Skip to main content Accessibility help

Figure and Ground in spatial language: evidence from German and Korean



We investigate how German and Korean speakers describe everyday spatial/motion events, such as putting a cup on the table. In these motion events, the moving object (e.g., cup) and the non-moving reference object (e.g., table) take on the roles of Figure and Ground, respectively. Figure(F) and Ground(G) thus have distinct perceptual properties and assume conceptually asymmetric roles (entity moving along a trajectory vs. stationary reference frame). We examine the degrees to which speakers distinguish between F and G semantically (spatial/Path terms, e.g., on, in) and syntactically (grammatical roles, e.g., subject, object). Participants described events involving two objects that switched their F-G roles (put cup(F) on board(G) and put board(F) under cup(G)). German speakers use distinct Path terms (e.g., auf, in) for differential F-G relations, thus encoding the F-G asymmetry. In contrast, Korean speakers use the same terms (e.g., kkita ‘fit.tightly’) and the same syntactic constructions regardless of switches in F-G roles. These cross-linguistic differences are evident for Non-typical events (Put board(F) under cup(G)), showing that the encoding of the asymmetry interacts with speakers’ everyday experiences of motion events. We argue that the differences reflect the interactions between the Path lexicon and spatial syntax, and language-specific viewpoints of the F-G relation.


Corresponding author

E-mail for correspondence: Hongoak Yun at


Hide All

This research was supported by WWTF (Vienna Science and Technology Funds, CS15-001) to U. Ansorge and S. Choi, and also in part by the Program of National Research Foundation of Korea through the Ministry of Education to H. Yun. We thank Virginia Gathercole and her colleagues for providing some of the stimuli for this study. Our thanks also go to Alexandra Kroiss and student assistants (Kathrin Rosensprung, Elena Vaporova) at the University of Vienna, Austria, and to Sunghwa Choi at Konkuk University in Seoul, Korea, for invaluable help in data collection and processing. We are exceptionally grateful to Bodo Winter, who gave us extensive feedback and detailed suggestions for improvement in all aspects of the paper. Of course, responsibility for any errors in this paper remains our own.



Hide All
Baillargeon, R., Li, J., Gertner, Y., & Wu, D. (2010). How do infants reason about physical events? In Goswami, U. (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 1148). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 148.
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W. (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 331377.
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2003). Space under construction: language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.), Language in mind: advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 387428). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Choi, S. (2011). Language-specificity of motion event expressions in young Korean children. Language, Interaction & Acquisition, 2(1), 157184.
Choi, S., & Hattrup, K. (2012). Relative contribution of cognition/perception and language on spatial categorization. Cognitive Science , 36, 102129.
Coventry, K. R., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2008). Spatial language learning and the functional geometric framework. In Robinson, P. J. & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 114138). New York: Routledge.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multi-level models: a new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121138.
Flecken, M., von Stutterheim, C., & Carroll, M. (2014) Grammatical aspect influences motion event perception: findings from a cross-linguistic non-verbal recognition task. Language and Cognition, 6, 4578.
Gennari, S., Sloman, S., Malt, B., & Fitch, T. (2002) Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83, 4979.
Göksun, T., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Imai, M., Konishi, H., & Okada, H. (2011). Who is crossing where? Infants’ discrimination of figures and grounds in events. Cognition, 121, 176195.
Goller, F., Lee, D., Ansorge, U., & Choi, S. (2017). Effects of language background on gaze behavior: a crosslinguistic comparison between Korean and German speakers. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13, 267279.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 3: speech acts (pp. 4158). New York: Academic Press.
Hellwig, F. M., & Lüpke, F. (2001). Caused positions. In Levinson, S. C. & Enfield, N. J. (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 126128). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Hespos, S., & Spelke, E. S. (2004). Conceptual precursors to language. Nature, 430, 453456.
Hickmann, M., Taranne, P., & Bonnet, P. (2009). Motion in first language acquisition: manner and path in French and English child language. Journal of Child Language, 36(4), 705741.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAS (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434456.
Ji, Y., Hendriks, H., & Hickmann, M. (2011). How children express caused motion events in Chinese and English: universal and language-specific influences. Lingua , 121(12), 17961819.
Kutscher, S., & Schultze-Berndt, E. (2007). Why a folder lies in the basket although it is not lying: the semantics and use of German positional verbs with inanimate Figures. Linguistics, 45, 9831028.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. C., Meira, S., & the Language and Cognition Group (2003). ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain – adpositional meanings in crosslinguistic perspective: an exercise in semantic typology. Language , 79(3), 485516.
Majid, A., Jordan, F., & Dunn, M. (2015). Semantic systems in closely related languages. Language Sciences , 49, 118.
Muehleisen, V., & Imai, M. (1997). Transitivity and the incorporation of ground information in Japanese path verbs. In Lee, K., Sweetwer, E., & Verspoor, M. (Eds.), Lexical and syntactic constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 329346). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Naigles, L., & Terrazas, P. (1998). Motion verb generalizations in English and Spanish. Psychological Science , 9, 363369.
Özyürek, A., & Kita, S. (1999). Expressing manner and path in English and Turkish: differences in speech, gesture, and conceptualization. In Hahn, M. & Stoness, S. C. (Eds.), Twenty-first Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 507512). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Allen, S., Brown, A., Furman, R., & Ishizuka, T. (2008). Development of cross-linguistic variation in speech and gesture: motion events in English and Turkish. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 10401054.
Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J., & Trueswell, J. (2008). Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition, 108, 155184.
Papafragou, A., & Selimis, S. (2010). Event categorization and language: a cross-linguistic study of motion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(2), 224260.
Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S., Kita, S., & Senft, G. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74(3), 557589.
Pruden, S. M., Roseberry, S., Göksun, T., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Infant categorization of path relations during dynamic events. Child Development , 84(1), 331345.
Quinn, P. C., Cummins, M., Kase, J., Maartin, E., & Weissman, S. (1996). Development of categorical representations for above and below spatial relations in 3- to 7-month-old infants, Developmental Psychology, 32, 942950.
R Development Core Team (2018). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Online <>.
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.), Relating events in narrative, Vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Soroli, E. (2012). Variation in spatial language and cognition: exploring visuo-spatial thinking and speaking cross-linguistically. Cognitive Processing , 13(S1), 333337.
Talmy, L. (1978). Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Greenberg, J., Ferguson, C., & Moravcsik, E. (Eds.), Universals of human language (pp. 627649). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopin, T. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. I: Concept structuring system . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thiering, M. (2011). Figure-ground reversals in language. Gestalt Theory , 33(3/4), 245276.
Thiering, M. (2015). Spatial semiotics and spatial mental models: Figure-Ground asymmetries in languages (Applications of Cognitive Linguistics). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: a case study from French [Espace en francais: Semantique des prepositions spatiales, trans. Bosch, A. R. K.] Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Yun, H., & Choi, S. (2018). Spatial semantics, cognition, and their interaction: a comparative study of spatial categorization in English and Korean. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 17361776.
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Choi et al. supplementary material
Appendix SA

 Word (26 KB)
26 KB


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed