Click here to download

The Paradigmatic Body - Embodied Simulation, Intersubjectivity, the Bodily Self, and Language
Journal Title: SETTING 
Author/s: Vittorio Gallese, Valentina Cuccio 
Year:  2020 Issue: 43 Language: Italian 
Pages:  40 Pg. 5-44 FullText PDF:  399 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SET2020-043001
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 

In this paper, we propose a way in which cognitive neuroscience could provide new insights on three aspects of social cognition: intersubjectivity, the human self, and language. We emphasize the crucial role of the body, conceived as the constitutive source of pre-reflective consciousness of the self and of the other. We provide a critical view of contemporary social cognitive neuroscience, arguing that the brain level of description is a necessary but not sufficient condition for studying intersubjectivity, the human self, and language; which are only properly visible if coupled with a full appreciation of their intertwined relationship with the body. We introduce mirror mechanisms, embodied simulation, and discuss their relevance to a new account of intersubjectivity and the human self. In this context, we focus on a specifically human modality of intersubjectivity: language. Aspects of social cognition related to language are dis-cussed in terms of embodiment, while emphasizing the progress and limitations of this approach. We argue that a key aspect of human language consists in its decoupling from its usual denotative role, hence manifesting its power of abstraction. We discuss these features of human language as instantiations of the Greek notion of paradeigma, originally explored by Aristotle to refer to a typical form of rhetorical reasoning and relate it to embodied simulation. Paradigmatic knowledge connects the particular with the particular, moving from the contingent particular situation to an exemplary case. Similarly, embodied simulation is the suspension of the "concrete" application of a process: reuse of motor knowledge in the absence of the movement it realizes is an example of paradigmatic knowledge.This new epistemological approach to intersubjectivity generates predictions about the intrinsic functional nature of our social cognitive operations, cutting across, and not subordinated to, a specific ontology of mind.
Keywords: Cognitive neuroscience, Embodied simulation, Intersubjectivity, Language, Mirror neurons, Paradigm, Social cognition.

  1. Tomasino B., Weiss P. H. & Fink G. R. (2010). To move or not to move: Imperatives modulate action-related verb processing in the motor system. Neuroscience,168: 246-258.
  2. Usener H. (1887). Epicurea. Leipzig: Teubner. Italian translation by Ilaria Ramelli, Epicurea: Testi di Epicuro e testimonianze epicuree nell’edizione di Hermann Usener. Milan: Bompiani, 2002.
  3. Varela F. J. & Shear J. (Eds.) (1999). The view from within: First-person approaches to the study of consciousness. Bowling Green, OH: Imprint Academic.
  4. Virno P. (2003). Quando il verbo si fa carne. Linguaggio e natura umana. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
  5. -- (2011). E così via all’infinito. Logica e antropologia. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
  6. Vogeley K., May M., Ritzl A., Falkai P., Zilles K. &Fink G. R. (2004). Neural correlates of first-person perspective as one constituent of human self-consciousness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5): 817-827., DOI: 10.1162/089892904970799
  7. Vogeley K. & Fink G. R. (2003). Neural correlates of the first-person-perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(1): 38-42.
  8. Wojciehowski H. C. & Gallese V. (2011). How stories make us feel. Toward an embodied narratology. California Italian Studies, 2(1).
  9. Wölfflin H. (1886). Prolegomena zu einer Psychologie der Architektur. München: University of Munich.
  10. Zeki S. (1993). A vision of the brain. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
  11. Abe K. & Watanabe D. (2011). Songbirds possess the spontaneous ability to discriminate syntactic rules. Nature Neuroscience, 14(8): 1067-1074.
  12. Adrian E. D. & Matthews R. (1927a). The action of light on the eye: Part I. The discharge of impulses in the optic nerve and its relation to the electric changes in the retina. The Journal of Physiology, 63(4): 378-414.
  13. Agamben G. (2008). Signatura Rerum. Sul Metodo. Torino: Bollati-Boringhieri.
  14. Ammaniti M. & Gallese V. (2014). The birth of intersubjectivity: Psychodynamics, neurobiology, and the self. New York, NY: Norton.
  15. Anderson M. L. (2010). Neural reuse: A fundamental reorganizing principle of the brain. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 33(4): 245-266., DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X10000853
  16. Aristotle (2012). The art of rhetoric. London, UK: Harper Press.
  17. Arzy S., Overney L. S., Landis T. & Blanke O. (2006). Neural mechanisms of embodiment: Asomatognosia due to premotor cortex damage. Archives of Neurology, 63(7): 1022-1025.
  18. Barsalou L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, (59): 617-645.
  19. Bermúdez J. L. (2003). Thinking without words. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.
  20. Gallese V. (2003b). A neuroscientific grasp of concepts: From control to representation. Philophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London B, 358(1435): 1231-1240.
  21. Berti A., Bottini G., Gandola M., Pia L., Smania N. Stracciari A., Castiglioni I., Vallar G. & Paulesu E.(2005). Shared cortical anatomy for motor awareness and motor control. Science, 309(5733): 488-491.
  22. Bloomfield T. C., Gentner T. Q. & Margoliash D. (2011). What birds have to say about language. Nature Neuroscience, 14(8): 947-948.
  23. Boulenger V., Shtyrov Y. & Pulvermüller F. (2012). When do you grasp the idea? MEG evidence for instantaneous diom understanding. NeuroImage, 59(4): 3502-3513.
  24. Butterfill S. A. & Sinigaglia C. (2014). Intention and motor representation in purposive action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(1): 119-145.
  25. Cermolacce M., Naudin J. & Parnas J. (2007). The “minimal self” in psychopathology: Re-examining the self-disorders in the schizophrenia spectrum. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(3): 703-714.
  26. Chittka L. & Niven J. (2009). Are bigger brains better?. Current Biology, 19(21): R995-R1008.
  27. Chomsky N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
  28. Christensen K. R. (2009). Negative and affirmative sentences increase activation indifferent areas in the brain. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22(1): 1-17.
  29. Condillac E. B. (2001). Essay on the origin of human knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Cosmides L. & Tooby J. (1997). The multi modular nature of human intelligence. In: A. Schiebel & J. W. Schopf (Eds.). Origin and Evolution of Intelligence.Toronto, Canada: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
  31. Culioli A. (1968). La formalisation en linguistique. Cahiers Pour l’Analyse, 9: 106-117.
  32. Dehaene S. (2005). Evolution of human cortical circuits for reading and arithmetic: The neuronal recycling hypothesis. In: S. Dehaene, J.-R. Duhamel, M. D. Hauser & G. Rizzolatti (Eds.). From Monkey Brain to Human Brain. A Fyssen Foundation Symposium (pp. 133-157).Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  33. Descartes R. (1637). Discours de la methode pour bien conduire sa raison, & chercher la verité dans les sciences: plus la dioptrique, les meteores, et la geometrie, qui sont des essais de cette methode. Leiden: Jan Maire.
  34. -- (1642). Meditationes de prima philosophia, in quibus Dei existentia & animae humanae a corpore distinctio demonstrantur: his adjunctae sunt variae objectiones doctorum virorum in istas de Deo & anima demonstrationes, cum responsionibus authoris. 2nd edition. Amsterdam, NL: Elzevir.
  35. Ehrsson H. H., Spence C. & Passingham R. E. (2004). That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science, 305(5635): 875-877.
  36. Ferri F., Frassinetti F., Costantini M. & Gallese V.(2011). Motor simulation and the bodily self. PLoSOne, 6(3): e17927.
  37. Ferri F., Frassinetti F., Ardizzi M., Costantini M. & Gallese V. (2012). A sensorimotor network for the bodily self. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(7): 1584-1595.
  38. Firpo L. (1940). Bibliografia degli scritti di Tommaso Campanella. Turin: V. Bona.
  39. Freud S. (1923). The ego and the I. London, UK: The Hogarth Press Ltd.
  40. Gallagher S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
  41. Gallese V. (2000). The inner sense of action: Agency and motor representations. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7(10): 23-40.
  42. Gallese V. (2003a). The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: The quest for a common mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 358(1431): 517-528.
  43. Gallese V. (2005). Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(1): 23-48.
  44. Gallese V. (2006). Intentional attunement: A neurophysiological perspective on social cognition and its disruption in autism. Cognitive Brain Research, 1079(1): 15-24.
  45. Gallese V. (2007). Before and below theory of mind: Embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 362(1480): 659-669.
  46. Gallese V. (2008). Mirror neurons and the social nature of language: The neural exploitation hypothesis. Social Neuroscience, 3(3-4): 317-333., DOI: 10.1080/17470910701563608
  47. Gallese V. (2009). Motor abstraction: A neuroscientific account of how action goals and intentions are mapped and understood. Psychological Research, 73(4): 486-498.
  48. Gallese V. (2011). Neuroscience and phenomenology. Phenomenology & Mind, 1: 33-48.
  49. Gallese, V. (2013). Corpo non mente. Le neuroscienze cognitive e la genesi di soggettività ed intersoggettività. Educazione Sentimentale, 20, 8-24.10.3280/EDS2013-020002
  50. Gallese V. (2014). Bodily selves in relation: Embodied simulation as second-person perspective on intersubjectivity. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society B, 369(1644): 20130177-20130177.
  51. Gallese V., Fadiga L., Fogassi L. & Rizzolatti G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119(2): 593-609.
  52. Gallese V., Keysers C. & Rizzolatti G. (2004). A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(9): 396-403.
  53. Gallese V. & Lakoff G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in reason and language. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3): 455-479., DOI: 10.1080/02643290442000310
  54. Gallese V. & Sinigaglia C. (2010). The bodily self aspower for action. Neuropsychologia, 48(3): 746-755.
  55. -- (2011a). How the body in action shapes the self. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18(7-8): 117-143.
  56. -- (2011b). What is so special with embodied simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11): 512-519.
  57. Gallese V. & Cuccio V. (2015). The Paradigmatic Body – Embodied Simulation, Intersubjectivity, the Bodily Self, and Language. In: T. Metzinger & J. M. Windt (Eds). Open MIND: 14(T). Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group., DOI: 10.15502/9783958570269
  58. -- (1927b). The action of light on the eye: Part II. The processes involved in retinal excitation. The Journal of Physiology, 64(3): 279-301.
  59. Gentner T. Q., Fenn K. M., Margoliash D. & Nusbaum H. C. (2006). Recursive synctactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature, 440: 1204-1207.
  60. Glenberg A. M. & Gallese V. (2012). Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex, 48(7): 905-922.
  61. Gould S. J. & Lewontin R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm. A critique of the adoptionist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 205(1161): 281-288.
  62. Gross C. G. (2002). Genealogy of the ‘Grandmother Cell’. Neuroscientist, 8(5): 512-518., DOI: 10.1177/107385802237175
  63. Gross C. G., Rocha-Miranda C. E. & Bender D. B. (1972). Visual properties of neurons in inferotemporal cortex of the macaque. Journal of Neurophysiology, 35(1): 96-111.
  64. Guan C. Q., Meng W., Yao R. & Glenberg A. M. (2013). The motor system contributes to comprehension of abstract language. PLoS One, 8(9): e75183.
  65. Hauser M. D., Chomsky N. & Fitch W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. Science, 298(5598): 1569-1579.
  66. Hinzen W. & Sheehan M. (2013). The philosophy of universal grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  67. Husserl E. (1973). Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge. In: S. Strasser (Ed.). Den Haag, NL: Martinus Nijhoff.
  68. Kaup B., Yaxley R. H., Madden C. J., Zwaan R. A. & Lüdtke J. (2006). Experiential simulations of negated text information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(7): 976-990., DOI: 10.1080/17470210600823512
  69. Kaup B., Lüdtke J. & Zwaan R. A. (2007). Processing negated sentences with contradictory predicates: Is a door that is not open mentally closed?. Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 1033-1050.
  70. Ku S. P., Logothetis N. K., Tolias A. S. & Goense J.(2011). fMRI of the face-processing network in the ventral temporal lobe of awake and anesthetized macaques. Neuron, 70(2): 352-362.
  71. Kumar U., Padakannaya P., Mishra R. K. & Khetrapal C. L. (2013). Distinctive neural signatures for negative sentences in Hindi: An fMRI study. Brain Imaging and Behaviour, 7(2): 91-101.
  72. Legrenzi P. & Umiltà C. A. (2011). Neuromania: On the limits of brain science. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  73. Leslie A. M. (2005). Developmental parallels in understanding minds and bodies. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9(10): 459-462.
  74. Liuzza M. T., Candidi M. & Aglioti S. M. (2011). Do not resonate with actions: Sentence polarity modulates corticospinal excitability during action-related sentence reading. PLoSONE, 6: e16855.
  75. Lo Piparo F. (2003). Aristotele e il linguaggio. Roma: Laterza.
  76. Margoliash D. & Nusbaum H. C. (2009). Language. The perspective from organismal biology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(12): 505-510.
  77. Pauen M. (2012). The second-person perspective. Inquiry, 55(1): 33-49., DOI: 10.1080/0020174X.2012.643623
  78. Piazza F. (2008). La retorica di Aristotele. Introduzione alla lettura. Roma: Carocci.
  79. Pinker S. (1994). The language instinct. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
  80. -- (1997). How the mind works. New York, NY: Norton.
  81. Plessner H. (2006). I gradi dell’organico e l’uomo. Torino: Bollati-Boringhieri.
  82. Pulvermüller F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Science, 458(470): 1-17.
  83. Quiroga R., Reddy L., Kreiman G., Koch C. & Fried I. (2005). Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain. Nature, 435: 1102-1107.
  84. Rizzolatti G., Fadiga L., Gallese V. & Fogassi L.(1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2): 131-141.
  85. Rizzolatti G. & Sinigaglia C. (2010). The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: Interpretations and misinterpretations. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(4): 264-274.
  86. Ross W. D. (Ed.) (1978). Aristoteles prior and posterior analytics. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
  87. Saxe R. (2006). Uniquely human social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16(2): 235-249.
  88. Tettamanti M., Buccino G., Saccuman M. C., Gallese V., Danna M., Scifo P., Fazio F., Rizzolatti G., Cappa S. F. & Perani D. (2005). Listening to actionrelated sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(2): 273-281., DOI: 10.1162/0898929053124965

Vittorio Gallese, Valentina Cuccio, The Paradigmatic Body - Embodied Simulation, Intersubjectivity, the Bodily Self, and Language in "SETTING" 43/2020, pp. 5-44, DOI:10.3280/SET2020-043001


FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content