How far is near ? Inferring distance from spatial descriptions

This article was downloaded by: [Duke University Libraries]On: 11 March 2013, At: 22:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language and Cognitive ProcessesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/plcp20

How far is near? Inferring distance from spatialdescriptionsLaura A. Carlson a & Eric S. Covey aa University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USAVersion of record first published: 06 Mar 2007.

To cite this article: Laura A. Carlson & Eric S. Covey (2005): How far is near? Inferring distance from spatial descriptions,Language and Cognitive Processes, 20:5, 617-631

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960400023501

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/plcp20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690960400023501

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

How far is near? Inferring distance from

spatial descriptions

Laura A. Carlson and Eric S. CoveyUniversity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA

A word may mean different things in different contexts. The current studyexplored the changing denotations of spatial terms, focusing on how thedistance inferred from a spatial description varied as a function of the size ofthe objects being spatially related. We examined both terms that explicitlyconvey distance (i.e., topological terms such as near), and terms nottraditionally associated with distance (i.e., projective terms such as left).The critical finding was that estimates of distance associated with both classesof terms were systematically influenced by the size of the objects, general-ising an effect observed by Morrow and Clark (1988) with approach. Theeffect was replicated using an indirect scaling method, and centre-to-centreand edge-to-edge estimates. The results support the idea that dimensionsrelevant to the processing of spatial terms are not limited to informationexplicitly conveyed by the spatial terms.

There is a well-known distinction between a given word’s conventionalmeaning and its denotations across contexts (Bierwisch, 1981; Lyons, 1977;Wittgenstein, 1963). For example, small in a small child and a smallelephant indicates a diminutive size relative to an assumed contrast set orreference class (i.e., of all children, of all elephants) (Katz, 1964; Miller &Johnson-Laird, 1976); however, the absolute size that is denoted isdifferent (Rips & Turnball, 1980). The same distinction applies to otherdomains, including colour terms (cf. red lipstick and red apple, Halff,Ortony, & Anderson, 1976) and evaluative adjectives (cf. good knife andgood heart, Katz, 1964). One important aspect of such semantic flexibilityis the identification of the dimensions along which the denotations of agiven term may vary. For some concepts, this may be trivial, with the

Correspondence should be addressed to Laura Carlson, 118-D Haggar Hall, Department of

Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA. Email: [email protected]

We thank Shannon van Deman for her many contributions to this project.

�c 2005 Psychology Press Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/01690965.html DOI: 10.1080/01690960400023501

LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES

2005, 20 (5), 617–631

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013

618 CARLSON AND COVEY

dimension corresponding to an underlying common meaning, such as sizefor big. However, for other concepts, there may be multiple dimensionsthat characterise the denotations (Labov, 1973; Lakoff, 1973; Wittgenstein,1963). For example, use of cup to describe an object varies as a function ofthe object’s width, height, contents, substance, and number of handles(Labov, 1973).

The current paper examined the changing denotations of spatialprepositions across contexts, with a focus on the inferred distance betweentwo objects whose spatial relation is being described. We examinetopological terms (such as near) for which distance is an obviousdimension, and projective spatial terms (such as left) for which it isunclear whether distance is a relevant dimension. This is an importantissue, because some theories of spatial language assume that thedimensions that are encoded for a given spatial term are determined onthe basis of information explicitly conveyed by the term. For example,Logan and Sadler (1996) have argued that direction but not distance isrelevant to the processing of projective terms such as left, whereas distancebut not direction is relevant to the processing of topological terms such asnear. As an initial challenge to this idea, Carlson and van Deman (2004)used a response time paradigm to demonstrate that distance is encodedduring the processing of projective spatial terms. The current paper adoptsthe distance estimation paradigm pioneered by Morrow and Clark (1988)to assess whether projective terms show evidence of changing theirmeaning along a distance dimension. This would further support the ideathat distance is relevant to the processing of these spatial terms, and argueagainst the view that a term’s relevant dimensions are based on theinformation explicitly conveyed in its definition.

CHANGING DENOTATION OF SPATIAL TERMS

Morrow and Clark (1988) examined the changing denotation of the spatialverb approach across described scenes in which the size of the objects wasmanipulated. They presented participants with an initial sentence thatdescribed the viewpoint of the observer in the scene, followed by a probesentence that described a target object (henceforth, located object) asapproaching a second object (henceforth, reference object). Participantsestimated the inferred distance in feet between the objects. The criticalfinding was that distance estimates were larger for larger objects. In thecurrent study, we ask whether similar effects of objects size will beobserved on distance estimates associated with topological and projectivespatial terms.

Topological terms typically refer to static relations, with a subset thatspecify distance information, such as near (Coventry & Garrod, 2004).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013

DISTANCE IN SPATIAL DESCRIPTIONS 619

These terms should exhibit systematic effects of object size on distanceestimates, following the pattern of results with approach (Morrow & Clark,1988) a term that also conveys distance. In contrast, projective terms suchas above, front or left spatially relate two objects by specifying directioninformation (Coventry & Garrod, 2004), with denotations varying alongthis dimension. For example, projective terms are defined with respect to areference frame, a set of coordinate axes that map directions onto spacearound the reference object (Garnham, 1989; Levelt, 1984; Levinson, 1996;Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976). Different sources of information can assigndirections to axes, and the denotation of above varies when these sourcesare dissociated from each other (Carlson-Radvansky & Irwin, 1993, 1994).

However, it may be too restrictive to limit the changing denotation ofprojective spatial terms to the dimension of direction, given evidence thatdistance is encoded during the processing of these terms (Carlson and vanDeman, 2004). If distance is a relevant dimension for projective terms,then their denotations should also vary as a function of the size of theobjects, with greater distance inferred between larger objects.

EXPERIMENT 1

Experiment 1 used the methodology from Morrow and Clark (1988) tostudy the changing denotation of topological and projective spatial termswith respect to inferred distance in spatial descriptions. Experiment 1atested beside and next to, terms that convey a close distance that is staticrather than dynamic like approach. Experiment 1b tested near and far,terms that convey a static distance, with near presumably within the regionof interaction and far outside of it. Experiment 1c and 1d tested theprojective terms, front/back and left/right, respectively.

METHOD

Participants

One hundred and ninety-one University of Notre Dame undergraduatesparticipated in exchange for partial course credit; 47 were in Experiment1a and 48 in each of Experiments 1b, 1c, and 1d. Participants gaveinformed consent.

Materials and design

Stimuli were 48 written descriptions (see Appendix), with 30 adapted fromMorrow and Clark (1988), and 18 created. Each description consisted of asetting sentence and a probe sentence. The size of located object (small orlarge), size of reference object (small or large), and spatial term werevaried, yielding 8 versions (e.g., A [squirrel / St. Bernard] is to the [left /

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


right] of one of the [flowers / trees]). Each participant received one versionof each description, with versions counterbalanced across eight stimuluslists; the lists contained 48 descriptions, with 6 descriptions for eachcombination of within-subjects factors. Descriptions were presented in adifferent random order to each participant. To confirm the object sizemanipulations, an independent group of 32 participants estimated theobjects’ sizes, defined as a horizontal cross-section. Estimates for largeobjects were greater than for small objects, for reference objects (Ms ¼75.2 feet and 12.5 feet, respectively), t(47) ¼ 5.7, p 5 .001, and locatedobjects (Ms ¼ 13.7 feet and 3.0 feet, respectively), t(47) ¼ 2.6, p 5 .01.

Procedure

The task was to estimate the most likely distance in feet between theobjects described in the probe sentence. To help them calibrate,participants were told that 3 feet corresponded to a yardstick (an actualyardstick was shown to them), and 300 feet corresponded to a footballfield. Each description was presented individually on a computer monitorfor 30 seconds, and participants wrote or typed their estimates.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Data were log transformed before analysis, because distance estimates arebest described by a power function (Radvansky, Carlson-Radvansky, &Irwin, 1995; Stevens & Galanter, 1957). Mean log estimates and standarderror of the mean are given in Table 1. Within each subexperiment, datawere submitted to a 2 (reference object size) � 2 (located object size) � 2(term: term1 and term2 of a given pair) repeated measures ANOVA, bothwith participants as the random factor (subscripted 1) and items as therandom factor (subscripted 2). To facilitate interpretation and give a senseof the range of estimates, untransformed mean estimates are also providedin the text. The significance level was p 5 .05.

Experiment 1a: Beside vs. next to

Larger objects were associated with greater distance estimates [forreference objects, Ms ¼ 1.08 (19.6 feet) and 0.91 (14.2 feet); for large andsmall objects, respectively; F1(1, 46) ¼ 28.7, MSe ¼ 0.10; F2(1, 47) ¼ 32.5,MSe ¼ 0.10; and for located objects, Ms ¼ 1.06 (17.9 feet) and 0.93 (15.9feet), respectively; F1(1, 46) ¼ 15.0, MSe ¼ 0.09; F2(1, 47) ¼ 14.4, MSe ¼0.09]. There was no difference in estimates for beside versus next to, F1, F2

5 1, consistent with the close static distance that both terms portray, andterm did not interact with located object size or reference object size.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


Experiment 1b: Near vs. far

Larger objects were associated with greater distance estimates [forreference objects, Ms ¼ 1.57 (96.6 feet) and 1.39 (64.6 feet) for largeand small objects, respectively; F1(1, 47) ¼ 33.8, MSe ¼ 0.11; F2(1, 47)¼33.4, MSe ¼ 0.09; and for located objects, Ms ¼ 1.53 (83.1 feet) and 1.43(78.2 feet), respectively; F1(1, 47) ¼ 15.9, MSe ¼ 0.07; F2(1, 47) ¼ 7.8, MSe

¼ 0.12]. Estimates with far [M ¼ 1.82 (132.7 feet)] were larger thanestimates with near [M ¼ 1.13 (28.6 feet)], F1(1, 47) ¼ 147.8, MSe ¼ 0.38;F2(1, 47) ¼ 265.6, MSe ¼ 0.18. Term interacted with reference object sizeby participants, F1(1, 47) ¼ 6.9, MSe ¼ 0.55, but not items, F2(1, 47) ¼ 2.1,p 4 .14; the size of the difference in estimates between reference objectswas larger for near than far.

Experiment 1c: Front vs. back


¼ 0.14]. Estimates with back [M ¼ 1.41 (50.0 feet)] were larger than withfront [M ¼ 1.30 (39.4 feet)], F1(1, 47) ¼ 11.9, MSe ¼ 0.12; F2(1, 47) ¼ 13.1,MSe ¼ 0.12. This is presumably due to the fact that objects typicallyinteract with respect to their front sides (Fillmore, 1971), and that in orderto interact, objects need to be close.

Experiment 1d: Left vs. right


¼ 0.25]. There was no difference in estimates between left and right, F1, F2

5 1.3, and term did not interact with located object size or referenceobject size.

Summary

For all term pairs, distance estimates were influenced by the size of theobjects, both for topological terms that specify distance, and for projectiveterms that are traditionally defined as specifying direction (Coventry &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


Garrod, 2004; Logan & Sadler, 1996). This lends support to the claim thatdistance is a relevant dimension for the processing of these terms (Carlson& van Deman, 2004).

Comparing across terms

We also examined how distance estimates associated with the same set ofobjects varied as a function of the spatial term. With items as the randomvariable and collapsing across the size of the objects, we submitted the logestimates to a repeated measures ANOVA with term (8: next/beside/near/far/front/back/left/right) as the critical factor. The effect of term wassignificant, F2(7, 329) ¼ 102.5, MSe ¼ 0.04, with a critical difference of .08required for significance. The rank order of the estimates is as follows, with¼ indicating no difference between adjacent conditions, and 5 indicating asignificant difference: beside [M ¼ 0.96 (16.0 feet)] ¼ next to [M ¼ 0.99(17.8 feet)] 5 near [M ¼ 1.13 (28.6 feet)] ¼ right [M ¼ 1.17 (31.8 feet)] ¼left [M ¼ 1.18 (29.1 feet)] 5 front [M ¼ 1.29 (39.4 feet)] 5 back [M ¼ 1.41(50.0 feet)] 5 far [M ¼ 1.82 (132.7 feet)].

There are several interesting contrasts. First, next to and beside areassociated with a closer inferred distance than near. Landau and Jackend-off (1993) made a similar distinction among these terms with respect todirection, labelling next to and beside as directional, most likely horizontal

TABLE 1Mean estimates (log transformed) of distance and standard error of the mean as afunction of size of the reference object, size of the located object, and spatial term for

Experiments 1a–1d

Small Located object Large Located object

Term Small Ref. Large Ref. Small Ref. Large Ref.

Experiment 1a

Beside 0.82 (.07) 0.97 (.07) 0.94 (.07) 1.13 (.06)

Next to 0.85 (.08) 1.05 (.06) 0.94 (.06) 1.13 (.06)

Experiment 1b

Near 1.00 (.07) 1.21 (.07) 1.02 (.07) 1.28 (.06)

Far 1.69 (.08) 1.81 (.06) 1.84 (.06) 1.96 (.06)

Experiment 1c

Front 1.14 (.07) 1.27 (.07) 1.29 (.07) 1.44 (.06)

Back 1.24 (.08) 1.45 (.06) 1.39 (.06) 1.57 (.06)

Experiment 1d

Left 1.00 (.07) 1.25 (.07) 1.11 (.07) 1.33 (.06)

Right 1.07 (.08) 1.15 (.06) 1.09 (.06) 1.38 (.06)

Note: Ref. stands for reference object.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


(Logan & Sadler, 1996), and near as proximal, without direction (Logan &Sadler, 1996). Second, the estimates for left and right are larger than next,consistent with Talmy’s (1983) claim that to in to the left of (as used here)indicates that the located object is at a distance from the reference object,not immediately to its side (as with on the left of). Third, estimates for left,right, and near do not differ. Interestingly, Mainwaring, Tversky, Ohgishi,and Schiano (2003) observed that participants preferred near over left andright, presumably because left and right are cognitively difficult, notexplicitly marked in the body or environment (Clark, 1973; Franklin &Tversky, 1990). This could indicate that the set of alternative terms that isconsidered for a given description is restricted by distance. Fourth, a closerdistance was inferred for front than back. This could be because objectsinteract with one another with respect to their front sides (Fillmore, 1971),and that front may thus require the objects to be closer.

Assessing the relative contribution of criticalfactors on distance estimates

Finally, to assess the relative contribution of located object size andreference object size to the distance estimates, a series of hierarchicalregression analyses was performed on the distance estimates for eachspatial term using located object size and reference object size as factors.In addition, a factor representing setting size was included. Setting size isrelated to the observer distance variable examined by Morrow and Clark(1988), who found that the judged distance of the observer did not vary asa function of the size of the reference and located objects. In this analysis,we examined whether the setting size impacts the estimate of the distancebetween the objects, and whether it interacts with the size of the referenceand located objects. Setting size was coded as 0 (24 items) if the settingsentence placed the observer closer to the objects or as 1 if the settingsentence placed the observer farther from the objects (24 items).1

For each spatial term, a regression model containing these three maineffects was tested first, followed by a model containing select two-way

1 The setting sentences were not designed to contain this manipulation. Three

independent raters judged the implied spatial extent of the environment portrayed by the

setting sentences, with the constraint that half of the items be considered small scale and half

be considered large scale. There was uniform agreement on 26 of the 48 items; for the

remainder, the item was given the code provided by 2 of the 3 raters. The following 24 items

(listed and numbered in the appendix) were small-settings (1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

19, 21, 24, 28, 29, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 47, 48); the remainder were large-scale settings. We

thank Larry Barsalou for suggesting that we look at setting size.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


interactions, and then a model containing the three-way interaction; forthese we assessed whether including interaction terms lead to a significantincrease in the R2. Across all terms, the main effect model accounted for asignificant amount of the variance. In addition, for all terms except forfront and left, models including the two-way interactions resulted in asignificant increment in the R2; in contrast, the model including the three-way interaction did not lead to any further increase in the R2 for any term.Table 2 reports significant standardised regression coefficients (all ps 5.05) and R2 for the best fitting models for each spatial term (all Fs 4 12.9,ps 5.0001).

Across all spatial terms, a significant amount of the variance in thedistance estimate was associated with the factors of setting size, locatedobject size, and reference object size, with the size of the located objecthaving the strongest unique influence for all terms except for next to.Moreover, for a number of terms the interaction between the locatedobject size and reference object size accounted for unique variance,indicating that the interaction among the objects (and not just the objectsthemselves) had a significant influence. Finally, note that the setting sizealso had an impact, suggesting that participants adjusted the spatial extentof the interaction depending upon their distance from the scene (Morrow& Clark, 1988). It is interesting that this factor interacted with thereference object size for next to, suggesting an anchoring of the scene onthe reference object for this term.

TABLE 2Significant standardised regression coefficients and R 2s for regression analysesconducted on raw estimates as a function of the size of the located object, size of the

reference object, and setting size for each spatial term

Significant standardised coefficients weights Model parameter

Set Loc Ref SetXRef LocXRef R2

Beside .188 .375 .258 – .557 .463

Next to .259 .189 .248 .257 .248 .256

Near .200 .253 .142 – .634 .362

Far .182 .395 .188 – .170 .294

Front .199 .439 .129 – – .281

Back .155 .447 .261 – .692 .586

Left .106ms .617 .139 – – .439

Right .123ms .285 .233 – .820 .531

Note: Ref. stands for reference object size, loc. stands for located object size, set stands for

setting size. All model Fs 4 12.9; ps 5 .0001. All reported standardised regression coefficients

are significant at p 5 .05 except for those designated with ms, indicating marginal significance,

p 5 .07.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


REPLICATIONS WITH PROJECTIVE TERMS

Experiment 2: Cafeteria tray

In Experiment 1 participants expressed their estimates in feet. This couldbe problematic, in that ‘feet’ as a unit of measure are associated with space,and the examples that were offered (yardstick, football field) could havebeen used to set up small and large space categories, with estimatesinfluenced by category assignment (Stevens & Galanter, 1957). InExperiment 2, participants were asked to think of a cafeteria tray (anobject without previous space associations), and to make their estimates interms of trays. The cafeteria tray served as a modulus, enabling an indirectscaling method. An independent group of 48 participants provideddistance estimates for front/back. Log-transformed distance estimatesand associated standard errors of the mean are shown in Table 3.Estimates were larger for large objects [or reference objects, Ms ¼ 0.93(65.6 trays) and 0.70 (40.1 trays), respectively; F1(1, 47) ¼ 42.7, MSe ¼ 0.12;F2(1, 47) ¼ 12.9, MSe ¼ 0.41; and for located objects, Ms ¼ 0.90 (60.0 trays)and 0.73 (45.7 trays), respectively, F1(1, 47) ¼ 25.8, MSe ¼ 0.11; F2(1, 47) ¼11.4, MSe ¼ 0.25]. In addition, estimates for back, M ¼ 0.88 (56.3 trays)were larger than for front, M ¼ 0.75 (49.4 trays), F1(1, 47) ¼ 15.8, MSe ¼0.11; F2(1, 47) ¼ 12.5, MSe ¼ 0.13.

Experiment 3: Defining distance

In Experiments 1–2 it is unclear whether participants based their estimateson edge-to-edge or centre-to-centre distance. Centre-to-centre estimatesare potentially problematic, because as the objects change size, thedistance between their centres necessarily increases. Thus, a change in theestimate may simply reflect this necessity. However, edge-to-edgeestimates do not have this problem, and any differences can be interpretedas distance effects. An independent group of 32 participants provided twosets of distance estimates for the term pair left/right, with distance defined

TABLE 3Mean estimates (log transformed) of distance and standard error of the mean as afunction of size of the reference object, size of the located object, and spatial term for

Experiment 2



Front 0.53 (.09) 0.77 (.08) 0.77 (.09) 0.91 (.10)

Back 0.65 (.10) 0.95 (.11) 0.83 (.09) 1.08 (.09)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


between the centres of the objects, and between the closest edges of theobjects. Each participant provided estimates in a fixed order, but order wascounterbalanced across participants.

Log-transformed distance estimates and associated standard errors ofthe mean are shown in Table 4. Centre-to-centre estimates were larger forlarger objects [for reference objects, Ms ¼1.63 (66.8 feet) and 0.97 (14.7feet), for large and small objects, respectively; F1(1, 31) ¼ 155.9, MSe ¼0.18; F2(1, 47) ¼ 107.8, MSe ¼ 0.34; and for located objects, Ms ¼1.35 (39.6feet) and 1.25 (41.8 feet), F1(1, 31) ¼ 10.2, MSe ¼ 0.06; F2(1, 47) ¼ 13.2,MSe ¼ 0.10]. There was a significant interaction between located objectsize and reference object size, F1(1, 31) ¼ 4.8, MSe ¼ 0.79; F2(1, 47) ¼ 11.0,MSe ¼ 0.68, with the effect of reference object size larger for small locatedobjects than large located objects. Most importantly, edge-to-edgeestimates were larger for larger objects [for reference objects, Ms ¼ 0.80(11.6 feet) and 0.57 (6.3 feet), respectively, F1(1, 31) ¼ 24.5, MSe ¼ 0.14;F2(1, 47) ¼ 42.2, MSe ¼ 0.14; and for located objects, Ms ¼ 0.76 (9.0 feet)and 0.60 (8.9 feet), respectively, F1(1, 31) ¼ 15.1, MSe ¼ 0.11; F2(1, 47) ¼11.4, MSe ¼ 0.16]. This supports the conclusions from Experiments 1–2 thatthe changes in estimates were due to changes in inferred distance.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Experiments 1–3 found effects on distance estimates of the size of theobjects being spatially related. Morrow and Clark’s (1988) explanation forapproach can be applied to these results. Specifically, Morrow and Clark(1988) conceptualised the representation of the reference object asincluding a region of interaction that encompasses immediately surround-ing space (Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976). They defined approach as

TABLE 4Mean estimates (log transformed) of distance and standard error of the mean as afunction of size of the reference object, size of the located object, spatial term, and type

of estimate for Experiment 3



Centre-to-centre estimates

Left 0.86 (.07) 1.68 (.08) 1.07 (.06) 1.63 (.07)

Right 0.87 (.07) 1.59 (.08) 1.09 (.07) 1.62 (.07)

Edge-to-edge estimates

Left 0.45 (.07) 0.73 (.07) 0.65 (.06) 0.93 (.06)

Right 0.47 (.07) 0.76 (.09) 0.69 (.08) 0.76 (.05)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


movement of one object from the outside to the inside of another object’sregion of interaction, such that it is now in a position to affect, engage, orotherwise interact with it (Langacker, 1987; Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976).As the object becomes larger, the region of interaction becomes larger,rendering the boundary farther from the object; this consequentlyincreases the distance from the reference object at which the boundaryis crossed.

Applying this idea to spatial prepositions may require the additionalassumption that the term further specifies a distance within the region ofinteraction or the degree of overlap between the regions. For example,front may require more overlap than back. Moreover, the overlap maydepend not only on the size of the objects and the spatial term, but also ontheir manner of interacting. Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976) argue thatobjects evoke distance norms that represent typical values associated withtheir interactions with other objects. Thus, comprehension of the spatialdescription would require integrating features of the spatial term (such asdistance) with properties of the objects, including size (Rubinsten &Henik, 2002), distance norms (Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976), and possiblythe setting size within a model of the event being described (Zwaan, 2004;see also DeVega, Rodrigo, Ato, Dehn, & Barquero, 2002; Glenberg &Kaschak, 2002; Barsalou, 1999; Tversky, 1991). This is similar to the ideathat the conventional meaning associated with a term is represented as arange of values along a particular dimension, with the context in which theterm occurs placing a bound on the value (denotation) that is selected(Halff et al, 1976; Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976).

More generally, changing denotations were observed for both topolo-gical terms that explicitly convey distance, and for projective terms forwhich distance has been deemed not relevant (Logan & Sadler, 1996).These findings support the idea that distance is encoded during theprocessing of projective spatial terms (Carlson & van Deman, 2004). Thisresult is important for the argument that the dimensions associated with agiven spatial term should not be limited to the types of information thatthe term explicitly conveys. Thus, values on all dimensions associated witha reference frame (i.e., origin, direction, orientation, distance; Logan &Sadler, 1996) may be set during the processing of spatial terms.

Manuscript received August 2004Revised manuscript received October 2004

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


REFERENCES

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–

660.

Bierwisch, M. (1981). Basic issues in the development of word meaning. In W. Deutsch (Ed.),

The child’s construction of language (pp. 121–148). San Diego: Academic Press.

Carlson, L. A., & van Deman, S. R. (2004). The space in spatial language. Journal of Memory

and Language, 51, 418–436.

Carlson-Radvansky, L., & Irwin, D. E. (1993). Frames of reference in vision and language:

Where is above? Cognition, 46, 223–244.

Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Irwin, D. E. (1994). Reference frame activation during spatial

term assignment. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 646–671.

Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive

development and the acquisition of language (pp. 449–462). San Diego: Academic Press.

Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing and acting: The psychological

semantics of spatial prepositions. New York: Psychology Press.

DeVega, M., Rodrigo, M. J., Ato, M., Dehn, D. M., & Barquero, B. (2002). How nouns and

prepositions fit together: An exploration of the semantics of locative sentences. Discourse

Processes, 34, 117–143.

Fillmore, C. J. (1971). Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Presented at the University of California,

Santa Cruz. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Linguistics Club.

Franklin, N. & Tversky, B. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 119, 63–76.

Garnham, A. (1989). A unified theory of the meaning of some spatial relational terms.

Cognition, 31, 45–60.

Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic

Bulletin and Review, 9, 558–565.

Halff, H. M., Ortony, A., & Anderson, R. C. (1976). A context-sensitive representation of

word meanings. Memory and Cognition, 4, 378–383.

Katz, J. J. (1964). Semantic theory and the meaning of ‘good’. Journal of Philosophy, 61, 739–

766.

Labov (1973). The boundaries of words and their meanings. In C. J. Bailey & R. Shuy (Eds.),

New ways of analyzing variation in English. Washington, DC: Georgetown University

Press.

Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts.

Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22, 458–508.

Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). What and where in spatial language and spatial

cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 217–265.

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University

Press.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1984). Some perceptual limitations on talking about space. In A. J. van

Doorn, W. A. van der Grind, & J. J. Koenderink (Eds.), Limits in perception (pp. 323–

358). Utrecht: VNU Science Press.

Levinson, S. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Cross-linguistic evidence.

In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109–

169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D. (1996). A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial

relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space

(pp. 493–530). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


Mainwaring, S., Tversky, B., Ohgishi, M. & Schiano, D. (2003). Descriptions of simple spatial

scenes in English and Japanese. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 3, 3–42.

Miller, G. A. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA:

Belknap Press.

Morrow, D. G., & Clark, H. H. (1988). Interpreting words in spatial descriptions. Language

and Cognitive Processes, 3, 275–291.

Radvansky, G. A., Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Irwin, D. E. (1995). Uncertainty in estimating

distances from memory. Memory and Cognition, 23, 596–606.

Rips, L. J., & Turnball, W. (1980). How big is big? Relative and absolute properties in

memory. Cognition, 8, 145–174.

Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2002). Is an ant larger than a lion? Acta Psychologica, 111, 141–

154.

Stevens, S. S., & Galanter, E. H. (1957). Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen

perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 377–411.

Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.),

Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Plenum

Press.

Tversky, B. (1991). Spatial mental models. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and

motivation: Advances in research and theory, 27 (pp. 109–145), San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1963). Philosophical investigations (Translated by G. E. Anscombe). Oxford:

Blackwell.

Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language

comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, 43 (pp.

35–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Appendix1. I am standing on the porch of a farm house looking across the yard at a picket fence.

A (mouse/tractor) is (in front of/in back of) (the fence/the house).

2. I am standing at a water hole looking across at the foliage on the other side.

A (chipmunk/moose) is (in front of/in back of) (a small bush/a large oak tree).

3. I am standing near a dock in San Francisco Bay.

A (small sailboat/luxury liner) is (in front of/in back of) (a marking buoy/the end of the

dock).

4. I am crouching behind a bush looking across a clearing at the top branches of a small

maple tree.

A (hummingbird/hawk) is (in front of/in back of) (a branch of the tree/the tree).

5. I am standing across the street from a post office with a mailbox in front of it.

A (small dog/man) is (in front of/in back of) the (mailbox/post office).

6. I am standing on the roof of a building looking down at some vehicles.

A (poodle/man) is (in front of/in back of) a (bicycle/bus).

7. I am sitting at a sidewalk cafe looking across a plaza at a cathedral with a statue in front

of it.

A (small child/nun) is (in front of/in back of) the (statue/cathedral).

8. I am sitting in a helicopter looking down at a warehouse with a phone booth next to it.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


A (rat/soldier) is (in front of/in back of) the (phone booth/warehouse).

9. I am sitting in my car parked across a street from a department store with a flower stand

in front of it.

A (kitten/woman) is (in front of/in back of) the (flower stand/department store).

10. I am standing on the porch of a ranch house looking over at a corral full of horses.

A (young girl/cowboy) is (in front of/in back of) (a horse inside it/the corral).

11. I am standing at the sidelines of a football field, looking down the field at the goal.

(A rabbit/The quarterback) is (in front of/in back of) (the goal line/the end zone).

12. I am standing by a parking lot, looking at the far side.

A (puppy/woman) is (in front of/in back of) (a Ford Escort/the lot).

13. I am sitting in a theatre looking at the stage.

(A mouse/An actor) is (in front of/in back of) (a small table on the stage/the stage).

14. I am sitting in the stands of a racetrack watching the starting gate.

A (greyhound/horse) is (in front of/in back of) the (starting gate/racetrack).

15. I am standing at the entrance to an exhibition hall looking at a slab of marble.

A (man/tour group) is waiting (in front of/in back of) the (slab of marble/exhibition hall).

16. I am standing in my front yard looking at an oak tree in front of my next door neighbor’s

house.

(My neighbor’s cat/My neighbor) is (in front of/in back of) the (tree/house).

17. I am sitting on top of the fence of a corral watching a horse inside.

A (sparrow/cowgirl) is (in front of/in back of) the (horse/corral).

18. I am standing next door to a new house being constructed.

A (carpenter/construction truck) is (in front of/in back of) (a stack of bricks/the house).

19. I am standing on the sidewalk in front of a skyscraper looking at a car parked across the

street.

A (boy/Boy Scout troop) is (in front of/in back of) the (car/skyscraper).

20. I am watching the halftime activities of a basketball game from the stands.

A (small child/large man) is (in front of/in back of) the (free-throw line/basketball court).

21. I am standing across a yard from a wall.

A (dog/gardener) is (in front of/in back of) (the wall/the yard).

22. I am standing next to a big pond looking across at a cabin on the other side.

(A raccoon/An elk) is (in front of/in back of) the (front steps of the cabin/cabin).

23. I am sitting in the stands next to the finish line of a race course.

A (gopher/contestant) is (in front of/in back of) the (finish line/warm-up area).

24. I am standing by the side of a park looking at a rare lizard on a large tree stump.

A curious (cat/man) is (in front of/in back of) the (lizard/stump).

25. I am standing at the entrance to a supermarket, looking out at a car in the parking lot.

A (man/family) is (in front of/in back of) the (car/parking lot).

26. I am sitting in a jeep looking out the window at a lion lying next to a huge boulder.

A (pigeon/game warden) is (in front of/in back of) the (lion/boulder).

27. I am looking at a jeep near a bridge across a creek.

A (muskrat/canoe) is (in front of/in back of) the (jeep/bridge).

28. I am sitting in an opera house watching the tenor at the center of the stage.

(Another singer/an orchestra) is (in front of/in back of) the (tenor/stage).

29. I am standing at an intersection looking at the red light.

A (bicycle/bus) is (in front of/in back of) the (lightpost/intersection).

30. I am in a huge ballroom looking past a huge ice sculpture in the center of the room to see

a chair on the other side.

My (wife’s purse/wife) is (in front of/in back of) the (chair/ice sculpture).

31. I am standing in a park looking at the flowers and the trees.

A (squirrel/St. Bernard) is (in front of/in back of) one of the (flowers/trees).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013


32. I am standing on the loading dock of a factory.

A (sample package of/palette stacked with) plastic siding is (in front of/in back of) a

(hand cart/forklift)

33. I am on a golf course looking down the fairway toward the ninth hole.

A (golf ball/golf cart) is sitting (in front of/in back of) the (hole/putting green).

34. I am standing in a forest, by a lake, in a light rain.

In the woods, a (raccoon/deer) is watching me from (in front of/in back of) (a puddle/the

lake).

35. I am standing on the beach, enjoying the sunshine.

A (crab/college student) is lying on the sand (in front of/in back of) a (sand pile/sand

dune).

36. I am standing on a country road, looking across a vineyard.

(An opossum/a farm worker) is standing (in front of/in back of) (a grape vine/the

vineyard).

37. I am standing on my front porch, looking across at my neighbor’s house.

My neighbor’s (lawnmower/tractor) is (in front of/in back of) his (garage/house).

38. I am standing in my living room looking across the snow-covered lawn at my neighbor’s

house.

My neighbor has parked a (snowblower/snowplow) (in front of/in back of) his (mailbox/

house).

39. I am standing in the doorway of a laundromat.

A (pair of socks/large bag of clothes) is (in front of/in back of) a (box of soap/washing

machine).

40. I am standing at a ski resort at the bottom of the hill.

The (first aid station/ski lodge) is (in front of/in back of) the (bunny hill/highest ski run)

41. I am sitting at the edge of a pond watching the fish.

A (minnow/largemouth bass) is (in front of/in back of) a submerged (stick/tree stump) in

the water.

42. I am sitting in an airport, watching the activity on the tarmac as I wait for my flight.

Out on the tarmac, a (golf cart/baggage truck) is parked (in front of/in back of) a

(commuter plane/Boeing 747).

43. I am sitting on a couch in a friend’s living room, looking at her stereo equipment.

A (CD/CD storage unit) is (in front of/in back of) the (left speaker/the stereo

equipment).

44. I am standing in a campground, looking around at the other campsites.

In the next site, a (stool/picnic table) is (in front of/in back of) the (small fire/bonfire) the

campers have started.

45. I am sitting on a hillside in the backcountry looking down at my solitary campsite.

A (weasel/bear) has wandered into my campsite, and is sitting (in front of/in back of) my

(backpack/tent).

46. I am standing on a sidewalk, looking across the street at a fire scene.

A (dog/fireman) is (in front of/in back of) the (fire hydrant/ladder truck).

47. I am sitting in a restaurant, trying to decide on a dessert.

The (dessert tray/dessert buffet) is (in front of/in back of) the (soda machine/salad bar).

48. I am standing in a park watching a guitarist sitting in front of a fountain playing his

instrument.

A (dime/Frisbee) is lying on the ground (in front of/in back of) the (guitarist’s tin cup/

fountain).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Duk

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

2:38

11

Mar

ch 2

013

How far is near ? Inferring distance from spatial descriptions

Documents

Transcript of How far is near ? Inferring distance from spatial descriptions