SPATIAL LANGUAGE LEARNING AND THE FUNCTIONAL GEOMETRIC FRAMEWORK

Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 114-138

  Coventry, Kenny R ^a   Guijarro Fuentes, Pedro ^b  

^a NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866988594     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203938560-14     Document Type: Chapter

References (74)

1. Antell, S. E. G., & Caron, A. J. (1985). Neonatal perception of spatial relationships. Infant Behavior and Development, 8, 15-23.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577-660.
3. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, pp. 157-193. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Behl-Chadha, G., & Eimas, P. D. (1995). Infant categorization of left-right spatial relations. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 69-79.
5. Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: a crosslinguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 385-436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475-511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Brugman, C. (1981). The story of “over”. M.A. thesis, University of California at Berkeley. Reprinted by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
8. Brugman, C. (1988). The story of “over”: Polysemy, semantics and the structure of the lexicon. Garland Press.
9. Cadierno, T. (2004). Expressing motion events in a second languae: A cognitive typological perspective. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquistion, and Foreign Language Teaching, pp. 13-49. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
10. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., Covey, E. S., & Lattanzi, K. M. (1999). “What” effects on “where”: Functional influences on spatial relations. Psychological Science, 10, 516-521.
11. Carroll, M. (1997). The acquisition of English. In A. Becker & M. Carroll (Eds.), The acquisition of spatial relations in a second language, pp. 35-78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. 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.
13. Choi, S., McDonough, L., Bowerman, M., & Mandler, J. (1999). Early sensitivity to language-specific spatial categories in English and Korean. Cognitive Development, 14, 241-268.
14. Cienki, A. J. (1989). Spatial cognition and the semantics of prepositions in English, Polish, and Russian. Munich: Sagner.
15. Cohn, A. G. (1996). Calculi for qualitative spatial reasoning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of AISMC-3, LNCS.
16. Cohn, A. G., Bennett, B., Gooday, J., & Gotts, N. M. (1997). Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning with the region connection calculus. Geoinformatica, 1(3), 1-42.
17. Coventry, K. R. (1998). Spatial prepositions, functional relations and lexical specification. In P. Olivier & K. Gapp (Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Spatial Expressions (pp. 247-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Coventry, K. R., Cangelosi, A., Rajapakse, R., Bacon, A., Newstead, S., Joyce, D., & Richards, L. V. (2005). Spatial prepositions and vague quantifiers: Implementing the functional geometric framework. In C. Freksa, B. Knauff, B. Krieg-Bruckner & B. Nebel (Eds.), Spatial Cognition, Volume IV. Reasoning, action and interaction, pp. 98-110. Lecture notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag.
19. Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11, 289-309.
20. Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, Seeing and Acting. The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Essays in Cognitive Psychology Series. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.
21. Coventry, K. R., & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2004). Las preposiciones en español y en inglés: la importancia relativa del espacio y función. Cognitiva, 16(1), 73-93.
22. Coventry, K. R., & Prat-Sala, M. (2001). Object-specific function, geometry and the comprehension of “in” and “on”. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 509-528.
23. 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 and Language, 44, 376-398.
24. Coventry, K. R., Richards, L. V., Joyce, D. W., & Cangelosi, A. (forthcoming). Spatial prepositions and the instantiation of object knowledge; the case of over, under, above and below. Manuscript in preparation.
25. Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1-24.
26. Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164-194.
27. Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179-211.
28. Garrod, S., Ferrier, G., & Campbell, S. (1999). In and on: investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition, 72, 167-189.
29. Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. J. (1989). Discourse models as interfaces between language and the spatial world. Journal of Semantics, 6, 147-160.
30. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(1), 1-55.
31. Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 424-436.
32. Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28, 1-26.
33. Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: a comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 379-401.
34. Harley, B. (1989). Transfer in the written compositions of French immersion students. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production, pp. 3-19. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
35. Hayward, W. G., & Tarr, M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition, 55, 39-84.
36. Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge University Press.
37. Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2001). Reasoning about containment events in very young infants. Cognition, 78, 207-245.
38. Ijaz, H. (1986). Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 36, 401-451.
39. Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50, 245-309.
40. Jarvis, S., & Odlin, T. (2000). Morphological type, spatial reference, and language transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 535-556.
41. Johnson, J., & Newport, E. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
42. Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing meaning: the role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 508-529.
43. Kim, I. K., & Spelke, E. S. (1992). Infants’ sensitivity to effects of gravity on visible object motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 385-393.
44. Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 16(2), 217-265.
45. Landauer, T., & Dumais, S. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.
46. Levinson, S. C. (1996a). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109-169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Levinson, S. C. (1996b). Relativity in spatial conception and description. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 177-202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48. 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. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 493-530). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. MacWhinney, B., Pleh, C., & Bates, E. (1985). The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 178-209.
50. McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. M. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 229-259.
51. Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
52. Mukattash, L. (1984). Errors made by Arab university students in the use of English prepositions. Glottodidactica, 17, 47-64.
53. Munnich, E. (2000). Input maturation in the acquisition of second language spatial semantics. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Delaware, USA.
54. Navarro, S., & Nicoladis, E. (2005). Describing motion events in adult L2 Spanish narratives. In D. Eddington (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the 6th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages, pp. 102-107. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
55. Needham, A., & Baillargeon, R. (1993). Intuitions about support in 4.5-monthold infants. Cognition, 47, 121-148.
56. Pavesi, M. (1987). Variability and systematicity in the acquisition of spatial prepositions. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Second language acquisition in context, pp. 73-82. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
57. Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S., Kita, S., & Senft, G. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualisation. Language, 74(3), 557-589.
58. Quinn, P. C. (1994). The categorization of above and below spatial relations by young infants. Child Development, 65, 58-69.
59. Quinn, P. C., Cummins, M, Kase, J., Martin, E., & Weissman, S. (1996). Development of categorical representations for above and below spatial relations in 3- to 7-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 32, 942-950.
60. Quinn, P. C., Norris, C. M., Pasko, R. N., Schmader, T. M., & Mash, C. (1999). Formation of a categorical representation for the spatial relation between by 6- to 7-month-old infants. Visual Cognition, 6, 569-585.
61. Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. Regier, T., & Carlson, L.A. (2001) Grounding spatial language in perception: an empirical and computational investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 273-298.
63. Richards, L. V., Coventry, K. R., & Clibbens, J. (2004). Where’s the orange? Geometric and extra-geometric factors in English children’s talk of spatial locations. Journal of Child Language, 31, 153-175.
64. Schumann, J. (1986). Locative and directional expressions in basilang speech. Language Learning, 36, 277-294.
65. Stockwell, R., Brown, J., & Martin, J. (1965). The grammatical structures of English and Spanish. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
66. Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo, (Eds.), Spatial orientation: theory, research and application. New York: Plenum Press (pp. 225-282).
67. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalisation patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Volume 3, pp. 36-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
69. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2004). Applying cognitive linguistics to pedagogical grammar: The case of over. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching, pp. 257-280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
71. Ungerleider, L., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. Ingle, M. Goodale, & R. Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of visual behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72. Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions. A case study from French. University of Chicago Press.
73. 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.
74. Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting and understanding: motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1-11.