Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2024 / Are schematic diagrams valid visual representations of concepts? Evidence from mental imagery in online processing of English prepositions

Are schematic diagrams valid visual representations of concepts? Evidence from mental imagery in online processing of English prepositions

Paper · 2024 · Menghan Wang and Helen Zhao

Summary

Cognitive linguists and CL-inspired language teachers often use schematic diagrams to show what prepositions mean. Few studies have tested whether people actually treat such diagrams as images of the concept. Wang and Zhao tested this with a priming study on English over and in. The primes were image-schematic diagrams adapted from Tyler and Evans (2003), in which a trajector (TR) word is placed in a figure–ground layout. After each prime, 100 native speakers and 79 adult L2 learners judged a prepositional phrase. The design crossed three factors:

  • preposition (over vs in),
  • sense (spatial vs extended),
  • prime–target interval (SOA of 1,040 vs 2,040 ms).

Only the L2 learners showed an effect. They responded more slowly, an interference pattern, on over phrases and at the longer SOA. Native speakers showed no imagery effect. Sense did not change the outcome. The authors take this as partial support for diagrams as conceptual representations. They also argue that decoding a diagram is cognitively demanding, which matters when diagrams are used in L2 teaching.

Key points

  • Participants: 79 L2 learners and 100 native speakers of English.
  • Tasks: a diagram–picture matching task and a semantic priming phrasal decision task.
  • Design factors: target preposition (over/in), abstractness of sense (spatial/extended), and SOA (1,040 ms/2,040 ms).
  • Diagram effect: slowing appeared only in the L2 group, only for over and only at 2,040 ms. Sense played no role.
  • Other factors: native speakers' response times depended on how plausible the prime–phrase event was (e.g., sun | over the horizon), but learners were barely sensitive to this. More proficient learners judged phrases faster.
  • Data: data and materials are on OSF (osf.io/v6ath).

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Each preposition use is labelled for whether its sense is spatial or extended, and this label is used as an explicit experimental factor rather than lumped together. This makes it possible to see whether abstract uses behave differently.
  • I2. Prepositions are modelled as a trajector placed relative to a landmark in a schematic configuration, with the TR word built into that configuration. This gives a compact, non-lexical picture of what over or in asserts.
  • I3. Native speakers were sensitive to how plausible the pairing of a figure word and a phrase was, and this showed up in their response times. Plausibility of who-relates-to-what is therefore a signal in its own right.
  • I4. The study does not assume that a representation is useful just because experts like it. It tests the representation against behaviour and finds that it can interfere as well as help.
  • I5. The authors suggest swapping the order so that language comes first and the diagram second, on the grounds that linguistic input is easier to integrate.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (frames): PP attachments could carry a spatial-vs-extended sense label, and role assignment accuracy could be reported separately for each kind so that weaknesses on figurative uses are not hidden.
  • I2 (world): over/in could be compiled into TR–LM relations between entities in the text world, so spatial queries are answered from the configuration instead of from the word itself.
  • I3 (world): the knowledge graph could score how plausible a TR–PP pairing is and use that score to rank competing PP attachments or senses, keeping the score visible as part of the explanation.
  • I4 (learn): any new intermediate representation, such as a schema layer, could be evaluated by whether it improves downstream answers compared with a no-schema control, rather than being adopted because it is linguistically appealing.
  • I5 (back): a cheap self-check would be to render a TR–LM configuration back into a phrase and test whether it reproduces the original preposition.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓The University of MelbourneMelbourne · Australia100 works · 22,618 citations

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 6The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 16,039 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 15,891 worksPsychology · 1,552 worksExperimental and Cognitive Psychology · 870 worksNeuroscience · 165 worksCognitive Neuroscience · 164 works

🧭 Topics 1Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 2,263 works

Cite

Cite as Menghan Wang and Helen Zhao. 2024. Are schematic diagrams valid visual representations of concepts? Evidence from mental imagery in online processing of English prepositions. Language and Cognition 16.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.1017/langcog.2024.18

@inproceedings{wang2024are,
  title = {{Are schematic diagrams valid visual representations of concepts? Evidence from mental imagery in online processing of English prepositions}},
  author = {Menghan Wang and Helen Zhao},
  booktitle = {Language and Cognition 16},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.1017/langcog.2024.18},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2024.18}
}

References

66 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Ahn, S., & Jiang, N. (2018). Automatic semantic integration during L2 sentential reading. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21(2), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728917000256 ↗
  2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149 Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., Dai, B., Scheipl, F., Grothendieck, G., Green, P., Fox, J., Bauer, A., & Krivitsky, P. N. (2022). Package ‘lme4’ (Version 1.1-29) [Computer software]. Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/ lme4.pdf Bergen, B. K. (2005). Mental simulation in spatial language processing. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 27. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5fn5t33s. ↗
  3. Bergen, B. K. (2007). Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittel-berg, S. Coulson, & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Human cognitive processing (Vol. 18, pp. 277–301). John Benjamins Publishing Company. ↗
  4. Bergen, B. K. (2019). Embodiment. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics—Foundations of language (pp. 11–35). De Gruyter Mouton. find
  5. Bergen, B. K., Lau, T.-T. C., Narayan, S., Stojanovic, D., & Wheeler, K. (2010). Body part representations in verbal semantics. Memory & Cognition, 38(7), 969–981. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.7.969 ↗
  6. Bergen, B. K., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and linguistic aspects of visual imagery in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31(5), 733–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03640210701530748 Bergen, B. K., Narayan, S., & Feldman, J. (2003). Embodied verbal semantics: Evidence from an image-verb matching task. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 25. https://escholarship. org/uc/item/1hg3n38m Boers, F., Lindstromberg, S., Stengers, H., & Eyckmans, J. (2008). Variables in the mnemonic effectiveness of pictorial elucidation. In F. Boers & S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary and phraseology (pp. 189–216). De Gruyter Mouton. ↗
  7. Boers, F., Piquer Píriz, A. M., Stengers, H., & Eyckmans, J. (2009). Does pictorial elucidation foster recollection of idioms? Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809341505 Bryant, D. J., & Tversky, B. (1999). Mental representations of perspective and spatial relations from diagrams and models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(1), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.1.137 ↗
  8. Buccino, G., Marino, B. F., Bulgarelli, C., & Mezzadri, M. (2017). Fluent speakers of a second language process graspable nouns expressed in L2 like in their native language. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1306. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01306 Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. ↗
  9. Chen, D., Wang, R., Zhang, J., & Liu, C. (2019). Perceptual representations in L1, L2 and L3 comprehension: Delayed sentence–picture verification. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09670-x Chen, S.-C., de Koning, B. B., & Zwaan, R. A. (2020). Does object size matter with regard to the mental simulation of object orientation? Experimental Psychology, 67(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000468 ↗
  10. Churchland, P. M. (1992). A neurocomputational perspective: The nature of mind and the structure of science. The MIT Press. find
  11. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. Council of Europe (Ed.). (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe Publishing. find
  12. Coventry, K. R., & Mather, G. (2002). The real story of over? In K. R. Coventry & P. Olivier (Eds.), Spatial language (pp. 165–184). Springer Netherlands. ↗
  13. Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford University Press. ↗
  14. Craver-Lemley, C., & Arterberry, M. (2001). Imagery-induced interference on a visual detection task. Spatial Vision, 14(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856801300202887 ↗
  15. Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ de Koning, B. B., Wassenburg, S. I., Bos, L. T., & Van der Schoot, M. (2017a). Mental simulation of four visual object properties: Similarities and differences as assessed by the sentence–picture verification task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(4), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2017.1281283 de Koning, B. B., Wassenburg, S. I., Bos, L. T., & Van der Schoot, M. (2017b). Size does matter: Implied object size is mentally simulated during language comprehension. Discourse Processes, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1119604 de Wit, B., & Kinoshita, S. (2015). The masked semantic priming effect is task dependent: Reconsidering the automatic spreading activation process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 1062–1075. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000074 ↗
  16. Deane, P. (2005). Multimodal spatial representation: On the semantic unity of over. In B. Hampe & J. E. Grady (Eds.), From perception to meaning (pp. 235–284). De Gruyter Mouton. ↗
  17. Dudschig, C., de la Vega, I., & Kaup, B. (2014). Embodiment and second-language: Automatic activation of motor responses during processing spatially associated L2 words and emotion L2 words in a vertical Stroop paradigm. Brain and Language, 132, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.02.002 Ellis, N. C., Simpson‐Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375–396. https://doi. org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x Engelen, J. A. A., Bouwmeester, S., de Bruin, A. B. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2011). Perceptual simulation in developing language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(4), 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.06.009 Feng, Y., & Zhou, R. (2021). Does embodiment of verbs influence predicate metaphor processing in a second language? Evidence from picture priming. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(759175), 1–12. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.759175 ↗
  18. Foroni, F. (2015). Do we embody second language? Evidence for ‘partial’ simulation during processing of a second language. Brain and Cognition, 99, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.06.006 ↗
  19. Gries, S. T., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(4), 635–676. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635 Hampe, B., & Grady, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532 ↗
  20. Herskovits, A. (1997). Language, spatial cognition, and vision. In O. Stock (Ed.), Spatial and temporal reasoning (pp. 155–202). Springer Netherlands. ↗
  21. Horvat, W., Bolognesi, M., & Lahiri, A. (2021). Processing of literal and metaphorical meanings in polysemous verbs: An experiment and its methodological implications. Journal of Pragmatics, 171, 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.10.007 ↗
  22. Hutchins, E. (2005). Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008 ↗
  23. Karaca, K. (2012). Philosophical reflections on diagram models and diagrammatic representation. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 24(3), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0952813X.2012.693665 Kaschak, M. P., Madden, C. J., Therriault, D. J., Yaxley, R. H., Aveyard, M., Blanchard, A. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Perception of motion affects language processing. Cognition, 94(3), B79–B89. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.06e.005 ↗
  24. Kelleher, J., Sloan, C., & Mac Namee, B. (2009). An investigation into the semantics of English topological prepositions. Cognitive Processing, 10(S2), 233–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0289-4 ↗
  25. Koster, D., Cadierno, T., & Chiarandini, M. (2018). Mental simulation of object orientation and size: A conceptual replication with second language learners. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 2(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.39 ↗
  26. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 ↗
  27. Lai, V. T., & Curran, T. (2013). ERP evidence for conceptual mappings and comparison processes during the comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors. Brain and Language, 127(3), 484–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.09.010 Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press. ↗
  28. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. find
  29. Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press. find
  30. Lenth, R. V., Buerkner, P., Giné-Vázquez, I., Herve, M., Jung, M., Love, J., Miguez, F., Riebl, H., & Singmann, H. (2023). Package ‘emmeans’ (Version 1.8.4-1) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/ packages/emmeans/emmeans.pdf Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research: Mixed-effects models. Language Learning, 65(S1), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12117 ↗
  31. Lindsay, S. (2003). Visual priming of language comprehension. University of Sussex. find
  32. Lindstromberg, S. (2010). English prepositions explained. John Benjamins Publish Company. ↗
  33. Littlemore, J., Chen, P. T., Koester, A., & Barnden, J. (2011). Difficulties in metaphor comprehension faced by international students whose first language is not English. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 408–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr009 Liu, N., & Bergen, B. K. (2016). When do language comprehenders mentally simulate locations? Cognitive Linguistics, 27(2), 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0123 ↗
  34. Mandler, J. M. (2004). The foundations of mind. Oxford University Press. find
  35. Mandler, J. M. (2005). How to build a baby: III. Image schemas and the transition to verbal thought. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning (Vol. 29, pp. 137–164). De Gruyter Mouton. find
  36. Marshall, G. C., & Freitas, A. (2021). Measuring diagram quality through semiotic morphisms. Semiotica, 2021(239), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2019-0029 ↗
  37. Martin, C. D., Garcia, X., Breton, A., Thierry, G., & Costa, A. (2016). World knowledge integration during second language comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(2), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1084012 ↗
  38. Masson, M. E. J., Bub, D. N., & Newton-Taylor, M. (2008). Language-based access to gestural components of conceptual knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701623829 Michael, E. B., & Gollan, T. H. (2005). Being and becoming bilingual. In Judith. F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 389–407). Oxford University Press. ↗
  39. Monaco, E., Jost, L. B., Gygax, P. M., & Annoni, J.-M. (2019). Embodied semantics in a second language: Critical review and clinical implications. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13, 110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00110 Narayan, S., Bergen, B. K., & Weinberg, Z. (2004). Embodied verbal semantics: Evidence from a lexical matching task. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society, 30, 493–504. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls. v30i1.936 Norman, T., & Peleg, O. (2022). The reduced embodiment of a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(3), 406–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921001115 ↗
  40. Perry, A., Stiso, J., Chang, E. F., Lin, J. J., Parvizi, J., & Knight, R. T. (2018). Mirroring in the human brain: Deciphering the spatial-temporal patterns of the human mirror neuron system. Cerebral Cortex, 28(3), 1039–1048. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx013 ↗
  41. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big Is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research: Effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079 ↗
  42. R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/ ↗
  43. Richardson, D., Spivey, M. J., Barsalou, L. W., & McRae, K. (2003). Spatial representations activated during real-time comprehension of verbs. Cognitive Science, 27(5), 767–780. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15516709cog2705_4 Richardson, D., Spivey, M. J., Edelman, S., & Naples, A. J. (2001). “Language is spatial”: Experimental evidence for image schemas of concrete and abstract verbs. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 23. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9vs820bx. ↗
  44. Romero-Rivas, C., Corey, J. D., Garcia, X., Thierry, G., Martin, C. D., & Costa, A. (2017). World knowledge and novel information integration during L2 speech comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(3), 576–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000905 ↗
  45. Rommers, J., Meyer, A. S., & Huettig, F. (2013). Object shape and orientation do not routinely influence performance during language processing. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2218–2225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613490746 Schütt, E., Dudschig, C., Bergen, B. K., & Kaup, B. (2023). Sentence-based mental simulations: Evidence from behavioral experiments using garden-path sentences. Memory & Cognition, 51(4), 952–965. https://doi. org/10.3758/s13421-022-01367-2 Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2023). How does language affect spatial attention? Deconstructing the prime-target relationship. Memory & Cognition, 51(5), 1115–1124. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01390-3 ↗
  46. Shi, J., Peng, G., & Li, D. (2023). Figurativeness matters in the second language processing of collocations: Evidence from a self‐paced reading experiment. Language Learning, 73(1), 47–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/ lang.12516 Silverberg, S., & Samuel, A. G. (2004). The effect of age of second language acquisition on the representation and processing of second language words. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 381–398. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.003 Sonbul, S. (2015). Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects on off-line/on-line collocational processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(3), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1366728914000674 Spivey, M. J., Richardson, D. C., & Gonzalez-Marquez, M. (2005). On the perceptual-motor and image-schematic infrastructure of language. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition (1st ed., pp. 246–281). Cambridge University Press. ↗
  47. Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12(2), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00326 ↗
  48. Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096 ↗
  49. Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677643 ↗
  50. Takimoto, M. (2021). A comparative study of animation versus static effects in the spatial concept-based metaphor awareness-raising approach on EFL learners’ cognitive processing of request strategies. Language and Cognition, 13(2), 191–226. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2020.34 ↗
  51. Tomczak, E., & Ewert, A. (2015). Real and fictive motion processing in polish L2 users of English and monolinguals: Evidence for different conceptual representations. Modern Language Journal, 99(S1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2015.12178.x ↗
  52. Tversky, B. (2015). On abstraction and ambiguity. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity (pp. 215–223). Springer Netherlands. ↗
  53. Tversky, B., Gao, J., Corter, J. E., Tanaka, Y., & Nickerson, J. V. (2016). People, place, and time: Inferences from diagrams. In M. Jamnik, Y. Uesaka, & S. Elzer Schwartz (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (Vol. 9781, pp. 258–264). Springer International Publishing. find
  54. Tversky, B., Zacks, J., Lee, P., & Heiser, J. (2000). Lines, blobs, crosses and arrows: Diagrammatic communication with schematic figures. In M. Anderson, P. Cheng, & V. Haarslev (Eds.), Theory and application of diagrams (Vol. 1889, pp. 221–230). Springer. find
  55. Tylén, K., Fusaroli, R., Bundgaard, P. F., & Østergaard, S. (2013). Making sense together: A dynamical account of linguistic meaning-making. Semiotica, 2013(194), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2013-0021 ↗
  56. Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. Routledge. find
  57. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge University Press. find
  58. Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English prepositions to, for, and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 181–205. find
  59. Vukovic, N., & Williams, J. N. (2014). Automatic perceptual simulation of first language meanings during second language sentence processing in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 145, 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.11.002 Wang, M., & Zhao, H. (Under Review). Perceptual representations in L1 and L2 processing: An innovative sentence-diagram verification task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. ↗
  60. Wheeler, K. B., & Stojanovic, D. (2006). Non-native language processing engages mental imagery. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 28. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/59r7r8zt. ↗
  61. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org ↗
  62. Wolter, B., & Yamashita, J. (2018). Word frequency, collocational frequency, L1 congruency, and proficiency in L2 collocational processing: What accounts for L2 performance? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000237 ↗
  63. Wong, M. H. I., Zhao, H., & MacWhinney, B. (2018). A cognitive linguistics application for second language pedagogy: The English preposition tutor. Language Learning, 68(2), 438–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/ lang.12278 Wu, S.-L. (2016). Listening for imagery by native speakers and L2 learners. Languages, 1(10), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages1020010 Zhao, H., Huang, S., Zhou, Y., & Wang, R. (2020). Schematic diagrams in second language learning of English prepositions: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42 (4), 721–748. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311900069X ↗
  64. Zhou, H., Rossi, S., & Chen, B. (2017). Effects of working memory capacity and tasks in processing L2 complex sentence: Evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 595. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00595 Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Embodiment and language comprehension: Reframing the discussion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.008 ↗
  65. Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13(2), 168–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00430 ↗
  66. Cite this article: Wang, M., & Zhao, H. (2024). Are schematic diagrams valid visual representations of concepts? Evidence from mental imagery in online processing of English prepositions, Language and Cognition 16: 1564–1587. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2024.18 ↗

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/wang-2024-schematic-diagrams-valid-visual-representations/