Form and function

How can we account for spatial language? Perceptual features, functional features, schemas, context, affordances are among the bases proposed. Here, it is argued that all can be operative. A survey of research from a variety of entity domains, especially natural kinds, artifacts, bodies, scenes, events, abstract categories, and design, and of relational domains, especially spatial relations, shows that perceptual features, especially form or structure, allow inferences to function, forming perceptual-functional units or affordances. Language abets inferences from form to function. These perceptual-functional units account for the coherence of category features and provide the basis for causal reasoning.

[1]  B. Tversky,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : General VOL . 113 , No . 2 JUNE 1984 Objects , Parts , and Categories , 2005 .

[2]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parts of recognition , 1984, Cognition.

[3]  Sheba Heptulla Chatterjee,et al.  Configural processing in the perception of apparent biological motion. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Simon Garrod,et al.  Discourse Models as Interfaces between Language and the Spatial World , 1988, J. Semant..

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

[6]  David E. Irwin,et al.  Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above? , 1993, Cognition.

[7]  M. Farah,et al.  The psychological reality of the body schema: a test with normal participants. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  W. Ahn Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts?: the role of causal status in determining feature centrality , 1998, Cognition.

[9]  Bertram C. Bruce,et al.  Theoretical issues in reading comprehension : perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education , 1980 .

[10]  P. Grobstein Analysis of Visual Behavior, David J. Ingle, Melvyn A. Goodale, Richard J.W. Mansfield (Eds.). MIT press, Cambridge, MA and London (1982), 834 , 1983 .

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

[12]  Kenny R. Coventry Spatial prepositions, functional relations, and lexical specification , 1998 .

[13]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

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

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

[16]  John B. Black,et al.  The representation of scripts in memory , 1985 .

[17]  Laura A. Carlson-Radvansky,et al.  The Influence of Functional Relations on Spatial Term Selection , 1996 .

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

[19]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[20]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Correlated properties in natural categories , 1984 .

[21]  H. Wellman,et al.  Insides and essences: Early understandings of the non-obvious , 1991, Cognition.

[22]  P. Bloom Intention, history, and artifact concepts , 1996, Cognition.

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

[24]  Darren Newtson Attribution and the unit of perception of ongoing behavior. , 1973 .

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

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

[27]  H. Simon,et al.  The mind's eye in chess. , 1973 .

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

[29]  F. Keil Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development , 1989 .

[30]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  THE MIND'S EYE IN CHESS , 1988 .

[31]  Göran Rossholm,et al.  Languages of Art , 1998 .

[32]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[33]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[34]  D. Schoen The Reflective Practitioner , 1983 .

[35]  A. Rifkin,et al.  Evidence for a basic level in event taxonomies , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[36]  B. Tversky,et al.  Internal and external spatial frameworks for representing described scenes , 1992 .

[37]  Terry Regier,et al.  Constraints on the Learning of Spatial Terms: A Computational Investigation , 1997 .

[38]  Masaki Suwa,et al.  What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis , 1997 .

[39]  N. Franklin,et al.  Parsing surrounding space into regions , 1995, Memory & cognition.

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

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

[42]  G. Murphy,et al.  Converging operations on a basic level in event taxonomies , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[43]  John B. Black,et al.  Scripts in memory for text , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[44]  B. Tversky,et al.  Switching points of view in spatial mental models , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[45]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures , 1978 .

[46]  R. Brown How shall a thing be called. , 1958, Psychological review.

[47]  D. E. Irwin,et al.  Reference Frame Activation during Spatial Term Assignment , 1994 .