The Motor System Contributes to Comprehension of Abstract Language

Abstract

If language comprehension requires a sensorimotor simulation, how can abstract language be comprehended? We show that preparation to respond in an upward or downward direction affects comprehension of the abstract quantifiers “more and more” and “less and less” as indexed by an N400-like component. Conversely, the semantic content of the sentence affects the motor potential measured immediately before the upward or downward action is initiated. We propose that this bidirectional link between motor system and language arises because the motor system implements forward models that predict the sensory consequences of actions. Because the same movement (e.g., raising the arm) can have multiple forward models for different contexts, the models can make different predictions depending on whether the arm is raised, for example, to place an object or raised as a threat. Thus, different linguistic contexts invoke different forward models, and the predictions constitute different understandings of the language.

Contributions to a neurophysiology of meaning: The interpretation of written messages could be an automatic stimulus-reaction mechanism before becoming conscious processing of information

“…In fact, both theories are based on the implicit idea that human communication is a continuous, homogeneous process. On the contrary, we hypothesize 17 Such embodiment, inside the same embodied cognition field, can be conceived in different ways: it can stand alone, per se resolving the problem of knowledge ("sensorimotor processing underlies and constitutes cognition", Guan et al, 2013), or can be a "motor representation" that accompanies conscious knowledge processes (the two kinds of knowledge proposed by Gallese, for example in ; see also Gallese, 2014 steps which can result compatible with both ideas.…”

“…conceptual and resulting from a sequence of perception / symbolic processing of the incoming information / (motor) reaction. Oppositely, the embodiment theories uphold the concept of direct connections among cortical sensorial and motor areas ("sensorimotor grounding" of cognition, Guan et al, 2013). In this sense, cognition would be embodied 17 .…”

How the context matters. Literal and figurative meaning in the embodied language paradigm

“…Interestingly, somatotopic motor activation has been observed also during the comprehension of abstract and figurative use of language such as metaphors and idioms [21][22][23][24][25]. However, these latter findings are still controversial and challenging results have been reported in other set of studies [26,27].…”

Untitled

“…In fact, both theories are based on the implicit idea that human communication is a continuous, homogeneous process. On the contrary, we hypothesize 17 Such embodiment, inside the same embodied cognition field, can be conceived in different ways: it can stand alone, per se resolving the problem of knowledge ("sensorimotor processing underlies and constitutes cognition", Guan et al, 2013), or can be a "motor representation" that accompanies conscious knowledge processes (the two kinds of knowledge proposed by Gallese, for example in ; see also Gallese, 2014 Actually, in our opinion, the embodied concept's features are clearly akin to our second step ("disassembling", see Fig. 8): an immediate and automatic reaction that precedes conscious processing of information.…”

“…cognition being conceptual and resulting from a sequence of perception / symbolic processing of the incoming information / (motor) reaction. Oppositely, the embodiment theories uphold the concept of direct connections among cortical sensorial and motor areas ("sensorimotor grounding" of cognition, Guan et al, 2013). In this sense, cognition would be embodied 17 .…”