Cargando…

Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison

When referring to an object in relation to another, speakers of many languages can adopt a relative frame of reference (FoR). Following Levinson (2003), this kind of FoR can be established by projecting an observer's perspective onto the ground object either by translation, reflection, or rotat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Beller, Sieghard, Singmann, Henrik, Hüther, Lisa, Bender, Andrea
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4556973/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26388802
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01283
_version_ 1782388424521547776
author Beller, Sieghard
Singmann, Henrik
Hüther, Lisa
Bender, Andrea
author_facet Beller, Sieghard
Singmann, Henrik
Hüther, Lisa
Bender, Andrea
author_sort Beller, Sieghard
collection PubMed
description When referring to an object in relation to another, speakers of many languages can adopt a relative frame of reference (FoR). Following Levinson (2003), this kind of FoR can be established by projecting an observer's perspective onto the ground object either by translation, reflection, or rotation. So far, research on spatial FoRs has largely ignored the extent of variation in which of these projections are preferred generally, and specifically what kind of FoR is established for spatial arrays in one's back. This may seem justified by assumptions on “natural” preferences: for reflection in frontal settings (Canonical Encounter Hypothesis), and for converting dorsal into frontal situations by a turn of the observer before a reference is made (Turn Hypothesis). We scrutinize these assumptions by comparing the FoRs adopted for small-scale, static spatial arrays by speakers of four languages (German, US-English, Mandarin Chinese, and Tongan). Addressing the problem of inherent ambiguities on the item level when assessing FoRs from spatial prepositions, we use a multinomial processing tree (MPT) model for estimating probabilities of referencing strategies across sets of items. Substantial differences in frontal settings, both between and within languages, disprove the Canonical Encounter Hypothesis—translation occurs as frequently as reflection across samples. In dorsal settings, in contrast, the same type of response dominates in all samples. We suggest that this response is produced by a backward projection of the observer's coordinate system in correspondence with the two main FoR preferences for frontal settings. However, none of these strategies involves a turn of the observer, thus also disproving the Turn Hypothesis. In conclusion, we discuss possible causes of the observed variability, explore links between the domains of space and time, and reflect the relation between language, communication, and culture.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4556973
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45569732015-09-18 Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison Beller, Sieghard Singmann, Henrik Hüther, Lisa Bender, Andrea Front Psychol Psychology When referring to an object in relation to another, speakers of many languages can adopt a relative frame of reference (FoR). Following Levinson (2003), this kind of FoR can be established by projecting an observer's perspective onto the ground object either by translation, reflection, or rotation. So far, research on spatial FoRs has largely ignored the extent of variation in which of these projections are preferred generally, and specifically what kind of FoR is established for spatial arrays in one's back. This may seem justified by assumptions on “natural” preferences: for reflection in frontal settings (Canonical Encounter Hypothesis), and for converting dorsal into frontal situations by a turn of the observer before a reference is made (Turn Hypothesis). We scrutinize these assumptions by comparing the FoRs adopted for small-scale, static spatial arrays by speakers of four languages (German, US-English, Mandarin Chinese, and Tongan). Addressing the problem of inherent ambiguities on the item level when assessing FoRs from spatial prepositions, we use a multinomial processing tree (MPT) model for estimating probabilities of referencing strategies across sets of items. Substantial differences in frontal settings, both between and within languages, disprove the Canonical Encounter Hypothesis—translation occurs as frequently as reflection across samples. In dorsal settings, in contrast, the same type of response dominates in all samples. We suggest that this response is produced by a backward projection of the observer's coordinate system in correspondence with the two main FoR preferences for frontal settings. However, none of these strategies involves a turn of the observer, thus also disproving the Turn Hypothesis. In conclusion, we discuss possible causes of the observed variability, explore links between the domains of space and time, and reflect the relation between language, communication, and culture. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-09-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4556973/ /pubmed/26388802 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01283 Text en Copyright © 2015 Beller, Singmann, Hüther and Bender. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Beller, Sieghard
Singmann, Henrik
Hüther, Lisa
Bender, Andrea
Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison
title Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison
title_full Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison
title_fullStr Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison
title_full_unstemmed Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison
title_short Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison
title_sort turn around to have a look? spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4556973/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26388802
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01283
work_keys_str_mv AT bellersieghard turnaroundtohavealookspatialreferencingindorsalvsfrontalsettingsincrosslinguisticcomparison
AT singmannhenrik turnaroundtohavealookspatialreferencingindorsalvsfrontalsettingsincrosslinguisticcomparison
AT hutherlisa turnaroundtohavealookspatialreferencingindorsalvsfrontalsettingsincrosslinguisticcomparison
AT benderandrea turnaroundtohavealookspatialreferencingindorsalvsfrontalsettingsincrosslinguisticcomparison