Descriptions of Simple Spatial Scenes in English and Japanese

How do people describe the location of a target object to another? This task requires a reference object or frame and terms of reference. Traditional linguistic analyses have loosely organized perspectives around people, objects, or environments as reference objects, using reference terms based on a viewpoint or the intrinsic sides of an object, such as left, right, front, and back or based on the environment, such as north, south, east, and west. In actual communication, social, spatial, and cognitive factors may also affect perspective choice. We examine those factors by varying the spatial information (landmarks and cardinal directions), the communication task (relative cognitive burden to speakers and addressees), and the culture of participants (American and Japanese). Speakers used addressees' perspectives more when addressees had the greater cognitive burden. They also used landmarks and cardinal directions when they were available, especially to avoid difficult discriminations like left/right. Some cases appearing to be perspective taking can be interpreted as using a person as a landmark. Finally, terms like near indicating close proximity were preferred to far and to terms requiring projection of directions. Globally, perspective choices of American and Japanese samples were strikingly similar; that is, Japanese did not select addressees' perspectives more than Americans. The traditional linguistic analyses need to be enhanced to account for effects of cognitive, situational, and social factors.

[1]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions , 1996 .

[2]  Mark Steedman Speech, Place, and Action , 1982 .

[3]  Thomas G. Bever The logical and extrinsic sources of modularity. , 1992 .

[4]  M. González Politeness: some universals in language usage , 1995 .

[5]  D. Kimura,et al.  Sex differences in route-learning , 1993 .

[6]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Spatial Perspective in Descriptions , 1996 .

[7]  Holly A. Taylorandbarbaratversky Spatial Mental Models Derived from Survey and Route Descriptions , 1992 .

[8]  C. Fillmore Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis , 1982 .

[9]  J. Fodor Psychology and Language. , 1970 .

[10]  F. Moore Cognitive development and the acquisition of language , 1973 .

[11]  H. Clark,et al.  In cognitive development and the acquisition of language , 1973 .

[12]  Veronika Ehrich,et al.  Discourse organization and sentence form: The structure of room descriptions in Dutch∗ , 1983 .

[13]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  How Language Structures Space , 1983 .

[14]  W. Levelt Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[15]  H. H. Clark SPACE, TIME, SEMANTICS, AND THE CHILD , 1973 .

[16]  Daniel G. Morrow,et al.  Interpreting Words in Spatial Descriptions , 1988 .

[17]  B. Tversky,et al.  Assessing spatial frameworks with object and direction probes , 1992 .

[18]  G. Miller,et al.  Language and Perception , 1976 .

[19]  B. Tversky,et al.  Perspective in Spatial Descriptions , 1996 .

[20]  E. Rolls High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition, Shimon Ullman. MIT Press, Bradford (1996), ISBN 0 262 21013 4 , 1997 .

[21]  Karl Bühler,et al.  II. The Deictic Field of Language and Deictic Words , 2011 .

[22]  S. Levinson Frames of reference and Molyneux's question: Cross-linguistic evidence , 1996 .

[23]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  Some Perceptual Limitations on Talking About Space , 1984 .

[24]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Referring as a Collaborative Process , 2003 .

[25]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[26]  M. F. Schober Spatial perspective-taking in conversation , 1993, Cognition.

[27]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Searching Imagined Environments , 1990 .

[28]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Distortions in cognitive maps , 1992 .

[29]  Michael F. Schober,et al.  Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimized in conversations about locations? , 1995 .

[30]  H. Pick,et al.  Spatial orientation : theory, research, and application , 1984 .

[31]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live by , 1982 .