The space in spatial language

Carlson, Lauri; Deman, Shannon R. Van

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.004

Cited by 24 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These conditions enable us to assess whether the direction parameter can be set independently of the spatial term being processed. For projective spatial terms, Carlson and Van Deman (2004) observed facilitation due to distance being matched across prime and probe trials that did not depend upon the spatial term being matched across prime and probe trials. The conditions in Row 3 allow us to assess whether such independence would also hold for proximal terms.…”

Section: Encoding Direction When Interpreting Proximal Termsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…This interpretation should be made with some caution, however, given that the term mismatched conditions showed the same general pattern (although without significant effects). The idea that the encoding of direction may be restricted to a particular spatial term is interesting, given that Carlson and Van Deman (2004) observed a general distance effect in which encoding a distance with respect to one spatial term (e.g., left on prime) resulted in facilitation when the distance matched but a different spatial term occurred on the subsequent trial (e.g., above on probe). The possible restriction of the encoding of direction with respect to a particular term will be further explored with proximal motion verbs in Experiments 3 and 4.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, Carlson and Van Deman (2004) argued against the assumption that only information specified by the spatial term is encoded during its interpretation. They observed that although a given spatial term may convey only a given type of information, other types of information may nonetheless be available.…”

Section: Encoding Distance When Interpreting Projective Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, she can use such distance information to facilitate her walk to the restaurant, in terms of determining her pace, estimating her time of arrival, and so on. As a test of this idea, Carlson and Van Deman (2004) examined projective prepositions such as left and above, assessing whether not only direction (as conveyed by the term) but also distance (as provided in the display) would be encoded during their interpretation. Participants performed a speeded sentence-picture verification task, in which they assessed whether a sentence of the form 'LETTER is above/below/left/right LETTER') was an accurate description of a display containing two letters.…”

Section: Encoding Distance When Interpreting Projective Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To assess this, we applied the paradigm developed by Carlson and Van Deman (2004) to the class of proximal spatial terms that specify distance but not direction. Given that distance and direction are both valuable dimensions in specifying location (Landau & Jackendoff, 1993;Vorwerg, 2003), similar facilitation should be observed in the interpretation of proximal terms across prime/probe pairs when the direction between the letters is matched versus mismatched.…”

Section: Encoding Direction When Interpreting Proximal Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Encoding direction when interpreting proximal terms

Ashley

Carlson

2007

Language and Cognitive Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Encoding Direction When Interpreting Proximal Termsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Encoding Distance When Interpreting Projective Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Encoding Distance When Interpreting Projective Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Encoding Direction When Interpreting Proximal Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations