Language comprehension requires a simulation that uses neural systems involved in perception, action, and emotion. A review of recent literature as well as new experiments support five predictions derived from this framework. 1. Being in an emotional state congruent with sentence content facilitates sentence comprehension. 2. Because women are more reactive to sad events and men are more reactive to angry events, women understand sentences about sad events with greater facility than men, and men understand sentences about angry events with greater facility than women. 3. Because it takes time to shift from one emotion to another, reading a sad sentence slows the reading of a happy sentence more for women than men, whereas reading an angry sentence slows the reading of a happy sentence more for men than for women. 4. Because sad states motivate affiliative actions and angry states motivate aggressive action, gender and emotional content of sentences interact with the response mode. 5. Because emotion simulation requires particular action systems, adapting those action systems will affect comprehension of sentences with emotional content congruent with the adapted action system. These results have implications for the study of language, emotion, and gender differences.
Borghi, A.M., Glenberg, A.M., & Kaschak, M.P. (2004). Putting words in perspective. Memory & Cognition, 32, 863-873.
4.
Bradley, M.M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B.N., & Lang, P.J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion, 1, 276-298.
5.
Bradley, M.M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D., & Lang, P.J. (2001). Emotion and motivation II: Sex differences in picture processing. Emotion, 1, 300-319.
6.
Chambers, C.G., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Magnuson, J.S. (2004). Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language , 30, 687-696.
7.
Clark, H.H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Craig, A.D. (2003). Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13, 500-505.
Critchley, H.D. (2005). Neural mechanisms of autonomic, affective, and cognitive integration. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493, 154-166.
11.
Damasio, A.R., Grabowski, T.J., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Ponto, L.L.B., Parvizi, J., & Hichwa, R.D. (2000). Subcortical and cortical brain activity during the feeling of self-generated emotions. Nature Neuroscience , 3, 1049-1056.
12.
de Vega, M., Robertson, D.A., Glenberg, A.M., Kaschak, M.P., & Rinck, M. (2004). On doing two things at once: Temporal constraints on actions in language comprehension. Memory & Cognition , 32, 1033-1043.
13.
Ekman, P., Levenson, R.W., & Friesen, W.V. (1983). Autonomic nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions. Science, 221, 1208-1210.
14.
Flanagan, J.R., Vetter, P., Johansson, R.S., & Wolpert, D.M. (2003). Prediction precedes control in motor learning . Current Biology, 13, 146-150.
15.
Fodor, J.A. (1983) Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frijda, N.H. (2005). Emotions and action. In A. S. R. Manstead, N. Frijda, & A. Fischer (Eds.), Feelings and emotions: The Amsterdam symposium (pp. 158-173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, Co.
19.
Glenberg, A.M., & Gallese, V. (in preparation). Action-based language.
20.
Glenberg, A.M., & Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3), 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.
23.
Glenberg, A.M., Sato, M., & Cattaneo, L. (2008). Use-induced motor plasticity affects the processing of abstract and concrete language. Current Biology, 18, R290-R291.
Haruno, M., Wolpert, D.M., & Kawato, M. (2001). Mosaic model for sensorimotor learning and control . Neural Computation, 13, 2201-2220.
26.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron , 41, 301-307.
27.
Havas, D.A., Glenberg, A.M., & Rinck, M. (2007). Emotion simulation during language comprehension . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 436-441.
28.
Heberlein, A., & Atkinson, A. (2009). Neuroscientific evidence for simulation and shared substrates in emotion recognition: Beyond faces. Emotion Review , 1(2), 162-177.
29.
Kaschak, M.P., & Glenberg, A.M. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension . Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 508-529.
30.
Kaschak, M.P., Madden, C.J., Therriault, D.J., Yaxley, R.H., Aveyard, M., Blanchard, A., & Zwaan, R.A. (2005). Perception of motion affects language processing . Cognition, 94, B79-B89.
31.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
32.
Kring, A., & Gordon, H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74, 686-703.
33.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
35.
Levenson, R.W. (1992). Autonomic nervous system differences among emotions . Psychological Science, 3, 23-27.
36.
Madden, T.E., Feldman Barrett, L., & Pietromonaco, P.R. (2000). Sex differences in anxiety and depression: Empirical evidence and methodological questions. In A. H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 277-298). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Mouilso, E., Glenberg, A.M., Havas, D.A., & Lindeman, L.M. (2007). Differences in action tendencies distinguish anger and sadness after comprehension of emotional sentences. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1325-1330). Austin, TX : Cognitive Science Society.
Niedenthal, P.M., Barsalou, L.W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 184-211.
40.
Parmley, M., & Brandeis, U. (2005). Perceiving anger and sadness: How might age, gender, and contextual ambiguity influence the process?Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 65(7-B), 3748.
41.
Ping, R., Dhillon, S., & Beilock, S. (2009). Reach for what you like: The body's role in shaping preferences. Emotion Review, 1(2), 140-150.
42.
Plant, A., Kling, K., & Smith, G. (2004). The influence of gender and social role on the interpretation of facial expressions. Sex Roles, 51(3-4), 187-196.
43.
Proffitt, D.R. (2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action . Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110-122.
44.
Strack, F., Martin, L.L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating condition of facial expressions: A non-obtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 768-777.
45.
Susskind, J.M., Lee, D.H., Cusi, A., Feiman, R., Grabski, W., & Anderson, A.K. (2008). Expressing fear enhances sensory acquisition. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 843-850.
46.
Vermeulen, N., Corneille, O., Budke, S., & Niedenthal, P.M. (in press). Presentation channel and perceptual primes incur processing costs for same modality property verification. Cognition.
47.
Vermeulen, N., Niedenthal, P.M., & Luminet, O. (2007). Switching between sensory and affective systems incurs processing costs. Cognitive Science, 31, 183-192.
48.
Verona, E., & Curtin, J.J. (2006). Gender differences in negative affective priming of aggressive behavior. Emotion, 6, 115-124.
49.
Wallbott, H.G. (1988). Big girls don't frown, big boys don't cry-Gender differences of professional actors in communicating emotion via facial expression . Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12, 98-106.
50.
Wolpert, D.M., Doya, K., & Kawato, M. (2003). A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358, 593-602.
51.
Wolpert, D.M., & Flanagan, J.R. (2001). Motor prediction. Current Biology, 11, R729-R732.
52.
Zwaan, R., & Taylor, L.J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1-11.
