SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dilbilim / 2025 / Sayı: 45

Cognitive Representations of Meaning from the Perspective of Amodal and Perceptual Symbol Theories: A Theoretical Overview

Anlamın Bilişsel Temsillerinin Amodal ve Algısal Sembol Kuramları Çerçevesinde İncelenmesi: Kuramsal Bir Derleme

Sümeyra Özkan(İSTANBUL YENİ YÜZYIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0851-4578
Journal
Dilbilim
Pages
29–43
Publication Date
2025-11-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The answers to these questions have been based on an examination of the primary sources of each theory.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study presents a theoretical review on the nature of cognitive representations of meaning.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The literature on cognitive representations reveals the presence of two main theories: the Amodal Symbol Theory and the Perceptual Symbol Theory.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The answers to these questions have been based on an examination of the primary sources of each theory.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bilişsel Dilbilim · Anlambilimsel İşlemleme · Amodal Temsiller

Abstract

This study presents a theoretical review on the nature of cognitive representations of meaning. The literature on cognitive representations reveals the presence of two main theories: the Amodal Symbol Theory and the Perceptual Symbol Theory. The Amodal Symbol Theory, also supported by the Computational Theory of Mind, argues that meaning is represented in the mind as abstract symbols, which are encoded and processed independently of sensorimotor systems. In contrast, the Perceptual Symbol Theory posits that meaning is not represented through abstract symbols but through the mental reenactment of modality-specific experiences. This theory forms the basis for approaches such as Embodied Cognition, Distributed Cognition, and Extended Cognition, all of which emphasize the active role of the body. There is substantial evidence supporting both types of symbolic representation, and various responses have been proposed in reaction to these findings. This has led some researchers to develop integrative theories that advocate for the coexistence of both symbol types. In this study, a theoretical review was conducted to examine the types of representations proposed for meaning. The review does not follow a systematic literature review methodology, but rather analyzes the core assumptions of each theory and how these assumptions either align or conflict with one another. In this context, the study seeks to answer the following research questions: What are the main claims of each theory? In what ways do these theories diverge? What kinds of assumptions have been proposed to develop a unified account of meaning representation? The answers to these questions have been based on an examination of the primary sources of each theory.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, anlamın bilişsel temsillerinin niteliğine ilişkin kuramsal bir derleme sunulmuştur. Bu bağlamda iki temel kuramın öne çıktığı görülmektedir: Amodal Sembol Kuramı ve Algısal Sembol Kuramı. Hesaplamalı Zihin Kuramı tarafından da savunulan Amodal Sembol Kuramı anlamın zihinde soyut semboller olarak temsil edildiğini, duyu-motor alanlardan bağımsız bir şekilde kodlanıp işlemlendiğini savunmaktadır. Algısal Sembol Kuramı ise anlamın soyut sembollerle değil, modaliteye özgü deneyimlerin zihinde yeniden canlandırılması yoluyla temsil edildiğini savunmaktadır. Bu kuram, bedenin aktif rolünü savunan Bedenlenmiş Biliş, Dağıtık Biliş ve Yayılmış Biliş yaklaşımlarının da temelini oluşturmaktadır. Bu iki sembol türüne ilişkin güçlü kanıtlar ve bu kanıtlara verilen yanıtlar bulunmaktadır. Bu durum, bazı araştırmacıları her iki sembol türünün de varlığını savunan birleştirici kuramlar oluşturmaya yöneltmiştir. Bu çalışmada, anlamın temsil türüne dair oluşturulan bu kuramları incelemek üzere kuramsal bir derleme çalışması yapılmıştır. Kuramsal inceleme, sistematik bir alanyazın taraması yapmak yoluyla değil, kuramların temel önermelerini ve bu önermelerde birbirleriyle nasıl benzeştikleri ya da çeliştiklerini analiz etme yoluyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, bu kuramların temel savunularının neler olduğu, hangi noktada farklılık gösterdikleri ve ortak bir kuram geliştirmek üzere ne tür varsayımlar geliştirildiği soruları araştırmanın sorularını oluşturmuştur. Bu soruların yanıtları için her bir kuramın ana kaynakları temel alınarak inceleme yapılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özkan, S. (2025). Cognitive Representations of Meaning from the Perspective of Amodal and Perceptual Symbol Theories: A Theoretical Overview. Dilbilim, Sayı: 45, 29–43. https://doi.org/10.26650/jol.2025.1767993

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Armstrong, S. L., Gleitman, L. R., & Gleitman, H. (1983). What some concepts might not be. Cognition, 13(3), 263–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90012-4 google scholar
  2. Bak, T. H., & Hodges, J. R. (1997). Noun–verb dissociation in three patients with motor neuron disease. Brain and Language, 60(1), 38–40. google scholar
  3. Bak, T. H., & Hodges, J. R. (1999). Cognition, language and behaviour in motor neurone disease: Evidence of frontotemporal dysfunction. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 10(1), 29–32. google scholar
  4. Bak, T. H., & Hodges, J. R. (2001). Motor neurone disease, dementia and aphasia: Coincidence, co-occurrence or continuum? Journal of Neurology, 248(4), 260–270. google scholar
  5. Bak, T. H., O’Donovan, D. G., Xuereb, J. H., Boniface, S., & Hodges, J. R. (2001). Selective impairment of verb processing associated with pathological changes in Brodmann areas 44 and 45 in the motor neurone disease–dementia–aphasia syndrome. Brain, 124(1), 103–120. google scholar
  6. Bak, T. H., & Hodges, J. R. (2004). The effects of motor neurone disease on language: Further evidence. Brain and Language, 89(2), 354– 361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00357-2 google scholar
  7. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149 google scholar
  8. Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 527–536. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tics.2011.10.001 google scholar
  9. Bisson, T. (1991). They’re made out of meat. http://www.terrybisson.com/theyre-made-out-of-meat-2/ (Erişim tarihi: 6 Ağustos 2025)
  10. Chomsky, N., (2000). Dil ve Zihin İncelemelerinde Yeni Ufuklar. Çev. Ferit Burak Aydar. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi. google scholar
  11. Chomsky, N., (2002). Doğa ve Dil Üzerine. Çev. Ayşe Banu Karadağ. Sözcükler Yayınları. google scholar
  12. Churchland, P. M. (2012). Madde ve bilinç (B. Ersöz, Çev.). Alfa. google scholar
  13. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7 google scholar
  14. Damasio, A. R. (1989). Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: A systems level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition, 33, 25–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90005-X google scholar
  15. Esenyel, Z. M. (2016). Fenomenolojide beden problemi: Husserl, Sartre ve Merleau-Ponty [Doktora tezi, Uludağ Üniversitesi]. google scholar
  16. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. google scholar
  17. González, A. J., Barros-Loscertales, A., Pulvermüller, F., Meseguer, V., Sanjuán, A., Belloch, V., & Avila, C. (2006). Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions. NeuroImage, 32, 906–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.03.037 google scholar
  18. Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. Wiley. google scholar
  19. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. google scholar
  20. Kemmerer, D. (2015). Cognitive neuroscience of language. New York–London: Psychology Press. google scholar
  21. Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48(7), 805–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006 google scholar
  22. Kumcu, A. (2020). Konferans salonunda dağıtık biliş: Andaş çeviri sürecine yeni bir bakış. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1), 170–185. https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.621553 google scholar Lambon Ralph, M. A., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K., & Rogers, T. T. (2017). The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nature google scholar Reviews Neuroscience, 18(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.150 google scholar
  23. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press. google scholar
  24. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2005). Metaforlar: Hayat, anlam ve dil (G. Y. Demir, Çev.). İthaki. google scholar
  25. Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2008). Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic. In Embodiment and Meaning: A Debate, (ed. M. de Vega, A. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser). Oxford University Press. google scholar
  26. Marinkovic, K., Dhond, R. P., Dale, A. M., Glessner, M., Carr, V., & Halgren, E. (2003). Spatiotemporal dynamics of modality-specific and supramodal word processing. Neuron, 38(3), 487–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00197-1 google scholar
  27. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2016). Algının fenomenolojisi (E. Sarıkartal & E. Hacımuratoğlu, Çev.). İthaki. google scholar
  28. Papeo, L., Vallesi, A., Isaja, A., & Rumiati, R. I. (2010). Action performance and action-word understanding: Evidence of double dissociations in left damaged patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 27, 428–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2011.570326 google scholar
  29. Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007). Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 976–987. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2194 google scholar
  30. Patterson, K., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2016). The hub-and-spoke hypothesis of semantic memory. In Neurobiology of Language (ed, G. Hickok & S. L. Small), Elsevier. google scholar
  31. Pinker, S. (2023). Zihin nasıl çalışır (S. Gürses, Çev.). Alfa. google scholar
  32. Pınker, S., (2020). Dil İçgüdüsü: Zihin Dili Nasıl Meydana Getirir. Çev. Feray İlgün. Bilge Kültür Sanat. google scholar
  33. Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1706 google scholar
  34. Pulvermüller, F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(9), 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004 google scholar
  35. Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 google scholar
  36. Saussure, F. (1998). Genel Dilbilim Dersleri. (B. Vardar, Çev.). Multilingual Yabancı Dil Yayınları. google scholar
  37. Searle, J. R. (1992). The rediscovery of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. google scholar
  38. Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological google scholar Science, 12(2), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00326 google scholar
  39. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  40. Wilson, M. (2003). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322
  41. Wilson, R. A., & Foglia, L. (2017). Embodied cognition. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition). google scholar
  42. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/ (Erişim tarihi: 6 Ağustos 2025) google scholar
  43. Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 954–958. google scholar
  44. Zwaan, R. A., Madden, C. J., Yaxley, R. H., & Aveyard, M. E. (2004). Moving words: dynamic mental representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611–619. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15516709COG2804_5 google scholar