Symbol Grounding and Meaning: A Comparison of High-Dimensional and Embodied Theories of Meaning

By Arthur M. Glenberg, David A. Robertson. 2000

737 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Recent Trends in Deep Learning Based Natural Language Processing (2017, background): “A more detailed summary of these early trends is provided in [16, 17].”
Multimodal Distributional Semantics (2013, background): “DSMs have also come under attack for their lack of grounding (Glenberg & Robertson, 2000).”
Combining Language and Vision with a Multimodal Skip-gram Model (2015, background): “However, compared to human semantic knowledge, these purely textual models, just like traditional symbolic AI systems (Harnad, 1990; Searle, 1984), are severely impoverished, suffering of lack of grounding in extra-linguistic modalities (Glenberg and Robertson, 2000).”
Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic (2008, methodology): “…et al. (2004a); 1,2 Borghi et al. (2004a); 3 Demarais and Cohen (1998); 1 Boroditsky (2000); 1–3 Fincher-Kiefer (2001); 1 Boroditsky and Ramscar (2002); 1–4 Glenberg and Robertson (2000); 1–3 Glenberg and Kaschak (2002); 1,2AB Matlock et al. (2005); 1–3 Kaschak et al. (2005); 1,2 Richardson et al.…”
A Model of Grounded Language Acquisition: Sensorimotor Features Improve Lexical and Grammatical Learning. (2005, positive): “ments by Glenberg and Robertson (2000) have shown that the LSA method does poorly at the kinds of reasoning in novel situations that are simple for human semantics to resolve, due largely to the embodied nature of human semantics.”
Grounding language in action (2002, background): “Third, affordances are meshed under the guidance of syntactic constructions (Kaschak & Glenberg, 2000 ).”
TRoPICALS: a computational embodied neuroscience model of compatibility effects. (2010, background): “Thus they can activate the internal representations of the referents of words (Glenberg & Robertson, 2000).”
Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. (2003, background): “whether a sweater filled with leaves versus water could serve as a pillow) [ 26 ].”
Symbol Interdependency in Symbolic and Embodied Cognition (2011, background): “Glenberg and Robertson (2000) concluded that participants embody the sentences; because the nonafforded sentence cannot be embodied it yields low sensibility and envisioning data.”
Extracting semantic representations from word co-occurrence statistics: A computational study (2007, background): “Glenberg & Robertson (2000) attack HAL and LSA for not solving Harnad's (1990) symbol grounding problem.”
Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy (2007, background): “In these theories, words and phrases get their meanings from the perceptual properties (e.g., Barsalou, 1999) and activities (e.g., Glenberg & Robertson, 1999, 2000) performed on corresponding objects.”
On the computational basis of learning and cognition: Arguments from LSA (2002, methodology): “Some examples of the former are found in Glenberg and Robinson's (2000) purported tests of LSA, which used LSA as instantiated by the University of Colorado public-access web-site tool and its general English corpus.”
Modulation of the semantic system by word imageability (2005, background): “…in clinical neurology (Freud, 1891/1953; Wernicke, 1874) and has had considerable influence among modern theorists (e.g., Allport, 1985; Barsalou, 1999; Coltheart et al., 1998; Damasio, 1989; Geschwind, 1965; Glenberg and Robertson, 2000; Martin et al., 2000; Paivio, 1971; Pulvermü ller, 1999).”