Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:04:26.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Constraints on Spatial Language Comprehension: Function and Geometry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2009

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
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
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.)

References

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 577–660Google ScholarPubMed
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, 467–472CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, L. A. (1999). Selecting a reference frame. Spatial Cognition and Computation 1, 365–379CrossRefGoogle 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, 516–521CrossRefGoogle 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, 411–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1996). The influence of functional relations on spatial term selection. Psychological Science 7, 56–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Tang, Z. (2000). Functional influences on orienting a reference frame. Memory & Cognition 28, 812–820CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 145–154CrossRefGoogle 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, 289–309CrossRefGoogle 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, 376–398CrossRefGoogle 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, 167–189CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Georgopoulos, A. P., Schwartz, A. B., & Kettner, R. E. (1986). Neuronal population coding of movement direction. Science 223, 1416–1419CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, R. W. (2003). Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language 84, 1–15Google ScholarPubMed
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, 558–565CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayward, W. G., & Tarr, M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition 55, 39–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 101–124CrossRefGoogle 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, 217–265CrossRefGoogle 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, 323–355CrossRefGoogle 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, 275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying properties from different modalities for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science 14, 119–124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 273–298CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 1835–1842CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 168–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×