Abstract
Although the representations underlying spatial language are often assumed to be schematic in nature, empirical evidence for a schematic format of representation is lacking. In this research, we investigate the psychological reality of such a format, using simulated motion during scene processing—previously linked to schematization—as a diagnostic. One group of participants wrote a verbal description of a scene and then completed a change detection task assessing simulated motion, while another group completed only the latter task. We expected that effects of simulated motion would be stronger following language use than not, and specifically following the use of spatial, relative to non-spatial, language. Both predictions were supported. Further, the effect of language was scene independent, suggesting that language may encourage a general mode of schematic construal. The study and its findings illustrate a novel approach to examining the perceptual properties of mental representations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
All participants were Emory University students. Eight additional participants were excluded for making one kind of response (either same or different) on more than 75 % of trials.
An analogous ANOVA on correct reaction times (RTs) yielded main effects of condition, F(1,61) = 5.08, p = .03, and position, F(1,61) = 15.40, p < .001, but no interaction, p > .3. Slower responses occurred in the language condition (M = 1161 ms, SD = 282) compared to the no-language condition (M = 1002 ms, SD = 295), and when the target object was shifted down (M = 1160 ms, SD = 377) versus up (M = 1003 ms, SD = 260), suggesting that there was no speed-accuracy trade-off. Although the interaction did not reach significance, the asymmetry in sensitivity to downward versus upward changes was descriptively larger in the language condition (M = 202 ms; d = .68) compared to the no-language condition (M = 118 ms; d = .46).
The correlation was also positive, though not significantly so, r(34) = .16, p = .35, when the degree of simulated motion was defined in terms of accuracy (i.e., accuracy on up trials minus accuracy on down trials).
References
Freyd JJ, Pantzer TM, Cheng JL (1988) Representing statics as forces in equilibrium. J Exp Psychol Gen 117:395–407
Gentner D, Rattermann MJ (1991) Language and the career of similarity. In: Gelman SA, Byrnes JP (eds) Perspectives on thought and language: interrelations in development. Cambridge University Press, London, pp 225–277
Gleitman L, Papafragou A (2005) Language and thought. In: Holyoak K, Morrison B (eds) Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 633–661
Holmes KJ, Wolff P (2010) Simulation from schematics: dorsal stream processing and the perception of implied motion. In: Catrambone R, Ohlsson S (eds) Proceedings of the 32nd annual conference of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, pp 2704–2709
Holmes KJ, Wolff P (2013) Schematic is dynamic: realism, construal, and simulated motion (in preparation)
Landau B, Jackendoff R (1993) “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behav Brain Sci 16:217–265
Loewenstein J, Gentner D (2005) Relational language and the development of relational mapping. Cogn Psychol 50:315–353
Pinker S (2007) The stuff of thought: language as a window into human nature. Penguin Books, New York
Slobin DI (1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In: Gumperz J, Levinson SC (eds) Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 70–96
Talmy L (1983) How language structures space. In: Pick H, Acredolo L (eds) Spatial orientation: theory, research, and, application. Plenum Press, New York, pp 225–282
Wolff P, Holmes KJ (2011) Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2:253–265
Wolff P, Malt BC (2010) The language–thought interface: an introduction. In: Malt BC, Wolff P (eds) Words and the mind: how words capture human experience. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–15
Zwaan RA, Madden CJ (2005) Embodied sentence comprehension. In: Pecher D, Zwaan R (eds) Grounding cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language, and thought. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 224–245
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is part of the special issue on “Spatial Learning and Reasoning Processes”, guest-edited by Thomas F. Shipley, Dedre Gentner and Nora S. Newcombe. Handling editor of this manuscript: Thomas F. Shipley.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holmes, K.J., Wolff, P. Spatial language and the psychological reality of schematization. Cogn Process 14, 205–208 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0545-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0545-5