SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230244.
  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 22, 577660.
  • Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M.De Vega, A. M.Glenberg & A. C.Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245283). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Barton, S. B., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case-study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory and Cognition, 21, 477487.
  • Benor, S. B., & Levy, R. (2006). The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language, 82, 233278.
  • Berry, M. W., Dumais, S. T., & O’Brien, G. W. (1995). Using linear algebra for intelligent information retrieval. SIAM Review, 37, 573595.
  • Borg, I., & Groenen, P. (1997). Modern multidimensional scaling. New York: Springer.
  • Borsboom, D., & Visser, I. (2008). Semantic cognition or data mining? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 714715.
  • Brants, T., & Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram Version 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
  • Brown, R. W., & Berko, J. (1960). Word association and the acquisition of grammar. Child Development, 31, 114.
  • Budiu, R., Royer, C., & Pirolli, P. L. (2007). Modeling information scent: A comparison of LSA, PMI and GLSA similarity measures on common tests and corpora. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Recherche d’Information Assistée par Ordinateur (RIAO). Pittsburgh. Retrieved from http://www.riao2010.org/old_riao-2007/papers/27.pdf. Accessed on July 25, 2010.
  • Cai, Z., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M., Hu, X., Rowe, M., & Graesser, A. C. (2004). NLS: Non-latent similarity algorithm. In K.Forbus, D.Gentner, & T.Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 180185). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Caplan, D. (1996). Language: Structure, processing, and disorders. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
  • Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 31, 489558.
  • Collins, A., & Quillian, M. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 240248.
  • De Vega, M., Glenberg, A., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.) (2008). Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the human brain. London: Allen Lane.
  • Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., & Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41, 391407.
  • Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Houston, D. (1998). Faster orientation latency toward native language in two-month-old infants. Language and Speech, 41, 2143.
  • Dennis, S. (2004). An unsupervised method for the extraction of propositional information from text. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 52065213.
  • Dijkstra, K., Yaxley, R. H., Madden, C. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The role of age and perceptual symbols in language comprehension. Psychology & Aging, 19, 352356.
  • Dumais, S. T. (2003). Data-driven approaches to information access. Cognitive Science, 27, 491524.
  • Ervin, S. M. (1961). Changes with age in the verbal determinants of word association. American Journal of Psychology, 74, 361372.
  • Ferreira, F., Ferraro, V., & Bailey, K. G. D. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 1115.
    Direct Link:
  • Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., & Landauer, T. K. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 285307.
  • Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 155.
  • Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558565.
  • 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, 379401.
  • Goldstone, R. L., & Rogosky, B. J. (2002). Using relations within conceptual systems to translate across conceptual systems. Cognition, 84, 295320.
  • Graesser, A. C., Lu, S., Jackson, G. T., Mitchell, H., Ventura, M., Olney, A., & Louwerse, M. M. (2004). AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 180193.
  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193202.
  • Graesser, A. C., VanLehn, K., Rose, C., Jordan, P., & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22, 3951.
  • Greenberg, J. (Ed.) (1963). Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica, 42, 335346.
  • Hinson, J. M., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1983). Matching, maximizing and hillclimbing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40, 321331.
  • Hurford, J. R. (2007). The origins of meaning: Language in the light of evolution. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2001). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122149.
  • Kaschak, M. P., & Borreggine, K. L. (2008). Temporal dynamics of the action-sentence compatibility effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 883895.
  • Kaschak, M. P., Madden, C. J., Therriault, D. J., Yaxley, R. H., Aveyard, M. E., Blanchard, A. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Perception of motion affects language processing. Cognition, 94, B79B89.
  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 257266.
  • Kintsch, W. (2002). On the notions of theme and topic in psychological process models of text comprehension. In M.Louwerse & W.van Peer (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 157170). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Kintsch, E., Steinhart, D., Stahl, G., & the LSA Research Group. (2000). Developing summarization skills through the use of LSA-based feedback. Interactive Learning Environments, 8, 87109.
  • Klatzky, R. L., Pellegrino, J. W., McCloskey, B. P., & Doherty, S. (1989). Can you squeeze a tomato? The role of motor representations in semantic sensibility judgments. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 5677.
  • Landauer, T. K. (1999). Latent semantic analysis: A theory of the psychology of language and mind. Discourse Processes, 27, 303310.
  • Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211240.
  • Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259284.
  • Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Lewis, R. L. (1999). Cognitive modeling, symbolic. In R.Wilson & F.Keil (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 525527). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Louwerse, M. M. (2004). Semantic variation in idiolect and sociolect: Corpus linguistic evidence from literary texts. Computers and the Humanities, 38, 207221.
  • Louwerse, M. M. (2007). Symbolic or embodied representations: A case for symbol interdependency. In T.Landauer, D.McNamara, S.Dennis, & W.Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 107120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Louwerse, M. M. (2008). Embodied representations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 838844.
  • Louwerse, M. M., Cai, Z., Hu, X., Ventura, M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2006). Cognitively inspired natural-language based knowledge representations: Further explorations of Latent Semantic Analysis. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools, 15, 10211039.
  • Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2008). Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic. In M.de Vega, A.Glenberg, & A. C.Graesser (Eds.), Embodiment and meaning: A debate (pp. 309326). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2009). Computational psycholinguistic techniques to measure cohesion in discourse. In J.Renkema (Ed.), Discourse of course (pp. 213223). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114, 96104.
  • Louwerse, M. M., Lewis, G., & Wu, J. (2008). Unigrams, bigrams and LSA. Corpus linguistic explorations of genres in Shakespeare’s plays. In W.Van Peer & J.Auracher (Eds.), New directions in literary studies (pp. 108129). Newcastle, England: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., McNamara, D. S., & Graesser, A. C. (2004). Variation in language and cohesion across written and spoken registers. In K.Forbus, D.Gentner, & T.Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 843848). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Louwerse, M. M., & Van Peer, W. (2006). Waar het over gaat in cijfers. Kwantitatieve benaderuingen in tekst- en literatuurwetenschap. [What it is about in numbers: Quantitative approaches in text- and literary studies]. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 122, 2135.
  • Louwerse, M. M., & Van Peer, W. (2009). How cognitive is cognitive poetics? The interaction between symbolic and embodied cognition. In G.Brone & J.Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive Poetics (pp. 423444). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Louwerse, M. M., & Zwaan, R. A. (2009). Language encodes geographical information. Cognitive Science, 33, 5173.
  • Madden, C. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2006). Perceptual representation as a mechanism of lexical ambiguity resolution: An investigation of span and processing time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 12911303.
  • McNamara, D. S., Boonthum, C., Levinstein, I. B., & Millis, K. (2007). Evaluating self-explanations in iSTART: comparing word-based and LSA algorithms. In T.Landauer, D. S.McNamara, S.Dennis, & W.Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 227241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • McNamara, D. S., Cai, Z., & Louwerse, M. M. (2007). Comparing latent and non-latent measures of cohesion. In T.Landauer, D. S.McNamara, S.Dennis, & W.Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 379400). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • McNeill, D. (1966). A study of word association. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 548557.
  • Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramirez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2007). Are women really more talkative than men? Science, 317, 82.
  • Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 365.
  • Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 141144.
  • Monaghan, P., Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). The differential contribution of phonological and distributional cues in grammatical categorization. Cognition, 96, 143182.
  • Mordkoff, J. T., & Yantis, S. (1991). An interactive race model of divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 520538.
  • Musso, M., Moro, A., Glauche, V., Rijntjes, M., Reichenbach, J., Büchel, C., & Weiller, C. (2003). Broca’s area and the language instinct. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 774781.
  • Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  • Pecher, D., van Dantzig, S., Zwaan, R. A., & Zeelenberg, R. (2009). Language comprehenders retain implied shape and orientation of objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 11081114.
  • Pecher, D., Zanolie, K., & Zeelenberg, R. (2007). Verifying visual properties in sentence verification facilitates picture recognition memory. Experimental Psychology, 54, 173179.
  • Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119124.
    Direct Link:
  • Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.) (2005). Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Peirce, C. S. (1923). The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Politzer, R. B. (1978). Paradigmatic and syntagmatic associations of first-year French students. In V.Honsa & M. J.Hardman-de-Bautista (Eds.), Papers on linguistics and child language: Ruth Hirsch Weir memorial volume (pp. 203210). The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.
  • Polk, T. A., & Farah, M. J. (2002). Functional MRI evidence for an abstract, not perceptual, word-form area. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 6572.
  • Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2005). Brain signatures of meaning access in action word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 884892.
  • Ramus, F., Hauser, M. D., Miller, C., Morris, D., & Mehler, J. (2000). Language discrimination by human newborns and by cotton-top tamarin monkeys. Science, 288, 349351.
  • Recchia, G. L., & Jones, M. N. (2009). More data trumps smarter algorithms: Comparing pointwise mutual information to latent semantic analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 657663.
  • Richardson, D. C., & Matlock, T. (2007). The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 102, 129138.
  • Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2008). Precis of Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 689749.
  • Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP research group. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 19261928.
  • Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., Aslin, R. N., Tunick, R. A., & Barrueco, S. (1997). Incidental language learning: Listening (and learning) out of the corner of your ear. Psychological Science, 8, 101105.
    Direct Link:
  • Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C. S. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the ACM, 18, 613620.
  • Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, & programs. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 3, 417457.
  • Semin, G. R., & Smith, E. R. (Eds.) (2008). Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Snedeker, J. (2008). Reading Semantic Cognition as a theory of concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 727728.
  • Sparck Jones, K., & Willett, P. (Eds.) (1997). Readings in information retrieval. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  • Spivey, M., & Geng, J. (2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65, 235241.
  • Spivey, M., Tanenhaus, M., Eberhard, K., & Sedivy, J. (2002). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 447481.
  • Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153156.
    Direct Link:
  • Stone, B., Dennis, S., & Kwantes, P. J. (2010). Comparing methods for document similarity analysis. TopiCS, DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01108.x.
  • Sun, R., & Peterson, T. (1997). A hybrid agent architecture for reactive sequential decision making. In R.Sun & F.Alexandre (Eds.), Connectionist symbolic integration: From unified to hybrid approaches (pp. 113138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 371391.
  • Thumb, A., & Marbe, K. (1901). Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die psychologischen Grundlagen der sprachlichen Analogiebildung. Leizpig: Engelmann.
  • Van Oostendorp, H., Otero, J., & Campanario, J. M. (2002). Conditions of updating. In M.Louwerse & W.van Peer (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 5576). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1980). Word-form dyslexia. Brain, 103, 99112.
  • Widdows, D. (2004). Geometry and meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Wolford, G. L., Miller, M. B., & Gazzaniga, M. S. (2000). The left hemisphere’s role in hypothesis formation. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 16.
  • Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psychobiology of language. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
  • Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experience: toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H.Ross (Ed.), The psychology of language & motivation, Vol. 44 (pp. 3562). New York: Academic Press.
  • Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Do language comprehenders routinely represent the shapes of objects? Psychological Science, 13, 168171.
    Direct Link:
  • Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 111.
  • Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic-relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954958.