Embodiment effect in second language and its influences: Evidence based on meta-analysis

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2025.1221

Abstract

Abstract:

Currently, linguistic embodiment effect has been widely confirmed in the domain of native language, but no consistent conclusion has been reached on whether and how bodily experience was involved in second language. The current study argued that the inconsistencies that have led to the findings on the second language embodiment effect were partly due to the differences in task paradigms and perspectives of examination adopted by different studies, and partly due to the fact that individual studies have not developed a unified standard for the operational concept of the second language embodiment effect and its measurement. Therefore, it was necessary to adopt a meta-analytic approach to categorize, integrate, and evaluate the results of individual studies to clarify the causal relationship between body perception experiences and second language learning, and to provide insights for resolving the inconsistent findings of the linguistic embodiment effect in the domain of second language. Clarifying this issue was an important element in testing whether the embodied language perspective was cross-culturally universal, provided new perspectives for the field of second language learning, and at the same time could provide feasible paths for second language embodied teaching practices.

This study integrated the related studies on second language embodied learning to examine the processing and influencing mechanisms of second language embodied effect, and explored the influencing factors of second language embodied effect from the dimensions of learner characteristics and language characteristics, and finally conducted a meta-analysis of 60 documents (186 effect sizes, 2520 subjects) by using a random-effects model. The results found that: the total effect size of second language embodiment was significant (Hedges' g = 0.34, p < 0.001); second language proficiency and language distance moderated the second language embodiment effect, with highly proficient bilinguals showing more significant second language embodiment effect than low-proficient second language, and more significant embodiment effect when the native language and the second language belonged to different linguistic families; there was an interaction between second language proficiency and semantic content on the second language embodiment effect, with high proficiency bilinguals showing more significant embodiment effect in second language affective semantic processing than in action semantics and other semantics, whereas the difference between low proficiency bilinguals' second language embodiment effect in action semantics, affective semantics, and other semantics was not significant.

The findings suggested that there was a stable embodiment effect in second language and that activation of the sensorimotor system could influence second language comprehension and conceptual representation. Language distance and second language proficiency had important effects on second language embodiment, and the embodiment effect was more pronounced when the second language and the native language belonged to different language families than when they belonged to the same language family, and highly proficient bilinguals showed stronger second language embodiment effect than low proficient bilinguals. There was a significant interaction between second language proficiency and semantic content, and the effect of semantic content on the second language embodiment effect was moderated by learners' second language proficiency. The findings supported the cross-linguistic consistency of the embodiment effect and further revealed the significant influence of learner factors and language factors on the second language embodiment effect. Based on the current findings, future research can further investigate the mechanisms of the second language embodiment effect and the interactive effects of learner and language factors on the second language embodiment effect.

Key words: second language learning, embodied cognition, meta-analysis, learner factors, language factors

CLC Number:

B842

LI Ying, ZHAI Yihui, HAO Shoubin, DAI Yaxing, MA Xiaobo, LI Tiantian, WANG Yue. Embodiment effect in second language and its influences: Evidence based on meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2025, 33(7): 1221-1233.

Figures/Tables 11

References 68

[1]	白亚停, 何文广. (2021). 二语具身认知:自动激活还是母语中介?. 心理科学进展, 29(11), 1970-1978. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.01970
[2]	冯茵, 周榕. (2019). 空间线索范式下二语动词加工的具身认知效应. 外语学刊, 1, 71-78.
[3]	官群. (2007). 具身认知观对语言理解的新诠释——心理模拟: 语言理解的一种手段. 心理科学, 5, 1252-1256.
[4]	官群. (2019). 具身语言学——人工智能时代的语言科学. 科学出版社.
[5]	胡翰林, 刘革平. (2023). 具身学习对学习效果的影响——基于国际期刊31项实验或准实验研究结果的元分析. 教师教育学报, 10(5), 85-94.
[6]	刘友会. (2021). 语境对汉语二语者情绪词识别和表征的影响研究 [硕士学位论文]. 南京师范大学.
[7]	鹿士义, 彭聪. (2021). 具身认知理论下的二语习得. 华文教学与研究, 85(1), 31-37.
[8]	马晓博. (2024). 二语情绪概念垂直空间隐喻的内在机制及其对新词学习的影响 [硕士学位论文]. 郑州大学.
[9]	倪传斌. (2023). 外语的具身效应及其作用路径与机制. 外语教学与研究, 55(6), 876-886.
[10]	欧亚丽, 刘承宇. (2009). 语言距离对英语作为第三语言学习的蒙古族学生语音迁移的影响. 西安外国语大学学报, 17(4), 93-97.
[11]	沈曼琼, 谢久书, 张昆, 李莹, 曾楚轩, 王瑞明. (2014). 二语情绪概念理解中的空间隐喻. 心理学报, 46(11), 1671-1681.
[12]	王慧莉, 郝晓争, 陈宏俊. (2017). 基于垂直Stroop范式的空间二语词汇加工研究. 外国语文, 33(5), 83-89.
[13]	王倩. (2016). 不同二语水平双语者对权力词的具身认知加工及表征差异研究. 解放军外国语学院学报, 39(6), 80-107.
[14]	王寅. (2005). 语言的体验性——从体验哲学和认知语言学看语言体验观. 外语教学与研究(外国语文双月刊), 37(1), 37-43.
[15]	吴思娜, 杨子, 李莹丽. (2022). 语言文化与身体特异性对水平空间隐喻的影响. 华文教学与研究, 1, 46-61.
[16]	奚梦澜. (2019). 中国英语学习者价值类词汇具身语义加工研究 [硕士学位论文]. 宁波大学.
[17]	谢久书, 沈光银, 黄艳利. (2022). 双语者跨语言正字法迁移的争议与整合. 心理科学, 45(4), 903-909.
[18]	Ahlberg, D. K., Bischoff, H., Kaup, B., Bryant, D., & Strozyk, J. V. (2018). Grounded cognition: Comparing language×space interactions in first language and second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39(2), 437-459.
[19]	Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2011). The representation of emotion vs. emotion-laden words in English and Spanish in the Affective Simon Task. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(3), 310-328.
[20]	Baills, F., Alazard-Guiu, C., & Prieto, P. (2022). Embodied prosodic training helps improve accentedness and suprasegmental accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 43(4), 776-804.
[21]	Baumeister, J. C., Francesco, F., Markus, C., Rumiati, R. I., & Piotr, W. (2017). Embodiment and emotional memory in first vs. second language. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 394-394. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00394 pmid: 28386240
[22]	Bergen, B., Lau, T.-T. C., Narayan, S., Stojanovic, D., & Wheeler, K. (2010). Body part representations in verbal semantics. Memory & Cognition, 38(7), 969-981.
[23]	Birba, A., Beltrán, D., Caro, M. M., Trevisan, P., Kogan, B., Sedeño, L., Ibáñez, A., & García, A. M. (2020). Motor- system dynamics during naturalistic reading of action narratives in first and second language. NeuroImage, 216, 116820.
[24]	Boulenger, V. (2009). Grasping ideas with the motor system: Semantic somatotopy in idiom comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 19(8), 1905-1914.
[25]	Boulenger, V., Roy, A. C., Paulignan, Y., Deprez, V., Jeannerod, M., & Nazir, T. A. (2006). Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(10), 1607-1615. pmid: 17014366
[26]	Chen, P.-Y., Chen, B.-L., Münte, T. F., Lu, C.-M., Li, L., & Guo, T.-M. (2019). Neural correlates of processing emotions in words across cultures. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 51, 111-120. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2019.01.004
[27]	Chen, P.-Y., Lin, J., Chen, B.-L., Lu, C.-M., & Guo, T.-M. (2015). Processing emotional words in two languages with one brain: ERP and fMRI evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals. Cortex, 71, 34-48. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.002 pmid: 26143622
[28]	De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Multilingual Matters.
[29]	De Angelis, G., Selinker, L., Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (2001). Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic systems in the multilingual mind. In Cenoz, J., Hufeis-en, B., & Jessner, U. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquicition: Psychological perspectives. Multilingual Matters.
[30]	De Grauwe, S., Willems, R. M., Rueschemeyer, S.-A., Lemhofer, K., & Schriefers, H. (2014). Embodied language in first- and second-language speakers: Neural correlates of processing motor verbs. Neuropsychologia, 56, 334-349. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.02.003 pmid: 24524912
[31]	Dudschig, C., de la Vega, I., De Filippis, M., & Kaup, B. (2014a). Language and vertical space: On the automaticity of language action interconnections. Cortex, 58, 151-160.
[32]	Dudschig, C., de la Vega, I., & Kaup, B. (2014b). 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.
[33]	Fan, L., Xu, Q., Wang, X., Xu, F., Yang, Y., & Lu, Z. (2018). The automatic activation of emotion words measured using the emotional face-word stroop task in late Chinese- English bilinguals. Cognition & Emotion, 32(2), 315-324.
[34]	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.
[35]	Ferré, P., Ventura, D., Comesaña, M., & Fraga, I. (2015). The role of emotionality in the acquisition of new concrete and abstract words. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 976-976. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00976 pmid: 26217289
[36]	Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 825-850.
[37]	Foroni, F. (2015). Do we embody second language? Evidence for 'partial' simulation during processing of a second language. Brain Cognition, 99, 8-16. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2015.06.006 pmid: 26188846
[38]	Fu, R., Gartlehner, G., Grant, M., Shamliyan, T., Sedrakyan, A., Wilt, T. J.,... Trikalinos, T. A. (2011). Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health care program. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(11), 1187-1197. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.010 pmid: 21477993
[39]	Fuhrman, O., Eckerling, A., Friedmann, N., Tarrasch, R., & Raz, G. (2020). The moving learner: Object manipulation in virtual reality improves vocabulary learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(3), 672-683.
[40]	Gallese, V. (2007). Embodied simulation: From mirror neuron systems to interpersonal relations. Novartis Foundation Symposium, 278, 3-12. pmid: 17214307
[41]	Gibbs, R. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
[42]	Goldberg, R. F., Perfetti, C. A., & Schneider, W. (2006). Distinct and common cortical activations for multimodal semantic categories. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 6(3), 214-222.
[43]	Guan, C.-Q., & Meng, W. (2022). Facilitative effects of embodied English instruction in Chinese children. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 915952-915952.
[44]	Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic rep-resentation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301-307.
[45]	He, W.-G., & Bai, Y.-T. (2022). Involvement of the sensorimotor system in less advanced L2 processing: Evidence from a semantic category decision task. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 980967-980967.
[46]	Jeong, H., Sugiura, M., Suzuki, W., Sassa, Y., Hashizume, H., & Kawashima, R. (2015). Neural correlates of second- language communication and the effect of language anxiety. Neuropsychologia, 66, 182-192.
[47]	Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere?. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 125-150.
[48]	Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23(6), 661-668. doi: 10.1177/0956797611432178 pmid: 22517192
[49]	Kogan, B., García-Marco, E., Birba, A., Cortés, C., Melloni, M., Ibáñez, A., & García, A. M. (2020). How words ripple through bilingual hands: Motor-language coupling during L1 and L2 writing. Neuropsychologia, 146, 107563-107563.
[50]	Kousta, S. T., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Emotion words, regardless of polarity, have a processing advantage over neutral words. Cognition, 112(3), 473-481.
[51]	Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
[52]	Macedonia, M., & Klimesch, W. (2014). Long-term effects of gestures on memory for foreign language words trained in the classroom. Mind, Brain, and Education, 8(2), 74-88.
[53]	Macedonia, M., Muller, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). The impact of iconic gestures on foreign language word learning and its neural substrate. Human Brain Mapping, 32, 982-998. doi: 10.1002/hbm.21084 pmid: 20645312
[54]	Marino, B. F., Borghi, A. M., Buccino, G., & Riggio, L. (2017). Chained activation of the motor system during language understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 199-199. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00199 pmid: 28265247
[55]	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, 110-110. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00110 pmid: 30983983
[56]	Moseley, G. L. (2011). Cognitive neuroscience: Swapping bodies in the brain. Current Biology, 21(15), 583-585. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.06.031 pmid: 21820621
[57]	Nakagawa, S., Lagisz, M., O’Dea, R. E., Rutkowska, J., Yang, Y., Noble, D. W. A., & Senior, A. M. (2021). The orchard plot: Cultivating a forest plot for use in ecology, evolution, and beyond. Research Synthesis Methods, 12(1), 4-12.
[58]	Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition?. International Journal of Psychology, 47(6), 405-428. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012.743665 pmid: 23163422
[59]	Repetto, C., Pedroli, E., & Macedonia, M. (2017). Enrichment effects of gestures and pictures on abstract words in a second language. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2136-2136. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02136 pmid: 29326617
[60]	Sheikh, N. A., & Titone, D. (2015). The embodiment of emotional words in a second language: An eye-movement study. Cognition & Emotion, 30(3), 1-13.
[61]	Tian, L., Chen, H., Zhao, W., Wu, J., Zhang, Q., De, A.,... Parviainen, T. (2019). The role of motor system in action-related language comprehension in L1 and L2: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 201, 104714.
[62]	Vukovic, N., & Shtyrov, Y. (2014). Cortical motor systems are involved in second-language comprehension: Evidence from rapid mu-rhythm desynchronisation. Neuroimage, 102, 695-703.
[63]	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. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.11.002 pmid: 24333464
[64]	Wang, Q. (2016). Embodied cognition processing and representation of power words by second language learners with different proficiency levels. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 484-494.
[65]	Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. Linguistic Circle of New York.
[66]	Xue, J., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., & Pei, X. (2015). The linguistic context effects on the processing of body-object interaction words: An ERP study on second language learners. Brain Research, 1613, 37-48. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.03.050 pmid: 25858488
[67]	Zhao, T., Huang, Y., Chen, D., Jiao, L., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Wang, R., & Xie, J.-S. (2019). The modality switching costs of Chinese-English bilinguals in the processing of L1 and L2. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(3), 396-412.
[68]	Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 35-62.

影响因素	变量类型	数量
语义内容	感知运动领域	22
	情感领域	20
	其他领域	31
加工深度	表层特征加工	19
加工深度	深层语义加工	54
语言距离	相同语系	13
语言距离	不同语系	53
二语熟练度	高熟	32
二语熟练度	低熟	34

影响因素	变量类型	数量
语义内容	感知运动领域	22
	情感领域	20
	其他领域	31
加工深度	表层特征加工	19
加工深度	深层语义加工	54
语言距离	相同语系	13
语言距离	不同语系	53
二语熟练度	高熟	32
二语熟练度	低熟	34

影响因素	类别	K	效应量及95% CI			异质性检验
影响因素	类别	K	g	下限	上限	Q	df	p
样本量	N < 50	163	0.32	0.23	0.41	1.46	1	0.227
样本量	N ≥ 50	23	0.47	0.24	0.70	1.46	1	0.227
二语熟练度	高熟	64	0.49	0.34	0.64	5.60	1	0.018
二语熟练度	低熟	83	0.25	0.11	0.38	5.60	1	0.018
语言距离	相同语系	47	0.13	−0.04	0.30	8.18	1	0.004
语言距离	不同语系	133	0.42	0.32	0.52	8.18	1	0.004
加工深度	深层语义加工	137	0.36	0.24	0.43	0.71	1	0.399
加工深度	表层特征加工	49	0.28	0.11	0.44	0.71	1	0.399
语义内容	动作	52	0.24	0.08	0.40	2.68	2	0.068
	情感	81	0.45	0.32	0.58
	其他	52	0.27	0.10	0.43
二语熟练度×语义内容	低熟−情感	48	0.24	0.07	0.41	8.06	1	0.018
	低熟−动作	20	0.18	−0.08	0.44	1.89	1
	低熟−其他	15	0.35	0.04	0.65	5.00	1
	高熟−情感	24	0.83	0.59	1.07	45.31	1
	高熟−动作	24	0.32	0.08	0.56	7.03	1
	高熟−其他	16	0.24	−0.05	0.53	2.63	1
二语熟练度×语言距离	低熟−不同语系	55	0.31	0.15	0.48	14.39	1	0.265
	低熟−相同语系	27	0.13	−0.10	0.35	1.20	1
	高熟−不同语系	53	0.55	0.38	0.71	42.03	1
	高熟−相同语系	10	0.20	−0.18	0.58	1.05	1
二语熟练度×加工深度	低熟−表层特征加工	20	0.16	−0.11	0.42	1.34	1	0.315
	低熟−深层语义加工	63	0.28	0.12	0.43	12.68	1
	高熟−表层特征加工	10	0.30	−0.08	0.69	2.38	1
	高熟−深层语义加工	54	0.52	0.36	0.69	38.72	1

影响因素	类别	K	效应量及95% CI			异质性检验
影响因素	类别	K	g	下限	上限	Q	df	p
样本量	N < 50	163	0.32	0.23	0.41	1.46	1	0.227
样本量	N ≥ 50	23	0.47	0.24	0.70	1.46	1	0.227
二语熟练度	高熟	64	0.49	0.34	0.64	5.60	1	0.018
二语熟练度	低熟	83	0.25	0.11	0.38	5.60	1	0.018
语言距离	相同语系	47	0.13	−0.04	0.30	8.18	1	0.004
语言距离	不同语系	133	0.42	0.32	0.52	8.18	1	0.004
加工深度	深层语义加工	137	0.36	0.24	0.43	0.71	1	0.399
加工深度	表层特征加工	49	0.28	0.11	0.44	0.71	1	0.399
语义内容	动作	52	0.24	0.08	0.40	2.68	2	0.068
	情感	81	0.45	0.32	0.58
	其他	52	0.27	0.10	0.43
二语熟练度×语义内容	低熟−情感	48	0.24	0.07	0.41	8.06	1	0.018
	低熟−动作	20	0.18	−0.08	0.44	1.89	1
	低熟−其他	15	0.35	0.04	0.65	5.00	1
	高熟−情感	24	0.83	0.59	1.07	45.31	1
	高熟−动作	24	0.32	0.08	0.56	7.03	1
	高熟−其他	16	0.24	−0.05	0.53	2.63	1
二语熟练度×语言距离	低熟−不同语系	55	0.31	0.15	0.48	14.39	1	0.265
	低熟−相同语系	27	0.13	−0.10	0.35	1.20	1
	高熟−不同语系	53	0.55	0.38	0.71	42.03	1
	高熟−相同语系	10	0.20	−0.18	0.58	1.05	1
二语熟练度×加工深度	低熟−表层特征加工	20	0.16	−0.11	0.42	1.34	1	0.315
	低熟−深层语义加工	63	0.28	0.12	0.43	12.68	1
	高熟−表层特征加工	10	0.30	−0.08	0.69	2.38	1
	高熟−深层语义加工	54	0.52	0.36	0.69	38.72	1