Previous research has shown that motor information influences visual and semantic tasks. However, not much is known about the specific influence of structural, action-relevant information on language processing. In the current study, participants were instructed to observe a prime graspable object (e.g., a frying pan) that could be presented with the action-relevant component (that is its handle) oriented either toward the left or toward the right. Subsequently, they performed a property verification task on a following target word, which could describe an action-relevant (e.g., handle) or action-irrelevant (e.g., ceramic) characteristic of the just-encountered object. They were required to make a keypress response with either a key on the same side as the depicted action-relevant component of the prime object (that is compatible key) or on the opposite side (that is incompatible key). Results show that property verification judgements for action-relevant words were faster in the spatially compatible condition than in the spatially incompatible condition, whereas judgements for action-irrelevant target words were not affected by spatial compatibility. These findings suggest that spatialized object properties are not mandatorily linked to manual response biases. Rather, this link seems to be modulated by trial-by-trial changes in conceptual focus.

Language is known to interact flexibly with non-verbal representations, but the processing mechanisms governing these interactions remain unclear. This article reviews general cognitive processes that operate across various tasks and stimulus types and argues that these processes may drive the interactions between language and cognition, regardless of whether these interactions occur cross-linguistically or within a language. These general processes include goal-directed behaviour, reliance on context-relevant semantic knowledge and attuning to task demands. An overview of existing findings suggests that resorting to language in non-verbal or multi-modal tasks may depend on how linguistic representations align with current task goals and demands. Progress in understanding these mechanisms requires theories that make specific processing predictions about how tasks and experimental contexts encourage or discourage access to linguistic knowledge. Systematic testing of alternative mechanisms is necessary to explain how and why linguistic information influences some cognitive tasks but not others.