The mutual roles of action representations and spatial deictics in French language

REFERENCES

• Allport, D. A. (1985). Distributed memory, modular systems and dysphasia. In S. K. Newman & R. Epstein (Eds.), Current perspectives in dysphasia. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130. doi: 10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00054-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Damasio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging. Journal de Physiologie–Paris, 102, 35–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aziz-Zadeh, L., Wilson, S. M., Rizzolatti, G., & Iacoboni, M. (2006). Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Current Biology, 16(18), 1818–1823. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.060
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartolo, A., Coello, Y., Delepoulle, S., Edwards, M. G., Endo, S., & Wing, A. M. (2009). Neurobiological basis of reachability judgment: An fMRI study. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Functional Mapping of the Human Brain Mapping, San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Bartolo, A., Weisbecker, A., & Coello, Y. (2007). Linguistic and spatial information for action. Behavioural Brain Research, 184, 19–30. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.06.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauchamp, M., & Martin, A. (2007). Grounding object concepts in perception and action: Evidence from fMRI studies of tools. Cortex, 43, 461–468. doi: 10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70470-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergen, B., & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J. O. Ostman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bergen, B. K., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 733–764. doi: 10.1080/03640210701530748
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bidet-Ildei, C., Sparrow, L., & Coello, Y. (2011). Reading action word affects the visual perception of biological motion. Acta Psychologica, 137, 330–334. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.04.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonfiglioli, C., Finocchiaro, C., Gesierich, B., Rositano, F., & Vescovi, M. (2009). A kinematic approach to the conceptual representations of this and that. Cognition, 111, 270–274. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borghi, A. M. (2004). Objects concepts and action: Extracting affordances from objects' parts. Acta Psychologica, 115, 69–96. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulenger, V., Roy, A. C., Paulignan, Y., Deprez, V., Jeannerod, M., & Nazir, T. A. (2006). Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1607–1615. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1607
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourgeois, J., & Coello, Y. (2012). Effect of visuomotor calibration and uncertainty on the perception of peripersonal space. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74(6), 1268–1283. doi: 10.3758/s13414-012-0316-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouillet, T., Heurley, L., Martin, S., & Brouillet, D. (2010). The embodied cognition theory and the motor component of “yes” and “no” verbal responses. Acta Psychologica, 134, 310–317. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chao, L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478–484. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0635
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiel, H. J., & Beer, R. D. (1997). The brain has a body: Adaptive behavior emerges from interactions of nervous system, body and environment. Trends in Neurosciences, 20, 553–557. doi: 10.1016/S0166-2236(97)01149-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7–19. doi: 10.1093/analys/58.1.7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coello, Y., & Bartolo, A. (2012). Language and action in cognitive neuroscience. London: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coello, Y., Bartolo, A., Amiri, B., Houdayer, E., & Derambure, P. (2008). Perceiving what is reachable depends on motor representations: A study using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Plos One, 3(8), 1–12. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002862
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coello, Y., & Delevoye-Turrell, Y. (2007). Embodiment, space categorisation and action. Consciousness & Cognition, 16, 667–683. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.07.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Ziegler, J., & Langdon, R. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costantini, M., Ambrosini, E., Scorilli, C., & Borghi, A. M. (2011). When objects are close to me: Affordances in the peripersonal space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 302–308. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0054-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coventry, K. R. (2012). On the mapping between spatial language and the vision and action system. In Y. Coello & A. Bartolo (Eds.), Language and action in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 209–223). London: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coventry, K. R., Valdés, B., Castillo, A., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2008). Language within your reach. Near–far perceptual space and spatial demonstratives. Cognition, 108, 889–895. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diessel, H. (2005). Distance contrasts in demonstratives. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), World atlas of language structures (pp. 170–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Head up, foot down: Object words orient attention to the object's typical location. Psychological Science, 19, 93–97. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02051.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 825–850. doi: 10.1080/17470210701623605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479. doi: 10.1080/02643290442000310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentilucci, M., Benuzzi, F., Bertolani, L., Daprati, E., & Gangitano, M. (2000). Language and motor control. Experimental Brain Research, 133, 468–490. doi: 10.1007/s002210000431
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentilucci, M., & Gangitano, M. (1998). Influence of automatic word reading on motor control. European Journal of Neuroscience, 10, 752–756. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.1998.00060.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565. doi: 10.3758/BF03196313
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory & Language, 43, 379–401. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glover, S., & Dixon, P. (2002). Semantics affect the planning but not control of grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 146, 383–387. doi: 10.1007/s00221-002-1222-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glover, S., Rosenbaum, D. A., Graham, J., & Dixon, P. (2004). Grasping the meaning of words. Experimental Brain Research, 154, 103–108. doi: 10.1007/s00221-003-1659-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldfield, B. A. (2000). Nouns before verbs in comprehension vs. production: The view from pragmatics. Journal of Child Language, 27, 501–520. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900004244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple readout model. Psychological Review, 103, 518–565. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kemmerer, D. (2010). The neurobiology of lexical processing. In P. C. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp. 439–442). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.1
   Google Scholar
• Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nazir, T. A., Fargier, R., Aravena, P., & Boulenger, V. (2012). When words trigger activity in the brain's sensory and motor systems: It is not remembrance of things past. In Y. Coello & A. Bartolo (Ed.), Language and action in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 307–318). London: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 516–524. doi: 10.3758/BF03195598
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Noe, A., & Thompson, E. (2002). Introduction. In A. Noe & E. Thompson (Eds.), Vision and mind: Selected readings in the philosophy of perception (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. CambridgeUK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pulvermüller, F. (2001). Brain reflections of words and their meaning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 517–524. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01803-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582. doi: 10.1038/nrn1706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rueschemeyer, S.-A., Pfeiffer, C., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Body schematics: On the role of the body schema in embodied lexical–semantic representation. Neuropsychologia, 48, 774–781. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senft, G. (2004). Deixis and demonstratives in oceanic languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Setic, M., & Domijan, D. (2007). The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 297–312. doi: 10.1080/01690960600732430
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepard, R. N. (1984). Ecological constraints on internal representation: Resonant kinematics of perceiving, imagining, thinking, and dreaming. Psychological Review, 91(4), 417–447. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.91.4.417
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00326
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   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
• Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 625–636. doi: 10.3758/BF03196322
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A. (1999). Embodied cognition, perceptual symbols, and situation models. Discourse Processes, 28, 81–88. doi: 10.1080/01638539909545070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., & Aveyard, M. E. (2004). Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1–11. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic-relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954–958. doi: 10.3758/BF03196557
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar