scholarly journals Variation in spatial concepts: Different frames of reference on different axes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Pitt ◽  
Alexandra Carstensen ◽  
Edward Gibson ◽  
Steven T. Piantadosi
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Relations ◽  
Spatial Language ◽  
Frames Of Reference ◽  
Spatial Thinking ◽  
Initial Test ◽  
Spatial Concepts ◽  
Spatial Frames Of Reference ◽  
Language And Cognition ◽  
Lateral Axis ◽  
The Way

Spatial language and cognition vary across contexts. In some groups, people tend to use egocentric space (e.g. left, right) to encode the locations of objects, while in other groups, people use allocentric space (e.g. upriver, downriver) to describe the same spatial scene. These different spatial Frames of Reference (FoRs) characterize both the way people talk about spatial relations and the way they think about them, even when they are not using language. These patterns of spatial language and spatial thinking tend to covary, but the root causes of this variation are unclear. Here we propose that this variation in FoR use reflects variation in the spatial discriminability of the relevant spatial continua. In an initial test of this proposal, we compared FoR use across spatial axes that are known to differ in discriminability. In two non-verbal tests, a group of indigenous Bolivians used different FoRs on different spatial axes; on the lateral axis, where egocentric (left-right) discrimination is difficult, their behavior was predominantly allocentric; on the sagittal axis, where egocentric (front-back) discrimination is relatively easy, their behavior was predominantly egocentric. These findings support the spatial discriminability hypothesis, which may explain variation in spatial concepts not only across axes, but also across groups, between individuals, and over development.

Language, culture and cognition: The view from space / Sprache, Kultur und Kognition: Die Betrachtung vom Raum

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Penelope Brown
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Cultural Practices ◽  
Spatial Language ◽  
Frames Of Reference ◽  
Linguistic Group ◽  
Spatial Frames Of Reference ◽  
The Social ◽  
Language And Cognition ◽  
Cultural Explanation ◽  
Core Role

AbstractThis paper addresses the vexed questions of how language relates to culture, and what kind of notion of culture is important for linguistic explanation. I first sketch five perspectives - five different construals - of culture apparent in linguistics and in cognitive science more generally. These are: (i) culture as ethno-linguistic group, (ii) culture as a mental module, (iii) culture as knowledge, (iv) culture as context, and (v) culture as a process emergent in interaction. I then present my own work on spatial language and cognition in a Mayan languge and culture, to explain why I believe a concept of culture is important for linguistics. I argue for a core role for cultural explanation in two domains: in analysing the semantics of words embedded in cultural practices which color their meanings (in this case, spatial frames of reference), and in characterizing thematic and functional links across different domains in the social and semiotic life of a particular group of people.

scholarly journals Individuals use different spatial reference frames on different axes: Evidence from indigenous Amazonians

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Pitt ◽  
Alexandra Carstensen ◽  
Isabelle Boni ◽  
Steven T. Piantadosi ◽  
Edward Gibson
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Memory ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Spatial Reasoning ◽  
Spatial Relations ◽  
Spatial Behavior ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames ◽  
Spatial Frames Of Reference ◽  
Lateral Axis ◽  
The Way

The physical properties of space may be universal, but the way people conceptualize space is variable. In some groups, people tend to use egocentric space (e.g. left, right) to encode the locations of objects, while in other groups, people encode the same spatial scene using allocentric space (e.g. upriver, downriver). These different spatial frames of reference (FoRs) characterize the way people talk about spatial relations and the way they think about them, even when they are not using language. Although spatial language and spatial reasoning tend to covary, the root causes of this variation are unclear. Here we propose that variation in FoR use partly reflects the discriminability of the relevant spatial continua. In an initial test of this proposal in a group of indigenous Bolivians, we compared FoR use across spatial axes that are known to differ in discriminability. In both verbal and nonverbal tests, participants spontaneously used different FoRs on different spatial axes: On the lateral axis, where egocentric (left-right) discrimination is difficult, their spatial behavior and language was predominantly allocentric; on the sagittal axis, where egocentric (front-back) discrimination is relatively easy, they were predominantly egocentric. These findings challenge the claim that each language group can be characterized by a predominant spatial frame of reference. Rather, both spatial memory and language can differ categorically across axes, even within the same individuals. We suggest that differences in spatial discrimination can explain differences in both spatial memory and language within and across human groups.

Spatial Terms

2019 ◽  
pp. 113-123
Author(s):  
Myrto Grigoroglou ◽  
Anna Papafragou
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Cognition ◽  
Spatial Relations ◽  
Spatial Language ◽  
Frames Of Reference ◽  
Dynamic Displacement ◽  
Spatial Coordinate ◽  
Semantic Domain ◽  
Space Motion ◽  
Spatial Configurations ◽  
Spatial Terms

Across the world’s languages, spatial terms are organized around a set of basic, non-linguistic spatial notions. Nevertheless, there is also considerable cross-linguistic variation in terms of both the kinds of linguistic devices used to express spatial relations and the way these devices carve up the semantic domain of space. This chapter reviews literature on spatial terms cross-linguistically, focusing on three main sub-divisions of the spatial domain: location (i.e. the static position of an object in space); motion (i.e. the dynamic displacement of an object in space); and Frames of Reference (FoR; i.e. abstract spatial-coordinate axes imposed on spatial configurations). The intricate relation between spatial language and non-linguistic spatial cognition is discussed throughout the chapter.

The intrinsic frame of reference and the Dhivehi ‘FIBO’ system

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathon Lum
Keyword(s):  
Borderline Case ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Spatial Language ◽  
Frames Of Reference ◽  
Speech Communities ◽  
Language And Cognition ◽  
Theoretical Issues ◽  
Intrinsic Frame

Abstract While geocentric and relative frames of reference have figured prominently in the literature on spatial language and cognition, the intrinsic frame of reference has received less attention, though various subtypes of the intrinsic frame have been proposed. This paper presents a revised classification of the intrinsic frame, distinguishing between three subtypes: a ‘direct’ subtype, an ‘object-centered’ subtype and a ‘figure-anchored’ subtype, with a cross-cutting distinction between ‘function-based’ and ‘shape-based’ systems. In addition, the ‘FIBO’ (front = inner, back = outer) system in Dhivehi is analyzed as an example of a borderline case, with some important features of the intrinsic frame but also some differences, presenting a challenge for existing frame of reference classifications. The rotational properties of these various systems are also considered. The analysis underscores the considerable diversity within intrinsic systems but also points to a closer relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic frames than has previously been appreciated. This may have implications for broader theoretical issues including how frames of reference are acquired, how speech communities come to use different frames and whether patterns of frame use in discourse shape patterns of non-verbal frame use.

scholarly journals Bagaimana Mengembangkan Kemampuan Spasial dalam Pembelajaran Matematika di Sekolah?: Suatu Tinjauan Literatur

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-72
Author(s):  
S Sudirman ◽  
Fiki Alghadari
Keyword(s):  
Video Games ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Everyday Life ◽  
Spatial Ability ◽  
Spatial Relations ◽  
Spatial Visualization ◽  
Spatial Abilities ◽  
Spatial Language ◽  
Learning Mathematics ◽  
Folding Paper

Spatial ability is an important one of the abilities for completing many tasks in everyday life successfully. Spatial ability is considered a type of different ability to others. Therefore, there needs a study on how are the characteristics of spatial abilities and to develop in schools. This paper is to reveal the ways are developing spatial abilities in learning mathematics. Based on literature review from some research, at least that there are six ways to develop spatial abilities in learning mathematics, namely: (1) using spatial language in daily interactions; (2) teaching for sketching and drawing; (3) using a suitable game; (4) using a tangram; (5) using video games; and (6) origami and folding paper. Playing video games like Tetris are exercises for spatial relations, mental rotation, spatial orientation, and spatial visualization.

Projection between Exhibition and Information

2020 ◽  
pp. 211-236
Author(s):  
Adeena Mey
Keyword(s):  
Research Group ◽  
Spatial Relations ◽  
Media History ◽  
Land Art ◽  
Earth History ◽  
Moving Images ◽  
Entire Country ◽  
The Many ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
The Way

Among the many reconfigurations and experiments with the ‘medium of the exhibition’ of the 1960–1970s, Sonsbeek 71 stands as one the most audacious examples. Organized by curator Wim Beeren as an attempt to find a new curatorial language and innovative exhibition form, Sonsbeek 71 took ‘the entire country as its field of operation’, the ‘exhibition’ consisting of several works of land art, ‘information centres’, as well as pavilions dedicated to film, video, and art mediation. The ‘spatial relations’ exposed by the scale of this apparatus became the very object of Beeren’s curatorial inquiry. Focusing on projected moving images at Sonsbeek 71, this chapter discusses it on three different levels. First, it identifies the way both the film and exhibition apparatus were reconfigured and how Sonsbeek 71 functioned as an epistemology of the exhibition as medium. Second, it articulates a critique of the exhibition as a form intersecting technical, discursive, informational, and sensible elements, and shows how, in its radical expansion of the exhibition medium, Sonsbeek 71 ‘conflates media history with earth history’ (Parikka). Third, what is meant by the notion of the exhibition as ‘medium’ is discussed in light of the inflatable pavilions designed by the Eventstructure Research Group where structural films and artists’ films were projected. This eventually opens up to a critique of the informational, cybernetic epistemology of Sonsbeek 71.

Between the Big Trees: A Project-based Approach to Investigating Shape and Spatial Thinking in a Kindergarten Program

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Cohrssen ◽  
Ben De Quadros-Wander ◽  
Jane Page ◽  
Suzana Klarin
Keyword(s):  
Early Childhood ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Mathematical Thinking ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Spatial Thinking ◽  
Spatial Concepts ◽  
Informal Curriculum ◽  
Related Language ◽  
Children’S Mathematical Thinking ◽  
Children's Mathematical Thinking

SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN'S EMERGING mathematical thinking is a characteristic of high-quality early childhood education. Young children's spatial thinking, an important component of mathematical thinking, is both innate and influenced by experience. Since spatial thinking contributes to children's mathematical thinking, it is important for children to engage in activities that support this learning. Early childhood educators are calling for guidance in how to support children's mathematical thinking in the context of an informal curriculum. In this paper, we describe how a project-based approach to mathematics teaching and learning provided a range of opportunities for children to investigate and rehearse understandings of two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) shapes and spatial thinking within the context of a project that was of ‘real world’ interest to the children. By intentionally embedding multiple opportunities for children to explore shapes and spatial thinking in a sequence of core learning experiences and complementary experiences, educators provided children with opportunities to rehearse shape and spatial concepts and related language in differing ways. Opportunities for formative assessment of children's learning are also discussed.

Egocentric Action in Early Infancy: Spatial Frames of Reference for Saccades

1997 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 224-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick O. Gilmore ◽  
Mark H. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Information ◽  
Visual Space ◽  
Frames Of Reference ◽  
Saccade Target ◽  
Visually Guided ◽  
Retinal Position ◽  
Position Information ◽  
Visual Spatial ◽  
Visually Guided Action ◽  
Spatial Frames Of Reference

The extent to which infants combine visual (i e, retinal position) and nonvisual (eye or head position) spatial information in planning saccades relates to the issue of what spatial frame or frames of reference influence early visually guided action We explored this question by testing infants from 4 to 6 months of age on the double-step saccade paradigm, which has shown that adults combine visual and eye position information into an egocentric (head- or trunk-centered) representation of saccade target locations In contrast, our results imply that infants depend on a simple retinocentric representation at age 4 months, but by 6 months use egocentric representations more often to control saccade planning Shifts in the representation of visual space for this simple sensorimotor behavior may index maturation in cortical circuitry devoted to visual spatial processing in general

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document