How Nouns and Prepositions Fit Together: An Exploration of the Semantics of Locative Sentences

Sentences involving a directional preposition and 2 nouns (e.g., "The dog is under the table") were sampled from 1 corpus in Spanish and 1 in German. Several sensory-motor features of the entities denoted by the nouns (animacy, countability, solidity, etc.) were coded. These features were then submitted to analyses using pairs of prepositions as binary dependent variables (e.g., above vs. below). In both languages, nouns naming objects with particular characteristics tended to occur with particular prepositions. For example, nouns such as pedal (inanimate and partitive characteristics) and snow (inanimate and uncountable) were much more likely in sentences such as "The bicycle pedal was above the snow" than "The bicycle pedal was in front of the snow." Furthermore, the sets of nouns associated with prepositions belonging to different spatial dimensions (e.g., front vs. above) differed in more features than the sets of nouns associated with prepositions belonging to the same spatial dimension (e.g., front vs. behind). The results of this corpus analysis were confirmed in a choice task in which participants chose between sentences with the below and behind versions of the "pedal and snow" sentence.

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

[2]  H. Zimmer,et al.  POINTING AND LABELING DIRECTIONS IN EGOCENTRIC FRAMEWORKS , 1996 .

[3]  R. Langacker Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[4]  Elizabeth S. Spelke,et al.  Sources of Flexibility in Human Cognition: Dual-Task Studies of Space and Language , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Objects and places: Geometric and syntactic representations in early lexical learning , 1990 .

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

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

[8]  N. Nagelkerke,et al.  A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination , 1991 .

[9]  Terry Regier,et al.  The Human Semantic Potential: Spatial Language and Constrained Connectionism , 1996 .

[10]  Annette Herskovits,et al.  Semantics and Pragmatics of Locative Expressions , 1985, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Is the Top Object Adequately Supported by the Bottom Object? Young Infants' Understanding of Support Relations , 1990 .

[12]  R. Jackendoff The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface , 1996 .

[13]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[14]  M. de Vega,et al.  Updating spatial layouts mediated by pointing and labelling under physical and imaginary rotation , 2001 .

[15]  B. Landau,et al.  “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition , 1993 .

[16]  T. Givon Functionalism and Grammar , 1995 .

[17]  Leslie B. Cohen,et al.  The Role of Object Parts in Infants' Attention to Form-Function Correlations. , 1995 .

[18]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations , 1996 .

[19]  A. Goldberg Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure , 1995 .

[20]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  The relation of grammar to cognition , 1986 .

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

[22]  Leslie G. Ungerleider Two cortical visual systems , 1982 .

[23]  F. Cuetos,et al.  Diccionario de frecuencias de las unidades lingüísticas del castellano , 1995 .

[24]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Symbol Grounding and Meaning: A Comparison of High-Dimensional and Embodied Theories of Meaning , 2000 .

[25]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Parts, Partonomies, and Taxonomies. , 1989 .

[26]  J. Mandler How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. , 1992, Psychological review.

[27]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Constructing Meaning: The Role of Affordances and Grammatical Constructions in Sentence Comprehension , 2000 .

[28]  Lila R. Gleitman,et al.  Similar, and similar concepts , 1996, Cognition.

[29]  E. Spelke,et al.  Origins of knowledge. , 1992, Psychological review.

[30]  K. Bock,et al.  From conceptual roles to structural relations: bridging the syntactic cleft. , 1992, Psychological review.

[31]  Laura A. Carlson-Radvansky,et al.  “What” Effects on “Where”: Functional Influences on Spatial Relations , 1999 .