Cover Page

Cite item


Nowadays the “embodied cognition” approach is still gaining influence in cognitive psychology. The representatives of this paradigm stress the importance of understanding how the sensorimotor experience is organized during the interaction with the environment in solving cognitive problems. This article is dedicated to the discussion of the role of the sensorimotor component in the processing of linguistic information. The question is whether sensorimotor representations are an essential condition for processing language stimuli (as suggested by the “embodied cognition” approach) or they just facilitate the processing of linguistic information (the phenomenon of “cognitive enhancement”, reducing the time of its processing? To answer this question, we describe the key characteristics of several kinds for the approach associated with the embodied cognition of the processing of language stimuli. The following studies are analyzed: demonstrating congruent activity during information processing, the situational nature of the influence of the sensorimotor component on the processing of spatial concepts, the role of sensorimotor representations in the processing of linguistic metaphors. The general summary is formulated on the basis of the survey: the current research demonstrates the arguments in support of the facilitating role of sensorics and motor skills in the processing of language information.

About the authors

Julia P Migun

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

Author for correspondence.

Researcher, Cognitive Research Laboratory, School of Public Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Moscow, Russia).

82 Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russia, 119571

Vladimir F Spiridonov

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration


Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Professor of General Psychology Department, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Moscow, Russia).

82 Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russia, 119571


  1. Aziz-Zadeh, L., Wilson, S.M., Rizzolatti, G., & Iacoboni, M. (2006). Congruent Embodied Representations for Visually Presented Actions and Linguistic Phrases Describing Actions. Current Biology, 16(18), 1818—1823. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.060
  2. Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1—28. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00073-6
  3. Boroditsky, L. (2011). How Languages Construct Time. Space, Time and Number in the Brain, 333—341. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385948-8.00020-7
  4. Bottini, R., Bucur, M., & Crepaldi, D. (2016). The nature of semantic priming by subliminal spatial words: Embodied or disembodied? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(9), 1160—1176. doi: 10.1037/xge0000197
  5. Calvo-Merino, B., Grèzes, J., Glaser, D.E., Passingham, R.E., & Haggard, P. (2006). Seeing or Doing? Influence of Visual and Motor Familiarity in Action Observation. Current Biology, 16(19), 1905— 1910. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.065
  6. Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  7. Collins, A.M., & Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407—428. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
  8. Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., Buccino, G., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Speech listening specifically modulates the excitability of tongue muscles: A TMS study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 15(2), 399—402. doi: 10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01874.x
  9. Fischer, M.H., & Zwaan, R.A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 825—850. doi: 10.1080/17470210701623605
  10. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology , 22 (3–4), 455—479. doi: 10.1080/02643290442000310
  11. Gibbs, R.W. (1996). Why many concepts aremetaphorical. Cognition, 61, 309—319. Retrieved from
  12. Gibbs, R., Gould, J., & Andric, M. (2006). Imagining metaphorical actions: Embodied simulations make the impossible plausible. Imagination, Cognition, & Personality, 25, 221—238.
  13. Gibson, J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  14. Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 183—206.
  15. Glenberg, A.M., & Kaschak, M.P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3), 558—565. doi: 10.3758/BF03196313
  16. Johansson Falck, M., & Gibbs, Jr., R. W. (2012). Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(2). doi: 10.1515/cog-2012-0008
  17. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic Representation of Action Words in Human Motor and Premotor Cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301—307. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)008389
  18. 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, 56—77.
  19. Lakoff, G. (1993). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. Metaphor and Thoughts (pp. 202—251). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms1401_6
  20. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
  21. Lebois, L.A.M., Wilson-Mendenhall, C.D., & Barsalou, L.W. (2015). Are Automatic Conceptual Cores the Gold Standard of Semantic Processing? The Context-Dependence of Spatial Meaning in Grounded Congruency Effects. Cognitive Science, 39(8), 1764—1801. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12174
  22. Mahon, B.Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology Paris, 102(1–3), 59—70. doi: 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.004
  23. Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S.R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788—804. doi: 10.1016/j. cortex.2010.11.002
  24. Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: PrenticeHall.
  25. Ostarek, M., & Vigliocco, G. (2017). Reading sky and seeing a cloud: On the relevance of events for perceptual simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(4), 579—590.
  26. Pulvermüller, F., Hauk, O., Nikulin, V.V., & Ilmoniemi, R.J. (2005). Functional links between motor and language systems. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21(3), 793—797. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03900.x
  27. Thibodeau, P.H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
  28. Thornton, T., Loetscher, T., Yates, M.J., & Nicholls, M.E.R. (2013). The highs and lows of the interaction between word meaning and space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(4), 964—973. doi: 10.1037/a0030467
  29. Utsumi, A. (2011). Computational Exploration of Metaphor Comprehension Processes Using a Semantic Space Model. Cognitive Science, 35(2), 251—296. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01144.x
  30. van Dam, W.O., Brazil, I.A., Bekkering, H., & Rueschemeyer, S.-A. (2014). Flexibility in Embodied Language Processing: Context Effects in Lexical Access. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 407—424. doi: 10.1111/tops.12100
  31. Willems, R.M., & Casasanto, D. (2011). Flexibility in embodied language understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(JUN), 1—11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00116
  32. Willems, R.M., Toni, I., Hagoort, P., & Casasanto, D. (2010). Neural Dissociations between Action Verb Understanding and Motor Imagery. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(10), 2387—2400. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21386
  33. Wilson-Mendenhall, C.D., Barrett, L.F., Simmons, W.K., & Barsalou, L.W. (2011). Grounding emotion in situated conceptualization. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1105—1127.
  34. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 625—636. doi: 10.3758/BF03196322
  35. Wilson, N.L., Gibbs, R.W., Goodman, G.O., McClelland, J.L., &Gibbs R.W. (2011). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(spe), 580—586. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00517-5

Copyright (c) 2018 Migun J.P., Spiridonov V.F.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies