Experimental entailments : The case of spatial prepositions

In this paper we present an experimental study on native speakers’ access to lexical relations among spatial relations. Our main focus is a still poorly understood domain: the lexical relations that hold between (pairs of) directional spatial prepositions ( from , to ) and locative prepositions ( at ). Two broad families of proposals exist in the literature. One family suggests that the members of these two classes of prepositions are connected via the entailment relation. Another family suggests that the overlap relation connects directional and locative prepositions. These two proposals differ with respect to the predictions they make on how speakers can accept and logically connect sentences that include such pairs of prepositions. We offer an experimental study, based on a variant of the Truth-Value Judgment Task, which aims to adjudicate which family of proposals makes the correct predictions. Then, we discuss the theoretical import of the results.

[1]  Vyvyan Evans,et al.  The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning, and Cognition , 2003 .

[2]  Francesco-Alessio Ursini,et al.  The interpretation of Spatial 'At': An Experimental Study , 2013 .

[3]  C. Brisson.  Plurals, All, and the Nonuniformity of Collective Predication , 2003 .

[4]  Guglielmo Cinque,et al.  Mapping spatial PPs , 2010 .

[5]  Marcus Kracht,et al.  On the Semantics of Locatives , 2002 .

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

[7]  G. Chierchia,et al.  Reference to Kinds across Language , 1998 .

[8]  Carlo P. Magno,et al.  Factors Involved in the Use of Language Learning Strategies and Oral Proficiency among Taiwanese Students in Taiwan and in the Philippines , 2011 .

[9]  Michele I. Feist,et al.  An Influence of Spatial Language on Recognition Memory for Spatial Scenes , 2001 .

[10]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  The Embodied Approach to the Polysemy of the Spatial Preposition On , 2001 .

[11]  Kenny R. Coventry,et al.  Spatial Language and Dialogue , 2009, Explorations in language and space.

[12]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  The Event Argument and the Semantics of Verbs , 2002 .

[13]  Berit Gehrke,et al.  Ps in Motion : On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events , 2008 .

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

[15]  Josef van Genabith,et al.  Discourse representation theory , 1988 .

[16]  Anna Asbury,et al.  The Morphosyntax of Case and Adpositions , 2008 .

[17]  H Craig.  Where It's At. , 1996, Science.

[18]  Yoad Winter,et al.  Vector Space Semantics: A Model-Theoretic Analysis of Locative Prepositions , 2000, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[19]  Cinque,et al.  Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 6 , 2010 .

[20]  F. Ursini,et al.  The interpretation of plural definites in discourse: the case of spatial adpositions , 2014 .

[21]  M. Kracht.  The fine structure of spatial expressions , 2008 .

[22]  Fred Landman,et al.  Events And Plurality , 2000 .

[23]  Francesco-Alessio Ursini,et al.  On the syntax and semantics of Spanish spatial prepositions , 2013 .

[24]  Michele I. Feist.  Talking about space: A cross-linguistic perspective , 2004 .

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

[26]  David Stringer,et al.  Spatial Feature Assembly in First and Second Language Acquisition , 2012, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[27]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Multiple influences on the use of english spatial prepositions: The case of "in" and "on" , 2011 .

[28]  Keith Stenning,et al.  Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science , 2008 .

[29]  Jürgen Bohnemeyer,et al.  The macro-event property: The segmentation of causal chains , 2011 .

[30]  Vivienne Fong,et al.  The order of things : what directional locatives denote , 1998 .

[31]  Marcus Kracht.  Against the Feature Bundle Theory of Case , 2003 .

[32]  Didier Maillat.  Directional PPs And Reference Frames In DRT , 2001, ACL 2001.

[33]  Kenny R. Coventry,et al.  Function, geometry and spatial prepositions: Three experiments , 1999, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

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

[35]  Michele I. Feist.  On IN and ON : an investigation into the linguistic encoding of spatial scenes , 2000 .

[36]  B. Landau,et al.  Starting at the end: the importance of goals in spatial language , 2005, Cognition.

[37]  Vyvyan Evans,et al.  A Unified Account of Polysemy within LCCM Theory , 2015 .

[38]  Luna Filipović,et al.  Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity: Stephen C. Levinson, David Wilkins (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 621 pp., ISBN-10 0-521-67178-7 (paperback) , 2008 .

[39]  Jürgen Bohnemeyer,et al.  A Vector Space Semantics for Reference Frames in Yucatec , 2012 .

[40]  Joost Zwarts,et al.  An algebra of conceptual structure; An investigation into Jackendoff's conceptual semantics , 1994 .

[41]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  Situations in Natural Language Semantics , 2007 .

[42]  H. Verkuyl,et al.  Time and space in conceptual and logical semantics: the notion of Path , 1992 .

[43]  Jürgen Bohnemeyer,et al.  The unique vector constraint: The impact of direction changes on the linguistic segmentation of motion events. , 2003 .

[44]  Gillian Ramchand,et al.  Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax , 2008 .

[45]  L. M. Faltz,et al.  Boolean semantics for natural language , 1984 .

[46]  K. Coventry,et al.  Object-specific function, geometry, and the comprehension of in and on , 2001 .

[47]  F. Landman.  Structures for semantics , 1991 .

[48]  Andrea Tyler,et al.  Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over , 2001 .

[49]  Max J. Cresswell.  Prepositions and points of view , 1978 .

[50]  Joost Zwarts,et al.  Vectors as Relative Positions: A Compositional Semantics of Modified PPs1 , 1997, J. Semant..

[51]  Godehard Link.  Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy , 1997 .

[52]  C. Vandeloise.  Methodology and analyses of the preposition in , 1994 .

[53]  Joost Zwarts,et al.  Aspects of a Typology of Direction , 2006 .

[54]  Lance J. Rips.  The psychology of proof: Deduction in human thinking , 1994 .

[55]  Barbara Landau,et al.  Language and Memory for Motion Events: Origins of the Asymmetry Between Source and Goal Paths , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[56]  Joost Zwarts,et al.  Prepositional Aspect and the Algebra of Paths , 2005 .

[57]  Michele I. Feist.  Spatial cognition through the lens of spatial language , 2009, Cognitive Processing.

[58]  Anna Papafragou,et al.  Source-Goal Asymmetries in Motion Representation: Implications for Language Production and Comprehension , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[59]  Mercè Prat-Sala,et al.  Geometry, function and the comprehension of over, under, above and below , 1998 .

[60]  David Stringer,et al.  Paths in first language acquisition : motion through space in English, French and Japanese , 2005 .

[61]  Rosalind Thornton,et al.  Investigations in universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics , 1998 .

[62]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences , 1975 .

[63]  Vyvyan Evans,et al.  Rethinking English 'prepositions of movement' : The case of 'to' and 'through' , 2004 .

[64]  Terence Parsons,et al.  Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics , 1990 .

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

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

[67]  Didier Maillat.  Towards a Universal DRT Model for the interpretation of Directional PPs within a Reference Frame. , 2003 .

[68]  Michele I. Feist.  Space Between Languages , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[69]  Lars Kulik,et al.  Lexical Specifications of Paths , 2000, Spatial Cognition.

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

[71]  A. Wierzbicka,et al.  Semantics and cognition. , 2006, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

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

[73]  Dan I. Slobin,et al.  The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events , 2004 .

[74]  Francesco-Alessio Ursini.  Another look at spatial prepositions and the modification problem , 2013 .

[75]  Kenny R. Coventry.  Spatial prepositions, spatial templates and "semantic" versus "pragmatic" visual representations , 2003 .

[76]  Fuminori Matsubara.  Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 6 :Ed. by Guglielmo Cinque and Luigi Rizzi, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, viii+ 304pp. , 2012 .

[77]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Factors Involved in the Use of In and On , 2003 .