Competing perspectives on frames of reference in language and thought

Li, Peggy; Abarbanell, Linda

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.09.005

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, in a study comparing English‐ and Tzeltal‐speaking children's spatial reasoning, Li and Abarbanell (b; see also Abarbanell & Li, ) sought to revisit children's resistance to adopt language‐incongruent frames of reference reported in Haun et al. ().…”

Section: Spatial Frames Of Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions Between Language and Mental Representations

Ünal

Papafragou

2016

Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has long been recognized that language interacts with visual and spatial processes. However, the nature and extent of these interactions are widely debated. The goal of this article is to review empirical findings across several domains to understand whether language affects the way speakers conceptualize the world even when they are not speaking or understanding speech. A second goal of the present review is to shed light on the mechanisms through which effects of language are transmitted. Across domains, there is growing support for the idea that although language does not lead to long‐lasting changes in mental representations, it exerts powerful influences during momentary mental computations by either modulating attention or augmenting representational power.

show abstract

Section: Spatial Frames Of Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions Between Language and Mental Representations

Ünal

Papafragou

2016

Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present findings suggest that this question may be misguided. Rather than representing spatial relations egocentrically or allocentrically by default, people may use a variety of spatial FoRs flexibly in different contexts (and on different axes) starting early in life (64,(82)(83)(84)(85), according to the affordances of their spatial experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, most studies have relied on comparisons across human groups that differ not only in their spatial language but also in myriad other ways. To avoid the inferential complexities inherent to cross-cultural comparisons, some studies have evaluated within-group effects, comparing people's nonlinguistic FoR use (e.g., in spatial problem solving or co-speech gesture) with their mastery of egocentric spatial language (e.g., their ability to place objects on the "left" or "right"), with mixed results (12,22,23,28,29,(62)(63)(64)(65). However, if the goal is to clarify when and why people use a given FoR in a given context, then we must test not only people's knowledge of egocentric language but also their spontaneous use of it: Even people who can use egocentric spatial terms correctly in labeling tasks could disprefer those terms in everyday speech.…”

Section: Experiments 2: Frames Of Reference In Spatial Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Different reference frames on different axes: Space and language in indigenous Amazonians

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial cognition is central to human behavior, but the way people conceptualize space varies within and across groups for unknown reasons. Here, we found that adults from an indigenous Bolivian group used systematically different spatial reference frames on different axes, according to known differences in their discriminability: In both verbal and nonverbal tests, participants preferred allocentric (i.e., environment-based) space on the left-right axis, where spatial discriminations (like “b” versus “d”) are notoriously difficult, but the same participants preferred egocentric (i.e., body-based) space on the front-back axis, where spatial discrimination is relatively easy. The results (i) establish a relationship between spontaneous spatial language and memory across axes within a single culture, (ii) challenge the claim that each language group has a predominant spatial reference frame at a given scale, and (iii) suggest that spatial thinking and language may both be shaped by spatial discrimination abilities, as they vary across cultures and contexts.

show abstract

“…The present findings suggest that this question may be misguided. Rather than representing spatial relations egocentrically or allocentri-cally by default, people may use different spatial FoRs in different contexts (and on different axes) starting early in life (Acredolo & Evans, 1980;Li & Abarbanell, 2018), according to the perceptual and mnemonic demands of their spatial experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different reference frames on different axes: Space and language in indigenous Amazonians

Pitt¹,

Carstensen²,

Boni³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The physical properties of space may be universal, but the way people conceptualize space is variable. In some groups, people tend to use egocentric space (e.g. left, right) to encode the locations of objects, while in other groups, people encode the same spatial scene using allocentric space (e.g. upriver, downriver). These different spatial frames of reference (FoRs) characterize the way people talk about spatial relations and the way they think about them, even when they are not using language. Although spatial language and spatial reasoning tend to covary, the root causes of this variation are unclear. Here we propose that variation in FoR use partly reflects the discriminability of the relevant spatial continua. In an initial test of this proposal in a group of indigenous Bolivians, we compared FoR use across spatial axes that are known to differ in discriminability. In both verbal and nonverbal tests, participants spontaneously used different FoRs on different spatial axes: On the lateral axis, where egocentric (left-right) discrimination is difficult, their spatial behavior and language was predominantly allocentric; on the sagittal axis, where egocentric (front-back) discrimination is relatively easy, they were predominantly egocentric. These findings challenge the claim that each language group can be characterized by a predominant spatial frame of reference. Rather, both spatial memory and language can differ categorically across axes, even within the same individuals. We suggest that differences in spatial discrimination can explain differences in both spatial memory and language within and across human groups.

show abstract

Competing perspectives on frames of reference in language and thought

Cited by 14 publications

References 39 publications

Interactions Between Language and Mental Representations

Interactions Between Language and Mental Representations

Different reference frames on different axes: Space and language in indigenous Amazonians

Different reference frames on different axes: Space and language in indigenous Amazonians

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About