Language within your reach: Near-far perceptual space and spatial demonstratives

Cognition

Volumn 108, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 889-895

  Coventry, Kenny R ^a,b   Valdés, Berenice ^a   Castillo, Alejandro ^c   Guijarro Fuentes, Pedro ^d  

^a NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Hanse Institute for Advanced Studies   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Near and far space; Spatial demonstratives

Indexed keywords

ARM; ARTICLE; FINGER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPATIAL DISCRIMINATION;

ATTENTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MENTAL RECALL; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SEMANTICS; SPACE PERCEPTION;

EID: 51249107955     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.06.010     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Berti A., and Frassinetti F. When far becomes near: Remapping of space by tool use. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12 (2000) 415-420
2. Berti A., and Rizzolatti G. Coding near and far space. In: Karnath H.-O., Milner A.D., and Vallar G. (Eds). The cognitive and neural bases of spatial neglect (2002), Oxford University Press, New York 119-129
3. Bjoertomt O., Cowey A., and Walsh V. Spatial neglect in near and far space investigated by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain 125 9 (2002) 2012-2022
4. Brain W.R. Visual disorientation with special reference to lesions of the right cerebral hemisphere. Brain 64 (1941) 244-272
5. Cifuentes-Honrubia J.L. Lengua y espacio. Introducción al problema de la deixis en español (1989), Universidad de Alicante, Alicante
6. Coello Y., and Delevoye-Turrell Y. Embodiment, spatial categorization and action. Consciousness and Cognition 16 (2007) 667-683
7. Coventry K.R., and Garrod S.C. Saying seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions (2004), Psychology Press, New York
8. Cowey A., Small M., and Ellis S. Visuospatial neglect can be worse in far than in near space. Neuropsychologia 32 (1994) 1059-1066
9. Crawford L.E., Regier T., and Huttenlocher J. Linguistic and non-linguistic spatial categorisation. Cognition 75 (2000) 209-235
10. Diessel H. Distance contrasts in demonstratives. In: Haspelmath M., Dryer M., Gil D., and Comrie B. (Eds). World atlas of language structures (2005), Oxford University Press, Oxford 170-173
11. Diessel H. The morphosyntax of demonstratives in synchrony and diachrony. Linguistic Typology 3 (1999) 1-49
12. Diessel H. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (2006) 463-489
13. Dupierrix E., Alleysson D., Ohlmann T., and Chokron S. Spatial bias induced by a non-conflictual task reveals the nature of space perception. Brain Research 1214 (2008) 127-135
14. Farnè A., and Làdavas E. Dynamic size-change of hand peripersonal space following tool use. Neuroreport 11 (2000) 1645-1649
15. Farnè A., Iriki A., and Làdavas E. Shaping multisensory action-space with tools: Evidence from patients with cross-modal extinction. Neuropsychologia 43 (2005) 238-248
16. Gamberini L., Seraglia B., and Priftis K. Processing of peripersonal and extrapersonal space using tools: Evidence from visual line bisection in real and virtual environments. Neuropsychologia 46 5 (2008) 1298-1304
17. Halligan P.W., and Marshall J.C. Left neglect for near but not far space in man. Nature 350 (1991) 498-500
18. Hayward W.G., and Tarr M.J. Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition 55 (1995) 39-84
19. Holmes N.P., and Spence C. The body schema and multisensory representation(s) of peripersonal space. Cognitive Processing 5 (2004) 94-105
20. Iriki A., Tanaka M., and Iwamura Y. Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport 7 (1996) 2325-2330
21. Jungbluth K. Deictics in the conversational dyad: Findings in Spanish and some cross-linguistic outlines. In: Lenz F. (Ed). Deictic conceptualisation of space, time and person (2003), John Benjamins Publishing Company, Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 13-40
22. Kemmerer D. "Near" and "far" in language and perception. Cognition 73 (1999) 35-63
23. Kemmerer D. The semantics of space: Integrating linguistic typology and cognitive neuroscience. Neuropsychologia 44 (2006) 1607-1621
24. Kucera H., and Francis W.N. Computational analysis of present-day American English (1967), Brown University Press, Providence
25. Làdavas E. Functional and dynamic properties of visual peripersonal space. Trends in Cognitive Science 6 (2002) 17-22
26. Legrand D., Brozzoli C., Rossetti Y., and Farnè A. Close to me: Multisensory space representations for action and pre-reflexive consciousness of oneself-in-the-world. Consciousness and Cognition 16 (2007) 687-699
27. Levinson S.C. Deixis and pragmatics. In: Horn L., and Ward G. (Eds). The handbook of pragmatics (2004), Blackwell, Oxford 97-121
28. Longo M.R., and Lourenco S.F. On the nature of near space: Effects of tool use and the transition to far space. Neuropsychologia 44 (2006) 977-981
29. Meira S. 'Addressee effects' in demonstrative systems: The cases of Tiriyó and Brazilian Portuguese. In: Lenz F. (Ed). Deictic conceptualization of space, time and person (2003), John Benjamins Publishing Company, Pragmatics & Beyond New Series
30. Munnich E., Landau B., and Dosher B.A. Spatial language and spatial representation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cognition 81 (2001) 171-207
31. Pegna A.J., Petit L., Caldara-Schnetzer A.-S., Khateb A., Annoni J.-M., Sztajzel R., et al. So near yet so far: Neglect in far or near space depends on tool use. Annals of Neurology 50 (2001) 820-822
32. Talmy L. The relation of grammar to cognition. In: Rudska-Ostyn B. (Ed). Topics in cognitive linguistics (1988), John Benjamins, Amsterdam 165-206
33. Witt J.K., Proffitt D.R., and Epstein W. Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 31 5 (2005) 880-888