2022 Vol. 13 №3

On the functional definition of concepts and linguistic meanings: the embodied/grounded approach

DOI

10.5922/2225-5346-2022-3-3

Pages

45-67

Abstract

The article suggests a way to overcome two well-known problems of embodied/grounded theory of cognition: the impossibility of strict differentiating modal and amodal symbols, and the difficulty in defining abstract concepts/simulators (abstract lexical meanings). The pro­posed functional approach is based on the dichotomy 'perceptual (external) vs. functional (internal)' that goes back to Ivan Sechenov. These cognitive units are shown to play funda­mentally different roles. The function — the embodied human response to the perceived object and the typical interaction with it — strictly defines the concept and the category set by it. The percept — the appearance of the object — allows one to quickly hypothesize which catego­ry this object belongs to. Based on the function of the concept and the division of this function into parts (private functions), it becomes possible to construct, instead of one generic concept (and one lexical meaning associated with it), an ontogenetic concept (ontoconcept) as three age-related variants of the concept (and, accordingly, three variants of the meaning of the word), arising in ontogeny — in preschoolers, early school and late school. As an example, the ontoconcept CHAIR and three variants of the meaning of the word chair are constructed. These constructions resonate with Vygotsky’s thought that the meaning of the word changes with the different modes of thinking. In other words, the ontoconcept supports the idea of het­erogeneous verbal thinking (Werner, Vygotsky, Luria, Tul’viste, and Pomanov), arguing that there are several types of verbal thinking associated with different types of human activity and the tasks solved within the framework of this activity (applied, theoretical, artistic, etc.).

Reference

Apresyan, Yu. D., 2014. About the Active dictionary of the Russian language. In: Yu. D. Apresyan, ed. Aktivnyĭ slovar' sovremennogo russkogo yazyka [An Active dictio­na­ry of Modern Russian], Vol. 1, pp. 5—36. Moscow (in Russ.).

Apresyan, Yu. D., ed., 2010. Prospekt aktivnogo slovarya russkogo yazyka [The pros­pectus of the active dictionary of the Russian language]. Moscow (in Russ.).

Barsalou, L. W., 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, pp. 577—660.

Barsalou, L. W., 2008. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, pp. 617—645.

Barsalou, L. W., 2016. On staying grounded and avoiding Quixotic dead ends. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23 (4), pp. 1122—1142.

Barsalou, L. W., 2020. Challenges and Opportunities for Grounding Cognition. Journal of Cognition, 3 (1): 31.

Bernshtein, N. A., 1947. O postroenii dvizheniĭ [About the construction of move­ments]. Moscow (in Russ.).

Borghi, A. M., 2020. A Future of Words: Language and the Challenge of Abstract Concepts. Journal of Cognition, 3(1): 42.

Chuprikova, N. I., 2007. Umstvennoe razvitie. Printsip differentsiatsii [Mental deve­lop­ment. The Principle of differentiation]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).

Dobzhansky, T., 1964. Biology, molecular and organismic. American Zoologist, 4 (4), pp. 443—452.

Dove, G., 2011. On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition. Front. Psy­chology, 1, pp. 242—251.

Dove, G., 2016. Three symbol ungrounding problems: Abstract concepts and the fu­ture of embodied cognition. Psychon Bull Rev, 23, pp. 1109—1121.

Gallese, V. and Lakoff, G., 2005. The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-mo­tor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22 (3), pp. 455—479.

Glebkin, V. V., 2016. A Tetramerous Model of Cognitive Development and the Cultural-Historical Typology. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie [Ethnographic Review], 3, pp. 128—145 (in Russ.).

Hesslow, G., 2012. The current status of the simulation theory of cognition. Brain re­search, 1428, pp. 71—79.

Kasevich, V. B., 2000. Is linguistics a science? (About the article by Gilbert Lazar]. In: Materialy XXIX mezhvuzovskoi nauchno-metodicheskoi konferentsii prepodavateleĭ i as­pi­rantov. Vyp. 14, Sektsiya obshchego yazykoznaniya [Materials of the XXIX interuniver­sity scientific and methodological conference of teachers and postgraduates. Vol. 14. General Linguistics Section]. St. Petersburg, pp. 16—22 (in Russ.).

Kibrik, A. E., 1995. Modern linguistics: From where to where. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 9. Filologiya [Moscow University Philology Bulletin], 5, pp. 93—103 (in Russ.).

Kiefer, M. and Harpaintner, M., 2020. Varieties of abstract concepts and their groun­ding in perception or action. Open Psychology, 2, pp. 119—137.

Koshelev, A. D., 2021. On the genesis of the child’s concepts and lexical mea­nings. Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2 (48), pp. 156—170 (in Russ.).

Koshelev, A. D., 2013. Modern linguistic theory as the Tower of Babel (Can nu­me­rous antagonistic linguistic theories peacefully coexist). Izvestiya RAN. Seriya litera­tury i yazyka [The Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Studies in Literature and Language], 72 (6), pp. 3—22 (in Russ.).

Koshelev, A. D., 2019. O genezise myshleniya i yazyka [On the Genesis of Thought and Language]. Moscow (in Russ.).

Koshelev, A. D., 2020. On the cognitive foundation of lexical classification of the subject world. Journal of Psycholinguistics, 4 (46), pp. 59—75 (in Russ.).

Koshelev, A. D., 2017. Ocherki evolyutsionno-sinteticheskoi teorii yazyka [Essays on the Evolutionary-Synthetic Theory of Language]. Moscow (in Russ.).

Kravchenko, A. V., 2006. Cognitive linguistics, biology of cognition and biosemi­otics: Bridging the gaps. Language Sciences, 28 (1), pp. 51—75.

Kravchenko, A. V., 2021. What's wrong with linguistics as a science. In: K. S. Kar­danova-Biryukova, ed. Metodologiya sovremennogo yazykoznaniya — 3: sb. st. v chest' yubi­leya V. A. Pishchal'nikovoi [Methodology of modern Linguistics — 3: collection of artic­les in honor of the anniversary of V. A. Pishchalnikova]. Мoscow, pp. 163—176 (in Russ.).

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M., 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: embodied mind and its chal­lenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, G., 2004. Zhenshchiny, ogon' i opasnye veshchi: Chto kategorii yazyka govoryat nam o myshlenii [Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind]. Moscow (in Russ.).

Leitan, N. D. and Chaffey, L., 2014. Embodied cognition and its applications: A brief review. Sensoria: A Journal of Mind, Brain & Culture, 10(1), pp. 3—10.

Loginov, N. I. and Spiridonov, V. F., 2017. Embodied Cognition as a Current Trend in Cognitive Psychology. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology, 7 (1), pp. 25—42 (in Russ.)

Luria, A. R., 1974. Ob istoricheskom razvitii poznavatel'nykh protsessov [On the histo­rical development of cognitive processes]. Moscow (in Russ.).

Mahon, B. Z. and Hickok, G., 2016. Arguments about the nature of concepts: symbols, embodiment, and beyond. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23 (4), pp. 941—958.

Michel, C., 2021. Overcoming the modal/amodal dichotomy of concepts. Pheno­me­nology and the Cognitive Sciences, 20 (4), pp. 655—677.

Paivio, A., 2011. Dual coding theory and education. In: Kognitivnaya psikhologiya: istoriya i sovremennost' [Cognitive Psychology: History and modernity]. Moscow, pp. 110—117 (in Russ.).

Pecher, D. and Zeelenberg, R., 2018. Boundaries to grounding abstract concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373: 20170132.

Piaget, J., 1999. Rech' i myshlenie rebenka [Speech and thinking of a child]. Moscow (in Russ.).

Pierce, Ch. S., 2000. Izbrannye filosofskie proizvedeniya [Selected philosophical works]. Moscow (in Russ.).

Pulvermüller, F., Garagnani, M. and Wennekers, T., 2014. Thinking in circuits: Toward neurobiological explanation in cognitive neuroscience. Biological Cybernetics, 108, pp. 573—593.

Raab, M. and Araújo, D., 2019. Embodied cognition with and without mental representations: The case of embodied choices in sports. Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 1825.

Romanov, V. N., 2014. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya antropologiya [Cultural and histori­cal anthropology]. Moscow; St. Petersburg (in Russ.).

Rosch, E., 1978. Principles of categorization. In: E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd, eds. Cognition and categorization, pp. 28—49.

Sakreida, K., Scorolli, C., Menz, M., Heim, S., Borghi, A. and Binkofski, F., 2013. Are abstract action words embodied? An fMRI investigation at the interface between lan­guage and motor cognition. Front Hum Neurosci, 9(7): 125.

Sanford, A. J., 2008. Defining embodiment in understanding. In: M. de. Vega, A. Glen­berg and A. Graesser, eds. Symbold and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181—194.

Sechenov, I. M., 1952. Izbrannye proizvedeniya. T. 1. Fiziologiya i psikhologiya [Selec­ted works. Vol. 1. Physiology and psychology]. Moscow (in Russ.).

Tsien, J. Z., 2008. Neural coding of episodic memory. In: E. Dere, A. Easton, L. Na­del and J. P. Huston, eds. Handbook of Episodic Memory. Amsterdam etc., pp. 399—416.

Tulviste, P., 1988. Kul'turno-istoricheskoe razvitie verbal'nogo myshleniya [Cultural and historical development of verbal thinking]. Tallinn (in Russ.).

Vygotsky, L. S., 1986. Myshlenie i rech' [Thought and Language]. Moscow (in Russ.).

Wajnerman, A., 2018. An efficient coding approach to the debate on grounded cognition. AW Paz — Synthese, 195 (12), pp. 5245—5269.

Werner, H., 2004. Comparative psychology of mental development (with a new prologue by Margery B. Franklin). Clinton Corners (NY): Percheron Press.

Zwaan, R. A., 2014. Embodiment and language comprehension: reframing the discussion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18 (5), pp. 229—234.