Spatial Cognition and Computation

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 349–363 | Cite as

A uniform anthropomorphological approach to the human conception of dimensional relations

  • Joachim Grabowski


Within psycholinguistics, the dimensional conception of space is described through a variety of theoretical constructs, e.g., frames of reference, perspectives, strategies, and patterns. The objective of this paper is to introduce a uniform classification of the alternatives of dimensionally conceiving of object relations, derived from the functional and morphological asymmetries of the human body which define an anthropomorphous Origo, and from our ability to mentally project the Origo into positions and orientations other than we actually occupy. Particularly, the conception of dimensional relations on the first horizontal line is explained through the principle of perceptual accessibility of objects; this allows for the uniform treatment of (almost) all conceptual alternatives from basic psychological principles. Finally, some implications of this anthropomorphological view for the human cognition of dimensional relations are discussed and underpinned with empirical results.

anthropomorphology frames of reference mental rotation psycholinguistics spatial relations spatial cognition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abkarian, G.G. (1982). Comprehension of Deictic Locatives: The Object “Behind” It, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11: 229–245.Google Scholar
  2. Ameka, F.K. (1995). The Linguistic Construction of Space in Ewe, Cognitive Linguistics 6: 139–181.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, P. (1994). The INs and ONs of Tzeltal Locative Expressions: The Semantics of Static Descriptions of Location, Linguistics 32: 743–790.Google Scholar
  4. Brugman, C. (1981). The Story of Over. Unpublished thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  5. Bryant, D.J., Tversky, B. and Franklin, N. (1992). Internal and External Spatial Frameworks for Representing Described Scenes, Journal of Memory and Language 31: 74–98.Google Scholar
  6. Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson-Radvansky, L.A. and Irwin, D.E. (1993). Frames of Reference in Vision and Language: Where is Above? Cognition 46: 223–244.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, H.H. (1973). Space, Time, Semantics, and the Child. In T.E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press, pp. 27–63.Google Scholar
  9. Cox, M.V. and Isard, S. (1990). Children's Deictic and Nondeictic Interpretations of the Spatial Locatives ‘in Front of’ and ‘Behind’, Journal of Child Language 17: 481–488.Google Scholar
  10. Ehrich, K. and Koster, C. (1983). Discourse Organization and Sentence Form: The Structure of Room Descriptions in Dutch, Discourse Processes 6: 169–195.Google Scholar
  11. Fillmore, Ch. J. (1971). Toward a Theory of Deixis, Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 219–242.Google Scholar
  12. Franklin, N. and Tversky, B. (1990). Searching Imagined Environments, Journal of Experimental Psychology 119: 63–76.Google Scholar
  13. Grabowski, J. (1999). Raumrelationen. Kognitive Auffassung und sprachlicher Ausdruck. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Grabowski, J. and Miller, G.A. (2000). Factors Affecting the Use of Spatial Prepositions in German and American English: Object Orientation, Social Context, and Prepositional Patterns, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 517–553.Google Scholar
  15. Grabowski, J. and Weiß, P. (1996). The Prepositional Inventory of Languages: A Factor that Affects Comprehension of Spatial Prepositions, Language Sciences 18: 19–35.Google Scholar
  16. Herrmann, Th. (1989). Sprachpsychologische Beiträge zur Partnerbezogenheit des Sprechens. In H. Scherer (Hrsg.), Sprache in Situation. Eine Zwischenbilanz. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag, pp. 179–204.Google Scholar
  17. Herrmann, Th., Bürkle B. and Nirmaier, H. (1987). Zur hörerbezogenen Raumreferenz: Hörerposition und Lokalisationsaufwand, Sprache & Kognition 6: 126–137.Google Scholar
  18. Herrmann, Th. and Grabowski, J. (1994). Sprechen – Psychologie der Sprachproduktion. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Herrmann, Th. and Grabowski, J. (1998). Cross-Linguistic Differences in the Use of Dimen-sional Prepositionss. In D. Hillert (Hrsg.), Sentence Processing: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective (Syntax and Semantics, vol. 31). San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 265–291.Google Scholar
  20. Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hill, C.A. (1982). Up/Down, Front/Back, Left/Right. A Contrastive Study of Hausa and English. In J. Weissenborn and W. Klein (eds.), Here and There. Cross-Linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 13–42.Google Scholar
  22. Hottenroth, P.-M. (1993). Prepositions and Object Concepts: A Contribution to Cognitive Semantics. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 179–220.Google Scholar
  23. Landau, B. and Jackendoff, R.S. (1993). “What” and “Where” in Spatial Language and Spatial Cognition, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 217–265.Google Scholar
  24. Lang, E. (1993). The Meaning of German Projective Prepositions: A Two-Level Approach. In C. Zelinsky-WibbeltS (ed.), The Semantics of Prepositions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 249–294.Google Scholar
  25. Levelt, W.J.M. (1982). Cognitive Styles in the Use of Spatial Direction Terms. In R.J. Jarvella and W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place and Action. Studies in Deixis and Related Topics. Chichester: Wileys, pp. 251–268.Google Scholar
  26. Levelt, W.J.M. (1984). Some Perceptual Limitations on Talking about Space. In A.J. van Doorn, W.A. van de Grind and J.J. Koenderink (eds.), Limits in Perception. Essays in Honour of Maarten A. Bouman. Utrecht: VNU Science Press, pp. 323–358.Google Scholar
  27. Levelt, W.J.M. (1996). Perspective Taking and Ellipsis in Spatial Descriptions. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. Garretts (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
  28. Levinson, S.C. (1996). Frames of Reference and Molyneux's Question: Crosslinguistic Evidence. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 109–169.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, G.A. and Johnson-Laird, Ph.N. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Retz-Schmidt, G. (1988). Various Views on Spatial Prepositions, AI Magazine 9: 95–105.Google Scholar
  31. Shepard, R.N. and Cooper, L.A. (1982). Mental Images and Their Transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Stern, W. (1936). Raum und Zeit als personale Dimensionen, Acta Psychologica 1: 220–232.Google Scholar
  33. Svorou, S. (1994). The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Talmy, L. (1983). How Language Structures Space. In H.L. Pick and L.P. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial Orientation. Theory, Research, and Application. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 225–282.Google Scholar
  35. Tanz, Ch. (1980). Studies in the Acquisition of Deictic Terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tversky, B. (1996). Spatial Perspective in Descriptions. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel and M. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 463–491.Google Scholar
  37. Tversky, B. and Lee, P.U. (1998). How Space Structures Language. In Ch. Freksa, Ch. Habel and K.F. Wender (eds.), Spatial Cognition. Berlin: Springer, pp. 157–175.Google Scholar
  38. Vandeloise, C. (1985). Description of Space in French (Series A, Paper No. 150). University of Duisburg: Linguistic Agency.Google Scholar
  39. Wunderlich, D. (1981). Linguistic Strategies. In F. Coulmas (ed.), A Festschrift for Native Speaker. Den Haag: Mouton, pp. 279–296.Google Scholar
  40. Wunderlich, D. and Herweg, M. (1991). Lokale und Direktionale. In A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 758–785.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim Grabowski
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Education at HeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations