Language and Memory for Motion Events: Origins of the Asymmetry Between Source and Goal Paths

Cognitive Science

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 517-544

  Lakusta, Laura ^a   Landau, Barbara ^b  

^a MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Conceptual representations; Goal; Motion events; Prominence hierarchies; Semantics; Source; Space language interface; Syntax

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; COGNITION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MEMORY; MOTIVATION; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PRESCHOOL CHILD;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COGNITION; GOALS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MEMORY; MOTION PERCEPTION; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS;

EID: 84859418471     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01220.x     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Aissen, J. (2001). Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax (pp. 61-96). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Bloom, P. (1999). The role of semantics in solving the bootstrapping problem. In R. Jackendoff, P. Bloom, & K. Wynn (Eds.), Language, logic, and concepts (pp. 285-309). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Bowerman, M., de León, L., & Choi, S. (1995). Verbs, particles, and spatial semantics: Learning to talk about spatial actions in typologically different languages. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Annual Child Language Research Forum (pp. 101-110). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
5. Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 169-200). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6. Clancy, P. M. (1985). The acquisition of Japanese. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 1. The data (pp. 373-524). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547-619.
8. Einav, S., & Hood, B. (2006). Children's use of the temporal dimension of gaze for preferring preference. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 142-152.
9. Filip, H. (2003). Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 11(1), 55-101.
10. Fillmore, C. J. (1997). Lectures on deixis. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
11. Fisher, C., Hall, G. D., Rakowitz, S., & Gleitman, L. (1994). When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. In L. Gleitman & B. Landau (Eds.), The acquisition of the lexicon (pp. 333-375). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Fisher, C., & Song, H. (2006). Who's the subject? Sentence structure and verb meaning. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. Michnick-Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp. 392-425). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
13. Freeman, N. H., Sinha, C. G., & Stedmon, J. A. (1980). The allative bias in three-year-olds is almost proof against task naturalness. Journal of Child Language, 8, 283-296.
14. Gehrke, B. (2005). The prepositional aspect of Slavic prefixes and the goal-source asymmetry. In H. de Hoop & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI workshop on Formal Semantics and Cross-Linguistic Data (pp. 47-56). Edinburgh, Scotland: Heriot-Watt University.
15. Gleitman, L., Gleitman, H., Miller, C., & Ostrin, R. (1996). Similar' and similar concepts. Cognition, 58, 321-376.
16. Grimshaw, J. (1981). Form, function, and the language acquisition device. In C. L. Baker & J. J. McCarthy (Eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition (pp. 165-182). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Gruber, J. S. (1965). Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT. Reprinted by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN. Reprinted 1976 as part of Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. New York: North-Holland Publishing Company.
18. Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches in language structure, Vol. 2 (pp. 211-242), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Hayward, W. G., & Tarr., M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition, 55, 39-84.
20. Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1945). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243-259.
21. Hermer-Vaszquez, 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.
22. Ihara, H., & Fujita, I. (2000). A cognitive approach to errors in case marking in Japanese agrammatism: The priority of the goal -ni over the source -kara. In A. Foolen & F. Van der Leek (Eds.), Constructions in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the fifth international cognitive linguistics conference, Amsterdam, 1997 (pp. 123-140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23. Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Lakusta, L. (2005). Source and goal asymmetry in non-linguistic motion event representations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University.
26. Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2005). Starting at the end: The importance of goals in spatial language. Cognition, 96, 1-33.
27. Lakusta, L., & Landau, B. (2007). Goal bias in language and in non-linguistic motion event representations. Poster presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, April, Boston.
28. Lakusta, L., Reardon, R., Oakes, L., & Carey, S. (2007). A goal bias in pre-linguistic thought and language: How strong is the homology? Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, November, Boston.
29. Lakusta, L., Wagner, L., O'Hearn, K., & Landau, B. (2007). Conceptual foundations of spatial language: Evidence for a goal bias in infants. Language Learning and Development, 3(3), 179-197.
30. Lakusta, L., Yoshida, H., Landau, B., & Smith, L. (2006). Cross-linguistic evidence for a Goal/Source asymmetry: The case of Japanese. Poster presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies, June, 2006, Kyoto, Japan.
31. Landau, B., & Hoffman, J. E. (2005). Parallels between spatial cognition and spatial language: Evidence from Williams syndrome. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(2), 163-185.
32. Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). "What" and "where" in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 217-265.
33. Landau, B., Smith, L., & Jones, S. (1998). Object perception and object naming in early development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(1), 19-24.
34. Landau, B., & Zukowski, A. (2003). Objects, motions, and paths: Spatial language in children with Williams syndrome. Developmental Neuropsychology, 23(1 & 2), 107-139.
35. Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. (eds.) (2006). Grammars of space: Towards a semantic typology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
36. Luo, Y., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Can a self-propelled box have a goal? Psychological reasoning in 5-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 16(8), 601-608.
37. Markovskaya, E. (2006). Goal-source asymmetry and Russian spatial prefixes. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Working Papers in Linguistics, 33.2, Special Issue on Adpositions (pp. 200-219). Nordlyd, Norway: Tromsø C.
38. Meira, S. (2006). Approaching space in Tiriyo grammar. In S. C. Levinson & D. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of space: Towards a semantic typology (pp. 288-235). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
39. Meltzoff, A. M. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactments of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology, 31(5), 838-850.
40. Munnich, E., Landau, B., & Dosher, B. A. (2001). Spatial language and spatial representation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cognition, 81, 171-207.
41. Nam, S. (2004). Goal and source: Asymmetry in their syntax and semantics. Paper presented at the Workshop on Event Structure, Leipzig, Germany.
42. Nikitina, T. (2006). Subcategorization pattern and lexical meaning of motion verbs: A study of the source/goal ambiguity. Linguistics, 47(5), 1113-1141.
43. Papafragou, A. (2010). Source-goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science, 34, 1064-1092.
44. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Pléh, C. (1998). Early spatial case markers in Hungarian children. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), The Proceedings of the Twenty-ninth Annual Child Language Research Forum (pp. 211-219). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
46. Premack, D. (1990). The infant's theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition, 36, 1-16.
47. Randall, J., van Hout, A., Weissenborn, J., & Baayen, H. (2004). Acquiring unaccusativity: A cross-linguistic look. In A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (pp. 332-370). New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. Regier, T., & Zheng, M. (2007). Attention to endpoints: A cross-linguistic constraint on spatial meaning. Cognitive Science, 31, 705-719.
50. Riemsdijk, H. C. van (2007). The case of source and goal: what determine case in german spatial PPs. Paper presented at Harvard Linguistics Theory Group, April, 2007, Cambridge, MA.
51. Simons, D. J. (2000). Current approaches to change blindness. Visual Cognition, 7, 1-15.
52. Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Theoretical Issues (pp. 1157-1256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53. Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientations: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225-282). New York: Plenum Press.
54. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 57-149). New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore & P. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 103-130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56. Waxman, S. R., & Booth, A. E. (2001). Seeing pink elephants: Fourteen-month-olds' interpretations of novel nouns and adjectives. Cognitive Psychology, 43(3), 217-242.
57. Waxman, S. R., & Markow, D. B. (1998). Object properties and object kind: 21-month-old infants' extension of novel adjectives. Child Development, 69(5), 1313-1329.
58. Woodward, A. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition, 69, 1-34.
59. Woodward, A. (1999). Infants' ability to distinguish between purposeful and non-purposeful behaviors. Infant Behavior and Development, 22, 145-160.
60. Woodward, A., & Sommerville, J. A. (2000). Twelve-month-old infants interpret action in context. Psychological Science, 11(1), 73-77.