Embodiment and modalisation:

Grounding of desiderative modality

Berry Claus | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

DGfS 2014 | AG 8: EmBasiCats | Marburg | March 2014

Experiential grounding of modality?

Present study: desiderative modality

expressed by e.g., want, wish, would like to

DESIDERATIVE MODALITY: GROUNDING?

Grounding of desiderative modality?

mental states (following Barsalou, 1999)

internal, affective states (Kousta et al., 2011; Vigliocco et al., 2013)

states of desiring?/how to test?

drawing on accounts

of the regulation of behavior

Accounts of the regulation of behaviour

Distinction between two systems:

Approach system

associated with positive or desirable events/possibilities

Avoidance system

associated with negative or undesirable events/possibilities

Approximation to what constitutes states of desiring:

involvement of approach-system activation

APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE

Working hypothesis

Desiderative modality is grounded

in approach system activation

Processing sentences in desiderative modality: re-activation

of approach system

APPROACH-SYSTEM ACTIVATION

Testable predictions

Processing desiderative-modality sentences facilitates

approach actions (e.g., pulling sth toward) compared with

avoidance actions (e.g., pushing sth away)

Performing an approach action during sentence compre-

hension should facilitate processing desiderative-modality

sentences compared with performing an avoidance action

Series of experiments

testing predictions derived from the approach-system-

activation hypothesis

adopting methods from studies on affective processing (Cacioppo et al., 1993; Chen & Bargh, 1999; Solarz, 1960;

Neumann & Strack, 2000)

conducted in German

PUTTING TO TEST

Does processing a sentence in desiderative

modality facilitate an approach action

compared with an avoidance action?

Faster responses to sentences in desiderative modality

when responding requires performing an approach

action (pulling sth) compared with an avoidance action

(pushing sth)?

EXPT 1: COMPREHENSION ACTION

Participants listened to sentences

and had to judge whether the sentences were sensible

Responding to the sensibility-judgment task via

moving a joystick

Two response conditions

yes-is-pulling (approach)

indicate a yes, sensible-response by pulling the joystick (and a no, non-sensical-response by pushing)

yes-is-pushing (avoidance)

indicate a yes, sensible-response by pushing the joystick

(and a no, non-sensical-response by pulling)

EXPT 1: METHOD

Material

sensible and non-sensical sentences

Experimental sentences (all sensible)

two versions ‘desired’ / ‘factual’ (control)

Lea will in einer Hängematte liegen.

‘Lea wants to rest in a hammock.’

Lea hat in einer Hängematte gelegen.

‘Lea has rested in a hammock.’

Examples for non-sensical fillers

Paul wants to sing a street. [Paul will eine Straße singen.]

Hans has frightened a table. [Hans hat einen Tisch verängstigt.]

EXPT 1: METHOD (cont. I)

Each participant was initially randomly assigned to one of

the two joystick-direction conditions

(yes-is-pulling / yes-is-pushing) )

Halfway through the experiment, the assignment of response to joystick

direction was reversed

Half of the experimental sentences in ‘desired’ version, the other half in ‘factual’ version

EXPT 1: METHOD (cont. II)

Dependent variable: Response times (RT) for correct

responses to the (sensible) experimental sentences

Mean Response Times (in ms)

factual (control) desired

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

push avoidance

pull approach

push avoidance

pull approach

EXPT 1: RESULT

Does the effect occur immediately, being triggered by the

desiderative modality marker, or does it not occur until the

end of the sentence?

EXPT 2: LOCATION OF THE EFFECT?

Participants read sentences, word-by-word + self-paced

To advance through a sentence, participants had to move

a joystick

Two joystick-direction conditions

Participants either had to pull (approach) or to push

(avoidance) the joystick to trigger presentation of next word

Dependent variable: Reading times for the words

EXPT 2: METHOD

Material

same experimental sentences as in Exp 1

(Lea wants to rest / has rested in a hammock)

all fillers were sensible, some were followed by comprehension questions

Significant interaction sentence modality x joystick direction

for the modality-marking, second word (will [wants] / hat [has])

but not for any of the other words

425

450

475

500

525

550

push avoidance

pull approach

factual (hat [has]) desired (will [wants])

Mean Reading Times (in ms) for the modality-marking word

push avoidance

pull approach

EXPT 2: RESULT

EXPT 3: ACTION COMPREHENSION

Does performing an approach action during sentence

comprehension facilitate processing desiderative-modality

sentences compared with performing an avoidance action?

Are responses to sentences in desiderative modality

faster when performing an approach action during

sentence processing compared with an avoidance

action?

While listening to the sentences, participants had to perform

an approach or avoidance action

Approach pressing one palm against

the bottom of a table and

maintain arm tension

Avoidance pressing one palm on top

of a table and maintain

arm tension

EXPT 3: METHOD

same material as in Expt 1

(Lea wants to rest / has rested in a hammock)

Participants’ task: judging the sensibility of the sentences

by pressing either of two keys (!not by moving a joystick)

EXPT 3: METHOD (cont.)

Each participant was initially randomly assigned to one of the two

hand/arm-posture conditions (table bottom /table top)

Halfway through the experiment, the action condition was changed

Half of the experimental sentences in ‘desired’ version, the other half in ‘factual’ version

Dependent variable: Response times (RT) for correct

responses to the (sensible) experimental sentences

Mean Response Times (in ms)

desired

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

factual (control)

top avoidance

bottom approach

top avoidance

bottom approach

EXPT 3: RESULT

Additional experiment: preliminary evidence that the effect

is due to facilitation in approach condition

SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTS

Expt 1: Comprehending Action

Faster responses to desiderative-modality sentences in

approach condition compared with avoidance condition

Expt 3: Action Comprehending

Faster responses to desiderative-modality sentences

while performing approach hand/arm posture

Expt 2: Location of the effect

Results suggest that the effect can be triggered

immediately at the modality marker

Findings are consistent with the hypothesis that desidera-

tive modality is grounded in approach-system activation

In line with approaches that emphasize the role of inner,

emotional states in learning and representing meanings

of abstract words (Vigliocco et al., 2009) and with approaches

that emphasize the role of action grounding of abstract

concepts (Pulvermüller, 2013)

Approach-system activation hypothesis = first approximation

to grounding in states of desiring; no direct evidence

Other meaning components: non-factualness?

CONCLUSION

Thanks to

Regine Bader, Michael Fell, Lisa Fuchs, Sara Hadji

Moradlou, Ulrike Karg, Norma Köppe, Matthias Lickfett,

Kalina Petrova, and Corinna Schorr

for their assistance in collecting the data

FINISHED