Spatial language influences memory for spatial scenes

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 283-296

  Feist, Michele I ^a   Gentner, Dedre ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ERROR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; MEMORY CONSOLIDATION; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; RECOGNITION; SEMANTICS; SPATIAL MEMORY; TASK PERFORMANCE; THINKING;

EID: 34250811339     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193449     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. BARSALOU, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
2. BILLMAN, D., & KRYCH, M. (1998). Path and manner verbs in action: Effects of "skipping" and "exiting" on event memory. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 156-161). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. BORODITSKY, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1-22.
4. BOWERMAN, M., & CHOI, S. (2003). Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 387-427). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. BOWERMAN, M., & LEVINSON, S. C. (EDS.) (2001). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. BOWERMAN, M., & PEDERSON, E. (1992, December). Crosslinguistic perspectives on topological spatial relationships. Paper presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco.
7. BOWERMAN, M., & PEDERSON, E. (1996). Crosslinguistic perspectives on topological spatial relationships. Manuscript in preparation.
8. BROWN, R. W., & LENNEBERG, E. H. (1954). A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 49, 454-462.
9. CARMICHAEL, L., HOGAN, H. P., & WALTER, A. A. (1932). An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived form. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 73-86.
10. CHENG, K., & NEWCOMBE, N. S. (2005). Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? Squaring theory and evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1-23.
11. CHOI, S., & BOWERMAN, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83-121.
12. COVENTRY, K. R., CARMICHAEL, R., & GARROD, S. c. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function, and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11, 289-309.
13. COVENTRY, K. R., & GARROD, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing, and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. New York: Psychology Press.
14. COVENTRY, K. R., PRAT-SALA, M., & RICHARDS, L. (2001). The interplay between geometry and function in the comprehension of over, under, above, and below. Journal of Memory & Language, 44, 376-398.
15. CRAWFORD, L. E., REGIER, T., & HUTTENLOCHER, J. (2000). Linguistic and non-linguistic spatial categorization. Cognition, 75, 209-235.
16. DENNETT, D. C. (1993). Learning and labeling. Mind & Language, 8, 540-548.
17. FEIST, M. I. (2000). On in and on: An investigation into the linguistic encoding of spatial scenes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
18. FEIST, M. I. (2004, August). Talking about space: A cross-linguistic perspective. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago.
19. FEIST, M. [I.], & GENTNER, D. (2003, August). Factors involved in the use of in and on. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston.
20. GENNARI, S. P., SLOMAN, S. A., MALT, B. C., & FITCH, W. T. (2002). Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition, 83, 49-79.
21. GENTNER, D. (2003). Why we're so smart. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 195-235). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. GENTNER, D., & BORODITSKY, L. (2001). Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 215-256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. GENTNER, D., & GOLDIN-MEADOW, S. (EDS.) (2003). Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. GENTNER, D., & IMAI, M. (1992). Is the future always ahead? Evidence for system-mappings in understanding space-time metaphors. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 510-515). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. GENTNER, D., IMAI, M., & BORODITSKY, L. (2002). As time goes by: Evidence for two systems in processing space-time metaphors. Language & Cognitive Processes, 17, 537-565.
26. GENTNER, D., & LOFTUS, E. F. (1979). Integration of verbal and visual information as evidenced by distortions in picture memory. American Journal of Psychology, 92, 363-375.
27. GLENBERG, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 20, 1-55.
28. GUMPERZ, J. J., & LEVINSON, S. C. (EDS.) (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. HAUN, D. B. M., RAPOLD, C. J., CALL, J., JANZEN, G., & LEVINSON, S. C. (2006). Cognitive cladistics and cultural override in hominid spatial cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 17568-17573.
30. HERMER-VAZQUEZ, L., MOFFET, A., & MUNKHOLM, P. (2001). Language, space, and the development of cognitive flexibility in humans: The case of two spatial memory tasks. Cognition, 79, 263-299.
31. HERMER-VAZQUEZ, L., SPELKE, E. S., & KATSNELSON, A. S. (1999). Sources of flexibility in human cognition: Dual-task studies of space and language. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 3-36.
32. HUNT, E., & AGNOLI, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychological Review, 98, 377-389.
33. HUTTENLOCHER, J., HEDGES, L. V., & DUNCAN, S. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location. Psychological Review, 98, 352-376.
34. HUTTENLOCHER, J., & LUI, F. (1979). The semantic organization of some simple nouns and verbs. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 141-162.
35. LEARMONTH, A. E., NADEL, L., & NEWCOMBE, N. S. (2002). Children's use of landmarks: Implications for modularity theory. Psychological Science, 13, 337-341.
36. LEVINSON, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux's question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109-169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. LEVINSON, S. [C.] (2003). Language and mind: Let's get the issues straight. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 25-46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. LEVINSON, S. C., KITA, S., HAUN, D. B. M., & RASCH, B. H. (2002). Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition, 84, 155-188.
39. 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, 485-516.
40. LI, P., & GLEITMAN, L. (2002). Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition, 83, 265-295.
41. LOEWENSTEIN, J., & GENTNER, D. (2001). Spatial mapping in preschoolers: Close comparisons facilitate far mappings. Journal of Cognition & Development, 2, 189-219.
42. LOEWENSTEIN, J., & GENTNER, D. (2005). Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 315-353.
43. LOFTUS, E. F., & PALMER, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 13, 585-589.
44. LUCY, J. A. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. MAJID, A., BOWERMAN, M., KITA, S., HAUN, D. B. M., & LEVINSON, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 108-114.
46. MALT, B. C., SLOMAN, S. A., & GENNARI, S. (2003). Speaking vs. thinking about objects and actions. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 81-111). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. MCCLOSKEY, M., & ZARAGOZA, M. (1985). Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 1-16.
48. PAPAFRAGOU, A., MASSEY, C., & GLEITMAN, L. (2002). Shake, rattle, 'n' roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition, 84, 189-219.
49. PEDERSON, E., DANZIGER, E., WILKINS, D., LEVINSON, S. C., KITA, S., & SENFT, G. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language, 74, 557-589.
50. PINKER, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. REGIER, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52. SAPIR, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5, 207-214.
53. SCHOOLER, J. W., & ENGSTLER-SCHOOLER, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36-71.
54. SLOBIN, D. I. (1996). From "thought and language" to "thinking for speaking." In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. SLOBIN, D. I. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 157-191). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. TALMY, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
57. TAYLOR, H. A., & TVERSKY, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 371-391.
58. VANDELOISE, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French (A. R. K. Bosch, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59. VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)
60. WHORF, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B. Carroll, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61. ZWAAN, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 35-62). New York: Academic Press.
62. ZWAAN, R. A., MADDEN, C. J., YAXLEY, R. H., & AVEYARD, M. E. (2004). Moving words: Dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cognitive Science, 28, 611-619.
63. ZWAAN, R. A., & YAXLEY, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954-958.