. 1989 Computation and cognition: toward a foundation for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 90. Vygotsky L. 1986 Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 91. Alderson-Day B, Fernyhough C. 2015 Inner speech: development, cognitive functions, phenomenology, and neurobiology. Psychol. Bull. 141, 931 – 965. (doi:10.1037/bul0000021) 92. Clark A. 2006 Language, embodiment, and the cognitive niche. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 370 – 374. (doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.012) 93. Clark A. 1998 Magic words: how language augments human computation. In Language and thought: interdisciplinary themes (eds P Carruthers, J Boucher), pp. 162 – 183. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 94. Lupyan G, Clark A. 2015 Words and the world: predictive coding and the language-perceptioncognition interface. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24, 279 – 284. (doi:10.1177/0963721415570732) 95. Camp E. 2009 Putting thoughts to work: concepts, systematicity, and stimulus-independence. Phil. Phenomenol. Res. 78, 275 – 311. (doi:10.1111/j. 1933-1592.2009.00245.x) 96. Weiskopf D. 2010 Embodied cognition and linguistic comprehension. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 41, 294 – 304. (doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.07.005) 97. Lynott D, Connell L. 2010 Embodied conceptual combination. Front. Psychol. 1, 1 – 14. (doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2010.00212) 98. Connell L, Lynott D. 2013 Flexible and fast: linguistic shortcut affects both shallow and deep conceptual processing. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 20, 542 – 550. (doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0368-x) 99. Saul K. 1980 Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 100. Putnam H. 1975 The meaning of meaning. In Mind, language and reality; philosophical papers, vol. 2, pp. 215 – 271. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 101. Lakoff G, Johnson M. 1980 Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 102. Gibbs RWJ. 2006 Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 103. Lakoff G, Johnson M. 1999 Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books. 104. Lakoff G. 2014 Mapping the brain's metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Front. Human Neurosci. 8, 958. (doi:10.3389/fnhum. 2014.00958) 105. Williams LE, Huang JY, Bargh JA. 2009 The scaffolded mind: higher mental processes grounded in early experience of the physical world. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 1257 – 1267. (doi:10.1002/ejsp.665) rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil.Trans.R.Soc.B 373:20170135 9106. Boroditsky L. 2000 Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 36, 1047 – 1056. 107. Boroditsky L, Ramscar M. 2002 The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychol. Sci. 13, 185 – 188. (doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00434) 108. Casasanto D, Boroditsky L. 2008 Time in the mind: using space to think about time. Cognition 106, 579 – 593. (doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004) 109. Ouellet M, Santiago J, Israeli Z, Gabay S. 2010 Is the future the right time? Exp. Psychol. 57, 308 – 314. (doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000036) 110. Santiago J, Lupáñez J, Pérez E, Funes MJ. 2007 Time (also) flies from left to right. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14, 512 – 516. (doi:10.3758/BF03194099) 111. Schnall S, Benton J, Harvey S. 2008 With a clean conscience: cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychol. Sci. 19, 1219 – 1222. (doi:10. 1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x) 112. Zanolie K, van Dantzig S, Boot I, Wijnen J, Schubert TW, Giessner SR, Pecher D. 2012 Mighty metaphors: behavioral and ERP evidence that power shifts attention on a vertical dimension. Brain Cogn. 78, 50 – 58. (doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.10.006) 113. Lakens D, Semin GR, Foroni F. 2011 Why your highness needs the people: comparing the absolute and relative representation of power in vertical space. Soc. Psychol. 42, 205 – 213. (doi:10.1027/ 1864-9335/a000064) 114. Boot I, Pecher D. 2010 Similarity is closeness: metaphorical mapping in a perceptual task. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 63, 942 – 954. (doi:10.1080/ 17470210903134351) 115. Casasanto D. 2008 Similarity and proximity: when does close in space mean close in mind? Mem. Cogn. 36, 1047 – 1056. (doi:10.3758/MC.36.6.1047) 116. Murphy GL. 1996 On metaphoric representation. Cognition 60, 173 – 204. (doi:10.1016/00100277(96)00711-1) 117. Murphy GL. 1997 Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition 62, 99 – 108. (doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00725-1)118. Winner E, Rosenstiel AK, Gardner H. 1976 The development of metaphoric understanding. Dev. Psychol. 12, 289 – 297. (doi:10.1037/0012-1649.12. 4.289) 119. MacKay G, Shaw A. 2004 A comparative study of figurative language in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Child Lang. Teach. Therapy 20, 13 – 32. (doi:10.1191/0265659004ct261oa) 120. Boulenger V, Shtyrov Y, Pulvermüller F. 2012 When do you grasp the idea? MEG evidence for instantaneous idiom understanding. Neuroimage 59, 3502 – 3513. (doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011. 11.011) 121. Desai RH, Binder JR, Conant LL, Mano QR, Seidenberg MS. 2011 The neural career of sensorymotor metaphors. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 2376 – 2386. (doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21596) 122. Rapp AM, Leube DT, Erb M, Grodd W, Kircher TT. 2004 Neural correlates of metaphor processing. Cogn. Brain Res. 20, 395 – 402. (doi:10.1016/j. cogbrainres.2004.03.017) 123. Stringaris A, Medford N, Giampietro V, Brammer M, David A. 2007 Deriving meaning: distinct neural mechanisms for metaphoric, literal, and nonmeaningful sentences. Brain Lang. 100, 150 – 162. (doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2005.08.001) 124. Bardolph M, Coulson S. 2014 How vertical hand movements impact brain activity elicited by literally and metaphorically related words: an ERP study of embodied metaphor. Front. Human Neurosci. 8, 1031. (doi:10.3389/fnhum. 2014.01031) 125. Santiago J, Ouellet M, Román A, Valenzuela J. 2012 Attentional factors in conceptual congruency. Cogn. Sci. 36, 1051 – 1077. (doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709. 2012.01240.x) 126. Bowdle BF, Gentner D. 2005 The career of metaphor. Psychol. Rev. 112, 193 – 216. (doi:10. 1037/0033-295X.112.1.193) 127. Desai R, Conant L, Binder J, Park H, Seidenberg M. 2013 A piece of the action: modulation of sensorymotor regions by idioms and metaphors.Neuroimage 83, 862 – 869. (doi:10.1016/j. neuroimage.2013.07.044) 128. Casasanto D. 2008 Who's afraid of the big bad whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Lang. Learn. 58(Suppl. 1), 63 – 79. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00462.x) 129. Gentner D, Goldin-Meadow S (eds). 2003 Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought, pp. 157 – 192. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 130. Lupyan G. 2012 What do words do? Toward a theory of language-augmented thought. In The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 57, (ed. BH Ross), pp. 255 – 297. 131. Slobin DI. 1996 From 'thought and language' to 'thinking for speaking'. In Rethinking linguistic relativity (eds J Gumperz, S Levinson), pp. 70 – 96. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 132. Flumini A, Santiago J. 2013 Time (also) flies from left to right if it is needed! In Proc. 36th Ann. Conf. Cogn. Sci. Soc. (eds M Knauff, M Pauen, N Sebanz, I Wachmuz), pp. 2315 – 2320. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. 133. Slepian ML, Ambady N. 2014 Simulating sensorimotor metaphors: novel metaphors influence sensory judgments. Cognition 130, 309 – 314. (doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.006) 134. Casasanto D, Bottini R. 2014 Mirror reading can reverse the flow of time. J. Exp. Psychol. 143, 473 – 479. (doi:10.1037/a0033297) 135. Shayan S, Ozturk O, Sicoli M. 2011 The thickness of pitch: cross-modal metaphors in Farsi, Turkish and Zapotec. Senses Soc. 6, 19 – 29. (doi:10.2752/ 174589311X12893982233911) 136. Dolscheid S, Shayan S, Majid A, Casasanto D. 2013 The thickness of musical pitch: psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychol. Sci. 24, 613 – 621. (doi:10.1177/0956797612457374) 137. Dolscheid S, Hunnius S, Casasanto D, Majid A. 2014 Prelinguistic infants are sensitive to spacepitch associations found across cultures. Psychol. Sci. 25, 1256 – 1261. (doi:10.1177/ 0956797614528521)