Words, thoughts, and brains

References

• Abrams, R. A., & Christ, S. E. (2003). Motion onset captures attention. Psychological Science, 14, 427–432. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.01458
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ameel, E., Malt, B. C., Storms, G., & van Assche, F. (2009). Semantic convergence in the bilingual lexicon. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 270–290. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ameel, E., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2005). How bilinguals solve the naming problem. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 60–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, S. G., Thompson-Schill, S. L., Weber, M., & Osherson, D. (2010). An early stage of conceptual combination: Superimposition of constituent concepts in the left anterolateral temporal lobe. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 44–51. doi: 10.1080/17588920903548751
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bi, Y., Yu, X., Geng, J., & Alario, F. X. (2010). The role of visual form in lexical access: Evidence from Chinese classifier production. Cognition, 116(1), 101–109. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 527–536. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.10.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, P. (2004). Descartes’ baby: How the science of child development explains what makes us human. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–220. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(79)90009-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 385–486). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475–511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of aspectual coercion. Brain and Language, 106(2), 132–143. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.04.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bright, P., Moss, H., & Tyler, L. K. (2004). Unitary vs multiple semantics: PET studies of word and picture processing. Brain and Language, 89, 417–432. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.01.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brownell, H. (2000). Right hemisphere contributions to understanding lexical connotation and metaphor. In Y. Grodzinsky, L. Shapiro, & D. Swinney (Eds.), Language and the brain (pp. 185–201). San Diego: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buxbaum, L. J., & Saffran, E. M. (2002). Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: Dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects. Brain and Language, 82, 179–199. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00014-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chrysikou, E. G., Casasanto, D., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2017). Motor experience influences object knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 395–408. doi: 10.1037/xge0000269
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chrysikou, E. G., Giovannetti, T., Wambach, D. M., Lyon, A. C., Grossman, M., & Libon, D. J. (2011). Multiple assessments of object knowledge in semantic dementia: The case of the familiar objects task. Neurocase, 17, 57–75. doi: 10.1080/13554794.2010.497156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B. (2012). The focus theory of normative conduct. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume 2. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446249222.n41
   Google Scholar
• Clark, E. V. (2001). Emergent categories in first language acquisition. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 379–405). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1983). Making sense of nonce sense. In G. B. Flores d'Arcais & R. J. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of language understanding (pp. 297–331). London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2014). Principles of representation: Why you can’t represent the same concept twice. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 390–406. doi: 10.1111/tops.12097
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehaene, S. (2011). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fairhill, S. L., & Caramazza, A. (2013). Brain regions that represent amodal conceptual knowledge. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(25), 10552–10558. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0051-13.2013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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, 339–357. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.120.4.339
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flaherty, M., & Senghas, A. (2011). Numerosity and number signs in deaf Nicaraguan adults. Cognition, 121, 427–436. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E., & Gibson, E. (2008). Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition, 108, 819–824. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, Y., & Malt, B. C. (2009). Mental representation and cognitive consequences of Chinese individual classifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 1124–1179. doi: 10.1080/01690960802018323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gates, L., & Yoon, M. G. (2005). Distinct and shared cortical regions of the human brain activated by depictions versus verbal descriptions: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 24, 473–486. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.08.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gennari, S., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83, 49–79. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00166-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentner, D. (2003). Why we’re so smart. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195–235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2012). New perspectives on language and thought. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 543–568). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldin-Meadow, S., Gelman, S., & Mylander, C. (2005). Expressing generic concepts with and without a language model. Cognition, 96, 109–126. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.07.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, Z., Ma, Y., Gong, G., He, Y., Caramazza, A., & Bi, Y. (2013). White matter structural connectivity underlying semantic processing: Evidence from brain damaged patients. Brain, 136, 2952–2965. doi: 10.1093/brain/awt205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, J., Pylkkänen, L., McElree, B., & Frisson, S. (2008). The cost of question concealment: Eye-tracking and MEG evidence. Brain and Language, 107(1), 44–61. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauk, O., & Tschentscher, N. (2013). The body of evidence: What can neuroscience tell us about embodied semantics? Frontiers in Psychology, 4. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermer-Vazquez, L., Spelke, E. S., & Katsnelson, A. S. (1999). Sources of flexibility in human cognition: Dual-task studies of space and language. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 3–36. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0713
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillis, A. E., & Caramazza, A. (1995a). Cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying visual and semantic processing: Implications from “optic aphasia.”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 457–478. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1995.7.4.457
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillis, A. E., Caramazza, A. (1995b). The compositionality of lexical semantic representations: Clues from semantic errors in object naming. Memory , 3, 333–358. doi:10.1080/09658219508253156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, P., Jones, R. W., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2012). The degraded concept representation system in semantic dementia: Damage to pan-modal hub, then visual spoke. Brain, 135, 3770–3780. doi: 10.1093/brain/aws282
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hölscher, C., Shipley, T. F., Belardinelli, M. O., Bateman, J., & Newcombe, N. S. (Eds.). (2010). Spatial cognition VII. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, D., & Patterson, K. (1992). Pyramids and Palm Trees: A test of semantic access from pictures and words. Bury St. Edmunds, UK: Thames Valley Test Company.
   Google Scholar
• Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, G. W. (2006). Features, objects, action: The cognitive neuropsychology of visual object processing, 1984-2004. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 156–183. doi: 10.1080/02643290542000030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hung, J., Edmonds, L. M., & Reilly, J. (2016). Words speak louder than pictures for action concepts: An eyetracking investigation of the picture superiority effect in semantic categorization. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 31, 1150–1166. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1198818
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay, P., Berlin, B., Maffi, L., Merrifield, W. R., & Cook, R. (2009). The world color survey. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 227–254. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemmerer, D. (2017). Categories of object concepts across languages and brains: The relevance of nominal classification systems to cognitive neuroscience. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32, 401–424. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1198819
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemmerer, D. (2019). Concepts in the brain: The view from cross-linguistic diversity. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kiefer, M., Sim, E.-J., Herrnberger, B., Grothe, J., & Hoenig, K. (2008). The sound of concepts: Four markers for a link between auditory and conceptual brain systems. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(47), 12224–12230. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3579-08.2008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, L. A., & Buchanan, J. A. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Pyramids and Palm Trees test. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31, 803–808. doi: 10.1080/13803390802508926
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronenfeld, D. B., Armstrong, J. D., Wilmoth, S. (1985). Exploring the internal structure of linguistic categories: An extensionist semantic view. In J. W. D. Dougherty (Ed.), Directions in cognitive anthropology (pp. 91–113). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lai, V. T., Rodriguez, G. G., & Narasimhan, B. (2014). Thinking-for-speaking in early and late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 139–152. doi: 10.1017/S1366728913000151
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambon Ralph, M. A., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Rogers, T. T. (2017). The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18, 42–55. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landau, B., Dessalegn, B., Goldberg, A. M. (2010). Language and space: Momentary interactions. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (Advances in cognitive linguistics) (pp. 51–78). London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75. doi:10.1017/S0140525X99001776
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 315–353. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.09.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombrozo, T., Vasilyeva, N. (2017). Causal explanation. In M. Waldmann (Ed.), Oxford handbook of causal reasoning (pp. 415–432). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ma, W., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & McDonough, C. (2009). Imageability predicts the age of acquisition of verbs in Chinese children. Journal of Child Language, 36, 405–423. doi: 10.1017/S0305000908009008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2009). Concepts and categories: A cognitive neuropsychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 27–51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163532
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2011). What drives the organization of object knowledge in the brain? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 97–103. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahon, B. Z., & Hickok, G. (2016). Arguments about the nature of concepts: Symbols, embodiment, and beyond. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23, 941–958. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1045-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier, M., & Rahman, R. A. (2018). Native language promotes access to visual consciousness. Psychological Science, 29, 1757–1772. doi: 10.1177/0956797618782181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majid, A. (2015). Comparing lexicons cross-linguistically. In J. R. Taylor (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word (pp. 364–379). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Majid, A., Boster, J. S., & Bowerman, M. (2008). The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition, 109, 235–250. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majid, A., Enfield, N. J., & vanStaden, M. (eds). (2006). Cross-linguistic categorisation of the body: Introduction. Language Sciences, 28, 137–147. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C. (2010). Naming artifacts: Patterns and processes. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 1–38). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C., Gennari, S. P., Imai, M., Ameel, E., Saji, N., & Majid, A. (2014). Human locomotion in languages: Constraints on moving and meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 107–123. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C., Gennari, S. P., Imai, M., Ameel, E., Saji, N., & Majid, A. (2015). Where are the concepts? What words can and can’t reveal. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions (pp. 291–326). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C., Gennari, S., Imai, M., Ameel, E., Tsuda, N., & Majid, A. (2008). Talking about walking: Biomechanics and the language of locomotion. Psychological Science, 19, 232–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02074.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C., Gennari, S., & Imai, M. (2010). Lexicalization patterns and the world-to-words mapping. In B. C. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience (pp. 29–57). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C., Li, P., Pavlenko, A., Zhu, H., & Ameel, E. (2015). Bidirectional lexical interaction in late immersed Mandarin-English bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 86–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C., & Majid, A. (2013). How thought is mapped into words. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 583–597. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1251
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2007). Artifact categorization: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation (pp. 85–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C., Sloman, S. A., Gennari, S., Shi, M., & Wang, Y. (1999). Knowing versus naming: Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 230–262. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2593
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClelland, J. L., & Rogers, T. T. (2003). The parallel distributed processing approach to semantic cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 310–322. doi: 10.1038/nrn1076
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. M. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: Flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 229–259. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00514-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McWhorter, J. H. (2014). The language hoax: Why the world looks the same in any language. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Montero-Melis, G., & Bylund, E. (2017). Getting the ball rolling: The cross-linguistic conceptualization of caused motion. Language and Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language and Cognitive Science, 9, 446–472. doi:10.1017/langcog.2016.22
   Google Scholar
• Mummery, C. J., Patterson, K., Hodges, J. R., & Price, C. J. (1998). Functional neuroanatomy of the semantic system: Divisible by what? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(6), 766–777. doi:10.1162/089892998563059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munnich, E., Landau, B., & Dosher, B. A. (2001). Spatial language and spatial representation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cognition, 81, 171–208. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00127-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neider, A., & Dahaene, S. (2009). Representation of number in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 32, 185–208. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135550
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108, 155–184. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlenko, A., & Malt, B. C. (2011). Kitchen Russian: Cross-linguistic differences and first-language object naming by Russian-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 19–45. doi: 10.1017/S136672891000026X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phelps, K., & Duman, S. (2012). Manipulating manner: Semantic representations of human locomotion verbs in English and German. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 857-862). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Postler, J., De Bleser, R., Cholewa, J., Glauche, V., Hamzei, F., & Weiller, C. (2003). Neuroimaging the semantic system(s). Aphasiology, 17, 799–814. doi: 10.1080/02687030344000265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulvermüller, F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 458–470. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pylkkänen, L., Llinas, R., & Murphy, G. L. (2006). Representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 97–109. doi: 10.1162/089892906775250003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pylkkänen, L., & Marantz, A. (2003). Tracking the time course of word recognition with MEG. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 187–189. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00092-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pylkkänen, L., Oliveri, B., & Smart, A. (2009). Semantics vs. world knowledge in prefrontal cortex. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 1313–1334. doi:10.1080/01690960903120176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radel, R., & Clément-Guillotin, C. (2012). Evidence of motivational influences in early visual perception: Hunger modulates conscious access. Psychological Science, 23, 232–234. doi: 10.1177/0956797611427920
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riddoch, M. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1987). Visual object processing in a case of optic aphasia: A case of semantic access agnosia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 4, 131–185. doi: 10.1080/02643298708252038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2004). Modeling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28, 89–104. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2801_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saalbach, H., & Imai, M. (2007). Scope of linguistic influence: Does a classifier system alter object concepts? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 485–501. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.485
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saffran, E. M., Coslett, H. B., & Keener, M. T. (2003). Differences in word associations to pictures and words. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1541–1546. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(03)00080-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saffran, E. M., Coslett, H. B., Martin, N., & Boronat, C. (2003). Access to knowledge from pictures but not words in a patient with progressive fluent aphasia. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 725–757. doi: 10.1080/01690960344000107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saji, N., & Imai, M. (2013). Evolution of verb meanings in children and L2 adult learners through reorganization of an entire semantic domain: The case of Chinese carry/hold verbs. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 71–88. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2012.689788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saji, N., Imai, M., Saalbach, H., Zhang, Y., Shu, H., & Okada, H. (2011). Word learning does not end at fast-mapping: Evolution of verb meanings through reorganization of an entire semantic domain. Cognition, 118, 45–61. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxe, R., & Carey, S. (2006). The perception of causality in infancy. Acta Psychologica, 123, 144–165. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.05.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, M. F., Segal, M., Veramonti, T., Ferraro, M., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2002). The Naturalistic Action Test: A standardised assessment for everyday action impairment. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 12, 311–339. doi:10.1080/09602010244000084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Oxford, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sloman, S. A. (2005). Causal models: How people think about the world and its alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sloman, S. A., & Malt, B. C. (2003). Artifacts are not ascribed essences, nor are they treated as belonging to kinds. Language and Cognitive Processes [Special Issue: Conceptual Representation], 18, 563–582. doi: 10.1080/01690960344000035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snowden, J., Griffiths, H., & Neary, D. (1994). Semantic dementia: Autobiographical contribution to preservation of meaning. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 265–288. doi: 10.1080/02643299408251976
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srinivasan, M., & Rabagliati, H. (2015). How concepts and conventions structure the lexicon: Cross-linguistic evidence from polysemy. Lingua, 157, 124–152. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M. (1996). The cultural roots of language. In B. M. Velichkovsky & D. M. Rumbaugh (Eds.), Communicating meaning: The evolution and development of language (pp. 275–307). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Vandenberghe, R., Price, C., Wise, R., Josephs, O., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1996). Functional anatomy of a common semantic system for words and pictures. Nature, 383, 254–256. doi: 10.1038/383254a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Hell, J. G., & De Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of concreteness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 193–211. doi: 10.1017/S1366728998000352
   Google Scholar
• Varley, R., & Siegal, M. (2000). Evidence for cognition without grammar from causal reasoning and ‘theory of mind’ in an agrammatic aphasic patient. Current Biology, 10, 723–726. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(00)00538-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422–488. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.09.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldmann, M. R. (2017). The Oxford handbook of causal reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wedel, M., Pieters, R., & Liechty, J. (2008). Attention switching during scene perception: How goals influence the time course of eye movements across advertisements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 129–138. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.129
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheatley, T., Weisberg, J., Beauchamp, M. S., & Martin, A. (2005). Automatic priming of semantically related words reduces activity in the fusiform gyrus. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1871–1885. doi: 10.1162/089892905775008689
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolff, P., & Malt, B. C. (2010). The language-thought interface: An introduction. In B. C. Malt & P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the mind: How words capture human experience (pp. 3–15). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, Y., He, Y., & Bi, Y. (2017). A tri-network model of human semantic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 601–621. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.601
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye movements and vision. New York: Plenum Press. (Translated from Russian by Basil Haigh. Original Russian edition published in Moscow in 1965).
   Google Scholar
• Yee, E., Chrysikou, E. G., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2014). Semantic memory. In K. Ochsner & S. Kosslyn (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive neuroscience (pp. 353–374). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yee, E., Huffstetler, S., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2011). Function follows form: Activation of shape and function features during object identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 348–363. doi: 10.1037/a0022840
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youn, H., Sutton, L., Smith, E., Moore, C., Wilkins, J. F., Maddieson, I., … Bhattacharya, T. (2016). On the universal structure of human lexical semantics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 1766–1771. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1520752113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, H., & Malt, B. C. (2014). Cross-linguistic evidence for cognitive foundations of polysemy. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 934–939). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar