Abstract
People are quite successful at finding their way around in the world by following another person’s verbal directions. This is somewhat surprising given that a verbal description of a space is limited in the information it provides compared to the information provided by the direct perceptual experience of moving around in an environment. An important linguistic element by which we talk about spatial location in the English language is the closed-class set of terms called prepositions. There has been little experimental work on large numbers of spatial terms such as prepositions. In the present study the meaning of 25 English spatial prepositions was examined using multi-dimensional scaling techniques. The goal was to determine the most salient dimensions of spatial meaning, and where the most common English prepositions fall along these dimensions. English-speaking adults rated the similarity in meaning of pairs of prepositions across different contexts. One was a neutral (or no context) condition. Additionally, several contexts were generated by embedding the prepositions in carrier sentences containing different figure objects, ground objects and verbs. Four spatial dimensions emerged: verticality, containment, distance and one less easily interpreted dimension. The dimension of verticality was strongly evident in all contexts, and not much influenced by differences in context. The dimensions of containment and distance also emerged consistently across different sentence contexts, but order of individual words within these dimensions changed across different contexts. The results indicate that the most important dimensions that provide a framework for organising the meaning of English spatial prepositions are: verticality and containment. A dimension of distance also plays an important role. Context sometimes modifies the spatial meaning of certain prepositions. For example, the meaning of the word “through” implies containment in “The bird flies through the trees,” but not in “The bird is through the trees.” These results also demonstrate how multidimensional scales (MDS) can be used to study the meanings of a set of terms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1996). The influence of functional relations on spatial term selection. Psychological Science, 7(1), 56–60.
Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11, 289–309.
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. In Studies in natural language processing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R., & Landau, B. (1991). Spatial language and spatial cognition. In D.J. Napoli & J.A. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between psychology and linguistics: A Swarthmore festschrift for Lila Gleitman (p. 145–169).
Jones, L. V., & Wepman, J. M. (1966). A Spoken Word Count. Chicago: Language Research Associates.
Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Kucera, H., & Francis, W.N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 217–265.
Landau, B., & Stecker, D. (1990). Objects and places: Syntactic and geometric representations of early lexical learning. Cognitive Development, 5, 287–312.
Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D. (1996). A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In: P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. F. Garret (Eds.) Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 494–529.
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Shepard, R. N. (1962). The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. Psychometrika, 27, p. 125–240, 219–246.
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In Pick, H.L. & Acredolo, L.P. (Eds.) Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application. New York: Plenum Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Manning, C., Sera, M.D., Pick, H.L. (2002). Understanding How We Think about Space. In: Coventry, K.R., Olivier, P. (eds) Spatial Language. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9928-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9928-3_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5910-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9928-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive