Encoding direction when interpreting proximal terms

Abstract

The location of an object is often described by spatially relating it to a known landmark. The spatial terms used in such descriptions can provide various types of information. For example, projective terms such as above indicate direction but not distance, whereas proximal terms such as near indicate distance but not direction. Previous research has demonstrated that information not explicitly specified by projective prepositions (i.e., distance) is also encoded during the interpretation of these terms. Using a sentence-picture verification task, we examined whether direction is similarly encoded during the apprehension of proximal terms, examining both spatial prepositions (e.g., near) and motion verbs (e.g., approach). Results suggest that interpreting proximal terms involves encoding direction when such information facilitates locating the target.Imagine that you are waiting for a friend in a new restaurant by the park. Your cell phone rings, and your friend tells you that she is at the park, but cannot find the restaurant. There are many different descriptions that you could provide to assist your friend in finding the correct eatery. One helpful description would locate the restaurant relative to a reference object that is either known to your friend or is easily identifiable (Talmy, 1983). For example, you could respond with either of the spatial descriptions in (1 Á2):(1) The restaurant is to the left of the fountain.(2) The restaurant is near the fountain.

Mechanisms of Reference Frame Selection in Spatial Term Use: Computational and Empirical Studies

“…More generally, in order to successfully communicate in situations with conflicting reference frames, the conflict must be resolved so that the spatial term may be unambiguously defined, a process referred to as reference frame selection (Carlson, 1999;Logan & Sadler, 1996). Empirical work has investigated reference frame selection in human spatial term use (e.g., Ashley & Carlson, 2007;Carlson & van Deman, 2008;Carlson, West, Taylor, & Herndon, 2002;Carlson-Radvansky & Irwin, 1993, 1994Carlson-Radvansky & Jiang, 1998;Carlson-Radvansky & Logan, 1997). The goal of the current study is to assess how this conflict is resolved by contrasting three computational models that instantiate different selection mechanisms.…”

A new approach to analysing static locative expressions

“…This has given rise to a consider able literature on the topic, much of which has focused on the semantics and uses of spatial prepositions (i.e. Ashley and Carlson 2007;Carlson and Covey 2005;Coventry and Garrod 2004;Franckel and Paillard 2007;Herskovits 1986;Tyler and Evans 2003;Tutton 2009Tutton , 2011Vandeloise 1986, to name just a few). Leaving aside the question of prepositions for the moment, spatial relationships overall can be divided into two broad categories: those that express dynamic motion events (for example, John ran into the room), and those that express static locative relationships (for example, John is in the room).…”