Containment and Support: Core and Complexity in Spatial Language Learning.

Containment and support have traditionally been assumed to represent universal conceptual foundations for spatial terms. This assumption can be challenged, however: English in and on are applied across a surprisingly broad range of exemplars, and comparable terms in other languages show significant variation in their application. We propose that the broad domains of both containment and support have internal structure that reflects different subtypes, that this structure is reflected in basic spatial term usage across languages, and that it constrains children's spatial term learning. Using a newly developed battery, we asked how adults and 4-year-old children speaking English or Greek distribute basic spatial terms across subtypes of containment and support. We found that containment showed similar distributions of basic terms across subtypes among all groups while support showed such similarity only among adults, with striking differences between children learning English versus Greek. We conclude that the two domains differ considerably in the learning problems they present, and that learning in and on is remarkably complex. Together, our results point to the need for a more nuanced view of spatial term learning.

[1]  E. Rosch Cognitive reference points , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  Marianella Casasola,et al.  The Development of Infants' Spatial Categories , 2008 .

[3]  L. Gleitman,et al.  When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events , 2006, Cognition.

[4]  Claude Vandeloise Force and Function in the Acquisition of the Preposition in , 2005, Functional Features in Language and Space.

[5]  M. Bowerman Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective , 1996 .

[6]  P. Kay,et al.  Color naming reflects optimal partitions of color space , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Annette Herskovits Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English , 2009 .

[8]  M. G. Pittau,et al.  A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models , 2008, 0901.4011.

[9]  M. Casasola,et al.  Six-month-old infants' categorization of containment spatial relations. , 2003, Child development.

[10]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Young infants' reasoning about hidden objects: evidence from violation-of-expectation tasks with test trials only , 2004, Cognition.

[11]  M. Casasola,et al.  Infant categorization of containment, support and tight‐fit spatial relationships , 2002 .

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

[13]  Jarrod Had MCMC Methods for Multi-Response Generalized Linear Mixed Models: The MCMCglmm R Package , 2010 .

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

[15]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Infants' Knowledge About Occlusion and Containment Events: A Surprising Discrepancy , 2001, Psychological science.

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

[17]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  (1) Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms; and , 1987 .

[18]  Claude Vandeloise Genesis of spatial terms , 2017 .

[19]  Jean M. Mandler,et al.  A summary of The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought , 2004 .

[20]  M. Bowerman,et al.  Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns , 1991, Cognition.

[21]  Soonja Choi,et al.  Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition , 2003 .

[22]  Alexander Renkl,et al.  Toward an Instructionally Oriented Theory of Example-Based Learning , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  Sandra R. Waxman,et al.  Tight and loose are not created equal: An asymmetry underlying the representation of fit in English- and Korean-speakers , 2008, Cognition.

[24]  Elisabeth Dévière,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2009 .

[25]  Anna Papafragou,et al.  Shake, rattle, ‘n’ roll: the representation of motion in language and cognition , 2002, Cognition.

[26]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Why some spatial semantic categories are harder to learn than others: The typological prevalence hypothesis , 2009 .

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

[28]  J. Huttenlocher,et al.  Making Space: The Development of Spatial Representation and Reasoning , 2000 .

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

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

[31]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Getting the inside story: Learning to talk about containment in Tzeltal and Hindi , 2009 .

[32]  P. Kay Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution , 1969 .

[33]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Conceptual precursors to language , 2004, Nature.

[34]  David Holton,et al.  Greek: a comprehensive grammar of the modern language: a response , 1997, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies.

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

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

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

[38]  Melissa Bowerman,et al.  Topological relations picture series , 1992 .

[39]  Amy Needham,et al.  Intuitions about support in 4.5-month-old infants , 1993, Cognition.

[40]  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.

[41]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

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

[43]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Modeling spatial language acquisition as a function of lexical verb development , 2013, CogSci.

[44]  Arhonto Terzi Locative Prepositions and Place , 2010 .

[45]  Kenny R. Coventry,et al.  Spatial Prepositions, Object-Specific Function, and Task Requirements , 1994, J. Semant..

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

[47]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Décalage in infants' knowledge about occlusion and containment events: Converging evidence from action tasks , 2006, Cognition.

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

[49]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Reasoning about containment events in very young infants , 2001, Cognition.

[50]  E. Dromi,et al.  More on the acquisition of locative prepositions: an analysis of Hebrew data , 1979, Journal of Child Language.

[51]  M. Leikin Acquisition of Locative Prepositions in Russian , 1998 .

[52]  Megan Johanson,et al.  What Does Children's Spatial Language Reveal About Spatial Concepts? Evidence From the Use of Containment Expressions , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[53]  E. Halpern,et al.  The Development of Three Spatial Concepts: In, on, under , 1981 .