Before or After: Prepositions in Spatially Constrained Systems

  • Kai-Florian Richter
  • Alexander Klippel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4387)


Cognitive agents use different strategies to identify relevant spatial information in communication. The chosen strategy depends on the agents’ conceptualization of the spatial situation at hand. This situation is determined by structural and functional aspects that are induced by the environment and the actions performed or intended therein. In this paper, we are interested in conceptualizations in the context of route directions. We focus on the meaning of prepositions used to characterize movements (actions) in spatially constrained systems such as street networks. We report on different strategies employed by people to disambiguate turning actions at intersections and demonstrate how these can be reflected in automatically generated route directions, again concentrating on the assignment of prepositions for anchoring movement. Including methods that focus on the most successful strategies people use in computational systems is a prerequisite for route directions that respect for human conceptualizations of spatial situations and that become, thus, cognitively ergonomic route directions.


Street Network Spatial Relation Decision Point Spatial Cognition Route Direction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wahlster, W., Reithinger, N., Blocher, A.: SmartKom: Towards multimodal dialogues with anthropomorphic interface agents. In: Wolf, G., Klein, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Status Conference Human-Computer Interaction, DLR, Berlin, pp. 22–34 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Habel, C.: Representational commitment in maps. In: Duckham, M., Goodchild, M., Worboys, M. (eds.) Foundations of Geographic Information Science, Taylor and Francis, London (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Retz-Schmidt, G.: Various views on spatial prepositions. AI Magazine 9(2), 95–105 (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Regier, T.: The Human Semantic Potential: Spatial Language and Constrained Connectionism. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coventry, K.R., Garrod, S.C.: Saying, seeing and acting. The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. In: Coventry, K.R., Garrod, S.C. (eds.) Essays in Cognitive Psychology Series, p. 201. Psychology Press, Hove, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schweizer, K., Katz, S., Janzen, G.: Orientierung im Raum - kognitive Grundlagen und sprachliche Realisierung. Tourismus Journal 4(1), 79–104 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tversky, B., Lee, P.U.: How space structures language. In: Freksa, C., Habel, C., Wender, K.F. (eds.) Spatial Cognition. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1404, pp. 157–175. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denis, M.: The description of routes: A cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Cahiers Psychologie Cognitive 16(4), 409–458 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klippel, A., Tappe, H., Habel, C.: Pictorial representations of routes: Chunking route segments during comprehension. In: Freksa, C., Brauer, W., Habel, C., Wender, K.F. (eds.) Spatial Cognition III. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2685, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dale, R., Geldof, S., Prost, J.P.: Using natural language generation in automatic route description. Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology 37(1), 89–105 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lovelace, K.L., Hegarty, M., Montello, D.R.: Elements of good route directions in familiar and unfamiliar environments. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D.M. (eds.) COSIT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1661, pp. 65–82. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Golledge, R.G.: Human wayfinding and cognitive maps. In: Golledge, R.G. (ed.) Wayfinding Behavior — Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes, pp. 5–46. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michon, P.E., Denis, M.: When and why are visual landmarks used in giving directions? In: Montello, D.R. (ed.) COSIT 2001. LNCS, vol. 2205, pp. 400–414. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klippel, A.: Wayfinding Choremes — Conceptualizing Wayfinding and Route Direction Elements. PhD thesis, Universität Bremen (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montello, D.R.: Navigation. In: Shah, P., Miyake, A. (eds.) Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking, pp. 257–294. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klippel, A., Tenbrink, T., Montello, D.R.: The role of structure and function in conceptualization of directions (submitted)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klippel, A., Hansen, S., Davies, J., Winter, S.: A high-level cognitive framework for route directions. In: Proceedings of the SSC 2005 Spatial Intelligence, Innovation and Praxis: The National Bienneal Conference of the Spatial Science Institute (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lakoff, G.: Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(4), 458–508 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vorwerg, C.: Raumrelationen in Wahrnehmung und Sprache. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richter, K.F., Klippel, A.: A model for context-specific route directions. In: Freksa, C., Knauff, M., Krieg-Brückner, B., Nebel, B., Barkowsky, T. (eds.) Spatial Cognition IV. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3343, pp. 58–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hansen, S., Richter, K.F., Klippel, A.: Landmarks in OpenLS - a data structure for cognitive ergonomic route directions. In: Raubal, M., Miller, H.J., Frank, A.U., Goodchild, M.F. (eds.) GIScience 2006. LNCS, vol. 4197, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Klippel, A., Winter, S.: Structural salience of landmarks for route directions. In: Cohn, A.G., Mark, D.M. (eds.) COSIT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3693, pp. 347–362. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zwaan, R.A., Radvansky, G.A.: Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123(2), 162–185 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Speech Acts. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, pp. 41–58. Academic Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Daniel, M.P., Denis, M.: Spatial descriptions as navigational aids: A cognitive analysis of route directions. Kognitionswissenschaft 7, 45–52 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tversky, B., Lee, P.U.: Pictorial and verbal tools for conveying routes. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D.M. (eds.) COSIT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1661, pp. 51–64. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richter, K.F., Klippel, A., Freksa, C.: Shortest, fastest, - but what next? A different approach to route directions. In: Raubal, M., Sliwinski, A., Kuhn, W. (eds.) Beiträge zu den Münsteraner GI-Tagen 2004, Münster, IfGIprints, pp. 205–217 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schlieder, C.: Reasoning about ordering. In: Kuhn, W., Frank, A.U. (eds.) COSIT 1995. LNCS, vol. 988, Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raubal, M., Winter, S.: Enriching wayfinding instructions with local landmarks. In: Egenhofer, M.J., Mark, D.M. (eds.) GIScience 2002. LNCS, vol. 2478, pp. 243–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Elias, B.: Extracting landmarks with data mining methods. In: Kuhn, W., Worboys, M.F., Timpf, S. (eds.) COSIT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2825, pp. 375–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klippel, A., Richter, K.F., Hansen, S.: Structural salience as a landmark. In: Workshop Mobile Maps 2005, Salzburg, Austria (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai-Florian Richter
    • 1
  • Alexander Klippel
    • 2
  1. 1.Transregional Collaborative Research Center SFB/TR 8 Spatial Cognition, Universität BremenGermany
  2. 2.Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information, Department of Geomatics, The University of MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations