Background Knowledge and Spatial Language Use: How Previous Context Affects Subsequent Interpretations of Space

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Kenny
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
Background Knowledge ◽  
Spatial Language

scholarly journals Parents’ Spatial Language Mediates a Sex Difference in Preschoolers’ Spatial-Language Use

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 1583-1596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon M. Pruden ◽  
Susan C. Levine
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Sex Difference ◽  
Mediation Analysis ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Spatial Language ◽  
Time Points ◽  
Spatial Features ◽  
Dimensional Adjectives ◽  
Parent Child

Do boys produce more terms than girls to describe the spatial world—that is, dimensional adjectives (e.g., big, little, tall, short), shape terms (e.g., circle, square), and words describing spatial features and properties (e.g., bent, curvy, edge)? If a sex difference in children’s spatial-language use exists, is it related to the spatial language that parents use when interacting with children? We longitudinally tracked the development of spatial-language production in children between the ages of 14 and 46 months in a diverse sample of 58 parent-child dyads interacting in their homes. Boys produced and heard more of these three categories of spatial words, which we call “what” spatial types (i.e., unique “what” spatial words), but not more of all other word types, than girls. Mediation analysis revealed that sex differences in children’s spatial talk at 34 to 46 months of age were fully mediated by parents’ earlier spatial-language use, when children were 14 to 26 months old, time points at which there was no sex difference in children’s spatial-language use.

scholarly journals One Focus or Many? Modeling Attentional Distributions During Spatial Term Use

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Kluth
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
Cognitive Model ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Spatial Language ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
World Knowledge ◽  
Visual Spatial ◽  
Master's Thesis ◽  
Cast Doubt ◽  
Vector Sum

Are humans able to split their attentional focus? This master's thesis tries to answer this question by proposing several modifications to the Attentional Vector Sum (AVS) model (Regier & Carlson, 2001). The AVS model is a computational cognitive model of spatial language use that assumes visual attention. Carlson, Regier, Lopez, and Corrigan (2006) have developed a modification to the AVS model that integrates effects of world knowledge (functionality of spatially related objects) into the AVS model. This modified model assumes that people are able to split their visual spatial attention. However, it is debated whether this assumption holds true (e.g., Jans, Peters, & De Weerd, 2010). Thus, this thesis investigates the assumption in the domain of spatial language use by proposing and assessing alternative model modifications that do not assume split attention. Based on available empirical data, the results favor a uni-focal distribution of attention over a multi-focal attentional distribution. At the same time, the results cast doubt on the proper modeling of functional aspects of spatial language use, as the AVS model (not considering functionality) is performing surprisingly well on most data sets. (See https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_6 for a condensed version of this work.)

The effects of direction and orientation of located objects on spatial language comprehension

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHELE BURIGO ◽  
HOLGER SCHULTHEIS
Keyword(s):  
Language Comprehension ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Spatial Language ◽  
Reference Object ◽  
Geometric Features ◽  
Spatial Description ◽  
Language Understanding ◽  
Geometric Properties ◽  
Orientation Axis ◽  
Reported Study

abstractSpatial descriptions such as “The spider isbehindthe bee” inform the listener about the location of the spider (the located object) in relation to an object whose location is known (i.e., the bee, also called the reference object). If the geometric properties of the reference object have been shown to affect how people use and understand spatial language (Carlson & Van Deman, 2008; Carlson-Radvansky & Irwin, 1994), the geometric features carried by the located object have been deemed irrelevant for spatial language (Landau, 1996; Talmy, 1983). This view on the (ir)relevance of the located object has been recently questioned by works showing that presenting the located object in misalignment with the reference object has consequences for spatial language understanding (Burigo, Coventry, Cangelosi, & Lynott, 2016; Burigo & Sacchi, 2013). In the reported study we aimed to investigate which geometric properties of the located object affect the apprehension of a spatial description, and to disentangle whether the information concerning its orientation (axis), direction (front/rear), or a combination of the two gives rise to conflict. The outcomes of three placing tasks suggest that only the information concerning the direction of the located object is critical for spatial language use.

scholarly journals Do aligned bodies align minds? The partners’ body alignment as a constraint on spatial perspective use.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexia Galati ◽  
Angelina Symeonidou ◽  
Marios N Avraamides
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Spatial Ability ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Spatial Language ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
Route Description ◽  
High Level ◽  
East West ◽  
Over Time ◽  
And Task

In a direction-giving task, we examine whether a high-level constraint–the task partners’ relative body alignment–influences spatial language use and task accuracy. In 32 pairs, task partners interacted in two conditions: for one route description, direction givers (DGs) and direction followers (DFs) sat side-by-side (aligned condition), and for another they sat opposite one another (counter-aligned condition). After each description, DFs drew the route on a map. When pairs were counter-aligned (vs. aligned), DGs increased their use of expressions from a survey perspective, using more frequently terms such as east-west. When counter-aligned, DFs also used more words per conversational turn, which was taken to reflect the increased difficulty of coordinating in that condition. Still, in terms of task performance, the accuracy of DFs’ drawings was unaffected by the partners’ body alignment or spatial language use; it was only predicted by the DGs’ spatial ability. We argue that, because direction-giving emphasizes accuracy, task partners invest in strategies that contribute to mutual understanding (e.g., recaps of the route by the DF at the end, evidenced by shifts in language use over time). Thus, body alignment in direction-giving impacts coordination difficulty and spatial language use, but it does not singularly influence task performance.

How does the environment shape spatial language? Evidence for sociotopography

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bill Palmer ◽  
Jonathon Lum ◽  
Jonathan Schlossberg ◽  
Alice Gaby
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Cognition ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Cultural Practices ◽  
Local Environment ◽  
Spatial Language ◽  
Complex Interplay ◽  
Linguistic Resources ◽  
Language Structure ◽  
The Way

AbstractThis article investigates the extent to which the way individuals describe spatial relationships correlates with features of the local landscape. Drawing on empirical data from two unrelated languages, Dhivehi (Indo-Aryan) and Marshallese (Austronesian), across a range of topographic environments, we examine the linguistic resources available to speakers, and spatial referential strategy preferences across languages and environments. We find that spatial language shows sensitivity to features of the topography, but this is mediated by the way speakers interact with the landscape. This leads us to propose a Sociotopographic Model, modelling the complex interplay of language structure, local environment, cultural practices, and language use, at odds with competing claims about the primacy of language or of environment in shaping spatial cognition.

Linguistic Competence in Aphasia

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 87-92
Author(s):  
Leonard L. LaPointe
Keyword(s):  
Language Use ◽  
Linguistic Competence ◽  
Careful Study ◽  
Feral Children ◽  
Performance Factors ◽  
Performance Loss ◽  
Linguistic Rules ◽  
Communication Goals ◽  
Aphasia Treatment ◽  
And Performance

Abstract Loss of implicit linguistic competence assumes a loss of linguistic rules, necessary linguistic computations, or representations. In aphasia, the inherent neurological damage is frequently assumed by some to be a loss of implicit linguistic competence that has damaged or wiped out neural centers or pathways that are necessary for maintenance of the language rules and representations needed to communicate. Not everyone agrees with this view of language use in aphasia. The measurement of implicit language competence, although apparently necessary and satisfying for theoretic linguistics, is complexly interwoven with performance factors. Transience, stimulability, and variability in aphasia language use provide evidence for an access deficit model that supports performance loss. Advances in understanding linguistic competence and performance may be informed by careful study of bilingual language acquisition and loss, the language of savants, the language of feral children, and advances in neuroimaging. Social models of aphasia treatment, coupled with an access deficit view of aphasia, can salve our restless minds and allow pursuit of maximum interactive communication goals even without a comfortable explanation of implicit linguistic competence in aphasia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document