Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Language and Thought > Space > Flashcards

Space Flashcards

1
Q

what are topological relation?

A

e.g. on vs in, behind, next to
- describes simplest spatial relations
- relationship between figure and ground
- In English, usually the figure is smaller and the ground is larger

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Piaget and Inhelder 1965 - Children’s spatial relations

A
  • explored children’s conception of space
  • suggested children’s spatial cognition emerges non-linguistically as child interacts with environment
  • suggests that infants first acquire spatial concepts non linguistically then learn to map these concepts onto language
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Baillargeon 1998 - Evidence for pre-linguistic spatial categories

A
  • studies babies knowledge of spatial relations
  • compared 3, 4.5-5.5 , 6.5 and 12.5 months old detection of spatial violations > measured surprise indicated by looking time
  • scenes involved relational structures
  • 3 month olds recognised need for contact with object for it to be supported
  • 4.5-5.5 month olds recognised different types of contact
  • 6.5 month olds surprised about object balancing with small amount of contact
    12.5 month olds recognised more complex notions of gravity / force
  • ## showed infants have rich and developing knowledge of spatial relations before they know the specific words to talk about space in their language
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Prelinguistic spatial concepts

A
  • many scholars conclude that infants first acquire their spatial concepts non-linguistically
  • infants then learn words which map onto linguistic concepts
  • assumption that all babies have similar non-linguistic experience and therefore spatial concepts are universal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Are spatial concepts universal? Landau & Jackendoff 1993

A
  • language describing space is limited - hypothesise this is due to there being so few prepositions because the class of spatial relations available to be expressed in language is extremely limited
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Frames of reference (FOR)

A
  • describes coordinate systems used to compute and specify the location of objects with respect to other objects (Majid 2004)
  • three common frames used across languages:
  • relative > relying on an observer/viewpoint
    -intrinsic > where one element of the scene has facets
    -absolute > cardinal directions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Levinson 2003
Frames of reference - cross linguistic data - English v Guugu Yimithirr

A
  • cross linguistic data shows there is variation in when and how often different cultures use different frames of reference
  • ppts asked to describe a simple scene
  • English speakers often use intrinsic or relative frames of reference when describing spatial relationships in a table top space
  • In contrast Guugu Yimithirr speakers use an absolute FoR
  • Guugu Yimithirr > indigenous Australian
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Predicting FoR - Majid et al 2004

A
  • mapped prevalence of different FoR across languages
  • tested whether ecology, dwelling type or subsistence style predicted frames of reference
  • some evidence suggested that languages spoken in urban environments were more likely to have a relative frame of reference
  • did not find evidence that environment or subsistence type predicted frame of reference
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Topographic Correspondence Theory - Palmer 2015

A
  • predicts that salient aspects of the environment determine/influence FoR
  • supported by the fact that people in urban environments are more likely to use a relative FoR, rural environments more likely to use absolute
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Challenges for topographic correspondance thoery

A
  • weak support
  • contradicted by the fact that speakers in both mountainous and non-mountainous regions in Tztetal and Hai//om use absolute frames of reference (despite differences in environmental saliency) Brown 2012
  • Jahai live in mountainous regions but use intrinsic frames of reference
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Relative frame of reference

A

-relies on a viewpoint / observer
- e.g. she is on my right (as opposed to your left)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Levinson 1996 - Frames of reference & Molyneux question

A
  • investigates relationship between spatial language and perception across language/culture
  • different ways languages encode spatial relationships and whether these linguistic differences impact interpretation of spatial info visually
  • examined languages using different FoR > distinguishing between egocentric and allocentric frames
  • ## looked at ppts ability to match visual stimuli with corresponding spatial descriptions and vice vera - investigated speed and accuracy of these cognitive processes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Molyneux’s Question

A
  • asks whether a blind person from birth, upon gaining sight, would be able to immediately recognise and associate visual perception with previously known tactile or spatial concepts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Egocentric FoR

A

An egocentric frame of reference describes spatial relationships in relation to the speaker’s own body. For example, in English, one might say, “The book is to the left of me.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Allocentric FoR

A

In contrast, an allocentric frame of reference describes spatial relationships using external, objective landmarks. For example, in Tzeltal, a Mayan language, one might say, “The book is to the west of the table.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Levinson 1996 - Frames of reference & Molyneux question (FINDINGS)

A
  • findings of the study suggest that there are significant differences in how people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds interpret and remember spatial information
  • Speakers of languages with an egocentric frame of reference tend to rely more on body-based cues and are more accurate in matching visual stimuli with spatial descriptions that align with their frame of reference
  • speakers of languages with an allocentric frame of reference > greater accuracy and speed in matching stimuli with spatial descriptions that are consistent with their external, landmark-based frames
  • Research supports the idea that the way a language encodes spatial relationships can shape how speakers think about and interpret space
17
Q

Levinson 2004 - Piraha, Grammar

A
  • lack of certain grammatical features found in many other languages
  • lacking a consistent system of number words, grammatical categories for tense and clear distinction between nouns and verbs
  • challenges assumptions that these features are universal of necessary for a fully functional language
  • Levinson argues absence of these features can be attributed to cultural and cognitive factors
  • Piraha have strong oral tradition, place high value on direct personal experience and immediate perception > emphasis on the present moment and concrete experiences reflected in language structure
18
Q

Levinson 2004 - Piraha, Grammar (Anlaysis)

A
  • suggests Piraha have a unique cognitive system shaped by their cultural practice and linguistic patterns - lack of complex embedding and recursion > argues this reflects a cognitive preference for processing information in a linear and immediate manner > aligning with cultural emphasis on direct experience and perception
  • challenges notion that all languages share the same underlying structure > emphasises importance of cultural/environmental factors in understanding language diversity
  • ## cultural constraints and specific social practices can shape grammatical structures and cognitive processes of language community
19
Q

Pitt et al 2022 - Indigenous Amazonians (Method)

A
  • looked at indigenous Amazonians conceptualisation of space both within and across language groups
  • adults from Bolivian group used systematically different spatial reference frames on different axis according to known differences in discriminability
  • view space as interconnected and holistic, rather than separate and divided.
  • understanding of space incorporates deep knowledge of the surrounding > varies across groups
20
Q

Pitt et al 2022 - Indigenous Amazonians (Findings)

A
  • for both verbal and non verbal tests, ppts preferred allocentric (environment based) space on left-right axis
  • in contrast, spatial discriminations (body based) on front back axis due to spatial discrimination being relatively easy
  • suggests relationship between spontaneous spatial language and memory does not occur across a single axis within culture
  • challenges claims that each language has predominant spatial reference frame at a given scale
  • rather spatial thinking and language are both shaped by spatial discrimination abilities varying across culture and context
21
Q

Bowerman & Pederson 1992 - Cross linguistic naming study

A
  • conducted large cross linguistic naming study
  • ppts from dozens of unrelated languages asked ‘where is x’
    FOUND
  • substantial variation in meaning of even basic spatial concepts
22
Q

English and Spanish difference in topological relations

A
  • Spanish use ‘en’ to describe ‘in’ ‘at’ and ‘on’
  • e.g. en navidad (at christmas) , en Junio (in June) , en el cielo (on the cieling)
  • languages use different ways of carving up the same space
23
Q

What does developmental evidence looking at infants conceptions of space suggest?

A
  • Piaget and Inhelder 1965
  • Baillargein et al 1998
  • suggests spatial concepts exist before language
  • infants first acquire spatial concepts non-linguistically then learn to map these concepts on to language
24
Q

what methods other thank looking time could be used to investigate children’s concepts of space before language ?

A
  • spatial tasks > asking children to rearrange objects
  • spatial navigation > observing children whilst they navigate spatial environments e.g. maze study > look at navigation strategies / exploration patterns
  • EEG > underlying brain mechanisms
  • looking time may be limited > difficult to interpret , individual differences, task familiarity, attentional biases
25
Q

Intrinsic FoR

A
  • simplest
  • one element of scene has facets
    e.g. she is standing next to the board
26
Q

Absolute FoR

A
  • cardinal direction
  • NESW
27
Q

Levinson 2003 - Tzeltal

A
  • Tzeltal in mexcio
  • live in mountanous region
  • FoR > uphill, downhill, across > used for all spatial descriptions
    e.g. chair is uphill from the whiteboard
  • this FoR used outside of mountain environment
28
Q

Terrill & Burenholt 2008 - Jahai FoR

A
  • Jahai live in mountainous regions and use intrinsic FoR
29
Q

Cultural Practice Hypothesis

A
  • the way people interact with their environment leads to certain FoRs being deployed
30
Q

Shapero 2017 - Quecha Cultural practice affect on FoR

A
  • found higher use of absolute FoR in Quechua speakers who worked as herders
  • demonstrates within culture differences modulated by specific practices
  • observational
31
Q

LeGuen 2011 - Yucatec cultural practice affects FoR

A
  • found that Yucatec men were more likely to use absolute FoR than women due to them working in the fields > reliance on cardinal directions used for planting
  • suggests relationship between specific cultural practices and absolute FoR
  • observational
32
Q

McDonough et al 2003 - Korean V English Topological Relations

A
  • investigated preferential looking with 9,11,14 month old children and adults
  • ppts shown a variety of videos with different objects > either tight fit or loose fit relations
  • two dynamic actions at the same time shown repeatedly > objects change each time so ppts focus on relation rather than object
  • familiarisation trial : show repeated relations of one containment type (e.g. tight )
  • test scene : either congruent or incongruent to familiarisation
  • wanted to see if people are sensitive to relational structures

Language and Thought (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions