Abstract
Spatial demonstratives – terms including this and that – are among the most common words across all languages. Yet, there are considerable differences between languages in how demonstratives carve up space and the object characteristics they can refer to, challenging the idea that the mapping between spatial demonstratives and the vision and action systems is universal. In seven experiments we show direct parallels between spatial demonstrative usage in English and (non-linguistic) memory for object location, indicating close connections between the language of space and non-linguistic spatial representation. Spatial demonstrative choice in English and immediate memory for object location are affected by a range of parameters – distance, ownership, visibility and familiarity – that are lexicalized in the demonstrative systems of some other languages. The results support a common set of constraints on language used to talk about space and on (non-linguistic) spatial representation itself. Differences in demonstrative systems across languages may emerge from basic distinctions in the representation and memory for object location. In turn, these distinctions offer a building block from which non-spatial uses of demonstratives can develop.
Highlights
The mapping between language and space has garnered much interest in the cognitive sciences
There were main effects of distance, F(2, 48) = 30.40, p < .0001, partial g2 = .559, and who placed the object, F(1, 24) = 5.79, p = .02, partial g2 = .194; participants used this most in peripersonal space (M = 63%), less in extrapersonal space (M = 32%), and least in the furthest locations (M = 15%), and this was used more for objects placed by participants (M = 40%) than when the objects were placed by the experimenter (M = 30%)
There was a main effect of distance, F(2, 32) = 22.24, p < .0001, partial g2 = .582, mirroring the effect found in Experiment 1
Summary
The mapping between language and space has garnered much interest in the cognitive sciences. Some languages use cardinal directions to specify relations in table top space (e.g. Tzeltal), while others, English among them, prefer to use the viewpoint of the speaker or the relative positions of objects (Levinson, 2003). These (and other) differences are intriguing, and lead directly to two key questions regarding the mapping between language and space. Do these language differences jeopardize a systematic mapping between language and the vision and action systems across speakers of languages (for different views on this, see for example Crawford, Regier, & Huttenlocher, 2000; Munnich, Landau, & Dosher, 2001)? Second, do speakers of different languages process the spatial world in different ways as a result of the language they speak (see for example Deutscher, 2010; Li, Abarbanell, Gleitman, & Papafragou, 2011)?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
