Grounded Cognition Entails Linguistic Relativity: Response to Commentators

Abstract

AbstractIn this paper, I respond to eight commentaries on my target article called “Grounded cognition entails linguistic relativity: A neglected implication of a major semantic theory.” The commentaries span a broad range of disciplines and perspectives. I have organized my response around the following topics: (1) an introductory synopsis of my main argument; (2) grounded versus amodal theories of concepts; (3) language‐specific versus language‐independent concepts; (4) language, culture, and cognition; (5) language itself as a source of conceptual grounding; (6) abstract concepts, linguistic relativity, and contextual and individual variability; (7) word meanings as language‐specific predictions; and (8) some final remarks about the importance of cross‐linguistic diversity.