A. Schepis, F. Biassoni, N. Karp, A. Zuczkowski, I. Bianchi
Drag, Push, Shove:
Sensory-motor structures
in the mental images
of three causative verbs
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Theoretical frame
Gestalt approach
More recent contributions -Linguistics, Cognitive Psychology...(Paivio 1971, 1983, 1986; Pylyshin 1973, 1981, 2003; Petöfi 1973; Jackendoff 1997; Talmy 2000;
Barsalou 2003; Langacker 2004).
“L’ancoraggio dei nomi è negli osservabili”
(Names are anchored on what is observable)
(Bozzi, 1999; Coventry & Garrod, 2004; Pecher & Zwaan, 2006).
Prefiguration and derivation hypotheses
(Michotte, 1962; Zuczkowski, 1999).
Mental image
(Arnheim, 1969; Kosslyn, 1983; Giusberti, 1995).
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Hypothesis
The mental images
evoked by a word
are characterized by
precise structural
features,
based on perception
and inter-subjectively
invariant.
Drag,
The structure
Push,of the three verbs
overlaps
Shove(at least partially)
the structures
identified by
Michotte
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
3 studies
Study 1 :
Drag
Study 2 :
Push
Study 3 :
Separate groups of participants
Same procedure
Shove
(Michotte, 1954; 1962)
Each study: First phase
Second phase
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
First phase
The aim:
identification of the structural features
common to the mental images
created by each participant
Two groups of 5 subjects:
Create a mental image related to the verb XXXXX.
Describe it. Draw it.
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
First phase
Discussion within the group, comparing images,
descriptions and drawings. Two main purposes:
To enrich the initial description
(features actually present in the scene, but not verbalized)
To list the shared salient features
(structural invariants of the images)
questionnaire compiled by the experimenters, based on
the emerged features (to be used in the second phase)
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Second phase
The aim:
Verify if the results from the first phase
could be generalized
to a wider sample of participants
Drag (D): 80 Ss (10 M, 70 F); aged 19-26
Push (P): 53 Ss (10 M, 43 F); aged 19-49
Shove (S): 82 Ss (12 M, 70 F); aged 18-52
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Second phase
Create a mental image related to the verb XXXXX.
Describe it. Draw it.
Questionnaire (responses regarding all the
features, also when not spontaneously
verbalized in the free description)
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
D-P-S: Shared features
Two entities
Direct contact
Both moving (S: only before contact)
Entity 1: spontaneous movement
Entity 2: caused movement
Same direction
Same plane -horizontalEntity 2 in contact with a surface
Entity 2: absent / medium active resistance
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Drag: Distinctive features
D1 someone – D2 something
D1 precedes D2
Continuous motion
Same speed (slow / medium slow)
D1: quite big / big effort
D2 smaller than D1
D2 heavy / medium heavy
D2: medium / little friction
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Push: Distinctive features
P1 someone – P2 something
P1 behind P2
Continuous motion
Same speed (slow / medium slow)
P1: very big / quite big effort
P2 bigger than P1
P2 very heavy / heavy
P2: great deal of / medium friction
Prolonged contact
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Shove: Distinctive features
S1 someone – S2 someone
S1 behind S2
Shove intensity: strong / medium
S2: fast / medium speed (after the shove)
S1: small / medium effort
S1 and S2 equal in size
S2 medium / light weight
S2 little / medium friction
Momentary contact
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
D-P-S: Main differences
Relative size:
D2 smaller than D1
P2 bigger than P1
S2 equal in size to S1
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Relative size
70
70
70
60
60
60
50
50
50
40
40
40
30
30
30
20
20
20
10
10
10
0
0
D2 sm aller
0
sam e size
D2 bigger
D2 smaller
Same size
D2 bigger
P2 smaller
Same size
50
62,50%
24
30,00%
6
7,50%
6
11,50%
10
19,20%
DRAG
P2 smaller
same size
S2 smaller
same size
P2 bigger
S2 smaller
Same size
S2 bigger.
36
69,20%
19
23,45%
55
67,90%
7
8,64%
P2 bigger
PUSH
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
SHOVE
S2 bigger
D-P-S: Main differences
Relative position:
D1 precedes D2
P1 and S1 behind P2 e S2
Duration of contact:
P: prolonged contact
S: momentary contact
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
But
D and P: someone-something
S: someone-someone
D and P: after the contact, both moving
S: after the contact, only S2 in motion
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
But
D and P: after the contact, slow/medium speed (both entities)
S: after the contact, fast/medium speed (only S2)
D2 and P2: heavy
S2: medium/light weight
D1 and P1: big effort
S1: small effort
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Weight
60
60
60
50
50
50
40
40
40
30
30
30
20
20
20
10
10
10
0
0
v.light
light
m ed.
VL
L
M
H
3
3,75%
9
11,25%
24
30,00%
30
37,50%
DRAG
heavy v.heavy
0
v.light
light
med.
heavy
VH
VL
L
M
H
14
17,50%
1
1,90%
5
9,40%
12
22,60%
12
22,60%
PUSH
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
v.heavy
v.light
light
med.
heavy
VH
VL
L
M
H
VH
23
43,40%
3
3,70%
19
23,45%
50
61,73%
7
8,63%
2
2,47%
SHOVE
v.heavy
Effort
DRAG
SHOVE
PUSH
VS
S
QB
B
VB
VS
S
QB
B
VB
VS
S
QB
B
VB
9
11,25%
16
20,00%
27
33,75%
20
25,00%
8
10,00%
3
5,80%
10
19,20%
14
26,90%
9
17,30%
16
30,80%
11
13,60%
39
48,14%
26
32,09%
2
2,47%
3
3,70%
small
q.big
big
v.big
50
50
50
40
40
40
30
30
30
20
20
20
10
10
10
0
0
v.small
small
q.big
big
v.big
0
v.small
small
q.big
big
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
v.big
v.small
In conclusion
The results of both the first and the second phase confirm that the
mental images evoked by the verbs
drag, push, shove
have topological, kinetic, dimensional and kinaesthetic features
which are salient, inter-subjectively invariant, and which
allow direct comparison between the sense-motor
structures of these three verbs
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Developments and applications
Distinguishing constitutive from marginal features
Extending the research from the literal to figurative use of the verbs
Important additions to the linguistic definitions in dictionaries
Human-machine communication
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Thank you!
ALPS ADRIA ‘08
Bibliografia:
Bibliography:
Arnheim, R. (1969) Visual thinking, University of California Press, Berkeley-Los Angeles; trad. it. 1974 Il pensiero visivo, Einaudi,
Torino.
Barsalou, L.W, Kyle Simmons, W, Barbey, A.K., Wilson, C.D., (2003): Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems,
TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, Vol.7 No.2 February 2003.
Bozzi, P. (1999). Prefazione a Zuczkowski (1999) (a cura di) Albert Michotte: Percezione della causalità e linguaggio. Clueb,
Bologna.
Cornoldi C., De Beni R., Mammarella I.C.,: Mental Images. In E. Roediger (Ed.)., (2007): Learning and Memory: A comprehensive
Reference. Cognitive Psychology, Oxford: Elsevier Ltd, Langacker,R. (2004) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Vol. I, II.
Peking: Peking University Press. [Originally published in 1987/1991. Stanford: Stanford University Press].
Coventry, K.R., Garrod, S.C. (2004). Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Psychology
Press. Hove and New York.
Giusberti, Fiorella (1995). Forme del pensare. Immagini della mente. Bollati Boringhieri, Torino.
Goldstone, R.L., Barsalou, L.W., (1998): Reuniting perception and conception, Cognition, 65, 231–262.
Jackendoff, R., (1997): The architecture of language faculty, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Kosslyn, S.M. (1975). Information representation in visual images. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 341-370.
Kosslyn, S.M. (1978). Imagery and internal representation. In: E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kosslyn, S.M. (1989). Le immagini nella mente. Creare ed utilizzare le immagini nel cervello. Giunti Barbera, Firenze.
Kosslyn, S.M. (2005). Mental images and the brain. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2005, 22 (3/4), 333–347.
Michotte, A., (1954): La perception de la causalité, Lovanio: Publications Univeritaires de Louvain.
Michotte, A., (1962): Causalité, permanence et réalité phénoménales, Lovanio: Editions de l’Institut Supérieur de Philosophie.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Paivio, A. (1983).The empirical case for dual coding. In J.C. Yuille (ed.), Imagery, memory and cognition: Essays in honour of Allan
Paivio. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pecher, Zwaan (2006). Grounding Cognition. The role of perception and action in language, memory and thinking. Cambridge
University Press.
Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1973). What the mind’s eye tells the mind’s brain: a critique of mental imagery. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 1-24.
Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1981). The imagery debate: analogue media versus tacit knowledge. Psychological Review, 88, I, 16.45.
Pylyshyn, Z.W. (2003). Return of the mental image: are there really pictures in the brain? Trends in cognitive sciences, vol.7, 3,
march 2003.
Talmy, L., (2000): Toward a cognitive semantics, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Zuczkowski, A. (1999) Intervista a Paolo Bozzi sul problema dei rapporti tra percezione visiva e linguaggio, in Zuczkowski (1999) (a
cura di) Semantica percettiva: rapporti tra percezione visiva e linguaggio, Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, Pisa-Roma,
p.155-6.)
ALPS ADRIA ‘08