Identifying Objects in English and German: a Contrastive Linguistic Analysis of Spatial Reference 1

In Tenbrink (2005a), I presented the results of a web study addressing English native speakers' strategies in a scenario that enhances reference via spatial contrast. The present study compares the results for English with those obtained for German, focusing on speakers' linguistic preferences concerning syntactic forms and modifications. Results confirm previously identified communicative principles underlying speakers' choices, and additionally point to a number of systematic differences in speakers' choices, which can in part be explained by differences in language structure.

[1]  Thora Tenbrink,et al.  Identifying Objects on the Basis of Spatial Contrast: An Empirical Study , 2004, Spatial Cognition.

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

[3]  Eric Pederson,et al.  Language and Conceptualization , 2000 .

[4]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Descriptions of Simple Spatial Scenes in English and Japanese , 2003, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[5]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  Semantik: Ein Internationales Handbuch Der Zeitgenössischen Forschung , 1991 .

[6]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Functional Features in Language and Space - Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development , 2005, Functional Features in Language and Space.

[7]  Werner Deutsch,et al.  Psychologie der Objektbenennung , 1976 .

[8]  T. Tenbrink,et al.  Semantics and Application of Spatial Dimensional Terms in English and German , 2005 .

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

[10]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Referring as a collaborative process , 1986, Cognition.

[11]  Ulf-Dietrich Reips,et al.  Theory and Techniques of Conducting Web Experiments , 2002 .

[12]  S. Levinson.  Space in language and cognition , 2003 .

[13]  Deb Roy,et al.  Grounded Semantic Composition for Visual Scenes , 2011, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[14]  M. Carroll,.  Language and conceptualization: Changing place in English and German: language-specific preferences in the conceptualization of spatial relations , 1997 .

[15]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  Annette Herskovits,et al.  Language and spatial cognition , 1986 .

[17]  S. Brennan,et al.  Processes of Interactive Spoken Discourse: The Role of the Partner , 2003 .

[18]  A. Graesser,et al.  Handbook of discourse processes , 2003 .

[19]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  Spatial Cognition IV, Reasoning, Action, Interaction , 2008 .

[20]  Kenny R. Coventry,et al.  Seeing, saying and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions , 2004 .

[21]  Joachim Grabowski,et al.  Factors Affecting Spatial Deictic Communication: A Comparison of German and American English , 2007 .

[22]  Ulf-Dietrich Reips,et al.  Online Social Sciences , 2002 .

[23]  Carola Eschenbach.  Contextual, Functional, and Geometric Components in the Semantics of Projective Terms , 2005, Functional Features in Language and Space.

[24]  S. Levinson,et al.  LANGUAGE AND SPACE , 1996 .

[25]  Constanze Vorwerg.  Raumrelationen in Wahrnehmung und Sprache. Kategorisierungsprozesse bei der Benennung visueller Richtungsrelationen , 2001 .

[26]  Reinhard Moratz,et al.  Spatial Reference in Linguistic Human-Robot Interaction: Iterative, Empirically Supported Development of a Model of Projective Relations , 2006, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[27]  Laura A. Carlson-Radvansky,et al.  The Influence of Reference Frame Selection on Spatial Template Construction , 1997 .

[28]  Theo Herrmann,et al.  Sprechen : Psychologie der Sprachproduktion , 1994 .