Automatic Classification of Containment and Support Spatial Relations in English and Dutch

  • Kate Lockwood
  • Andrew Lovett
  • Ken Forbus
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5248)

Abstract

The need to communicate and reason about space is pervasive in human cognition. Consequently, most languages develop specialized terms for describing relationships between objects in space – spatial prepositions. However, the specific set of prepositions and the delineations between them vary widely. For example, in English containment relationships are categorized as in and support relationships are classified as on. In Dutch, on the other hand, three different prepositions are used to distinguish between different types of support relations: op, aan, and om. In this paper we show how progressive alignment can be used to model the formation of spatial language categories along the containment-support continuum in both English and Dutch.

Keywords

Cognitive modeling spatial prepositions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bowerman, M., Pederson, E.: Crosslinguistic perspectives on topological spatial relationships. In: The 87th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco, CA (paper presented, 1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bowerman, M.: Learning How to Structure Space for Language: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. In: Bloom, P., Peterson, M.A., Nadel, L., Garrett, M.F. (eds.) Language and Space, pp. 493–530. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohn, A.: Calculi for Qualitative Spatial Reasoning. In: Pfalzgraf, J., Calmet, J., Campbell, J.A. (eds.) AISMC 1996. LNCS, vol. 1138, pp. 124–143. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coventry, K.R., Prat-Sala, M., Richards, L.V.: The Interplay Between Geometry and Function in the Comprehension of ‘over’, ‘under’, ‘above’, and ‘below’. Journal of Memory and Language 44, 376–398 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coventry, K.R., Mather, G.: The real story of ‘over’? In: Coventry, K.R., Oliver, P. (eds.) Spatial Language: Cognitive and Computational Aspects, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coventry, K.R., Garrod, S.C.: Saying, Seeing and Acting: The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Essays in Cognitive Science Series. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coventry, K.R., Cangelosi, A., Rajapakse, R., Bacon, A., Newstead, S., Joyce, D., Richards, L.V.: Spatial prepositions and vague quantifiers: Implementing the functional geometric framework. In: Proceedings of Spatial Cognition Conference. Springer, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K., Gentner, D.: The Structure-Mapping Engine. In: Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 272–277. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feist, M.I., Gentner, D.: On Plates, Bowls, and Dishes: Factors in the Use of English ‘in’ and ‘on’. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gapp, K.P.: Angle, distance, shape and their relationship to project relations. In: Moore, J.D., Lehman, J.F. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 112–117. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gentner, D., Bowerman, M.: Why Some Spatial Semantic Categories are Harder to Learn than Others: The Typological Prevalence Hypothesis (in press)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gentner, D.: Structure-Mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7, 155–170 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gentner, D., Markman, A.B.: Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52, 42–56 (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halstead, D., Forbus, K.: Transforming between Propositions and Features: Bridging the Gap. In: Proceedings of AAAI, Pittsburgh, PA (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuehne, S., Forbus, K., Gentner, D., Quinn, B.: SEQL: Category learning as progressive abstraction using structure mapping. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lockwood, K., Forbus, K., Halstead, D., User, J.: Automatic Categorization of Spatial Prepositions. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Markman, A.B., Gentner, D.: Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons. Memory & Cognition 24(2), 235–249 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Regier, T.: The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Regier, T., Carlson, L.A.: Grounding spatial language in perception: An empirical and computational investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130(2), 273–298 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skorstad, J., Gentner, D., Medin, D.: Abstraction Process During Concept Learning: A Structural View. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (1988)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate Lockwood
    • 1
  • Andrew Lovett
    • 1
  • Ken Forbus
    • 1
  1. 1.Qualitative Reasoning GroupNorthwestern UniversityEvanston 

Personalised recommendations