Abstract
Recent research in spatial language has demonstrated that the interpretation of a spatial term depends not only on the geometry of the configuration of the objects being spatially related, but also on extrageometric information, including information about the objects and their interaction. Such effects could emerge from activation of general knowledge of the association between the objects; thus, they should be widely observed. In contrast, they could be more restricted, emerging only in situations in which the spatial language task positions objects in a manner that is consistent with a simulation of their interaction. In two experiments, we test each of these ideas and demonstrate that extrageometric information augments geometric information in the interpretation of spatial terms only when the situation enables the interaction.
Article PDF
References
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 577–660.
Beun, R.-J., &Cremers, A. H. M. (1998). Object reference in a shared domain of conversation.Pragmatics & Cognition,6, 121–152.
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.
Chambers, C. G., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., Filip, H., &Carlson, G. N. (2001). Circumscribing referential domains during real-time language comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,47, 30–49.
Coventry, K. R., &Garrod, S. C. (2004).Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Glenberg, A. M., &Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 558–565.
Glenberg, A. M., &Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 379–401.
Herskovits, A. (1986).Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landau, B., &Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,16, 217–265.
Langacker, R. W. (1993). Grammatical traces of some “invisible” semantic constructs.Language Sciences,15, 323–355.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1996). Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 77–108). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Logan, G. D., &Sadler, D. (1996). A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.),Language and space (pp. 494–529). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.),Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Plenum.
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: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 44, pp. 35–62). San Diego: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
A portion of this research was conducted as part of R.K.’s senior honors thesis at the University of Notre Dame.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carlson, L., Kenny, R. Interpreting spatial terms involves simulating interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 682–688 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193981
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193981