Constraints on spatial language comprehension: Function and geometry

Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 35-64

  Carlson, Laura A ^a   Kenny, Ryan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34047172927     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511499968.003     Document Type: Chapter

References (50)

1. Barsalou, L.W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 577–660.
2. Bennett, D. C. (1975). Spatial and Temporal Uses of English Prepositions: An Essay in Stratificational Semantics. London: Longman.
3. Brugman, C. (1988). The Story of “Over”: Polysemy, Semantics and the Structure of the Lexicon. Garland Press.
4. 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, 467–472.
5. Carlson L. A. (1999). Selecting a reference frame. Spatial Cognition and Computation 1, 365–379.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Carlson L. A., & Kenny, R. (2004). Constraints on spatial language by form and function. Unpublished manuscript.
9. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., Covey, E. S., & Lattanzi, K. L. (1999). “What” effects on “where”: Functional influences on spatial relations. Psychological Science 10, 516–521.
10. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Logan, G. D. (1997). The influence of reference frame selection on spatial template construction. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 411–437.
11. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1996). The influence of functional relations on spatial term selection. Psychological Science 7, 56–60.
12. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Tang, Z. (2000). Functional influences on orienting a reference frame. Memory & Cognition 28, 812–820.
13. 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, 30–49.
14. Clark, H. H. (1997). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. 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.
16. Coventry, K. R. (1999). Function, geometry, and spatial prepositions: Three experiments. Spatial Cognition and Computation 2, 145–154.
17. Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, Seeing and Acting: The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.
18. Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, objectspecific function and task requirements. Journal of Semantics 11, 289–309.
19. 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, 376–398.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Garrod, S. C., Ferrier, G., & Campbell, S. (1999). In and on: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition 72, 167–189.
23. Georgopoulos, A. P., Schwartz, A. B., & Kettner, R. E. (1986). Neuronal population coding of movement direction. Science 223, 1416–1419.
24. Gibbs, R. W. (2003). Embodied experience and linguistic meaning. Brain and Language 84, 1–15.
25. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What is memory for? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20, 1–55.
26. Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9, 558–565.
27. Hayward, W. G., & Tarr, M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition 55, 39–84.
28. Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. 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.
30. LaBerge, D., & Brown, V. (1989). Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. Psychological Review 96, 101–124.
31. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and, Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32. Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language & spatial cognition. Behavioral & Brain Sciences. 16, 217–265.
33. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
34. Langacker, R. W. (1993). Grammatical traces of some “invisible” semantic constructs. Language Sciences 15, 323–355.
35. 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.
36. 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, 1153–1169.
37. 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.
38. Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39. Morrow, D. G., & Clark, H. H. (1988). Interpreting words in spatial descriptions. Language and Cognitive Processes 3, 275–291.
40. Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying properties from different modalities for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science 14, 119–124.
41. Praseda, S., & Ferenz, K. (2001). Is the catch near the television? Functional information and talking about distances. Unpublished manuscript.
42. Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Regier, T., & Carlson L. A. (2001). Grounding spatial language in perception: An Empirical and Computational Investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130, 273–298.
44. Regier, T., Carlson L. A., & Corrigan, B.. 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.
45. Schirra, J. (1993).AContribution 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 Gruyter.
46. Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial Orientation: Theory, research and application (pp. 225–282).NewYork: Plenum Press.
47. Vandeloise, C. (1988). Length, width, and potential passing. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 403–427). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial Prepositions: A Case Study from French. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48. Wilson, H. R., & Kim, J. (1994). Perceived motion in the vector sum direction. Vision Research 34, 1835–1842.
49. 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.
50. Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science 13, 168–172.