Las palabras solas o combinadas en oraciones son símbolos materiales. Pero ¿cómo es su significado? La doctrina de los símbolos mentales asegura que el significado consiste, a su vez, en expresiones simbólicas que se elaboran en un lenguaje mente. Los símbolos mentales serían abstractos, arbitrarios, amodales y estarían regulados por mecanismos sintácticos. Sin embargo, los símbolos mentales plantean el problema de la toma de tierra, es decir, su falta de conexión con la experiencia. En consecuencia, no permiten establecer la referencia ni la plausibilidad de los enunciados. Una noción alternativa considera que el significado es corpóreo. Así, la comprensión del lenguaje implicaría una referencia a entidades perceptivas o “símbolos perceptivos” que, a diferencia de los símbolos mentales, tienen una cualidad sensorio-motora. Ofrecemos algunos argumentos e investigaciones que apoyan la corporeidad del significado lingüístico, aunque también consideramos algunas dificultades cuando se trata del significado de palabras y enunciados abstractos.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought.New Jersey: Erlbaum.
2.
BarsalouL. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
3.
BatesE.CamaioniL.VolterraV. (1975). The acquisition of preformatives prior to speech.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 21, 205–226.
4.
BowerG. H.MorrowD. G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension.Science, 24744–48.
5.
BowermanM. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language:A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 385–436). En BloomP.PetersonM. A.NadelL.GarrettM.F. (Eds.). Language and space.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
BransfordJ. D.BarclayJ. R.FranksJ. J. (1972). Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach.Cognitive Psychology, 3193–209.
7.
BühlerK. (1965). Sprachtheorie.Stuttgart: Gustav Fisher Verlag versión castellana, en Alianza, 1979).
8.
ClarkH. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. En MooreT. E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 28–64). Nueva York: Academic.
9.
CollinsA. M.LoftusE. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review, 82407–428.
10.
DamasioA. (1999). The feeling of what happens. Body and emotion in the making of consciousness.Nueva York: Harcourt Brace & Company.
11.
De VegaM. (1984). Introducción a la Psicología Cognitiva.Madrid: Alianza.
12.
De VegaM. (1992). Mental Models and Referential Processing.Taula, 15101–113.
13.
De VegaM. (1994). Characters and their perspectives in narratives describing spatial environments.Psychological Research, 56, 2, 116–126.
14.
De VegaM. (1995). Backward updating of mental models during continuous reading of narratives.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21373–386.
15.
De VegaM. (1997). Embodiment in language-based memory. Some qualifications.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2022–23.
16.
De VegaM.CarreirasM.Gutiérrez-calvoM.Alonso-QuecutyM. L. (1990). Lectura y comprensión. Una perspectiva cognitiva.Madrid: Alianza.
17.
De VegaM.DíazJ. (1991). Building referents of indeterminate sentences in the context of short narratives. EnLogieR. H.DenisM. (Eds.), Mental images in human cognition (pp. 153–170). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
18.
De VegaMDíazJ. M.LeónI. (1999). Procesamiento del discurso. Ende VegaM.CuetosF. (Eds.), Psicolingüística del español.Madrid: Trotta.
19.
De VegaM.RodrigoM.J.ZimmerH. (1996). Pointing and labeling directions in egocentric frameworks.Journal of Memory and Language, 35821–839.
20.
De VegaM.RobertsonD. A.GlenbergA. M.KaschakM. P. (2001, en revisión). Temporal constraints on actions: a test of meshind in the comprehension of narratives.
21.
De VegaM.RodrigoM. J. (2001). Updating spatial layouts mediated by pointing and labelling under physical and imaginary rotation.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13369–393.
22.
DuchanJ. F.BruderG. A.HewittL. E. (1995). Deixis in narrative.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence.
23.
EriccsonK. A.KintschW. (1995). Long-term working memory.Psychological Review, 102211–245.
24.
FauconnierG. (1998). Mental spaces, language modalities, and conceptual integration. EnTomaselloM. (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 251–280). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
25.
FillmoreC. J. (1968). The case for case. EnBachE.HarmsR. T. (Eds.), Universal in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). Nueva York: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson.
26.
FisherC. (1994). Structure and meaning in the verb lexicon: input for a syntax-aided verb learning procedure.Language and Cognitive Processes, 9473–517.
27.
FodorJ. A. (1983). The modularity of mind.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
FranklinN.TverskyB. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 11963–76.
29.
GlenbergA. M. (1997). What memory is for.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 201–19.
30.
GlenbergA. M.KaschakM. P. (2001). Language is grounded in action.Proceedings of the Second Annual Language and Space Workshop: Defining functional and spatial features. University of Notre Dame, US.
31.
GlenbergA. M.MeyerM.LindemK. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language, 2669–83.
32.
GoldbergA. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
GomilaA. (2002). Los significados no están en la cabeza. ¿Y los conceptos?Estudios de Psicología, 23 (2), 273–286.
34.
HaberlandtK.GraesserA. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehensiuon and some of their interactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 357–374.
35.
HarnadS. (1990). The symbol grounding problem.Physica, 42335–346.
36.
HannanT. E. (1992). An examination of spontaneous pointing in 20- to 50-month-old children.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 651–658.
37.
Johnson-LairdP. N.HerrmannD. J.ChaffinR. (1984). Only connections: A critique of semantic networks.Psychological Bulletin, 96292–315.
38.
KaschakM. P.GlenbergA. M. (2000). Constructiong meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension., Journal of Memory and Language, 43508–529.
39.
KintschW. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univessity Press.
40.
KintschW.Van DijkT. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
41.
LakoffG. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind.Chicago: Chicago University Press.
42.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1999). Phylosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought.Nueva York: Basic Books.
43.
LandauB.GleitmanL. R. (1985). Language and experience. Evidence from the blind child.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
LangackerR. W. (1998). Conceptualization, symbolization and grammar. EnTomaselloMichael (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language. Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 1–40). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
45.
MakiR. H.MarekM. N. (1997). Egocentric spatial framework effects from single and multiple points of view.Memory and Cognition, 25, 5, 677–690.
46.
MandlerJ. M. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives.Psychological Review, 99587–604.
47.
NewtonN. (1996). Foundations of understanding.Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
48.
NewellN. (1980). Physical symbol systems.Cognitive Sciences, 4135–183.
49.
NorrisD. (1986). Word recognition: Context effects without priming.Cognition, 2293–136.
50.
PulvermüllerF. (1999). Words in the brain's language.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22253–336.
51.
PulvermüllerF. (2001). Brain reflections of words and their meaning.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 517–524.
52.
PylyshynZ. (1986). Computation and cognition. Toward a foundation for cognitive science.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53.
PylyshynZ. (2000). Situating vision in the world.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5197–207.
54.
QuillianM. R. (1968). Semantic memory. EnMinskyM. (Ed.), Semantic information processing, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55.
RatcliffR.MckoonG. (1978). Priming in item recognition: Evidence for the propositional structure of sentences.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17403–417.
56.
RegierT. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57.
RegierT.CarlsonL. A. (2001). Grounding spatial language in perception: An empirical and computational investigation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130273–298.
58.
RivièreA. (1991). Objetos con mente.Madrid: Alianza.
SearleJ. R. (1980). Minds, brains and programs.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–424.
61.
SlobinD. (1987). Thinking for speaking. EnAskeJ.BeeryN.MichaelisL.FilipH. (Eds.), Berkeley Linguistic Society: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting (pp. 435–444). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society
62.
SopenaJ. M. (2002). Representación y significado en los PDP.Estudios de Psicología, 23 (2), 175–235.
63.
SpelkeE. S.BreinlingerK.MacomberJ.JacobsonK. (1992). Origins of knowledge.Psychological Review, 99605–632.
64.
TalmyL. (1983). How language structures space. EnPickH.AcredoloL. (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). Nueva York: Plenum.
65.
Van DijkT. A.KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension.Nueva York: Academic Press.
66.
VarelaF. J. (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67.
Vargha-KhademF.GadianD. G.WatkinsK. E.ConnellyA.Van PaesschenW.MishkinM. (1997). Differential effects of early hippocampal pathology on episodic and semantic memory.Science, 277376–380.
68.
ZwaanR. A.RadvanskyG. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory.Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.
