Words have a weight: language as a source of inner grounding and flexibility in abstract concepts
Abstract
The role played by language in our cognitive lives is a topic at the centre of contemporary debates in cognitive (neuro)science. In this paper we illustrate and compare two theories that offer embodied explanations of this role: the WAT (words as social tools) and the LENS (language is an embodied neuroenhancement and scaffold) theories. WAT and LENS differ from other current proposals, because they connect the impact of the neurologically realized language system on our cognition to the ways in which language shapes our interaction with the physical and social environment. Examining these theories together, their tenets and supporting evidence, sharpens our understanding of each, but also contributes to a better understanding of the contribution that language might make to the acquisition, representation and use of abstract concepts. Here we focus on how language provides a source of inner grounding, especially metacognition and inner speech, and supports the flexibility of our thought. Overall, the paper outlines a promising research program focused on the importance of language to abstract concepts within the context of a flexible, multimodal, and multilevel conception of embodied cognition.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A further reason for the growth of interest in inner speech has been the recent wave of studies emphasizing the importance of language in shaping cognition.
“A further reason for the growth of interest in IS has been the recent wave of studies emphasizing the importance of language in shaping cognition [23][24][25][26].”
From Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool (2023) · cites this paper as [25]
Inner speech is proposed to be crucial both during the acquisition and processing of abstract concepts.
“Mouth activation in such studies may betray the involvement of IS, proposed to be crucial both during the acquisition and processing of abstract concepts [25,67].”
From Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool (2023) · cites this paper as [25]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 208 · Cited by 80
- Authors
- Dove, G., Barca, L., Tummolini, L., & Borghi, A. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Louisville (US)
- National Research Council (IT)
- Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Dove, Guy
- Venue
- Psychological Research
- Published
- 2020-11-10
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2451-2467
- ISSN
- 0033-3026 (ISSN-L)
- 0340-0727
- 1430-2772
- OpenAlex
- W3100959714
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 208
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 7.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository (University of Louisville) (submittedVersion)
- IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Language, Metaphor, and Cognition
- Keywords
- language and cognition, embodied cognition, abstract concepts, metacognition, inner speech, conceptual flexibility, language acquisition, conceptual representation, multimodal cognition
- MeSH terms
- Metacognition, Cognition, Concept Formation, Humans, Language, Speech
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
