Source‐Goal Asymmetries in Motion Representation: Implications for Language Production and Comprehension

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated an asymmetry between the origins and endpoints of motion events, with preferential attention given to endpoints rather than beginnings of motion in both language and memory. Two experiments explore this asymmetry further and test its implications for language production and comprehension. Experiment 1 shows that both adults and 4-year-old children detect fewer within-category changes in source than goal objects when tested for memory of motion events; furthermore, these groups produce fewer references to source than goal objects when describing the same motion events. Experiment 2 asks whether the specificity of encoding source ⁄ goal relations differs in both spatial memory and the comprehension of novel spatial vocabulary. Results show that endpoint configuration changes are detected more accurately than source configuration changes by both adults and young children. Furthermore, when interpreting novel motion verbs, both age groups expect more fine-grained lexical distinctions in the domain of endpoint configurations compared to that of source configurations. These studies demonstrate that a cognitive-attentional bias in spatial representation and memory affects both the detail of linguistic encoding during the use of spatial language and the specificity of hypotheses about spatial referents that learners build during the acquisition of the spatial lexicon.

What Does Children's Spatial Language Reveal About Spatial Concepts? Evidence From the Use of Containment Expressions

“…There is indeed such evidence: English-speaking children were not consistent in using (from) behind/back in the It is possible to be even more specific about the locus of difficulty children (and, to some degree, adults) face in encoding Occlusion and Cover. Recall that goal scenes have been found to be encoded more precisely in language compared to source scenes: Goal expressions are often shorter and semantically more specific/dedicated compared to source expressions cross-linguistically (Lakusta & Landau, 2005;Papafragou, 2010;Regier & Zheng, 2007). When children have limited access to the most appropriate (in this case, source) expressions, they will co-opt a related term.…”

“…Both projects study a variety of motion paths such as Containment (e.g., an object moving into another object), Cover (e.g., an object moving under another object), Support (an object moving onto another object), etc. For each path, both goal (e.g., X goes into/onto Y) and source versions (e.g., X comes out of/off of Y) are examined because prior work has indicated that goal information is encoded more precisely in language than source information (Lakusta & Landau, 2005;Papafragou, 2010;Regier & Zheng, 2007).…”

“…In each language, we tested adults and 4-to 5-year-old children. We chose to test 4-and 5-year-old children because spatial language is still developing in the preschool years (Johnston & Slobin, 1979;Leikin, 1998), and descriptions of motion in both English-and Greek-speaking children of this age have been found to differ in several respects from those of adults (Bunger, Trueswell, & Papa-fragou, 2012;Papafragou, 2010). In the second project in this series, we asked speakers of a larger set of languages (including both satellite-and verb-framed languages) to describe the same motion events.…”

Framing the difference between sources and goals in Change of Possession events

“…Ikegami 1987;Ihara and Fuijita 2000;Stefanowitsch and Rohde 2004;Lakusta and Landau 2005;Papafragou 2010; Lakusta and Landau 2012;Lakusta and Carey 2014). In most studies, the wheel shows a clear preference and spins towards the Goal.…”

“…On the other hand, in Greek Path is encoded within the verb whereas Manner appears elsewhere (see Figure 2; see Antonopoulou 1987;Βassea-Bezentakou 1992;Talmy 2000b: 66-67;Papafragou et al 2002;Selimis 2007;Johanson and Papafragou 2010;Papafragou andKatis 2010, among others). This is exemplified in (2): A recent study by Johanson and Papafragou (2010) has shown that the tendency seemingly characterising most languages in making Goal information more prominent may be more or less strong depending upon the Talmian typology of motion: the speakers of a Satellite-framed language (English) employ a larger number of adposition types than the speakers of a Verb-framed language (Greek).…”