Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nf276 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T23:48:59.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

“What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

Barbara Landau
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92717 Electronic mail: blandau@orion.uci.edu
Ray Jackendoff
Affiliation:
Linguistics Program, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02254 Electronic mail: jackendoff@brandeis.bitnet

Abstract

Fundamental to spatial knowledge in all species are the representations underlying object recognition, object search, and navigation through space. But what sets humans apart from other species is our ability to express spatial experience through language. This target article explores the language of objects and places, asking what geometric properties are preserved in the representations underlying object nouns and spatial prepositions in English. Evidence from these two aspects of language suggests there are significant differences in the geometric richness with which objects and places are encoded. When an object is named (i.e., with count nouns), detailed geometric properties – principally the object's shape (axes, solid and hollow volumes, surfaces, and parts) – are represented. In contrast, when an object plays the role of either “figure” (located object) or “ground” (reference object) in a locational expression, only very coarse geometric object properties are represented, primarily the main axes. In addition, the spatial functions encoded by spatial prepositions tend to be nonmetric and relatively coarse, for example, “containment,” “contact,” “relative distance,” and “relative direction.” These properties are representative of other languages as well. The striking differences in the way language encodes objects versus places lead us to suggest two explanations: First, there is a tendency for languages to level out geometric detail from both object and place representations. Second, a nonlinguistic disparity between the representations of “what” and “where” underlies how language represents objects and places. The language of objects and places converges with and enriches our understanding of corresponding spatial representations.

Information

Type
Target article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable