Embodied cognition and abstract concepts: Do concept empiricists leave anything out?

References

• Adams, F., & Campbell, K. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 22, 610–611.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 129–163). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Borghi, A. M., & Cimatti, F. (2009). Words as tools and the problem of abstract words meanings. In Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the cognitive science society, volume 31, pages 2304–2309.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 141–185). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burge, T. (1979). Individualism and the Mental. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 4(1), 73–121.
   Google Scholar
• Carruthers, P., & Smith, P. K. (1996). Theories of theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Damasio, A. R. (1989). The brain binds entities and events by multiregional activation from convergence zones. Neural Computation, 1(1), 123–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110, 412–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dove, G. (2011). On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(242).
   Google Scholar
• Dove, G. (2016). Three symbol ungrounding problems: Abstract concepts and the future of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1109–1121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fias, W., & Fischer, M. (2005). Spatial representation of numbers. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 43–54). New York: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. A. (1989). Why there still has to be a language of thought. In P. Slezak & W. R. Albury (Eds.), Computers, brains and minds (pp. 23–46). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3/4), 455–479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D. Nonlinear Phenomena, 42(1), 335–346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haslanger, S. (2005). What are we talking about? The semantics and politics of social kinds. Hypatia, 20(4), 10–26.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Khalidi, M. A. (2016). Natural Kinds. In P. Humphreys (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of science (pp. 397). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knobe, J., Prasada, S., & Newman, G. E. (2013). Dual character concepts and the normative dimension of conceptual representation. Cognition, 127(2), 242–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kripke, S. A. (1972). Naming and necessity. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landauer, T., & Dumais, S. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211e240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. (1970). General semantics. Synthese, 22, 18–67.
   Google Scholar
• Lindblom, J. (2015). Embodied social cognition (Vol. 26). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lindemann, O., & Fischer, M. H. (2015). Embodied number processing. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 381–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liptow, J. (2012). Thinking and judging. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 86(1), 223–234.
   Google Scholar
• Löhr, G. (2017). Abstract concepts, compositionality, and the contextualism-invariantism debate. Philosophical Psychology, 30(6), 689–710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löhr, G. (2018). Concepts and categorization: Do philosophers and psychologists theorize about different things? Synthese (Online first).
   Google Scholar
• Machery, E. (2007). Concept empiricism: A methodological critique. Cognition, 104(1), 19–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machery, E. (2009). Doing without concepts. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Machery, E., & Lederer, L. (2012). Simple heuristics for concept combination. In W. H. Werning & E. Machery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality (pp. 81–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Machery, E. (2015). By default: Concepts are accessed in a context-independent manner. In L. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Machery, E. (2016). The amodal brain and the offloading hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1090–1095.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1), 59–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mallon, R. (2016). The construction of human kinds. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Malt, B. C. (1994). Water is not H2O. Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 41–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margolis, E. (1998). How to acquire a concept. Mind & Language, 13(3), 347–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2014). Concepts. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Spring 2014 edition. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/concepts/
   Google Scholar
• Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2011). Learning matters: The role of learning in concept acquisition. Mind & Language, 26(5), 507–539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming off age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 48(7), 788–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millikan, R. G. (1998). A common structure for concepts of individuals, stuffs, and real kinds: more Mama, more milk, and more mouse. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(1), 55–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millikan, R. G. (2017). Beyond concepts: Unicepts, language, and natural information. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, R., & Clement, A. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 22, 628–629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, G. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Ohlsson, S. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 22, 630–631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie, 45(3), 255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peacocke, C. (1992). A study of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prinz, J. (2002). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prinz, J. (2012). Regaining composure: A defense of prototype compositionality. In W. Hinzen, E. Machery, & M. Werning (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality (pp. 437–453). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prinz, J., & Clark, A. (2004). Putting concepts to work: Some thoughts for the twenty-first century. Mind & Language, 19(1), 57–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prinz, J. J. (2005). The return of concept empiricism. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 679–699). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulvermüller, F., Hauk, O., Nikulin, V., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2005). Functional interaction of language and action: A TMS study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21(3), 793–797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of meaning. In A. Pessing (Ed.), The twin earth chronicles: twenty years of reflection on hilary putnam’s the meaning of meaning (pp. 3–52). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1980). Computation and cognition: Issues in the foundations of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 111–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quine, W. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43.
   Google Scholar
• Rey, G. (1983). Concepts and stereotypes. Cognition, 15(1–3), 237–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rice, C. (2013). Concept empiricism, content, and compositionality. Philosophical Studies, 162(3), 567–583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Searle, J. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Searle, J. R. (1958). Proper names. Mind, 67(266), 166–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siebel, M. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 22, 632–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spreen, O, & Schulz, R. W. (1966). Parameters of abstraction, meaningfulness, and pronunciability for 329 nouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 5(5), 459.
   Google Scholar
• Stalnaker, R. (1997). Reference and necessity. In B. Hale & C. Wright (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of language (pp. 534–554). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S. T., Della Rosa, P. A., Vinson, D. P., Tettamanti, M., Devlin, J. T., & Cappa, S. F. (2014). The neural representation of abstract words: The role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex, 24(7), 1767–1777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Simmons, W. K., Martin, A., & Barsalou, L. W. (2013). Contextual processing of abstract concepts reveals neural representations of nonlinguistic semantic content. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(6), 920–935.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar