Skip to main content
Log in

Semantic and pragmatic factors in the representation of “near” and “far”

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The processing of two spatial terms which refer to proximity and distance, near and far, was investigated in a word-picture comparison task. Two alternative hypotheses were tested, one based on the notion of linguistic markedness and supporting the positive status of far, and the other based on semantic-pragmatic factors and proposing that near is the positive member of the pair. An analysis of the true-false decision latencies indicated that near was generally verified faster than far in judgments in which the terms were used to describe both ego-to-object and object-to-object distance. A third experiment addressed the question of whether the advantage obtained in the verification of near may be accounted for in terms of the priority of the interpersonal dimension of representation relative to the objective one. The results are discussed with regard to the semantic representation of the two words.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bierwisch, M. Some semantic universals of German adjectivals.Foundations of Language, 1967,3, 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, W. G., & Clark, H. H. Semantics in the perception of verticality.British Journal of Psychology, 1971,62, 311–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. Moore (Ed.),Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. Semantics and comprehension. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.),Current trends in linguistics XII: Linguistics and adjacent arts and sciences. The Hague: Mouton, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. On the meeting of semantics and perception. In W. G. Chase (Ed.),Visual information processing. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, J. S.Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J.Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N.Language and perception. Cambridge University Press, 1976.

  • Osgood, C. E., May, W. H., & Miron, M. S.Cross cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. E., Sucy, G. J., & Tannenbaum, B. H.Measurement of meaning. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, P. H. K. Response latencies in judgments of spatial location.British Journal of Psychology, 1969,60, 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, P. H. K. Semantic equivalence of verbal and pictorial displays. In R. A. Kennedy & A. L. Wilkes (Eds.),Studies in long term memory. London: Wiley, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, P. H. K.Human visual cognition: A study in experimental cognitive psychology. London: Collier Macmillan, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, P. H. K. Perceptual and judgmental bias in classification of word-shape displays.Acta Psychologica, 1971,35, 416–477.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Colombo, L., Seymour, P.H.K. Semantic and pragmatic factors in the representation of “near” and “far”. J Psycholinguist Res 12, 75–92 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067405

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067405

Keywords

Navigation