1
Q
what are topological relation?
A
e.g. on vs in, behind, next to
- describes simplest spatial relations
- relationship between figure and ground
- In English, usually the figure is smaller and the ground is larger
2
Q
Piaget and Inhelder 1965 - Children’s spatial relations
A
- explored children’s conception of space
- suggested children’s spatial cognition emerges non-linguistically as child interacts with environment
- suggests that infants first acquire spatial concepts non linguistically then learn to map these concepts onto language
3
Q
Baillargeon 1998 - Evidence for pre-linguistic spatial categories
A
- studies babies knowledge of spatial relations
- compared 3, 4.5-5.5 , 6.5 and 12.5 months old detection of spatial violations > measured surprise indicated by looking time
- scenes involved relational structures
- 3 month olds recognised need for contact with object for it to be supported
- 4.5-5.5 month olds recognised different types of contact
- 6.5 month olds surprised about object balancing with small amount of contact
12.5 month olds recognised more complex notions of gravity / force - ## showed infants have rich and developing knowledge of spatial relations before they know the specific words to talk about space in their language
4
Q
Prelinguistic spatial concepts
A
- many scholars conclude that infants first acquire their spatial concepts non-linguistically
- infants then learn words which map onto linguistic concepts
- assumption that all babies have similar non-linguistic experience and therefore spatial concepts are universal
5
Q
Are spatial concepts universal? Landau & Jackendoff 1993
A
- language describing space is limited - hypothesise this is due to there being so few prepositions because the class of spatial relations available to be expressed in language is extremely limited
6
Q
Frames of reference (FOR)
A
- describes coordinate systems used to compute and specify the location of objects with respect to other objects (Majid 2004)
- three common frames used across languages:
- relative > relying on an observer/viewpoint
-intrinsic > where one element of the scene has facets
-absolute > cardinal directions
7
Q
Levinson 2003
Frames of reference - cross linguistic data - English v Guugu Yimithirr
A
- cross linguistic data shows there is variation in when and how often different cultures use different frames of reference
- ppts asked to describe a simple scene
- English speakers often use intrinsic or relative frames of reference when describing spatial relationships in a table top space
- In contrast Guugu Yimithirr speakers use an absolute FoR
- Guugu Yimithirr > indigenous Australian
8
Q
Predicting FoR - Majid et al 2004
A
- mapped prevalence of different FoR across languages
- tested whether ecology, dwelling type or subsistence style predicted frames of reference
- some evidence suggested that languages spoken in urban environments were more likely to have a relative frame of reference
- did not find evidence that environment or subsistence type predicted frame of reference
9
Q
Topographic Correspondence Theory - Palmer 2015
A
- predicts that salient aspects of the environment determine/influence FoR
- supported by the fact that people in urban environments are more likely to use a relative FoR, rural environments more likely to use absolute
10
Q
Challenges for topographic correspondance thoery
A
- weak support
- contradicted by the fact that speakers in both mountainous and non-mountainous regions in Tztetal and Hai//om use absolute frames of reference (despite differences in environmental saliency) Brown 2012
- Jahai live in mountainous regions but use intrinsic frames of reference
11
Q
Relative frame of reference
A
-relies on a viewpoint / observer
- e.g. she is on my right (as opposed to your left)
12
Q
Levinson 1996 - Frames of reference & Molyneux question
A
- investigates relationship between spatial language and perception across language/culture
- different ways languages encode spatial relationships and whether these linguistic differences impact interpretation of spatial info visually
- examined languages using different FoR > distinguishing between egocentric and allocentric frames
- ## looked at ppts ability to match visual stimuli with corresponding spatial descriptions and vice vera - investigated speed and accuracy of these cognitive processes
13
Q
Molyneux’s Question
A
- asks whether a blind person from birth, upon gaining sight, would be able to immediately recognise and associate visual perception with previously known tactile or spatial concepts
14
Q
Egocentric FoR
A
An egocentric frame of reference describes spatial relationships in relation to the speaker’s own body. For example, in English, one might say, “The book is to the left of me.”
15
Q
Allocentric FoR
A
In contrast, an allocentric frame of reference describes spatial relationships using external, objective landmarks. For example, in Tzeltal, a Mayan language, one might say, “The book is to the west of the table.”
16
Q
Levinson 1996 - Frames of reference & Molyneux question (FINDINGS)
A
- findings of the study suggest that there are significant differences in how people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds interpret and remember spatial information
- Speakers of languages with an egocentric frame of reference tend to rely more on body-based cues and are more accurate in matching visual stimuli with spatial descriptions that align with their frame of reference
- speakers of languages with an allocentric frame of reference > greater accuracy and speed in matching stimuli with spatial descriptions that are consistent with their external, landmark-based frames
- Research supports the idea that the way a language encodes spatial relationships can shape how speakers think about and interpret space
17
Q
Levinson 2004 - Piraha, Grammar
A
- lack of certain grammatical features found in many other languages
- lacking a consistent system of number words, grammatical categories for tense and clear distinction between nouns and verbs
- challenges assumptions that these features are universal of necessary for a fully functional language
- Levinson argues absence of these features can be attributed to cultural and cognitive factors
- Piraha have strong oral tradition, place high value on direct personal experience and immediate perception > emphasis on the present moment and concrete experiences reflected in language structure
18
Q
Levinson 2004 - Piraha, Grammar (Anlaysis)
A
- suggests Piraha have a unique cognitive system shaped by their cultural practice and linguistic patterns - lack of complex embedding and recursion > argues this reflects a cognitive preference for processing information in a linear and immediate manner > aligning with cultural emphasis on direct experience and perception
- challenges notion that all languages share the same underlying structure > emphasises importance of cultural/environmental factors in understanding language diversity
- ## cultural constraints and specific social practices can shape grammatical structures and cognitive processes of language community
19
Q
Pitt et al 2022 - Indigenous Amazonians (Method)
A
- looked at indigenous Amazonians conceptualisation of space both within and across language groups
- adults from Bolivian group used systematically different spatial reference frames on different axis according to known differences in discriminability
- view space as interconnected and holistic, rather than separate and divided.
- understanding of space incorporates deep knowledge of the surrounding > varies across groups
20
Q
Pitt et al 2022 - Indigenous Amazonians (Findings)
A
- for both verbal and non verbal tests, ppts preferred allocentric (environment based) space on left-right axis
- in contrast, spatial discriminations (body based) on front back axis due to spatial discrimination being relatively easy
- suggests relationship between spontaneous spatial language and memory does not occur across a single axis within culture
- challenges claims that each language has predominant spatial reference frame at a given scale
- rather spatial thinking and language are both shaped by spatial discrimination abilities varying across culture and context
21
Q
Bowerman & Pederson 1992 - Cross linguistic naming study
A
- conducted large cross linguistic naming study
- ppts from dozens of unrelated languages asked ‘where is x’
FOUND - substantial variation in meaning of even basic spatial concepts
22
Q
English and Spanish difference in topological relations
A
- Spanish use ‘en’ to describe ‘in’ ‘at’ and ‘on’
- e.g. en navidad (at christmas) , en Junio (in June) , en el cielo (on the cieling)
- languages use different ways of carving up the same space
23
Q
What does developmental evidence looking at infants conceptions of space suggest?
A
- Piaget and Inhelder 1965
- Baillargein et al 1998
- suggests spatial concepts exist before language
- infants first acquire spatial concepts non-linguistically then learn to map these concepts on to language
24
Q
what methods other thank looking time could be used to investigate children’s concepts of space before language ?
A
- spatial tasks > asking children to rearrange objects
- spatial navigation > observing children whilst they navigate spatial environments e.g. maze study > look at navigation strategies / exploration patterns
- EEG > underlying brain mechanisms
- looking time may be limited > difficult to interpret , individual differences, task familiarity, attentional biases
25
Intrinsic FoR
- simplest
- one element of scene has facets
e.g. she is standing next to the board
26
Absolute FoR
- cardinal direction
- NESW
27
Levinson 2003 - Tzeltal
- Tzeltal in mexcio
- live in mountanous region
- FoR > uphill, downhill, across > used for all spatial descriptions
e.g. chair is uphill from the whiteboard
- this FoR used outside of mountain environment
28
Terrill & Burenholt 2008 - Jahai FoR
- Jahai live in mountainous regions and use intrinsic FoR
29
Cultural Practice Hypothesis
- the way people interact with their environment leads to certain FoRs being deployed
30
Shapero 2017 - Quecha Cultural practice affect on FoR
- found higher use of absolute FoR in Quechua speakers who worked as herders
- demonstrates within culture differences modulated by specific practices
- observational
31
LeGuen 2011 - Yucatec cultural practice affects FoR
- found that Yucatec men were more likely to use absolute FoR than women due to them working in the fields > reliance on cardinal directions used for planting
- suggests relationship between specific cultural practices and absolute FoR
- observational
32
McDonough et al 2003 - Korean V English Topological Relations
- investigated preferential looking with 9,11,14 month old children and adults
- ppts shown a variety of videos with different objects > either tight fit or loose fit relations
- two dynamic actions at the same time shown repeatedly > objects change each time so ppts focus on relation rather than object
- familiarisation trial : show repeated relations of one containment type (e.g. tight )
- test scene : either congruent or incongruent to familiarisation
- wanted to see if people are sensitive to relational structures
Language and Thought
flashcards
Decks in class (9)
# Cards
