The principle of canonical orientation: a cross-linguistic study

Abstract

This paper presents a cross-linguistic investigation of a constraint on the use on intrinsic frames of reference proposed by Levelt (1984, 1996). This proposed constraint claims that use of intrinsic frames when the ground object is in non-canonical position is blocked due to conflict with gravitational-based reference frames. Regression models of the data from Arabic, K’iche’, Spanish, Yucatec, and Zapotec suggest that this constraint is valid across languages. However, the strength at which the constraint operates is predicted by the frequency of canonical intrinsic frames in the particular language. The ratio of the incidence of intrinsic usage with canonical vs. non-canonical orientation appears to be remarkably uniform across languages, which suggests the possibility of a strong cognitive universal.

Flexible Orientation Tuning of Visual Representations of Human Body Postures: Evidence From Long-Term Priming

“…Evidence mainly comes from studies of object recognition. First, there is ample evidence that some views of threedimensional, familiar objects are rated as more canonical or prototypical than other views and that objects depicted in canonical orientations are identified more easily (e.g., faster) than when shown from less canonical angles (e.g., Palmer et al, 1981;Verfaillie and Boutsen, 1995;Humphreys, 1996, 1998;Boutsen et al, 1998;Blanz et al, 1999;Ghose and Liu, 2013;Alshehri et al, 2018; but see Cutzu andEdelman, 1994, andNiemann et al, 1996, who did not find evidence for universally valid canonical views for novel objects). Stable views (e.g., a 3/4 view) typically are views in which small changes in depth orientation do not lead to prominent changes in the projected image of the object and that are most informative about the identity of an object (e.g., because the most diagnostic object parts are clearly visible; see Verfaillie and Boutsen, 1995, for a more detailed discussion).…”