Advertisement

The Influence of Animacy and Spatial Relation Complexity on the Choice of Frame of Reference in German

  • Katarzyna Stoltmann
  • Susanne Fuchs
  • Manfred Krifka
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11034)

Abstract

Robotics and automatization have become a part of our everyday life. This often involves locating and moving objects in space, hence spatial expressions are of great importance for any human-machine interface. Improper interpretation of spatial terms, for instance in medicine, can have enormous consequences. Thus, it is important to understand how humans perceive and describe spatial relations. This article discusses the impact of animacy of reference objects. We test whether animacy of the reference object itself, or in the presence of an animate agent, influences the way participants interpret spatial relations. Our experimental results (mouse tracking, 46 German speakers) show that participants interpret spatial relations with a localized object in front of or behind an animate reference object more frequently with respect to the intrinsic frame of reference than with an inanimate reference object. In contrast, in spatial relations of the second horizontal axis (left versus right), participants interpreted the situations more frequently using the intrinsic frame of reference with an inanimate reference object. When another agent is present, we observe a perspective shift from intrinsic to relative. We conclude that the animacy of an intrinsic reference object as well as the introduction of an agent lead to perspective changes.

Keywords

Spatial cognition Frames of reference Mouse tracking 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by a grant from the BMBF (Ministry of Education and Research, 01UG1411) as well as Leibniz Association to all authors. We would like to thank Olivia Maky for proof reading and Luke Tudge for statistical advice and our participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Levinson, S.C.: Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tenbrink, T.: Reference frames of space and time in language. J. Pragmat. 43(3), 704–722 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tenbrink, T., Dylla, F.: Sailing: cognition, action, communication. J. Spat. Inf. Sci. 15, 3–33 (2017). http://www.josis.org/index.php/josis/article/viewFile/350/189Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stoltmann, K.: Stelle die Flasche vor den Tisch! Interpretation von dimensionalen Lokalisationsausdrücken im DE, EN, IT und PL. In: Raumlinguistik und Sprachkontrast. Neue Beiträge zu spatialen Relationen im Deutschen, Englischen und Spanischen, pp. 251–267 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hill, C.: Up/down, front/back, left/right. A contrastive study of Hausa and English. In: Here and There. Cross-linguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration, pp. 13–42, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Benjamins (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levinson, S.C.: Grammars of Space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wunderlich, D.: Raum und die Strunktur des Lexikons. In: Perspektiven auf Sprache, pp. 212–231. De Gruyter, Berlin (1986)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herrmann, T., Miller, G.A.: Vor, hinter, rechts und links: das 6H-Modell. Psychologische Studien zum sprachlichen Lokalisieren/In front of, behind, left and right: the 6H-model. Psychological studies in verbal localisation. LiLi.Zeitschrift fürr Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 78(20), 117–140 (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levelt, W.: Zur sprachlichen Abbildung des Raumes: Deiktische und intrinsische Perspektive. In: Perspektiven auf Sprache. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zum Gedenken an Hans Hörmann, pp. 187–211. De Gruyter, Berlin (1986)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grabowski, J.: Raumrelationen: Kognitive Auffassung und Sprachlicher Ausduck. Westdeutscher Velag, Opladen (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grabowski, J., Miller, G.A.: Factors affecting the use of dimensional prepositions in German and American english: object orientation, social context, and prepositional pattern. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 29, 517–553 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grabowski, J., Weiß, P.: Das Präpositioneninventar als Determinante des Verstehens von Raumpräpositionen: vor und hinter in fünf Sprachen. In: Deutsch-Typologisch, pp. 289–311 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perner, J.: Theory of mind. In: Developmental Psychology: Achievements and Prospects, pp. 205–230 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feist, M.: On in and on: an investigation into the linguistic encoding of spatial scenes (Doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feist, M., Gentner, D.: Animacy, control, and the IN/ON distinction. In: Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Workshop on Language and Space, Providence, RI (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feist, M., Gentner, D.: On plates, bowls, and dishes: factors in the use of English IN and ON. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bowerman, M.: The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In: Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, pp. 145–176 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baltaretu, A., Krahmer, E.J., van Wijk, C., Maes, A.: Talking about relations: factors influencing the production of relational descriptions. Front. Psychol. 7, 103 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hüther, L., Müller, T., Spada, H.: Professional experience and referencing context explain variance in use of spatial frames of reference. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 30, 580–590 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boroditsky, L.: Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cogn. Psychol. 43(1), 1–22 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klippel, A., Wallgrün, J.O., Yang, J., Mason, Jennifer S., Kim, E.-K., Mark, David M.: Fundamental cognitive concepts of space (and time): using cross-linguistic, crowdsourced data to cognitively calibrate modes of overlap. In: Tenbrink, T., Stell, J., Galton, A., Wood, Z. (eds.) COSIT 2013. LNCS, vol. 8116, pp. 377–396. Springer, Cham (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01790-7_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herrmann, T., Grabowski, J.: The dimensional conception of space and the use of dimensional prepositions in different languages. In: Syntax and Semantics, pp. 265–292 (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shepard, R., Metzler, J.: Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171(3972), 701–703 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Freeman, J.B., Ambady, N.: Mousetracker: software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behav. Res. Methods 42(1), 226–241 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spivey, M.J., Grosjean, M., Knoblich, G.: Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 102, no. 29, pp. 10393–10398 (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tomlinson, J.J.M., Gotzner, N., Bott, L.: Intonation and pragmatic enrichment: how intonation constrains Ad Hoc scalar inferences. Lang. Speech 60(2), 200–223 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stanfield, R.A., Zwaan, R.A.: The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychol. Sci. 12(2), 153–156 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kieslich, P., Wulff, D., Henninger, F., Brockhaus, S.: Mousetrap: an R package for processing and analyzing mouse-tracking data (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Team, R.C.: R: a language and environment for statistical computing (computer program). Version 3.4.2. Citeseer 2017. Accessed Oct 2017Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R., Singmann, H., Dai, B., Grothendieck, G., Green, P.: Package ‘lme4’. R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wickham, H., Chang, W., Wickham, M.H.: Package ‘ggplot2’ (2016)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wunderlich, D.: Linguistic strategies. In: Festschrift for Native Speaker, pp. 279–296, Paris, Mouton (1981)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katarzyna Stoltmann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Susanne Fuchs
    • 2
  • Manfred Krifka
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Humboldt-UniversityBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz-Center General Linguistics (ZAS)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations