Spatial Semantics, Cognition, and Their Interaction: A Comparative Study of Spatial Categorization in English and Korean

Abstract

This study has two goals. First, we present much-needed empirical linguistic data and systematic analyses on the spatial semantic systems in English and Korean, two languages that have been extensively compared to date in the debate on spatial language and spatial cognition. We conduct our linguistic investigation comprehensively, encompassing the domains of tight- and loose-fit as well as containment and support relations. The current analysis reveals both cross-linguistic commonalities and differences: From a common set of spatial features, each language highlights a subset of those features for its principal categorization, and those primary features are importantly different between English and Korean: English speakers categorize events predominantly by containment and support relations (and do so with prepositions), whereas Korean speakers categorize them by tight-fit and loose-fit relations (and do so with verbs), with a further distinction of containment and support within the loose-fit relation. The analysis also shows that the tight-fit domain is more cross-linguistically diverse in categorization than is the loose-fit domain. Second, we test the language data against the nonlinguistic categorization results reported in Choi and Hattrup (2012). The results show a remarkable degree of convergence between the patterns predicted from the current linguistic analysis and those found in C&H's nonlinguistic study and thus provide empirical and strong evidence for an influence of language on nonlinguistic spatial cognition. At the same time, the study reveals areas where the two systems closely interact with each other as well as those where one is independent from the other. Taking both parts of the study together, we identify the specific roles that language and spatial perception/cognition play in spatial categorization.

Figure and Ground in spatial language: evidence from German and Korean

“…Interestingly, these two Path types relate to verticality – from above or from below – a contrast that has been proposed to be universal as infants discriminate the two from very early on (Quinn, Cummins, Kase, Maartin, & Weissman, 1996). The similarity between German and Korean in the two types of loose-fit relations also converges with Yun and Choi’s (2018) finding that languages semantically categorize a loose-fit relation much more similarly than a tight-fit relation.…”

“…To note, we interpret the same results for both German preposition and German VPs to mean that Path terms in German are primarily driven by prepositions rather than verbs, as the addition of the verb in the VP analyses in this study did not change the results. While more detailed discussion of this aspect is beyond ta b l e 3. the scope of this paper, we refer to Yun and Choi (2018) for similar results and discussion for English Path terms. The effect of Relation was significant in the Korean model but not in the models of German prepositions as well as German VPs.…”

“…But detailed analyses show that these verbs blur the boundaries between loose containment and loose support. For example, Yun and Choi (2018) report that Korean speakers use the verb nohta 'put.on.surface.loosely' not only for loose support (e.g., putting a cup on a table) but also for loose containment when putting something loosely at the bottom of a container (e.g., putting candy in a container). The verb nehta 'put.in.loosely' also blurs the boundary between loose containment and loose encirclement.…”

“…In Korean, speakers used 16 different verbs in various frequency rates (Table 4b). More diversity in Path terms compared to German is probably due in part to the difference in morphological productivity between closed and open grammatical classes, i.e., prepositions and verbs, respectively (Yun & Choi, 2018). As noted, in Korean, many of the Path terms were used for b o t h Paths A and B for a given relation type.…”

Visual perspective-taking and image-like representations: We don't see it

“…A six is not a six unless it is viewed a certain way, ditto left and right. There is a great deal of evidence that we process what we see differently depending on whether stimuli vary categorically or on a continuum, usually with more efficient processing for the former (Gilbert, Regier, Kay, & Ivry, 2006Holmes, Moty, & 29 Regier, 2017;Roberson & Hanley, 2010;Roberson, Pak, & Hanley, 2008;Thierry, Athanasopoulos, Wiggett, Dering, & Kuipers, 2009;Winawer et al, 2007;Yun & Choi, 2018). It might therefore be easier to solve VPT problems about stimuli that vary categorically by perspective because they are compatible with the ways we can process symbolic information more generally, making non-imagistic strategies available.…”