Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
How language conveys meaning remains an open question. The dominant approach is to treat language as a symbol manipulation system: Language conveys meaning by
using abstract, amodal, and arbitrary symbols (i.e., words)
combined by syntactic rules (e.g., Burgess & Lund, 1997;
Chomsky, 1980; Fodor, 2000; Kintsch, 1988; Pinker,
1994). Words are abstract in that the same word, such as
chair, is used for big chairs and little chairs, words are
amodal in that the same word is used when chairs are
spoken about or written about, and words are arbitrarily
related to their referents in that the phonemic and orthographic characteristics of a word bear no relationship to
the physical or functional characteristics of the words referent. An alternative view is that linguistic meaning is
grounded in bodily activity (e.g., Barsalou, 1999; FincherKiefer, 2001; Glenberg, 1997; Glenberg & Robertson,
1999, 2000; Lakoff, 1987; McNeill, 1992; Stanfield &
Zwaan, 2001). Here, we report a new phenomenon that
discriminates between these approaches. We demonstrate
that merely comprehending a sentence that implies action
in one direction (e.g., Close the drawer implies action
away from the body) interferes with real action in the opposite direction (e.g., movement toward the body). These
data are consistent with the claim that language comprehension is grounded in bodily action, and they are inconsistent with abstract symbol theories of meaning.
Whereas some features of the linguistic signal appear
to be consistent with the abstract symbol view (e.g., words
This work was partially supported by a University of Wisconsin Vilas
Associate Award to the first author and a National Science Foundation
Graduate Fellowship to the second author. We thank Sandra Japuntich,
Michelle Lenzen, Adam Nelson, Erica Ramirez, and Donald Teague for
their efforts in data collection and for their discussions about these results. In addition, Immanual Barshi, Angel Fernandez, Will Langston,
and Larry Shapiro helped us sharpen our ideas. Correspondence should
be addressed to A. M. Glenberg, Department of Psychology, University
of Wisconsin, 1202 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706 (e-mail:
glenberg@facstaff.wisc.edu).
558
559
560
Results
Analyses were conducted on the proportion of correct
judgments, as well as on the reading times (time between
presentation of the sentence and when the participant released the middle button). To reduce practice effects, the
first block of 16 trials was discarded for both the yes-isnear and the yes-is-far conditions. To reduce the effect of
outliers, for each participant, for each of the 12 conditions (defined by combinations of two response directions, two implied sentence directions, and three sentence
types), both the fastest and the slowest reading times were
discarded. The mean of the remaining reading times is referred to as the trimmed mean reading time. In addition,
9 participants were eliminated because of failure to maintain a constant error rate across conditionsthat is, the
within-subjects range in their error rates was at least .5.
(The results of the analyses were substantially the same
with and without these 9 participants.) A Type 1 error rate
of .05 was adopted.
The data of major interest are illustrated in Figure 1.
The interaction between response direction and implied
sentence directionthat is, the ACEis significant
[F(1,34) 5 7.75, MS e 5 47,013]. Although the effect
seems to be stronger for the two types of transfer sentences, as compared with the imperative sentences, the
three-factor interaction was not significant (F ) , 1).1
This result confirms the prediction from the IH and is inconsistent with abstract symbol theories of meaning. In
fact, the result is quite amazing: Merely understanding a
sentence can facilitate or interfere with a physical response.
There were several other significant effects in the analyses of the trimmed mean reading times. There was a large
main effect of sentence type [F(2,68) 5 72.41, MSe 5
111,207], reflecting the fact that the shorter imperative
sentences were read much faster than the longer transfer
sentences. There was also a significant interaction between
sentence direction and sentence type [F(2,68) 5 3.97,
MSe 5 63,887]. That is, the away sentences were read more
Figure 1. Data from Experiment 1 illustrating the actionsentence compatibility effect (that is, the interaction between implied sentence direction and actual response direction) for imperative sentences, concrete transfer sentences, and abstract transfer sentences.
561
Results
The first block of 16 trials was treated as practice and
was discarded. No participant showed a range of error
rates greater than or equal to .5, and hence none was eliminated. Trimmed mean reading times were computed
from the remaining trials, and the data of most interest
are presented in Figure 2 (for Experiment 2A) and Figure 3 (for Experiment 2B).
Experiment 2A. The ACE interaction of implied sentence direction and actual response direction was significant [F(1,68) 5 3.72, MSe 5 91,069]. The only other significant finding for the reading times was a main effect of
sentence type [F(2,68) 5 191.71, MSe 5 46,871], indicating that the shorter imperative sentences were read
more quickly than the longer transfer sentences. There
were two main effects in the analysis of error rates. First,
there were fewer errors on the toward sentences (4%) than
on the away sentences [7%; F(1,68) 5 6.99, MS e 5
76.87]. Second, there were fewer errors for the imperative
sentences (4%) than for the concrete (6.5%) or the abstract
(7%) transfer sentences [F(2,136) 5 10.99, MSe 5 38.87].
Experiment 2B. There was very little evidence for an
ACE interaction [F(1,70) 5 0.20, MSe 5 43,935]. Thus,
the contrast between the results of Experiments 2A and
2B indicate that the interference arises from action, rather
than from the spatial location of the response buttons.
Several other effects were significant in the analysis of
trimmed mean reading times and error rates. For the reading times, there was a main effect of implied sentence direction, in that toward sentences (trimmed mean reading
time of 1,742 msec) were read faster than away sentences
[1,800 msec; F(1,70) 5 8.27, MSe 5 43,935]. Also, the
imperative sentences were read much faster than the
longer transfer sentences [F(2,140) 5 425.66, MSe 5
25,902]. Finally, there was a significant interaction of sentence direction and sentence type [F(2,140) 5 3.88,
MSe 5 23,299]. There were corresponding effects in the
error rates that were positively correlated with the reading
times, precluding speedaccuracy tradeoffs. There was a
main effect of implied sentence direction in that there
were fewer errors on toward sentences (6%) than on away
sentences [7%; F(1,70) 5 3.65, MSe 5 39.64]. There was
a main effect of sentence type, so that there were fewer er-
562
Figure 2. Data from Experiment 2A illustrating the actionsentence compatibility effect for imperative sentences, concrete transfer sentences, and abstract transfer sentences.
Figure 3. Data from Experiment 2B. In this experiment, responding did not require movement to the response buttons, and the action
sentence compatibility effect was eliminated.
563
564
565
tation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153-156.
Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive
Science, 12, 49-100.
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74, 209-253.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects
and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 830-846.
van den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory of narrative
texts: Inferences and coherence. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 539-589). San Diego: Academic Press.
NOTES
1. In a separate experiment not reported here, we used only the imperative sentences and manipulated response direction between subjects. The
ACE was significant [F(1,54) 5 12.33, MSe 5 11,251].
2. In general, a construction is a pairing of a form and a meaning, in
which the meaning cannot be deduced from the components of the form
(e.g., Goldberg, 1995). Thus, monomorphemic words (e.g., book) and
some phrases (e.g., all of a sudden and by and large; see Fillmore,
Kay, & OConnor, 1988) are constructions, in that the meaning cannot be
deduced from the letters, individual sounds, or individual words. Here, we
restrict the meaning of construction to verb-argument constructions, such
as the double-object construction, in which a meaning (e.g., transfer) is
paired with a syntactic form (e.g., the abstract form of the double object
construction).
(Manuscript received August 3, 2001;
accepted for publication November 12, 2001.)