In this review, I advance the embodied cognition movement in cognitive psychology as both a challenge and an invitation for the study of reading comprehension. Embodied cognition challenges theories which assume that mental operations are based in a common, abstract, amodal code of propositions and schemata. Based on growing research in behavioral and neuroscience, embodied cognition proposes that all cognitive activity is based in sensorimotor activity, opening exciting new vistas for research and practice. Exemplary embodied theories are summarized and compared including those of Glenberg, Barsalou, Lakoff and Johnson, Paivio, and others. Exemplary embodied educational applications to reading comprehension are reviewed. I propose that much reading comprehension research that cites an abstract theoretical basis is actually more consistent with the embodied perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 2, 203–231.
Alvermann, D. E., Unrau, N. J., & Ruddell, R. B. (Eds.) (2013). Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed.). Newark: International Reading Association.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: a field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724.
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. 245–283). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, N. (1986). Visualizing and verbalizing for language comprehension and thinking (1st ed.). Paso Robles: Academy of Reading Publications.
Bell, N. (2007). Visualizing and verbalizing for language comprehension and thinking (2nd ed.). San Luis Obispo: Gander Publications.
Block, C. C., Parris, S. R., & Whiteley, C. S. (2008). CPMs: helping primary grade students self-initiate comprehension processes through kinesthetic instruction. Reading Teacher, 61, 460–470.
Boers, F. (2000). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 137–147.
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230.
Brown, M. C., McNeil, N. M., & Glenberg, A. M. (2009). Using concreteness in education: real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 160–164.
Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1997). Modelling processing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 177–210.
Cole, D. (2015).The Chinese room argument. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015 Ed.), E. N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/chinese-room/.
Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: from linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–91). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dove, G. (2010). On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 129–141.
Dove, G. (2016). Three symbol grounding problems: abstract concepts and the future of embodied cognition. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 23, 1109–1121.
Frank, S. L., Koppen, M., Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (2008). World knowledge in computational models of discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes, 45, 429–463.
Gibbs, R. W. (2008). Metaphor and thought: the state of the art. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 3–13). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, R. W., & Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: psycholinguistic evidence. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 161–176). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What is memory for? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.
Glenberg, A. (2011). How reading comprehension is embodied and why that matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 5–18.
Glenberg, A. M. (2015). Few believe the world is flat: how embodied cognition is changing the scientific understanding of cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 165–171.
Glenberg, A. M., & Gallese, V. (2012). Action-based language: a theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex, 48, 905–922.
Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. L., Japutnich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 424–436.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.
Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: a comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 379–401.
Glenberg, A., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Riggio, L., Palumbo, D., & Buccino, D. (2008). Processing abstract language modulates motor system activity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 905–919.
Glenberg, A. M., Walker, E. A., & Restrepo, M. A. (2016). EMBRACEing dual language learners. In S. A. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.), Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 268–274). New York: Routledge.
Goldinger, S. D., Papesh, M. H., Barnhart, A. S., Hansen, W. A., & Hout, M. C. (2016). The poverty of embodied cognition. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 23, 959–978.
Goolsby, R. D., & Sadoski, M. (2013). A theoretical approach to improving patient education through written materials. Annals of Behavioral Science and Medical Education, 19, 14–18.
Hald, E. A., de Nooijer, J., van Gog, T., & Bekkering, H. (2016). Optimizing word learning via links to perceptual and motoric experience. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 495–522.
Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P. A., & Price, T. F. (2011). Leaning embodies desire: evidence that leaning forward increases relative left frontal cortical activation to appetitive stimuli. Biological Psychology, 87, 311–313.
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Nonlinear Phenomena, 42, 335–346.
Jankowski, J., & Decker, S. (2013). On the design of a dual-mode interface for accessing 3D content on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71, 838–857.
Jenson, J. V. (1983). Metaphor in argumentation. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 13, 201–208.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2013). Human and machine thinking. New York: Psychology Press.
Kaschak, M. P., Connor, C. M., & Dombek, J. L. (2017). Enacted reading comprehension: using bodily movement to aid the comprehension of abstract text content. PloS One, 12, e0169711.
Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48, 805–825.
Kiefer, M., & Trumpp, N. M. (2012). Embodiment theory and education: the foundations of cognition in perception and action. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1, 15–20.
Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch. (2013). Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 807–839). Newark: International Reading Association.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. (2006). The case for mental imagery. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kousta, S.-T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D., Andrews, M., & del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 14–34.
Lakoff, G. (2012). Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 773–785.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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, 211–240.
Leopold, C., & Mayer, R. C. (2015). An imagination effect in learning from scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 47–63.
Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114, 96–106.
Matheson, H. E., and Barsalou, L. W. (in press) Embodied cognition. In: Wixted, J. (Ed.) The Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (4th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Minogue, J., & Jones, M. G. (2006). Haptics in education: exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research, 76, 317–348.
Moulton, S. T., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2009). Imagining predictions: mental imagery as mental emulation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1273–1280.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: trends in academic progress 2012 (NCES 2013456). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015a). The nation’s report card: 2015 mathematics and reading assessments (NCES 2015136). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015b). The nation’s report card: 2015 mathematics and reading at grade 12 (NCES 2016108). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston (Reprinted 1979, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: a dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Paivio, A. (2010). Dual coding theory and the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon, 5, 205–230.
Paivio, A. (2013). Dual coding theory, word abstractness and emotion: a critical review of Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 292–287.
Paivio, A. (2014). Intelligence, dual coding theory, and the brain. Intelligence, 47, 141–158.
Paivio, A., & Sadoski, M. (2011). Lexicons, contexts, events, and images: commentary on Elman (2009) from the perspective of dual coding theory. Cognitive Science, 35, 198–209.
Papesh, M. H. (2015). Just out of reach: on the reliability of the action-sentence compatibility effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 114, 116–141.
Pouw, W. T. J. L., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 51–72.
Psychological Bulletin and Review (2016). Special virtual issue: arguments about the nature of concepts: symbols, embodiment and beyond. Available at: http://www.springer.com/psychology/cognitive+psychology/journal/13423
Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Review Neuroscience, 6, 567–582.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 99–135). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sadoski, M. (1983). An exploratory study of the relationships between reported imagery and the comprehension and recall of a story. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 110–123.
Sadoski, M. (1985). The natural use of imagery in story comprehension and recall: replication and extension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 658–667.
Sadoski, M. (1999). Comprehending comprehension [essay review of the book Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition]. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 493–500.
Sadoski. (2009). Embodied cognition, discourse, and dual coding theory: new directions. In J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse of course: an overview of research in discourse studies (pp. 187–195). Amsterdam: Johns-Benjamins.
Sadoski, M. (2015). Reading comprehension, embodied cognition, and dual coding theory. In S. R. Parris & K. Headley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices (pp. 45–55). New York: Guilford Press.
Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., Olivarez, A., Lee, S., & Roberts, N. M. (1990). Imagination in story reading: the role of imagery, verbal recall, story analysis, and processing levels. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 55–70.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: a dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Toward a unified theory of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 337–356.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2013). Imagery and text: a dual coding theory of reading and writing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E. T. (1991). A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 463–484.
Sadoski, M., & Sanders, C. W. (2008). Mental imagery in clinical skills instruction: a promising solution to a critical problem. Annals of Behavioral Science and Medical Education, 14, 2–6.
Sadoski, M., & Willson, V. L. (2006). Effects of a theoretically based large-scale reading intervention in a multicultural urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 137–154.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–424.
Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. R. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spivey, M. (2007). The continuity of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 77–96.
Thelen, E., Schöner, G., Christian, C., & Smith, L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: a field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 1–86.
Thompson, S., Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D., Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., & Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights from PIRLS 2011: reading achievement of U.S. fourth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2013010 revised). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Turner, A., & Green, E. (1977). The construction and use of a propositional text base. Boulder, CO: Technical Report No. 63, Institute for the Study of Intellectual Behavior, University of Colorado.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S., Vinson, D., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2013). The representation of abstract words: what matters? Reply to Paivio’s (2013) comment on Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 288–291.
Wang, J., Conder, J. A., Blitzer, D. N., & Shinkareva, S. V. (2010). Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 1459–1468.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.
Wilson, N. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2007). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 721–731.
Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S. (2013). Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(58), 1–13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00058.
Xu, J., Kemeny, S., Park, G., Frattali, C., & Braun, A. (2005). Language in context: emergent features of word, sentence, and narrative comprehension. NeuroImage, 25, 1002–1015.
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of language and motivation, 44 (pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press.
Zwaan, R. (2014). Embodiment and language comprehension: reframing the discussion. Topics in Cognitive Science, 18, 229–234.
Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, R. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 135, 1–11.
This paper is dedicated to the memory of the pioneering cognitive theorist Allan Paivio (1925-2016). I would like to thank Art Glenberg, Wim Pouw, and an anonymous reviewer for their most encouraging and constructive assistance with earlier drafts of this paper.
About this article
Cite this article
Sadoski, M. Reading Comprehension is Embodied: Theoretical and Practical Considerations. Educ Psychol Rev 30, 331–349 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9412-8
- Embodied cognition
- Reading comprehension
- Mental simulations
- Mental images
- Perceptual symbols
- Educational applications