Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 558–565 | Cite as

Grounding language in action

  • Arthur M. GlenbergEmail author
  • Michael P. Kaschak
Brief Reports


We report a new phenomenon associated with language comprehension: theaction—sentence compatibility effect (ACE). Participants judged whether sentences were sensible by making a response that required moving toward or away from their bodies. When a sentence implied action in one direction (e.g., “Close the drawer” implies action away from the body), the participants had difficulty making a sensibility judgment requiring a response in the opposite direction. The ACE was demonstrated for three sentences types: imperative sentences, sentences describing the transfer of concrete objects, and sentences describing the transfer of abstract entities, such as “Liz told you the story.” These data are inconsistent with theories of language comprehension in which meaning is represented as a set of relations among nodes. Instead, the data support an embodied theory of meaning that relates the meaning of sentences to human action.


Reading Time Language Comprehension Sentence Type Soccer Ball Abstract Symbol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbols systems.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 577–660.Google Scholar
  2. Burgess, C., &Lund, K. (1997). Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space.Language & Cognitive Processes,12, 177–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chomsky, N. (1980).Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., &O'Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone.Language,64, 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fincher-Kiefer, R. (2001). Perceptual components of situation models.Memory & Cognition,29, 336–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. (2000).The mind doesn't work that way. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gibson, J. J. (1979).The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  8. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,20, 1–55.Google Scholar
  9. Glenberg, A. M., &Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions.Discourse Processes,28, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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, 379–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg, A. E. (1995).A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem.Physica D,42, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaschak, M. P., &Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 508–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kay, P., &Fillmore,C. J. (1999).Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: TheWhat's X doing Y? construction.Language,75, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keenan, J. M., Baillet, S. D., &Brown, P. (1984). The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.Psychological Review,95, 163–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lakoff, G. (1987).Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. McNeill, D. (1992).Hand and mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Meltzoff, A. N., &Moore, M. K. (1997). Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model.Early Development & Parenting,6, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Michaelis, L., &Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based model of language function: The case of nominal extraposition.Language,72, 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Novick, L. R., & Cheng, P. W. (in press). Assessing interactive causal influence.Psychological Review.Google Scholar
  22. Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., &Jacoby, S. (1996). “When I come down I'm in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.),Interaction and grammar (pp. 328–369). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O'Regan, J. K., &Noe, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,24, 939–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Piaget, J. (1954).The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pinker, S. (1994).The language instinct. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  26. Roth, W.-M. (1999). Discourse and agency in school science laboratories.Discourse Processes,28, 27–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains and programs.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,3, 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singer, M. (1994). Discourse inference processes. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 479–517). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Stanfield, R. A., &Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition.Psychological Science,12, 153–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition.Cognitive Science,12, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence?Cognition,74, 209–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tucker, M., &Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 830–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Den Broek, P. (1994). Comprehension and memory of narrative texts: Inferences and coherence. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 539–589). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WisconsinMadison

Personalised recommendations