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: Debates on Meaning and Cognition
PublisherOxford University Press
ISBN (Print)9780191696060, 9780199217274
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 22 2012

Fingerprint

Cognition
Learning

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

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

The limits of covariation. / Glenberg, Arthur; Mehta, Sarita.

Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

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
Glenberg A, Mehta S. The limits of covariation. In Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition. Oxford University Press. 2012 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0002
Glenberg, Arthur ; Mehta, Sarita. / The limits of covariation. Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition. Oxford University Press, 2012.
@inbook{3c76b408860e4a13ad3c8c46fbf5075d,
title = "The limits of covariation",
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.",
keywords = "Abstract symbols, Amodal symbols, Arbitrary symbols, Covariation, Meaning",
author = "Arthur Glenberg and Sarita Mehta",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0002",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780191696060",
booktitle = "Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - The limits of covariation

AU - Glenberg, Arthur

AU - Mehta, Sarita

PY - 2012/3/22

Y1 - 2012/3/22

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Abstract symbols

KW - Amodal symbols

KW - Arbitrary symbols

KW - Covariation

KW - Meaning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922760664&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922760664&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0002

DO - 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0002

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780191696060

SN - 9780199217274

BT - Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition

PB - Oxford University Press

ER -