'Natural Concepts' in the Spatial Topologial Domain--Adpositional Meanings in Crosslinguistic Perspective: An Exercise in Semantic Typology

Levinson, Stephen C.; Meira, Sérgio

doi:10.1353/lan.2003.0174

Cited by 328 publications

(204 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

189

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This was later echoed by Levinson et al (2003;cf., Regier et al, 2013). Whether these conventions are language-specific, or they hold more generally across language-families, is a question the EoSS project has begun to answer.…”

Section: The Rise Of Interest In Meaningmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…The phylogenetic approach to variation further distinguishes this project from previous crosslinguistic studies of meaning, which have advocated using a sample of diverse languages from around the world as a way of minimising similarities due to shared language ancestry (e.g., Levinson et al, 2003;Majid et al, 2006). However, little is known about what constitutes "diverse" for semantics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Semantic systems in closely related languages

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn each semantic domain studied to date, there is considerable variation in how meanings are expressed across languages. But are some semantic domains more likely to show variation than others? Is the domain of space more or less variable in its expression than other semantic domains, such as containers, body parts, or colours? According to many linguists, the meanings expressed in grammaticised expressions, such as (spatial) adpositions, are more likely to be similar across languages than meanings expressed in open class lexical items. On the other hand, some psychologists predict there ought to be more variation across languages in the meanings of adpositions, than in the meanings of nouns. This is because relational categories, such as those expressed as adpositions, are said to be constructed by language; whereas object categories expressed as nouns are predicted to be "given by the world". We tested these hypotheses by comparing the semantic systems of closely related languages. Previous cross-linguistic studies emphasise the importance of studying diverse languages, but we argue that a focus on closely related languages is advantageous because domains can be compared in a culturally-and historically-informed manner. Thus we collected data from 12 Germanic languages. Naming data were collected from at least 20 speakers of each language for containers, body-parts, colours, and spatial relations. We found the semantic domains of colour and body-parts were the most similar across languages. Containers showed some variation, but spatial relations expressed in adpositions showed the most variation. The results are inconsistent with the view expressed by most linguists. Instead, we find meanings expressed in grammaticised meanings are more variable than meanings in open class lexical items.

show abstract

Section: The Rise Of Interest In Meaningmentioning

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic systems in closely related languages

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, there has been comparatively little work on the possible effects of prepositions on the encoding of static spatial relations to date. Yet, spatial prepositions exhibit considerable variability across languages (Bowerman & Pederson, 1992Feist, 2000;Levinson et al, 2003). Coupled with evidence of very early learning (Bowerman & Choi, 2003;Choi & Bowerman, 1991), this variability raises the possibility that the semantic encodings in spatial prepositions might be especially likely to influence speakers' construals of the world.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial language influences memory for spatial scenes

Feist

Gentner

2007

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does language influence recognition for spatial scenes? In Experiments 1 and 2, participants viewed ambiguous pictures, with or without spatial sentences. In a yes-no recognition task, only the spatial sentences group made more false alarms toward the center of the spatial category than in the other direction; three other comparison groups showed no such tendency. This shift toward the core of the semantic category suggests that spatial language interacted with perceptual information during encoding. In Experiment 3, we varied the materials to test the interactive encoding account against a separate encoding account in which separately stored sentences are accessed during picture recognition. The results support the interactive encoding account in which spatial language influences the encoding and memory of spatial relations. Memory & Cognition 2007, 35 (2), 283-296 M. I. Feist, feist@louisiana.edu

show abstract

“…No other discussions of locative relations in the world's languages have discussed a functional basis as the primary determinant of locative relations (e.g. Cienki, 1989, Herskovits, 1982, 1986, Jackendoff, 1983, Levinson, 2003. In this article, I will illustrate the functional basis of locative relations in Rongga and attempt to define the functional relations that Rongga speakers consider "normal".…”

Section: Picturementioning

confidence: 95%

“…Herskovits, 1982Herskovits, , 1986Piaget & Inhelder, 1956;Jackendoff, 1983;Talmy;1983, etc) or those of UT (e.g. Levinson et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantics of Functional and Locative Relations in Rongga

Aryawibawa¹

2010

Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many scholars have proposed a universal set of locative relations. Herskovits's comprehensive study of English locative relations found that locative concepts such as inclusion, support and contiguity, and coincidence are basic in English. Her findings offer support for strong Universal Conceptual Categories. On the other hand, Levinson et al.'s examination of locative relations of nine unrelated languages revealed that the basic concepts are attachments, superadjacency, full containment, subadjacency, and proximity which suggest Universal Tendencies rather than Universal Conceptual Categories. This study investigates how locative relations are encoded in Rongga and their implications for the universalism of locative relations. A standard elicitation technique was used.It appears that Rongga is unique in the priority it gives to the notion of functional relations over locative relations. Functional relations refer to the "natural" function between located and reference objects. Thus, when a natural function is present the relation is functional rather than spatial. Rongga uses the preposition one to refer to functional relations. However, when the natural relation is absent the relation becomes locative. Various prepositions such as zheta wewo/zheta tolo 'on', zheta wena 'over/above', zhale one 'inside', zhale wena/zhale lewu 'below/under' are used to express locative relations. In other words, instead of encoding the locative relationship based upon the locative concepts described by Herskovits and Levinson et al., Rongga emphasizes the importance of natural function between located and reference objects.

show abstract

'Natural Concepts' in the Spatial Topologial Domain--Adpositional Meanings in Crosslinguistic Perspective: An Exercise in Semantic Typology

Cited by 328 publications

References 42 publications

Semantic systems in closely related languages

Semantic systems in closely related languages

Spatial language influences memory for spatial scenes

Semantics of Functional and Locative Relations in Rongga

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About