Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:28:28.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contingencies between verbs, body parts, and argument structures in maternal and child speech: a corpus study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2015

JOSITA C. MAOUENE ,
NITYA SETHURAMAN ,
MOUNIR M. MAOUENE  and
SANGO OTIENO
JOSITA C. MAOUENE*
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Grand Valley State University, MI, USA
NITYA SETHURAMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Behavioral Sciences, University of Michigan-Dearborn, MI, USA
MOUNIR M. MAOUENE
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, ENSAT, Tangier, Morocco
SANGO OTIENO
Affiliation:
Statistics Department, Grand Valley State University, MI, USA
*
†Address for correspondence: Josita Maouene, Psychology Department, Grand Valley State University, 2105 Au Sable Hall, 1, Campus Dr., Allendale, MI 49401. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prior work on argument structure development has shown connections between abstract verb meaning and argument structure; neuroimaging and behavioral studies have shown connections between verb meaning and body effectors. Here we examine the contingencies between verbs, their most likely body region pairing, and argument structure. We ask whether the verbs used in six common syntactic frames are specifically linked to one of three main regions of the body: head, arm, leg. The speech of 20-month-olds (N = 67), 28-month-olds (N = 27), and their mothers (N = 54) (CHILDES: MacWhinney, 2000) was examined for the use of early-learned verbs (MCDI: Fenson, Dale, Reznick, Bates, Thal, & Pethick, 1994). In total, 89 verb types in 3321 utterances were coded for their associations with the head, arm, and leg body regions (associations taken from Maouene, Hidaka, & Smith, 2008). Significant non-random relations are found both overall and for each age group in analyses using multiple chi-square tests of independence and goodness-of-fit. These results are discussed in terms of their relevance for both argument structure development and embodied cognition, as evidence supporting a developmental path that has not been previously examined, in which the infant can use early and concrete perception-action information to learn later abstract syntactic achievements.

Keywords

body partsverbsargument structurecorporachild and maternal speechembodied cognition
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 237 - 282
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Acredolo, L. P., & Goodwyn, S. W (1985). Symbolic gesturing in language development. Human Development, 28, 40–49.Google Scholar
Acredolo, L. P., & Goodwyn, S. W. (1988). Symbolic gesturing in normal infants. Child Development, 59, 450–466.Google Scholar
Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children’s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology, 33, 952–965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, S. (2000). A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 38(3), 483–521.Google Scholar
Allen, S. E. M. (2007). Interacting pragmatic influences on children’s argument realization. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability (pp. 191–210). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Amano, S., Kezuka, E., & Yamamoto, A. (2004) Infant shifting attention from an adult’s face to an adult’s hand: a precursor of joint attention. Infant Behavior Development, 27, 64–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amoruso, L.Couto, B., & Ibáñez, A. (2011). Beyond extrastriate body area (EBA) and fusiform body area (FBA): context integration in the meaning of actions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(124), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Angrave, L. C., & Glenberg, A. M. (2007). Infant gestures predict verb production one year later. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Arévalo, A.Baldo, J. V., & Dronkers, N. F. (2012). What do brain lesions tell us about theories of embodied semantics and the human mirror neuron system? Cortex, 48(2), 242–254.Google Scholar
Bannard, C., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Modeling children’s early grammatical knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106, 17284–17289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, E. (1976). Language and context. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, J., & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1979). A functionalist approach to the acquisition of grammar. In Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 167–209). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bedny, M., & Caramazza, A. (2011). Perception, action, and word meanings in the human brain: the case from action verbs. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1224(1), 81–95.Google Scholar
Bedny, M., Caramazza, A., Pascual-Leone, A. & Saxe, R. (2012). Typical neural representations of action verbs develop without vision. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 286–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benzécri, J.-P. (1973). L’Analyse des Données. Volume II. L'Analyse des Correspondances. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Bergelson, E., & Swingley, D. (2012). At six months, human infants know the meaning of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 109, 3253–3258.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1991). Language development from two to three. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (2005). Why can’t you ‘open’ a nut or ‘break’ a cooked noodle? Learning covert object categories in action word meanings. In Gershkoff-Stowe, L. & Rakison, D. H. (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time (pp. 209–243). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., & Brown, P. M. (2008). Introduction. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (Eds.). Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability (pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bron, C., Corfu-Bratschi, P. & Maouene, M. (1989). Héphaïstos bacchant ou le cavalier comaste: simulation d’un raisonnement qualitatif par le langage informatique LISP. AION, 1, 155–172.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. (2008). Verb specificity and argument realization in Tzeltal child language. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability (pp. 167–190). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butcher, C., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2000). Gesture and the transition from one- to two-word speech: when hand and mouth come together. In McNeill, D. (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 235–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2003). A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, J. F., Gershanik, O., Gelormini-Ozama, C., Houck, A. L., Cardona, S., Kargieman, L., Trujillo, N., Arévalo, A., Amoruso, L., Manes, F., & Ibáñez, A. (2013). Action-verb processing in Parkinson’s disease: new pathways for motor-language coupling. Brain Structure and Function, 218, 1355–1373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carota, F., Moseley, P., & Pülvermüller, F. (2012). Body-part-specific representations of semantic noun categories. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(6), 1492–1509.Google Scholar
Choi, S. (1998). Verbs in early lexical and syntactic development in Korean. Linguistics, 36, 755–780.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. (1993). Preferred argument structure in Korean acquisition. In Clark, E. V. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Child Language Research Forum (pp. 307–314). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1997). Being there: putting brain, body, and the world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clearfield, M. W. (2011). Learning to walk changes infants’ social interactions. Infant Behavior and Development, 34, 15–25.Google Scholar
Davis, A. R. (1996). Lexical semantics and linking in the hierarchical lexicon. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
de León, L. (1994). Exploration in the acquisition of geocentric location by Tzotzil children. Linguistics, 32(4/5), 857–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demetras, M., Post, K., & Snow, C. (1986). Feedback to first-language learners. Journal of Child Language, 13, 275–292.Google Scholar
Demuth, K., Culbertson, J., & Alter, J. (2006). Word-minimality, epenthesis, and coda licensing in the acquisition of English. Language & Speech, 49, 137–174.Google Scholar
Downing, P. E., Jiang, Y., Shuman, M., and Kanwisher, N. G. (2001). A cortical area selective for visual processing of the human body. Science, 293, 2470–2473.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuBois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63, 805–855.Google Scholar
Dueker, G. L., Portko, S., & Zelinsky, M. (2011). Meaningful touch in naturalistic contexts: haptic input as a cue to the referent of infant directed speech, Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 427–448.Google Scholar
Duggirala, V., Viswanatha, N., Bapi, R., Jigar, P., Alldi, S.Jala, S. & Richa, N. (2011). Action verbs and body parts. International Journal of Mind, Brain & Cognition, 2, 29–45.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., & Pethick, S. J. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, v–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feyereisen, P., & de Lannoy, J. (1991). Gestures and speech: psychological investigations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. R. (1991). On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 331–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D. (1978). On relational meaning: the acquisition of verb meaning. Child Development, 49, 988–998.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.Google Scholar
Gilette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L., & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulation of vocabulary learning. Cognition, 73, 135–176.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition, 1(1), 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2005). Hard words. Language Learning and Development, 1, 23–64.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1998). Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In Tomasello, M. (Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp. 203–218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D., and Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289–316.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2008). How toddlers begin to learn verbs. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 397–403.Google Scholar
Gómez, R. L. & Gerken, L. A. (1999). Artificial grammar learning by one-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge. Cognition, 70, 109–135.Google Scholar
Gómez, R. L., & Maye, J. (2005). The developmental trajectory of nonadjacent dependency learning. Infancy, 7, 183–206.Google Scholar
Gustafson, G. E. (1984). Effects of the ability to locomote on infants’ social and exploratory behaviors: an experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 20, 397–405.Google Scholar
Hayes, D. P. (2000). The Cornell Corpus – a CD containing the texts of over 5000 texts; the LEX statistical measurement on 55 sub-categories and associated manuscripts.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, H. O. (1935). A connection between correlation and contingency. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31, 520–524.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., & Naigles, L. (1996). Young children’s use of syntactic frames to derive meaning. In Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. (Eds.), The origins of grammar: evidence from early language comprehension (pp. 123–158). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.) (1998). The nature and functions of gesture in children’s communication (New Directions for Child Development, 79). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Iverson, J. M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005) Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science, 16, 367–371.Google Scholar
James, K. H., & Maouene, J. (2009). Auditory verb perception recruits motor systems in the developing brain: an fMRI investigation. Developmental Science, 12, F26–F34.Google Scholar
James, K. H., & Swain, S. (2011). Only self-generated actions create sensori-motor systems in the developing brain. Developmental Science, 14, 1–6.Google Scholar
Karasik, L. B., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Adolph, K. E. (2011). Transition from crawling to walking and infants’ actions with objects and people. Child Development, 82, 1199–1209.Google Scholar
Karasik, L. B., Tamis-Lemonda, C. S., & Adolph, K. E. (2013). Crawling and walking infants elicit different verbal responses from mothers. Developmental Science, 17, 388–395.Google Scholar
Kemmerer, D. (2014). Word classes in the brain: implications of linguistic typology for cognitive neuroscience. Cortex, 58, 27–51.Google Scholar
Koenig, J. P., Mauner, G., & Bienvenue, B. (2003). Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition, 89, 67–103.Google Scholar
Laakso, A. (2011). Embodiment and development in cognitive science. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 409–425.Google Scholar
Lederer, A., Gleitman, L., & Gleitman, H. (1995). Verbs of a feather flock together: structural properties of maternal speech. In Tomasello, M. & Merriam, E. (Eds.), Acquisition of the verb lexicon (pp. 277–297). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Leslie, A. M. (1984). Spatiotemporal continuity and the perception of causality in infants. Perception, 13, 287–305.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. J. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd ed.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Maganti, M., & Maouene, J. (2014). Body parts and early-learned verbs in five-year-old Telugu speakers. Poster presented at the International Symposium on Child Language Conference, Amsterdam, July 19–24, 2014.Google Scholar
Majid, A. (2010). Words for parts of the body. In Malt, B. C. & Wolff, P. (Eds.), Words and the mind: how words capture human experience (pp. 58–71). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malt, B. C., Gennari, S., Imai, M., Ameel, E., Tsuda, N., & Majid, A. (2008). Talking about walking: biomechanics and the language of locomotion. Psychological Science, 19, 232–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandler, J. (1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review, 99, 587–604.Google Scholar
Maouene, J., Hidaka, S., & Smith, L. B. (2008). Body parts and early-learned verbs. Cognitive Science, 32, 1200–1216.Google Scholar
Maouene, M. (1992). Modélisation de l’image mentale et son rôle dans la compréhension du texte. Thèse École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne EPFL, no. 1055 [published 1993].Google Scholar
Meteyard, L., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). The role of sensory and motor information in semantic representation: a review. In Calvo, P. & Gomila, A. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach (pp. 293–307). London: Academic Press, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Murdoch, B. U. (2010). The cerebellum and language: historical perspective and review. Cortex, 46, 858–868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naigles, L. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language, 17, 357–374.Google Scholar
Nesheim, M., Sepsey, A., Maouene, M., & Maouene, J. (2012). Body parts correlates of early-learned verbs in children. Talk presented at the Midwestern Psychological Conference, May 3–5, 2012, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Nicol Medina, T., Snedeker, J., Trueswell, J. C., & Gleitman, L. R. (2011). How words can and cannot be learned by observation. PNAS, 108(22), 9014–9019.Google Scholar
Ninio, A. (1999a). Model learning in syntactic development: intransitive verbs. International Journal of Bilinguism, 3, 111–131.Google Scholar
Ninio, A. (1999b). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26, 619–653.Google Scholar
Ninio, A. (2011). Syntactic development, its input and output. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ninio, A., Snow, C., Pan, B., & Rollins, P. (1994). Classifying communicative acts in children’s interactions. Journal of Communications Disorders, 27, 157–188.Google Scholar
Noble, C., Rowland, C. F., & Pine, J. M. (2011). Comprehension of argument structure and semantic roles: evidence from English-learning children and the forced-choice paradigm. Cognitive Science, 35, 963–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novack, M. A., Congdon, E. L., Hemani-Lopez, N., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). From action to abstraction: using the hands to learn math. Psychological Science, 25, 903–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş., Levine, S. C., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2013). Gesturing with an injured brain: how gesture helps children with early unilateral brain injury learn linguistic constructions. Journal of Child Language, 40(1), 69–105.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Cassidy, K., & Gleitman, L. (2007). When we think about thinking: the acquisition of belief verbs. Cognition, 105, 125–165.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108, 155–184.Google Scholar
Peelen, M. V., and Downing, P. E. (2005). Selectivity for the human body in the fusiform gyrus. Journal of Neurophysiology, 93, 603–608.Google Scholar
Penfield, W., & Rasmussen, T. (1950). The cerebral cortex of man: a clinical study of localization. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1936). La naissance de l’intelligence chez l’enfant, Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in the child. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Pine, J., & Lieven, E (1993). Reanalysing rote-learned phrases: individual differences in the transition to multi-word speech. Journal of Child Language, 20, 551–571.Google ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Post, K. (1992). The language learning environment of laterborns in a rural Florida community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., & Garagnani, M. (2014). From sensorimotor learning to memory cells in prefrontal and anterior-temporal cortex: a neurocomputational study of disembodiment. Cortex, 57, 1–21.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R., & Solomon, R. L. (1967). Two-process learning theory: relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychological Review, 74(3), 151–182.Google Scholar
Rispoli, M. (1995). Missing arguments and the acquisition of predicate meanings. In Tomasello, M. & Merriman, W. E. (Eds.), Beyond names for things: young children’s acquisition of verbs (pp. 331–352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rollins, P. R., Snow, C., & Willett, J. (1996). Predictors of MLU: semantic and morphological developments. First Language, 16, 243–259.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. (1983). Talking about the there and then: the emergence of displaced references in parent–child discourse. In Nelson, K. E. (Ed.), Children’s language, Vol. 4, (pp. 3–20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. (2002). Constraints on statistical language learning. Journal of Memory & Language, 47, 172–196.Google Scholar
Saxe, G. B. (1981). Body parts as numerals: a developmental analysis of numeration among the Oksapmin in Papua New Guinea. Child Development, 52(1), 306–316.Google Scholar
Seston, R., Michnick Golinkoff, R., Ma, W., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2009). Vacuuming with my mouth? Children’s ability to comprehend novel extensions of familiar verbs. Cognitive Development, 24, 113–124.Google Scholar
Sethuraman, N., & Smith, L. B. (2010) Cross-linguistic differences in talking about scenes. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2978–2991.Google Scholar
Sethuraman, N. & Smith, L. B. (2013). Verbs and attention to relational roles in English and Tamil. Journal of Child Language, 40, 358–390.Google Scholar
Sidhu, D. M., Kwan, R., Pexman, P. M., & Siakaluk, P. D. (2014). Effects of relative embodiment in lexical and semantic processing of verbs. Acta Psychologica, 149, 32–39.Google Scholar
Skarabela, B. (2007). Signs of early social cognition in children’s syntax: the case of joint attention in argument realization in child Inuktitut, Lingua, 117, 1837–1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Feguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.), Studies of child language development (pp. 175–208). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E. (1989). Understanding social interaction and language acquisition: sentences are not enough. In Bornstein, M. H. & Bruner, J. S. (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 83–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Snow, C. E. (1995). Issues in the study of input: fine tuning, universality, individual and developmental differences, and necessary causes. In Fletcher, P. F. & MacWhinney, B. (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 180–193). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Sporns, O. (2011). Networks of the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V., Pine, J., & Rowland, C. (2004). Semantic generality, input frequency and the acquisition of syntax. Journal of Child Language, 31, 61–99.Google Scholar
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994) A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tinkoff, R., & Jusczyk, P. W. (2011). Six-month-olds comprehend words that refer to parts of the body. Infancy, 17(4), 432–444.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ulmann, S., Harari, D., & Dorfman, N. (2012). From simple innate biases to complex visual concepts. PNAS, 109, 18215–18220.Google Scholar
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yoshida, H., & Burling, J. M. (2011). A new perspective on embodied social attention. Cognition, Brain, Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15(4), 535–552.Google Scholar
Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2012). Embodied attention and word learning by toddlers. Cognition, 125, 244–262.Google Scholar
Yu, C. & Smith, L. B. (2013). Joint attention without gaze following: human infants and their parents coordinate visual attention to objects through eye–hand coordination. PLoS One, 8(11), 1–10.Google ScholarPubMed