Learning Simple Spatial Terms: Core and More

How do children learn the meanings of simple spatial prepositions like in and on? In this paper, I argue that children come to spatial term learning with an a priori conceptual distinction between core versus non-core concepts of containment and support, and that they learn how language maps onto this distinction by considering both the simple prepositions and the company they keep-that is, the distributions of their co-occurrences with particular verbs. Core types of containment and support are largely expressed by in/on together with the light verb BE; non-core types are expressed by lexical verbs such as insert, hang, stick, and so on, which represent the specific mechanical means by which containment or support is achieved. These latter types arguably depend on extensive learning about the particular mechanisms of containment and support, many of which are invented by humans, as well as learning the specific lexical verbs that encode these mechanisms. The core versus non-core distinction is reflected in young children's and adults' linguistic descriptions of different spatial configurations, via different distributions of expression types across different configurations. Differences between children and adults are not likely to be rooted in either conceptual or semantic differences, but rather, in the probabilistic nature of available expressions, along with early limits on children's vocabulary of lexical verbs that express complex mechanical relationships between objects.

[1]  S. Levinson,et al.  'Natural Concepts' in the Spatial Topologial Domain--Adpositional Meanings in Crosslinguistic Perspective: An Exercise in Semantic Typology , 2003 .

[2]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

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

[4]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Well-Hidden Regularities: Abstract Uses of in and on Retain an Aspect of Their Spatial Meaning , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  B. Landau Update on "What" and "Where" in Spatial Language: A New Division of Labor for Spatial Terms. , 2017, Cognitive science.

[6]  M. Tarr,et al.  Spatial language and spatial representation , 1995, Cognition.

[7]  Asifa Majid,et al.  Semantic systems in closely related languages , 2015 .

[8]  Audrey K. Kittredge,et al.  Object Individuation and Physical Reasoning in Infancy: An Integrative Account , 2012, Language learning and development : the official journal of the Society for Language Development.

[9]  Stephen C. Levinson,et al.  Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity , 2006 .

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

[11]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Similarity and Variation in the Distribution of Spatial Expressions Across Three Languages , 2015, CogSci.

[12]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Parallels between spatial cognition and spatial language: Evidence from Williams syndrome , 2005 .

[13]  Silvia P. Gennari,et al.  Knowing versus Naming: Similarity and the Linguistic Categorization of Artifacts , 1999 .

[14]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Spatial language and spatial representation: a cross-linguistic comparison , 2001, Cognition.

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

[16]  D. Slobin,et al.  The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian and Turkish , 1977, Journal of Child Language.

[17]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Developmental Decline in the Acquisition of Spatial Language , 2010 .

[18]  Kenny R. Coventry,et al.  The interplay between geometry and function in the comprehension of''over , 2001 .

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

[20]  Barbara Landau,et al.  The importance of lexical verbs in the acquisition of spatial prepositions: The case of in and on , 2016, Cognition.

[21]  Eve V. Clark,et al.  Non-linguistic strategies and the acquisition of word meanings , 1973 .