The Upbeat of Language: Linguistic Context and Embodiment Predict Processing Valence Words

The Upbeat of Language: Linguistic Context and Embodiment Predict Processing Valence Words Sterling Hutchinson (schtchns@memphis.edu) Department of Psychology / Institute for Intelligent Systems, University of Memphis 365 Innovation Drive, Memphis, TN 38152 USA Max M. Louwerse (mlouwerse@memphis.edu) Department of Psychology / Institute for Intelligent Systems, University of Memphis 365 Innovation Drive, Memphis, TN 38152 USA Abstract Previous studies have demonstrated that comprehension of conceptual metaphors elicits embodied representations. This finding is non-trivial, but begets the question whether alternative explanations are to be dismissed. The current paper shows how a statistical linguistic approach of word co-occurrences can also reliably predict metaphor comprehension. In two experiments participants saw word pairs with positive (e.g. happy) and negative (e.g. sad) connotations. The pairs were presented in either a vertical configuration (Experiment 1) or a horizontal configuration (Experiment 2). Results showed that response times could be explained by both the statistical linguistic approach and the embodied approach. However, embodied information was most salient in the vertical configuration and statistical linguistic information was most salient in the horizontal configuration. Individual differences modulated these findings, with female participants being most sensitive to the statistical linguistic approach, and male participants being most sensitive to the embodiment approach. These findings suggest that comprehension of conceptual metaphors can be explained by both linguistic and embodiment factors, but that their relative salience is modulated by cognitive task and individual differences. Keywords: embodied cognition; symbolic cognition; linguistic context; valence words; gender differences; symbol interdependency Introduction When we are happy, we are in high spirits; when we are sad, we are down in the dumps. Our mood is lifted when we are cheerful, but our enthusiasm drops when we are depressed. We have our high times and our low times. We reach for the sky, but sometimes our plans run into the ground. These are some examples suggesting that conceptual metaphors highlight associations between abstract concepts (e.g., happy, sad) and spatial properties (e.g., high, low). Lakoff and Johnson (1981; 1999) suggest that metaphors like these help automatically ground abstract concepts in bodily experiences. In this sense, metaphors inform the language user of the perceptual and biomechanical processes underlying the representation of those concepts. Such theories of embodied cognition have received an impetus in the last decade (Barsalou, 1999; Glenberg, 1997; Prinz, 2004; Zwaan, 2004) with considerable empirical support showing that cognitive processes are undoubtedly influenced by perceptual and spatial information (De Vega, Glenberg, & Graesser, 2008; Pecher & Zwaan, 2005; Semin & Smith, 2008 for overviews). These findings allow for the conclusion that linguistic symbols are grounded in modality specific perceptual and motor systems. If conceptual metaphors highlight associations between abstract concepts and physical or spatial properties, it is predicted that words with positive connotations are processed faster when presented higher in space, and words with negative connotations are processed faster when presented lower in space. This is indeed what a number of studies have shown, with participants being apt to process and remember matches between location and words (i.e., joy presented on the top of the screen) better than mismatches (i.e., hate presented on the top of the screen) (Meier & Robinson, 2004; Meier, Hauser, Robinson, Friesen, & Schjeldahl, 2007; Pecher, van Dantzig, Boot, Zanzolie, & Huber, 2010; Schnall & Clore, 2004; Schubert, 2005). More recently, Santana and de Vega (2011) found that matches facilitate comprehension of figurative language more so than that of literal language, suggesting that positive and negative metaphors are also processed through embodied mechanisms. Similarly, when pictures are presented in their expected spatial positions (i.e., an image of a positive concept presented on the top of screen) comprehension of such affectively salient pictures is facilitated (Crawford, Margolies, Drake, & Murphy, 2006; Meier et al., 2007). Furthermore, when participants are in a positive mood, they are more likely to exhibit upwards biases during line bisection tasks, with the opposite pattern holding true for negative moods (Wapner & Werner, 1957). Subjects even feel more successful (a positive feeling) when standing erect (a high vertical position) and less successful (a negative feeling) when slumped over (a low vertical position) (Stepper & Strack, 1993). In a review of the literature, Meier and Robinson (2008) summarized that affect is indeed understood through embodied relations, including vertical spatial representations. However, such strong evidence supporting embodied representations diverts our attention away from other explanations for these findings. Paivio (1986) has extensively shown that both verbal and non-verbal representations play important roles in cognition. Barsalou, Santos, Simmons, and Wilson (2008) and Louwerse (2007; 2008; 2011) have similarly argued that both statistical