Abstract
The idea that abstract words are grounded in our sensorimotor experience is gaining support and popularity, as observed in the increasing number of studies dealing with “neurosemantics.” Therefore, it is important to form models that explain how to bridge the gap between basic bodily experiences and abstract language. This paper focuses on the embodiment of connotations, such as “sweet” in “sweet baby,” where the adjective has been abstracted from its concrete and embodied sense. We summarize several findings from recent studies in neuroscience and the cognitive sciences suggesting that emotion, body, and language are three factors required for understanding the emergence of abstract words, and (1) propose a model explaining how these factors contribute to the emergence of connotations, (2) formulate a computational model instantiating our theoretical model, and (3) test our model in a task involving the automatic identification of connotations. The results support our model pointing to the role of embodiment in the formation of connotations.
References
Borghi, A. M. & F. Binkofski. 2014. Words as social tools: An embodied view on abstract concepts. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-9539-0Search in Google Scholar
CP 7.219. 1933. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Danesi, M. 2003. Metaphorical “networks” and verbal communication: A semiotic perspective on human discourse. Sign Systems Studies 31. 341–363.10.12697/SSS.2003.31.2.02Search in Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2009. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2). 159–190.10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02davSearch in Google Scholar
Dove, G. 2014. Thinking in words: Language as an embodied medium of thought. Topics in Cognitive Science 6(3). 371–389.10.1111/tops.12102Search in Google Scholar
Engel, A. K., A. Maye, M. Kurthen & P. König. 2013. Where’s the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17(5). 202–209.10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.006Search in Google Scholar
Hagoort, P. & P. Indefrey. 2014. The neurobiology of language beyond single words. Annual Review of Neuroscience 37. 347–362.10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-013847Search in Google Scholar
Harnad, S. 1990. The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 42(1). 335–346.10.1002/0470018860.s00025Search in Google Scholar
Harnad, S. 2005. To cognize is to categorize: Cognition is categorization. In C. Lefebvre & H. Cohen (eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science, 20–45. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-008044612-7/50056-1Search in Google Scholar
Hoffman, P. 2015. The meaning of “life” and other abstract words: Insights from neuropsychology. Journal of Neuropsychology 10(2). 317–343.10.1111/jnp.12065Search in Google Scholar
Kousta, S. T., G. Vigliocco, D. P. Vinson, M. Andrews & E. Del Campo. 2011. The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1). 14–34.10.1037/a0021446Search in Google Scholar
Krishnakumaran, S. & X. Zhu. 2007. Hunting elusive metaphors using lexical resources. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational approaches to Figurative Language, 13–20. Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/1611528.1611531Search in Google Scholar
Kyselo, M. & E. Di Paolo. 2013. Locked-in syndrome: A challenge for embodied cognitive science. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14. 517–542.10.1007/s11097-013-9344-9Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 2014. Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday life. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8. 958.10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic.Search in Google Scholar
Light, M. & W. Greiff. 2002. Statistical models for the induction and use of selectional preferences. Cognitive Science 26(3). 269–281.10.1207/s15516709cog2603_4Search in Google Scholar
Maouene, J., N. Sethuraman, A. Laakso & M. Maouene. 2011. The body region correlates of concrete and abstract verbs in early child language. Cognition, Brain, Behavior 15(4). 339–383.Search in Google Scholar
Meteyard, L., S. R. Cuadrado, B. Bahrami & G. Vigliocco. 2012. Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex 48(7). 788–804.10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.002Search in Google Scholar
Moseley, R. L. & F. Pulvermüller. 2014. Nouns, verbs, objects, actions, and abstractions: Local fMRI activity indexes semantics, not lexical categories. Brain and Language 132. 28–42.10.1016/j.bandl.2014.03.001Search in Google Scholar
Neuman, Y., D. Assaf, Y. Cohen, M. Last, S. Argamon, N. Howard & O. Frieder. 2013. Metaphor identification in large texts corpora. PloS One 8(4). e62343.10.1371/journal.pone.0062343Search in Google Scholar
Neuman, Y., P. Turney & Y. Cohen. 2012. How language enables abstraction: A study in computational cultural psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 46(2). 129–145.10.1007/s12124-011-9165-8Search in Google Scholar
Pennington, J., R. Socher & C. D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 1532–1543. Association for Cognitive Linguistics.10.3115/v1/D14-1162Search in Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. 2013. How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17(9). 458–470.10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004Search in Google Scholar
Shebani, Z. & F. Pulvermüller. 2013. Moving the hands and feet specifically impairs working memory for arm- and leg-related action words. Cortex 49(1). 222–231.10.1016/j.cortex.2011.10.005Search in Google Scholar
Tekiroğlu, S. S., G. Özbal & C. Strapparava. 2014. Sensicon: An automatically constructed sensorial lexicon. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 1511–1521. Association for Cognitive Linguistics.10.3115/v1/D14-1160Search in Google Scholar
Turney, P. D., Y. Neuman, D. Assaf & Y. Cohen. 2011. Literal and metaphorical sense identification through concrete and abstract context. In Proceedings of the 2011 conference on the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 680–690. Association for Cognitive Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Turney, P. D. & P. Pantel. 2010. From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37(1). 141–188.10.1613/jair.2934Search in Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., S. T. Kousta, P. A. Della Rosa, D. P. Vinson, M. Tettamanti, J. T. Devlin & S. F. Cappa. 2014. The neural representation of abstract words: The role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex 24(7). 1767–1777.10.1093/cercor/bht025Search in Google Scholar
Vincent-Lamarre, P., A. B. Massé, M. Lopes, M. Lord, O. Marcotte & S. Harnad. 2016. The latent structure of dictionaries. Topics in Cognitive Science 8(3). 625–659.10.1111/tops.12211Search in Google Scholar
Wang, J., J. A. Conder, D. N. Blitzer & S. V. Shinkareva. 2010. Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts: A meta‐analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping 31. 1459–1468.10.1002/hbm.20950Search in Google Scholar
Warriner, A. B., V. Kuperman & M. Brysbaert. 2013. Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods 45(4). 1191–1207.10.3758/s13428-012-0314-xSearch in Google Scholar
Xiao, X., D. Zhao, Q. Zhang & C. Y. Guo. 2012. Retrieval of concrete words involves more contextual information than abstract words: Multiple components for the concreteness effect. Brain and Language 120(3). 251–258.10.1016/j.bandl.2011.09.006Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
