Update on “What” and “Where” in Spatial Language: A New Division of Labor for Spatial Terms

Barbara Landau

doi:10.1111/cogs.12410

journal article Sep 16, 2016

Update on “What” and “Where” in Spatial Language: A New Division of Labor for Spatial Terms

Barbara Landau

Cognitive Science Vol. 41 No. S2 pp. 321-350 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/cogs.12410

Abstract

AbstractIn this article, I revisit Landau and Jackendoff's () paper, “What and where in spatial language and spatial cognition,” proposing a friendly amendment and reformulation. The original paper emphasized the distinct geometries that are engaged when objects are represented as members of object kinds (named by count nouns), versus when they are represented as figure and ground in spatial expressions (i.e., play the role of arguments of spatial prepositions). We provided empirical and theoretical arguments for the link between these distinct representations in spatial language and their accompanying nonlinguistic neural representations, emphasizing the “what” and “where” systems of the visual system. In the present paper, I propose a second division of labor between two classes of spatial prepositions in English that appear to be quite distinct. One class includes prepositions such as in and on, whose core meanings engage force‐dynamic, functional relationships between objects, with geometry only a marginal player. The second class includes prepositions such as above/below and right/left, whose core meanings engage geometry, with force‐dynamic relationships a passing or irrelevant variable. The insight that objects’ force‐dynamic relationships matter to spatial terms’ uses is not new; but thinking of these terms as a distinct set within spatial language has theoretical and empirical consequences that are new. I propose three such consequences, rooted in the fact that geometric knowledge is highly constrained and early‐emerging in life, while force‐dynamic knowledge of objects and their interactions is relatively unconstrained and needs to be learned piecemeal over a lengthy timeline. First, the two classes will engage different learning problems, with different developmental trajectories for both first and second language learners; second, the classes will naturally lead to different degrees of cross‐linguistic variation; and third, they may be rooted in different neural representations.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

92

[1]

Topographical disorientation: a synthesis and taxonomy

G. K. Aguirre

Brain 10.1093/brain/122.9.1613

[2]

10.1016/j.bandl.2011.09.007

[3]

10.1162/jocn.2009.21322

[4]

Anderson S. R. (1985)

[5]

Baillargeon R. (2009)

[6]

Bowerman M. (1993)

[7]

10.1515/ling.1994.32.4-5.743

[8]

Brown P. "Children's first verbs in Tzeltal: evidence for an early verb category" Linguistics (1998) 10.1515/ling.1998.36.4.713

[9]

10.1017/cbo9780511486753.008

[10]

10.1016/s0093-934x(02)00014-7

[11]

10.1207/s15427633scc0604_1

[12]

10.1111/1467-9280.00198

[13]

10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00541.x

[14]

10.3758/bf03196346

[15]

Cienki A. J. (1989) 10.3726/b12805

[16]

10.1016/0010-0277(72)90010-8

[17]

10.1016/b978-0-12-505850-6.50008-6

[18]

10.1017/s0305000900002099

[19]

Coventry K. R. (2004) 10.4324/9780203641521

[20]

10.1016/j.bandl.2009.06.001

[21]

10.1006/jmla.2000.2742

[22]

10.1006/nimg.2001.0775

[23]

10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02066.x

[24]

10.1515/cog.2006.015

[25]

10.1080/03640210802152335

[26]

Feist M. I. "Factors involved in the use of In and On" Proceedings of the Twenty‐Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (2003)

[27]

Fenson L. (2007)

[28]

10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00038-4

[29]

Genter D. (2009)

[30]

10.1016/j.cogdev.2012.10.002

[31]

10.1002/1098-1063(2000)10:4<369::aid-hipo3>3.0.co;2-0

[32]

10.1073/pnas.0607999103

[33]

10.1016/0010-0277(94)00643-y

[34]

10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00714-7

[35]

Herskovits A. (1986)

[36]

10.1006/cogp.1994.1014

[37]

10.1016/0010-0285(73)90015-7

[38]

Ivry R. B. (1998)

[39]

10.1111/cogs.12218

[40]

Johannes K. Wilson C. &Landau B. (2016).Systematic feature variation underlies adults’ and children's use of in and on. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the (pp2429–2434).

[41]

Johannes K. (2015)

[42]

10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.022

[43]

The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish

Judith R. Johnston, Dan I. Slobin

Journal of Child Language 10.1017/s030500090000252x

[44]

10.1016/j.bandl.2007.09.003

[45]

10.1076/neur.9.5.421.16551

[46]

Two hierarchically organized neural systems for object information in human visual cortex

Christina S Konen, Sabine Kastner

Nature Neuroscience 10.1038/nn2036

[47]

10.1037/0096-1523.15.4.723

[48]

Neural Representations for Object Perception: Structure, Category, and Adaptive Coding

Zoe Kourtzi, Charles E. Connor

Annual Review of Neuroscience 10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153218

[49]

Representation of Perceived Object Shape by the Human Lateral Occipital Complex

Zoe Kourtzi, Nancy Kanwisher

Science 10.1126/science.1061133

[50]

10.1016/0010-0277(86)90015-6

Showing 50 of 92 references

Metrics

25

Citations

92

References

Details

Published: Sep 16, 2016
Vol/Issue: 41(S2)
Pages: 321-350
License: View

Authors

B

Barbara Landau

Department of Cognitive Science Johns Hopkins University

Cite This Article

Barbara Landau (2016). Update on “What” and “Where” in Spatial Language: A New Division of Labor for Spatial Terms. Cognitive Science, 41(S2), 321-350. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12410

Update on “What” and “Where” in Spatial Language: A New Division of Labor for Spatial Terms

You May Also Like