Constraints on Spatial Language Comprehension: Function and Geometry

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499968.003

3 - Constraints on Spatial Language Comprehension: Function and Geometry

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 July 2009

Laura A. Carlson and

Ryan Kenny

Edited by

Diane Pecher and

Rolf A. Zwaan

Show author details

Laura A. Carlson: Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Ryan Kenny: Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA
Diane Pecher: Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Rolf A. Zwaan: Affiliation:
Florida State University

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Consider the following scenario. You arrive at work early one morning and head for the office coffeepot. A colleague of yours is already there pouring herself a cup of coffee. Upon seeing you, she says “Place your cup below the pot.” You interpret her statement as an indication that she will pour you a cup of coffee, and you put your cup in the appropriate location. Of interest in the current chapter are the processes and representations that underlie your apprehension of her utterance and your subsequent action. At a minimum, apprehension involves matching the relevant objects in the environment with the referents in the utterance (i.e., linking the cup in your hand with “your cup,” the coffee pot in her hand with “the pot”). For utterances of this type, these objects have different roles. One object is referred to as the located object, and it is the object whose location is being specified. It is also considered the focal object that is profiled in the utterance (Langacker, 1987; see also Zwaan & Madden, Chapter 10, this volume). The other object is referred to as the reference object. Due to its size, shape or salience within the discourse, the reference object is assumed to offer a viable reference point from which to define the location of the located object (Landau & Jackendoff, 1993; Langacker, 1993; Talmy, 1983). However, with respect to the goal of the utterance, this object is backgrounded relative to the located object (Langacker, 1987).

Type: Chapter
Information: Grounding Cognition
The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking
, pp. 35 - 64

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 577–660Google Scholar PubMed

Bennett, D. C. (1975). Spatial and Temporal Uses of English Prepositions: An Essay in Stratificational Semantics. London: Longman

Brugman, C. (1988). The Story of “Over”: Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon. Garland Press

Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Bukach, C. M. (2003). Gesturing and naming: The use of functional knowledge in object identification. Psychological Science 14, 467–472CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Carlson, L. A. (1999). Selecting a reference frame. Spatial Cognition and Computation 1, 365–379CrossRef Google Scholar

Carlson, L. A. (2000). Object use and object location: The effect of function on spatial relations. In E. van der Zee & U. Nikanne (Eds.), Cognitive Interfaces: Constraints on Linking Cognitive Information (pp. 94–115). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Carlson, L. A., & Covell, E. R. (in press). Defining functional features for spatial language. In L. A. Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Representing functional features for language and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Carlson, L. A., & Kenny, R. (2004). Constraints on spatial language by form and function. Unpublished manuscript

Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., Covey, E. S., & Lattanzi, K. L. (1999). “What” effects on “where”: Functional influences on spatial relations. Psychological Science 10, 516–521CrossRef Google Scholar

Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Logan, G. D. (1997). The influence of reference frame selection on spatial template construction. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 411–437CrossRef Google Scholar

Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1996). The influence of functional relations on spatial term selection. Psychological Science 7, 56–60CrossRef Google Scholar

Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Tang, Z. (2000). Functional influences on orienting a reference frame. Memory & Cognition 28, 812–820CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., & Carlson, G. (2001). Circumscribing referential domains in real-time language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 30–49Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. (1997). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Coventry, K. R. (1998). Spatial prepositions, functional relations and lexical specification. In P. Olivier and K. Gapp (Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Spatial Expressions (pp. 247–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Coventry, K. R. (1999). Function, geometry, and spatial prepositions: Three experiments. Spatial Cognition and Computation 2, 145–154CrossRef Google Scholar

Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, Seeing and Acting: The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis

Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function and task requirements. Journal of Semantics 11, 289–309CrossRef Google Scholar

Coventry, K.Prat-Sala, M., & Richards, L. (2001). The interplay between geometry and function in the comprehension of “over,” “under,” “above,” and “below.”Journal of Memory and Language 44, 376–398CrossRef Google Scholar

Downing, C., & Pinker, S. (1985). The spatial structure of visual attention. In M. Posner and O. Marin (Eds.), Attention and Performance Ⅺ (pp. 171–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Gapp, K.-P. (1995). Angle, distance, shape, and their relationship to projective relations. In J. D. Moore & J. F. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 112–117), Mahwah, NJ: Cognitive Science Society

Garrod, S. C., Ferrier, G., & Campbell, S. (1999). In and on: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition 72, 167–189CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Georgopoulos, A. P., Schwartz, A. B., & Kettner, R. E. (1986). Neuronal population coding of movement direction. Science 223, 1416–1419CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gibbs, R. W. (2003). Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language 84, 1–15Google Scholar PubMed

Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What is memory for?Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20, 1–55Google Scholar

Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9, 558–565CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hayward, W. G., & Tarr, M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition 55, 39–84CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Herskovits, A. (1998). Schematization. In P. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and Processing of Spatial Expressions (pp. 149–162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

LaBerge, D., & Brown, V. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review 96, 101–124CrossRef Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and, Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language & spatial cognition. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 16, 217–265CrossRef Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

Langacker, R. W. (1993). Grammatical traces of some “invisible” semantic constructs. Language Sciences 15, 323–355CrossRef Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. (2002). A study in unified diversity: English and Mixtec locatives. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture (pp. 138–161). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (1997). Effects of background knowledge on object categorization and part detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 23, 1153–1169Google Scholar

Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D. (1996). A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 493–529). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Morrow, D. G., & Clark, H. H. (1988). Interpreting words in spatial descriptions. Language and Cognitive Processes 3, 275–291CrossRef Google Scholar

Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying properties from different modalities for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science 14, 119–124CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Praseda, S., & Ferenz, K. (2001). Is the catch near the television? Functional information and talking about distances. Unpublished manuscript

Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Regier, T., & Carlson, L. A. (2001). Grounding spatial language in perception: An Empirical and Computational Investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130, 273–298CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Regier, T., Carlson, L. A., & Corrigan, B. (in press). Attention in spatial language: Bridging geometry and function. To appear in L. A. Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Representing functional features for language and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Schirra, J. (1993). A Contribution to Reference Semantics of Spatial Prepositions: The Visualization Problem and its Solution in VITRA. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions: From mental processing to natural language processing (pp. 471–515). Berlin: Mouton de GruyterCrossRef

Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial Orientation: Theory, research and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Plenum PressCrossRef

Vandeloise, C. (1988). Length, width, and potential passing. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 403–427). Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRef

Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study from French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Wilson, H. R., & Kim, J. (1994). Perceived motion in the vector sum direction. Vision Research 34, 1835–1842CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. To appear in B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 44 (pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press

Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science 13, 168–172CrossRef Google Scholar