Many aspects of language associated with an object's noun inform about the location of the object the noun refers to, in relation to the action system. In the present study, we tested whether the determiners la (the) and cette (that) in French language carry embodied spatial information. In Experiment 1, participants performed a reachability judgement task after having evaluated the correct spelling of both a determiner (la or cette) and an object-noun (balle–ball, tasse–cup, or pomme–apple). We found that response time for judging reachability was shorter when the determiner la rather than cette was previously presented. The opposite pattern of results was observed with unreachable objects. Furthermore, the boundary of reachable space was perceived further away when the determiner la rather than cette was previously presented. In Experiment 2, we evaluated whether watching a reachable or unreachable object influenced the subsequent spelling judgement task of a determiner (la or cette) and a noun (balle, tasse, or pomme). Results showed that reachable space was wider, and reachability estimates were faster, when judging reachability than when judging unreachability. Moreover, spelling judgements were faster when the stimulus was the determiner la rather than cette, whatever the reachability of the object presented before. Considered together, these data stress the close connection between the spatial content of determiners and the representation of action possibilities, giving some evidence for embodied language processing. By contrast, presenting an object at a reachable or an unreachable location does not seem sufficient to activate the related linguistic descriptors.
AllportD. A. (1985). Distributed memory, modular systems and dysphasia. In NewmanS. K. & EpsteinR. (Eds.), Current perspectives in dysphasia. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
2.
AndersonM. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130.
3.
Aziz-ZadehL., & DamasioA. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging. Journal de Physiologie–Paris, 102, 35–39.
4.
Aziz-ZadehL., WilsonS. M., RizzolattiG., & IacoboniM. (2006). Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Current Biology, 16(18), 1818–1823.
5.
BarsalouL. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
6.
BarsalouL. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
7.
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.
8.
BartoloA., WeisbeckerA., & CoelloY. (2007). Linguistic and spatial information for action. Behavioural Brain Research, 184, 19–30.
9.
BeauchampM., & MartinA. (2007). Grounding object concepts in perception and action: Evidence from fMRI studies of tools. Cortex, 43, 461–468.
10.
BergenB., & ChangN. (2005). Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In OstmanJ. O. & FriedM. (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
11.
BergenB. K., LindsayS., MatlockT., & NarayananS. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 733–764.
12.
Bidet-IldeiC., SparrowL., & CoelloY. (2011). Reading action word affects the visual perception of biological motion. Acta Psychologica, 137, 330–334.
13.
BonfiglioliC., FinocchiaroC., GesierichB., RositanoF., & VescoviM. (2009). A kinematic approach to the conceptual representations of this and that. Cognition, 111, 270–274.
14.
BorghiA. M. (2004). Objects concepts and action: Extracting affordances from objects' parts. Acta Psychologica, 115, 69–96.
15.
BoulengerV., RoyA. C., PaulignanY., DeprezV., JeannerodM., & NazirT. 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.
16.
BourgeoisJ., & CoelloY. (2012). Effect of visuomotor calibration and uncertainty on the perception of peripersonal space. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74(6), 1268–1283.
17.
BrouilletT., HeurleyL., MartinS., & BrouilletD. (2010). The embodied cognition theory and the motor component of “yes” and “no” verbal responses. Acta Psychologica, 134, 310–317.
18.
ChaoL., & MartinA. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478–484.
19.
ChielH. J., & BeerR. D. (1997). The brain has a body: Adaptive behavior emerges from interactions of nervous system, body and environment. Trends in Neurosciences, 20, 553–557.
20.
ClarkA. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
ClarkA., & ChalmersD. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7–19.
22.
CoelloY., & BartoloA. (2012). Language and action in cognitive neuroscience. London: Psychology Press.
23.
CoelloY., BartoloA., AmiriB., HoudayerE., & DerambureP. (2008). Perceiving what is reachable depends on motor representations: A study using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Plos One, 3(8), 1–12.
24.
CoelloY., & Delevoye-TurrellY. (2007). Embodiment, space categorisation and action. Consciousness & Cognition, 16, 667–683.
25.
ColtheartM., RastleK., PerryC., ZieglerJ., & LangdonR. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.
26.
CostantiniM., AmbrosiniE., ScorilliC., & BorghiA. M. (2011). When objects are close to me: Affordances in the peripersonal space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 302–308.
27.
CoventryK. R. (2012). On the mapping between spatial language and the vision and action system. In CoelloY. & BartoloA. (Eds.), Language and action in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 209–223). London: Psychology Press.
28.
CoventryK. R., ValdésB., CastilloA., & Guijarro-FuentesP. (2008). Language within your reach. Near–far perceptual space and spatial demonstratives. Cognition, 108, 889–895.
29.
DiesselH. (2005). Distance contrasts in demonstratives. In HaspelmathM., DryerM. S., GilD., & ComrieB. (Eds.), World atlas of language structures (pp. 170–173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
EstesZ., VergesM., & BarsalouL. W. (2008). Head up, foot down: Object words orient attention to the object's typical location. Psychological Science, 19, 93–97.
31.
FischerM. H., & ZwaanR. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 825–850.
32.
GalleseV., & LakoffG. (2005). The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455–479.
33.
GentilucciM., BenuzziF., BertolaniL., DapratiE., & GangitanoM. (2000). Language and motor control. Experimental Brain Research, 133, 468–490.
34.
GentilucciM., & GangitanoM. (1998). Influence of automatic word reading on motor control. European Journal of Neuroscience, 10, 752–756.
35.
GlenbergA. M., & KaschakM. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.
36.
GlenbergA. M., & RobertsonD. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory & Language, 43, 379–401.
37.
GloverS., & DixonP. (2002). Semantics affect the planning but not control of grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 146, 383–387.
38.
GloverS., RosenbaumD. A., GrahamJ., & DixonP. (2004). Grasping the meaning of words. Experimental Brain Research, 154, 103–108.
39.
GoldfieldB. A. (2000). Nouns before verbs in comprehension vs. production: The view from pragmatics. Journal of Child Language, 27, 501–520.
40.
GraingerJ., & JacobsA. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple readout model. Psychological Review, 103, 518–565.
41.
HebbD. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. New York, NY: Wiley.
42.
KemmererD. (2010). The neurobiology of lexical processing. In HoganP. C. (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp. 439–442). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
LakoffG. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
44.
LangackerR. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.1
45.
MartinA. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.
46.
NazirT. A., FargierR., AravenaP., & BoulengerV. (2012). When words trigger activity in the brain's sensory and motor systems: It is not remembrance of things past. In CoelloY. & BartoloA. (Ed.), Language and action in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 307–318). London: Psychology Press.
47.
NewB., PallierC., BrysbaertM., & FerrandL. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 516–524.
48.
NoeA., & ThompsonE. (2002). Introduction. In NoeA. & ThompsonE. (Eds.), Vision and mind: Selected readings in the philosophy of perception (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
PecherD., & ZwaanR. A. (2005). Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. CambridgeUK: Cambridge University Press.
50.
PulvermüllerF. (2001). Brain reflections of words and their meaning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 517–524.
51.
PulvermüllerF. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582.
52.
RueschemeyerS.-A., PfeifferC., & BekkeringH. (2010). Body schematics: On the role of the body schema in embodied lexical–semantic representation. Neuropsychologia, 48, 774–781.
53.
SenftG. (2004). Deixis and demonstratives in oceanic languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
54.
SeticM., & DomijanD. (2007). The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 297–312.
55.
ShepardR. N. (1984). Ecological constraints on internal representation: Resonant kinematics of perceiving, imagining, thinking, and dreaming. Psychological Review, 91(4), 417–447.
56.
StanfieldR. A., & ZwaanR. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156.
57.
TalmyL. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58.
VandenbergheR., PriceC., WiseR., JosephsO., & FrackowiakR. S. J. (1996). Functional anatomy of a common semantic system for words and pictures. Nature, 383, 254–256.
59.
VarelaF. J., ThompsonE., & RoschE. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60.
WilsonM. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 625–636.
61.
ZwaanR. A. (1999). Embodied cognition, perceptual symbols, and situation models. Discourse Processes, 28, 81–88.
62.
ZwaanR. A., MaddenC. J., YaxleyR. H., & AveyardM. E. (2004). Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611–619.
63.
ZwaanR. A., & TaylorL. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1–11.
64.
ZwaanR. A., & YaxleyR. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic-relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954–958.
