Psychology 480.24 Syllabus
Psycholinguistics
Embodied Cognition in Language Processing

Gibbs, R. (2005). Embodiment and Cognitive Science	Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking

Course Description & Objective.

During this seminar we will examine the issues related to the comprehension, production and representation of language from a psychological perspective with an emphasis on the role of embodiment. My intention is that most classes will be primarily discussions of the assigned readings. Most of these discussions will be facilitated and organized by 1 to 2 students. Three hours is a long time, so I'll typically try to make sure that we have at least 1 break (or 2, depending on how things are organized and proceeding on a given day). Typically the first 2 hours or so will be for discussion of the readings (and more generally the topic to which they related). The final hour will be left for other activities (e.g., perhaps group brainstorming/designing of experiments to test the questions that come up in the reading discussions).

Course Requirements.

• Daily reaction/reflection papers
  - For each week (starting week 2) I'd like you to write down your thoughts/reactions about the readings. I'd like these to reflect critical thought about the readings (e.g., what and why you agree or disagree with, what did you find interesting or confusing, etc.) rather than summaries. I'd like these e-mailed to me by 1 hour before class so that I can (1) skim over them before class & (2) possibly assemble them all together, print them out and hand them out in class for all to see (I can strip names off of them if we'd like). - There are 14 weeks of these. My plan is to take your top 10 grades of the 14. So if you've got conferences, get sick, etc. you've got some flexibility here
• Discussion Leader
  - Students will be expected to be the "discussion leader" for two articles/topics distributed over the semester. My hope is to have two students per session doing this (so think "co-discussion" leaders, feel free to work together) per week/topic. The job of the discussion leader(s) is to provide some structure to the discussion of the issues that week. This could be a powerpoint or handouts, sets of questions for discussion, etc. The point is not for the leader to do all of the talking that day, rather to facilitate discussion. Feel free to consult with me about this. - We'll pick these articles/topics during the first (or second) week of classes. If you find a different (better??) article that you think would fit that week's topic you may submit it to me for possible substitution for an article listed above. I'll need these at least 1 week in advance for review and dissemination to the other students (and if the article is available in electronic format that would be helpful).
• Class Participation
  - This is a reading and discussion based course. So I expect that everybody comes to class having read the articles and put some thought into them. To facilitate the discussion, in addition to the reaction/reflection papers, I'd like everybody to come up with at least 2 questions about each of the readings. These are required even if you aren't able to attend that week (e.g., at a conference). Class participation will be based on active participation in the discussions and also the submission of these questions.
• Annotated bibliography OR research prospectus paper
  - I'd like you to search for additional related articles on one of the topics, read them, and prepare a brief (e.g., 1 paragraph to 1 page) summary, as well the full reference. You'll need a minimum of 10 articles included in the bibliography for full credit. You may select a topic for which you were a discussion leader, or select another article. The assigned articles do not count towards the minimum 10 articles - I'd like you to propose an experiment(s). Think through (and write about) the proposed methodology, the theory and hypotheses, and your predictions. While an exhaustive literature review is not required, review necessary for providing context in which to understand the proposed experiment(s), the theory which it is designed to test, and for backing up any underlying assumptions which underlie the hypotheses.
  Grade Breakdown
  • Daily reaction/reflection papers 100 (10 pts each of these)
  • Discussion Leader 100 (2 readings per student, 50 pts each)
  • Class Participation 100
  • Annotated bibliography or paper 100
  The final grade will be based on a 90, 80, 70, 60 percent scale. This scale will not be altered.

Class Work

I expect you to attend all classes or have a valid excuse when you do not attend. Since this is a seminar, capstone course, class participation is very important. As you can see, it constitutes 100 points of your final grade. Unexcused absences will result in five points being deducted from the participation total.

Academic Integreity

Academic dishonesty, when discovered, will result in severe consequences with regard to your overall grade in this course. Cheating and plagiarism will not be tolerated. The Modern Language Association (MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers) defines plagiarism as follows:
repeating another's sentences as your own,
adopting a particularly apt phrase as your own,
paraphrasing someone else's argument as your own,
presenting someone else's line of thinking in the development
of a thesis as though it were your own
Any matters regarding academic integrity will be handled according to University Policy.

If you need a special accommodation to fully participate in this class, please contact Disability Concerns at 438-5853 (voice), 438-8620 (TDD).

Altmann, G. T. M. (2001). The language machine: Psycholinguistics in review. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 129-170.

Arbib, M. (2008). From grasp to language: Embodied concepts and the challenge of abstraction. Journal of Physiology - Paris. 102, 4-20.

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.

Bergen, B. Lindsay, S. Matlock, T., and Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 733-764.

Beilock and Goldin-Meadow (2010). Gesture changes thought by grounding it in action. Psychological Science, 21, 1605-1610.

Casanto, D. and Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579-593.

Dick, F. Saygin, A., Molneau, S. Aydelott, J. Bates, E. (2004). Language in an embodied brain: The role of animal models. Cortex, 40,

Fischer, M. & Zwaan, R. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 825-850.

Fogassi, L. and Ferrari, P. (2007). Mirror neurons and the evolution of embodied language. Current Directions in Psychological Science,

Galantucci, B. (2005). An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 29, 737-767.

Gibbs, R. (2005). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge University Press.

Glenberg, A. & Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558-565.

Glenberg, A. & Robertson, D. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory & Language, 43, 379-401.

Goldin-Meadow and Beilock (2010). Action's influence on thought: The case of gesture. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 664-674.

Kelly, S., Iverson, J., Terranova, J., Niego, J., Hopkins, M., and Goldsmith, L. (2002). Putting language back in the body: Speech and gesture on three time frames. Developmental Neuropsychology, 22, 323-349.

Louwerse, M. and Leuniaux, P. (??) Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic. In ??

Markman, A. B., and Brendl, C. M. (2005). Constraining theories of embodied cognition. Psychological Science, 16, 6-10.

Mahon, B. & Caramazza, A. (2005). The orchestration of the sensory-motor systems: Clues from neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 480-494.

Mahon, B. & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content, Journal of Physiology, 102, 59-70.

Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173-204.

Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking. Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, D., Dale, R., and Shockley, K. (2008). Synchrony and swing in conversation: coordination, temporal dynamics, and communication. In Wachsmuth, I. Lenzen, M., and Knoblich, G. (Eds.) Embodied communication in humans and machines. Oxford University Press

Richardson, D., and Matlock, T. (2007). The integration of figurative language and static depictions: An eye movement study of fictive motion. Cognition, 102, 129-138.

Sandra, Dominiek (2009). Psycholinguistics. In Sandra, D., Ostman, J., and Verschueren, J. Eds., (2009). Cognition and Pragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam. pp. 288-368.

VanDijk, J., Lerkhofs, R., vanRooij, I., Haselager, P., (2008). Can there be such a thing as embodied embedded cognitive neuroscience? Theory and Psychology, 18, 297-316.

Willems, R. & Hagoort, P. (2007). Neural evidence for the interplay between language, gesture, and action: A review, Brain and Language.

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636.

Zlatev, J. (2007) Embodiment, language, and mimesis. In Ziemke, T, Zlatev, J., and Frank, R. Body, Language and Mind: Vol 1 Embodiment. Berlin, Mouton.