Words as tools and the problem of abstract words meanings

133 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Grounding Procedural and Declarative Knowledge in Sensorimotor Anticipation (2011, background): “As we have suggested above, however, sociality could have favoured the emergence of other forms of knowledge, including certain abstract concepts, that are grounded in social (communicative) actions rather than, or in addition to, situated action (see e.g. Borghi and Cimatti, 2009).”
Thinking in Words: Language as an Embodied Medium of Thought (2014, methodology): “Another example is the word as tool (WAT) theory (Borghi & Cimatti, 2009).”
TRoPICALS: a computational embodied neuroscience model of compatibility effects. (2010, background): “Moreover, models based on internal simulations might have problems in explaining how abstract words, which do not refer to perceivable objects, can be represented (Barsalou, 2003; Borghi & Cimatti, 2009; Boroditsky & Ramscar, 2002; Glenberg et al., 2008).”
Varieties of abstract concepts and their multiple dimensions (2019, background): “…and the linguistic modality of acquisition is in keeping with the multiple representation views according to which linguistic experience plays a major role, such as the WAT view (Borghi & Cimatti, 2009; Borghi & Binkofski, 2014), and the view proposed by Dove (e.g., Dove, 2010, 2014, 2016, 2018).”