Indexical understanding of instructions

Background knowledge is essential for understanding. Our question concerns the nature of that knowledge: Is background knowledge solely descriptive and abstract, that is, consisting of propositions, schemas, and rules, or is there room for experiential and perceptual components? The indexical hypothesis suggests that experiential components are crucial for language comprehension. On this hypothesis, indexing, that is, referring words and phrases to objects (or analogical representations of objects), is required for comprehension. Once a phrase is indexed to an object, then affordances derived from the object are used to guide the interpretation of the language. We demonstrate support for the indexical hypothesis by manipulating the opportunity to index words to objects while acquiring background information about how to use a compass and map to identify landmarks. The participants acquired similar levels of abstract knowledge as assessed by a verbal test. Nonetheless, participants given the opportunity to...

[1]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[3]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Situation models in language comprehension and memory. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  Mina Johnson-Glenberg,et al.  Not Propositions , 1999, Cognitive Systems Research.

[5]  H. M. Müller,et al.  What's in a name? Electrophysiological differences between spoken nouns, proper names and one's own name , 1996, Neuroreport.

[6]  W. Kintsch.  The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. , 1988, Psychological review.

[7]  D. McNeill.  Hand and Mind , 1995 .

[8]  George J. Spilich,et al.  Acquisition of domain-related information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. , 1979 .

[9]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  The mental representation of spatial descriptions , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[10]  Carol Bergfeld Mills,et al.  Reading Procedural Texts: Effects of Purpose for Reading and Predictions of Reading Comprehension Models. , 1995 .

[11]  Danielle S. McNamara,et al.  Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence , 1996 .

[12]  H. H. Clark.  Dogmas of understanding , 1997 .

[13]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[14]  R. Mayer,et al.  A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text , 1995 .

[15]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Embodiment is the foundation, not a level , 1996, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. , 1996 .

[17]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Symbol Grounding and Meaning: A Comparison of High-Dimensional and Embodied Theories of Meaning , 2000 .

[18]  C. Fillmore.  Lectures on Deixis , 1997 .

[19]  A. Glenberg,et al.  What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action , 1997, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Comprehension of illustrated text: Pictures help to build mental models☆ , 1992 .

[21]  A. Glenberg,et al.  The representation of space in mental models derived from text , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[22]  G. Bower,et al.  The metrics of spatial situation models. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Subject Terms: Linguistics Language Eyes & eyesight Cognition & reasoning , 1995 .

[24]  Natika Newton,et al.  Foundations of understanding , 1996 .