The limits of covariation

Arthur Glenberg, Sarita Mehta

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

This chapter provides the first empirical test of the claim that people recover meaning from covariation alone. It examines two theories that feature covariation as an important component of learning the meaning of concepts - Launder and Dumais 1997; Rogers et al. 2004 - followed by reasons to question a reliance on covariation alone. It then presents the results of three experiments that demonstrate limits on how much meaning can be recovered from covariation alone. Given these limits, it discusses an issue central to the debate - what kind of data supports the notion that arbitrary, abstract, amodal (AAA) symbols play a role in cognition.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationSymbols and Embodiment
Subtitle of host publicationDebates on Meaning and Cognition
PublisherOxford University Press
ISBN (Electronic)9780191696060
ISBN (Print)9780199217274
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 22 2012

Keywords

  • Abstract symbols
  • Amodal symbols
  • Arbitrary symbols
  • Covariation
  • Meaning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The limits of covariation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Glenberg, A., & Mehta, S. (2012). The limits of covariation. In Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0002