spatial cognition paper
TRANSCRIPT
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 1/27
0
Spatial Cognition -
dependant on language or
culture?
Eingereicht von:
Agnieszka Nowodworska
Matrikelnummer: 30248926
MA English and American Studies
Seminar:
Linguistic Relativity
Prof. Dr. Holden Härtl
WS 2010/2011
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 2/27
1
Abstract
The domain of spatial cognition is one of the domains very often and thoroughly studied
by many linguists. However spatial cognition still causes controversies on the line between universal and relative theories. Most scientists argue whether language
influences human thinking or not. The following paper will be based on exactly this
debate, between the relativistic papers of S.C. Levinson and his colleagues as
³Returning the tables: language affects spatial cognition´ and universalistic paper of P.
Li and L. Gleitman ³Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning´ with strongly
emphasized cultural aspect. To come to a conclusion and answer the main question of
this paper: ³spatial cognition-dependant on language or culture?´ I present different
theories related to the domain of spatial cognition: relativistic, universalistic and
cultural relativism. The main determinant in spatial cognition are so called frames of
reference : relative, absolute and intrinsic. These denote the three different systems of
spatial coding and co-vary across cultures. By studying the use of frames of reference in
different cultures, languages, surroundings and situations I aim to show examples
proving that both language and culture, especially the surrounding people happen to be
in, influence our spatial coding and perception of the world. And also along this lines
will try and investigate whether the paper of Li and Gleitman may be perceived from a
relativistic point of view.
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 3/27
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction «««««««««««««««««««««««««.....3
2.
Spatial description in linguistics ««««««««««««««««««.42.1 Frames of reference in spatial description ««««««««««««....4
2.2 Frames of reference in cross-cultural perspective «««««...««««.7
3. Theories underlying the studies of linguistic spatial description«. ««««.10
3.1 Relativistic perspective «««««««««««««««..««««.10
3.2 Universalistic perspective ««««««««««««««««««...11
3.3 Different approach «««««««««««««««««««««..12
3.3.1 Culture and language ««««««««««««.......................12
3.3.2 Culture and language and thought in spatial cognition «««...«.13
4. Empirical Studies «««««««««««««««««««««««....14
4.1 Introduction «««««««««««««««««««....««««.14
4.2 Experiment 1- Recall memory by Levinson et al««««««««««.16
4.2.1 Background information «««««««««««««««««.16
4.2.2 Method «««««««««««««««««««««««....16
4.2.3 Results «««««««««««««««««««««««... 17
4.3 Experiment 2- landmarks in the reference world beyond the tabletop
(Blinds-down/Blinds-up, Outdoors) by Li and Gleitman ««««««««««..18
4.3.1 Background information and method «««««««««««...18
4.3.2 Results «««««««««««««««««««««««....19
4.4 Experiment 3 ± landmark cues on tabletop under 90degree rotation by
Levinson et al«««««««««««««««««««««««««..19
4.4.1 Background information «««««««««««««««««.19
4.4.2 Method «««««««««««««««««««««««....20
4.4.3 Results ««««««««««««««««««««««««.20
5. Discussion ...«««««««««««««««««««««««««21
6. Conclusion «««««««««««««««««««««««««..23
7. References «««««««««««««««««««««««««...24
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 4/27
3
Spatial Cognition - dependant on
language or culture?
1. Introduction
Language, due to its specific properties, makes human beings unique in comparison to
other animals and species1. This very useful tool plays a crucial role in everyday life of
almost every human being- no matter whether spoken or sign language. We, people
need language in every domain of our lives, first and foremost to communicate with
each other, to talk about weather, time, numbers, people and objects surrounding us,
colors, to describe space and give directions or express our emotions and thoughts in
general. I suppose however that very few people imagined that such a ³natural´ thing
as language can be the cause of very hot debates and controversies on the line
language and thought. Scientists concerned with language divided themselves in this
matter into two camps ± the Universalists and the Relativists. According to the
Universalists, humans share a kind of ³psychic unity´ and language is merely a
reflection of human thought, and so all languages are significantly similar in their conceptual categories. Moreover culture is a reflection of how humans think, which is
both a reflection of innateness and their interaction with their environment, not their
language. Universalists think that there are ³Universal semantic primes´ in language2
and that languages share common structural basis known as µuniversal grammar.¶
Relativists on the other hand claim that the (Evans and Levinson,2009 in Daniel B.M
Haun at al. 2011 in press) around 7000 human natural languages differ in fundamental
ways both in their form ( sound systems, syntax) and their lexical inventories ( the
concepts coded in language.)3
Linguistic relativity refers to "the assertion that the
speakers of different languages have differing cognitive systems," and that these
different systems have an influence on the ways in which the speakers, of the
1Claudia Faccone, Robert Kearns, Ashley Kopp, Elizabeth Watson, ³The Effects of Language on Thought´
2 Driven & Verspoor, (2004) Colgate University website3 Daniel B.M Haun at al. in press ³Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition co-vary
across cultures´ (2011)
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 5/27
4
worlds many languages, think about the world (Sternberg, 1999). More simply,
language shapes thought. Often referred to as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic
determinism, it states that people¶s thoughts are determined by the categories made
available by their language4. In this paper I will concentrate on the relation between
language and one particular domain of life strictly connected with it, namely spatial
cognition. For who could imagine living in our world without the ability to describe
the reality we live in? (Levinson) Spatial competence involves many different abilities,
from shape recognition to a sense of where the parts of our body are with respect to
one another, from navigation to control of the arm in reaching for something and so
on5. Not everyone knows, however, that different human groups around the world use
different spatial frameworks to describe space. Many linguists have been struggling to
explain the phenomenon of spatial cognition in language and culture and its influence
on our thinking and world view. The main focus of my paper will be to show whether
spatial cognition is dependant strictly on language itself, as claimed by Levinson et al.,
or maybe cultural factors play here a crucial part as well. I will try to show it on the
basis of studies lead by linguists supporting the strong relativistic view (S.C. Levinson
et al. ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning´ and other positions)
and their opponents like Peggy Li and Lila Gleitman who in their work ³Turning the
tables: language and spatial reasoning´ challenge their theory. I will try to verify
whether the work ³Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning´ by
Li&Gleitman can be perceived as relativistic, at least in the weaker relativistic view
where culture is the main agent affecting and determining our thinking and cognition.
2. Spatial description in linguistics
2.1 Frames of reference in spatial description
The domain of spatial cognition underwent a very in-depth research but still evokes a
lot of controversies. Yet the fact that cultural differences in linguistic and non-
linguistic coding of spatial arrays used in memory and reasoning exist is undisputed.
4 Claudia Faccone, Robert Kearns, Ashley Kopp, Elizabeth Watson, ³The Effects of Language on Thought´
(2000)5 S.C. Levinson, ³Space in Language and Cognition´, 2003
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 6/27
5
All around the world languages use different means to express spatial regions and
orientation. This means are called FRAMES OF REFERENCE and as Levinson
explains originate from Gestalt theories of perception in the 1920s. The Gestalt notion
can be summarized as µa unit or organization of units that collectively serve to identify a
coordinate system with respect to which certain properties of objects are
gauged6(Levinson, 2003 p.24). And a frame of reference is exactly such a coordinate
system that is employed to identify the location of an object. These have been
thoroughly examined and then broadly explained and described by S.C. Levinson. On
the basis of an extensive field research in over 20 languages three main frames of
reference emerge as solutions to the problem of description of horizontal spatial
directions. These are the µintrinsic¶, µrelative¶ and µabsolute¶ frames of reference. And
this is how they can be described in the simplest way, according to Levinson et al. and
D.B.M Haun et al.:
Relative Frame Of Reference: a ternary, viewpoint-dependent frame of reference with
employing terms like left/right/front/back 6.
Ex. ³The ball is to the left of the tree (from my point of view).´
Intrinsic Frame of Reference: a binary, viewpoint-independent relation, where the
location is described in terms of the object-centered of the reference or landmark object
based on µintrinsic¶ facets or else µ¶inherent features¶ of the object7.
Ex. ³The Garden is at the back of the building (independent of the viewpoint).´
Absolute Frame of Reference: a binary relation between a reference object and a
landmark using a system of fixed angles like cardinal directions north/south/east/west or
similar 8.
Ex. ³The lake is north of the town (Independent of the viewpoint).´
6, 8Daniel B.M Haun at al. in press ³Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition co-vary
across cultures´ (2011) p. 27 S.C. Levinson et al. ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning ´ (2002) p. 158
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 7/27
6
1 Underlying elements in three frames of reference from S.C. Levinson "Space in Language and Cognition" 2003,
p. 40
When looking on the linguistic frames of reference from the cross-linguistic perspective
(Levinson 2003) they could be aligned according to the nature of their origin. This
means that the absolute and intrinsic are described as allocentric (centered on the
surrounding) while the relative system is egocentric. The absolute and relative systems
are orientation-bound whereas the intrinsic frame is an orientation-free system9. What
leads us to further findings about the µtranslatability¶ or rather µuntranslatability¶
9S.C. Levinson, ³Space in Language and Cognition´, 2003 p. 54
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 8/27
7
between frames of reference. It turns out that (Levinson 2003) a representation in one
frame of reference is not freely convertible into a representation in another. Moreover,
each of the senses employs different frame(s) of reference. The only way one frame can
be converted into another is from the two orientation-bound frames into the orientation-
free frame10
.
2.2 Frames of reference in cross-cultural perspective.
As it seems from the recent findings different human groups use only three main types
of frames of reference: absolute, intrinsic and relative, from which languages and
cultures draw a subset. However not all languages use every three of them.(Levinson
2003) Some languages simply fail to express one or more of the different possible
FOR 11
. Some seem to use one predominant frame, according to Levinson most
probably the absolute or intrinsic, for the relative seems to be strictly connected with the
intrinsic frame of reference. But there are also languages that use two or even all three
frames of reference12
. Most European languages use predominantly the relative frame of
reference in describing directions and locations. The intrinsic frame of reference is the
main secondary frame used by European Languages. Whereas, the absolute system is
used in European languages usually only for describing bigger scale, geographic
locations, rarely in everyday use. This is not very surprising taking into account the
ecological surrounding we live in, the density of urban development, the variety and
multitude of landmarks around us, what concurs to focus our spatial description on the
variety of details rather than on cardinal directions. However in other cultures and
languages the absolute system functions as the predominant one. This phenomenon of
employing different frames of reference by diverse societies and its underlying cause
has been the main focus of many linguists. Among those was Stephen C. Levinson et al.
who examined the Mayan cultures like Mopan- using only the intrinsic system, the
Tzeltal who use both absolute and intrinsic system and the Yukatek community that
uses all three frames of reference. These three examples of closely related cultures,
living in a similar ecology but using distinct subsets of the linguistic frames of reference
debunk the importance of the material culture and ecology13
.
10S.C. Levinson, ³Space in Language and Cognition´, 2003 p.59
11 S.C. Levinson, ³Space in Language and Cognition´, 2003 p.6012
S.C. Levinson, ³Space in Language and Cognition´, 2003 p. 5313
S.C. Levinson et al. ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning´ (2002) p.161 -162
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 9/27
8
S. Levinson et al. dedicated a lot of attention to the Tzeltal language, which uses an
elaborate intrinsic system to describe objects in strict contiguity and for describing
objects in separated space a kind of an absolute system of cardinal directions. The later
system, because of its peculiarity, has been the subject of Levinson¶s ( Levinson in
P.Bloom ³Language and Space´) in-depth studies. The absolute system of the
Tenejapans seems to be strictly connected with topographic features of their living
environment. Since this mountainous area shows the tendency to fall in the altitude
towards north-northwest, this direction means downhill , whereas south is called uphill .
In describing direction on the east-west axis Tenejapans use one notion across for both
of them. To specify this direction reference to landmarks seems inevitable14
.
2 Tenejapan Tzeltal uphill/downhill system from S.C. Levinson "Frames of Reference and Molyneux's Question:
Cross-Linguistic Evidence" in Paul Bloom "Language and Space", p. 112
What also seems crucial to mention are some background information about the Tzeltal
language. The Tzeltal language itself is spoken in Chiapas, Mexico, however Levinson
et al. are interested in the dialect of Tzeltal, which is spoken by the Indian community
of Tenejapa amounting to at least 15,000 people. The Tenejapans are a traditional
largely unschooled folk who cultivates its ancestors' agricultural habits, lives mainly
from farming in a dispersed settlement and have its own unique material culture.
Nevertheless, through improved communications and increased dependence on the cash
economy the conditions of their traditional life have changed. Another distinct
community studied by Levinson et al. (Levinson 2003) is the Guugu Yimithirr, speakers
of Hopevale. This tribe inhabits Cooktown, Northern Queensland, Australia and forms a
minute community of c.800 people.
14S.C. Levinson "Frames of Reference and Molyneux's Question: Cross-Linguistic Evidence" in Paul Bloom
"Language and Space"
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 10/27
9
This community can be described as multilingual as all inhabitants speak also English,
and some additionally some Aboriginal languages. Due to that the community
undergoes rapid sociolinguistic changes. Although this people use in spatial description
the absolute frame of reference, to communicate in their language properly one must
carry out a specialized kind of background computation of orientation and direction.
Moreover this memorization has to take place way ahead of the process of speaking as
well as cognition15
.
Another interesting example of cross-cultural variations in spatial cognition was
discovered and presented by Eric Pederson. He compared two dialects of Tamil
speakers- an ethnic group deriving from southern India and some parts of Sri Lanka. (Li
and Gleitman, 2002) Tamil language is contains both absolute and relative spatial
reference terms but the two communities vary in their habitual use. The more urbanized
population shows a relative bias both in speech and spatial reasoning, while the more
rural Tamil people show the absolute bias that characterized the rural, insular,
geographically cohesive Tenejapan Tzeltal population16
.
In the papers of Levinson et al. or Li and Gleitman most of the comparisons take place
between the ethnical groups like the Tenejapan Tzeltal population, the Guugu Yimithirr
community or Namibian inhabitants and representats of western, mostly predominantly
relative and secondary intrinsic, communities like Dutch and Japanese people in
Levinson et al. and English-speaking students in Li&Gleitman. This three languages-
Dutch, Japanese and English- are spoken by technologically advanced and schooled
populations. When taking the living environment into consideration, especially Dutch
and Japanese live in highly urbanized areas with very concentrated settlement patterns
and highly developed conditions. Not to mention a considerable percentage of people
who are bi- or even multilingual. Although among the learned foreign languages
Western languages prevail. (Li and Gleitman, 2002) Nonetheless, even in such highly
urbanized cultures whose members live and work crammed together on a tiny piece of
land at the mouth of Hudson River, called Manhattan show some landmark-biased
spatial terminology. This culturally diverse community shares a small, stable,
geographical landscape rich in mutually known landmarks. Their terminology for
spatial locations in the community is absolute and similarly like the Tzeltal one employs
15S.C. Levinson, ³Space in Language and Cognition´, 2003 p. 114-115
16P. Li, L. Gleitman ³Turning the tables: language and spatial cognition´ , 2002 p. 288
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 11/27
10
three habitually used notions: uptown, downtown and crosstown. These concepts and
the cues in the shape of local landmarks, however, are familiar only to inhabitants of
this community and occur to be completely useless for visitors17
.
3. Theories underlying the studies of linguistic spatial description.
3.1 Relativistic perspective
³Perception is the interface between cognition and reality. Descriptive perceptual
relativism is the empirical claim that certain groups (e.g., those with different cultures,
languages, biological makeup) perceive the world differently (Relativism, Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy).´18
When we consider the domain of spatial cognition in linguistics and review findings on
this subject we can easily distinguish two main theories, which I have already
mentioned at the beginning. Mainly the theory of linguistic relativity, supported by
Levinson, Pederson and many others, whose main assumption is based on the Saphir-
Whorf Hypothesis saying that (Chris Swoyer (2003), Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy) large differences in languages lead to large differences in experience and
thought. They hold that each language embodies a worldview, with quite different
languages embodying quite different views, so that speakers of different languages
think about the world in quite different ways
19
. Saphir advocates the thesis of linguisticrelativity in such words:
³ Human beings do not live in the objective world alone , nor are alone in the world of
social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the
particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is
quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of
language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems
of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the µreal world¶ is to a
large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group ´20
17 P. Li, L. Gleitman ³Turning the tables: language and spatial cognition´, 2002 p. 289 -290
18Chris Swoyer (2003), ³Relativism´ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
19Chris Swoyer (2003),´The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis´, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
20F. Rossi-Landi ³Ideologies of linguistic relativity´, 1973 p. 28
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 12/27
11
According to this hypothesis and on the basis of his research Levinson et al. coined his
own thesis about the spatial description :
(S.C. Levinson, 2003) ³The frames of reference appropriately used in a language to
describe specific situations are likely to induce the use of the same frame of reference in
the non-linguistic coding of the same scenes for memory and reasoning ́21
A more moderate idea of linguistic relativity says that differences among languages
cause differences in the thoughts of their speakers, thus thought is the functional
equivalent of language.
3.2 Universalistic perspective
According to Steven Pinker (1994), one of the world¶s leading experts on language and
mind, the implications of the above Saphir-Whorf hypothesis are dramatic and he
elucidates his view this way: "the foundational categories of reality are not µin¶ the
world but are imposed by one¶s culture (and hence can be challenged«)." For him, a
more logical explanation of any possible correlation between language and thought
relies on the theory of universality22
.
Consequently, the paper of P. Li and L. Gleitman ³Turning the tables: language and
spatial reasoning ³ supports the opposing universalistic theory and (Levinson et al.
2002) trying to defend it by arguing that thinking is independent , and impervious to the
details of linguistic coding. They say that ³ linguistic system is merely the formal and
expressive medium that speaker devise to describe their mental representations´ for
³linguistic categories and structures are more or less straight forward mappings from a
preexisting conceptual space, programmed into our biological nature .́ In consequence
Li and Gleitman hold that all languages are broadly similar. To prove their statement Li
and Gleitman concentrate on the cross-cultural studies of spatial language and cognition
by Levinson et al. They try to verify Levinson¶s claim that language and conceptual
coding co-vary and that different languages give rise to different conceptual codings23
.
21S.C. Levinson, ³Space in Language and Cognition´, 2003 p.171
22 Claudia Faccone, Robert Kearns, Ashley Kopp, Elizabeth Watson, ³The Effects of Language on Thought´
23S.C. Levinson et al. ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning´ (2002) p.156
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 13/27
12
3.3 Different approach
The Whorfian hypothesis has recently enjoyed a revival in many different but still
related to each other disciplines like anthropology, psychology or linguistics. This
awakening of interest was fueled in appreciable measure by studies on cross-cultural
correlations between, among other things, variations in spatial language use24
. As a
result of long-term ethnographical research a new theory of cultural relativity was
brought up. According to this cultural relativity theory culture shapes beliefs, provides
concepts, organizes value systems, and informs and orients human behavior.For
anthropologists it is obvious that human behavior is culturally informed and culturally
specific, and best encompassed as a series of ³practices´ with specific cultural
orientations and entailments. In various social science disciplines, facts of cultural
difference have often seemed to threaten the quality of data rather than integrate it. In
some disciplines, acknowledging fundamental cultural differences has seemed
tantamount to succumbing to a knowledge-defeating relativism. In psychology and in
linguistics, cultural relativism is rendered into an extreme, both fascinating and casting
doubts on the theory of perception25
.
3.3.1 Culture and language
It is however evident to both non-linguists and many linguists that culture and language
are interconnected. To make this clearer we need to investigate the phenomenon of culture itself, what is not as easy as one might think. For culture is a term that has many
meanings and its definitions are widely misunderstood and misused, thus the need of its
proper explanation grows26
. One of the interesting definitions is provided by CARLA
(Center for advanced research on language acquisition, University of Minnesota) which
³defines culture as the shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive
constructs, and affective understanding that are learned through a process of
socialization. These shared patterns identify the members of a culture group while also
distinguishing those of another group.27
´
24C.R. Gallistel, Rutgers Univeristy (2002), ³Language and spatial frames of reference in Mind and Brain´
Commentary on Li and Gleitman25
J.Kelly, International Encyclopedia of the Social Science (2008), Cultural Relativism26
Roshan Cultural Heritage Institute- Cultural understanding through education and communication ³Definition of
Culture´27
Center for advanced research on language acquisition, University of Minnesota ³What is Culture?´
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 14/27
13
Another definition ( J.A. Banks & C.A. McGee-Banks ), which also seems to support
the theory of cultural relativism states that: "Most social scientists today view culture as
consisting primarily of the symbolic, ideational, and intangible aspects of human
societies. The essence of a culture is not its artifacts, tools, or other tangible cultural
elements but how the members of the group interpret, use, and perceive them. It is the
values, symbols, interpretations, and perspectives that distinguish one people from
another in modernized societies; it is not material objects and other tangible aspects of
human societies. People within a culture usually interpret the meaning of symbols,
artifacts, and behaviors in the same or in similar ways28
." After having defined culture it
is essential to mention that some perceive language and thought, among other things
like art and science, spirituality, social activity and material culture, as crucial in
defining the whole notion. Some (RCHI) perceive language as the oldest human
institution and the most sophisticated medium of expression. And appropriately, thought
as the ways in which people perceive, interpret, and understand the world around
them29
. Culture seems to be a more abstract and amorphous notion but language also
seems to share this qualities. Every existing language has its subsets, called also
dialects, that belong to certain subgroups in a culture and can be understood only by its
users. This view does not fully go along with the Saphir-Whorf Hypothesis, but still
emphasizes the interconnectedness of language, thought and culture.
3.3.2 Culture and Language and thought in spatial cognition
This dependencies between language, thought and culture have been the subject of
many cross-cultural and cross-linguistic empirical studies . A very good example show
works by Levinson alone and Levinson et al. and the critical paper of Li and Gleitman
³Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning´ where they rise doubts about
Levinson¶s thesis of linguistic determinism of human thinking, in this case in spatial
cognition. The empirical studies run by Levinson et al. and verified by Li and Gleitman
show that (Pederson) cognitive systems co-vary across different cultures. Li and
Gleitman suggest that the reason is not the language alone. In their opinion it is most
likely that cultural differences drive the differences in both language and cognitive
28 Center for advanced research on language acquisition, University of Minnesota ³What is Culture?´29
Roshan Cultural Heritage Institute- Cultural understanding through education and communication ³Definition of
Culture´
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 15/27
14
patterns across cultures. So in conclusion varieties in languages reflect non-linguistic
cultural variations. In this case the cultural concern would have to predate the linguistic
patterns and language would serve as a means of expression for already existing
concepts. However Pederson argues this case saying that if the linguistic pattern is
expressed by a long-fossilized grammatical expression, it seems more probable that it
predates the cultural pattern30
. But in this case to name which is the chicken and which
is the egg will always remain a puzzle. In the empirical studies I am going to present
Levinson persists in the belief the linguistic frames of reference existing or employed in
a language affect the use of that appropriate linguistic frame of reference in non-
linguistic tasks. Levinson excludes the cultural and ecological agent and restricts the
cause of the influence on the spatial cognition purely to the language. Whereas Li and
Gleitman try to introduce the cultural ecological factor in the form of landmark cues.
4. Empirical studies
4.1 Introduction
Experiments carried out by Levinson focused mainly on two of the three frames of
reference: the absolute and the relative frame. In the experiments re-run by Li and
Gleitman the third intrinsic frame of reference shows up. Levinson runs a cross-cultural
studies in this domain using groups of people from two different cultures: Dutch people
who use the relative frame of reference predominantly, and the Tzeltal Tenejapans
whose predominant frame of reference is the absolute one and whose linguistic system
does not provide viewer-centered locutions familiar to Europeans. On the other hand ,
Li and Gleitman conduct their experiments, aiming to undermine the result of
Levinson¶s cross-cultural studies, using only English speaking students. Similar tests
have been replicated by Daniel B.M. Haun et al. using schoolchildren from two
culturally distinct backgrounds: Dutch and Namibian31
. All experiments were quite
similar in their structure and conduct, just a little modified. The first devised
experiments - so called rotation tasks (Levinson in P. Bloom ) aimed to test memory
( recall memory and recognition memory) and inference to see which frame of
reference ( relative, absolute, intrinsic) is employed during the
30 E. Pederson ³Linguistic Relativity´, The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (2010) p. 670 -671
31 Daniel B.M Haun at al. in press ³Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition co -vary
across cultures´ (2011) p. 1
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 16/27
15
non-linguistic procedure. Other experiments devised by Levinson and his colleagues
were aimed at visual recall (recalling complex arrays) and gestures ( unreflective
spontaneous gesture accompanying speech)32
. Li and Gleitman repeated the
experiments run by Levinson, but in somewhat modified versions. They conducted a
test called The Man and Tree Test to see how the English speakers would describe and
understand small-scale spatial arrays. They also conducted the Levinson¶s et al. Animal
in a row test, however with some alterations: with landmarks in the reference world
(blinds up/blinds down, outdoors) , with landmark cues on the tabletop (absolute and
relative ducks), rotation tasks with non-linguistic (rats) and pre-linguistic (infants)
populations aiming at place and response learning in a T-maze33
. As an answer to Li
and Gleitman¶s critique and in defense of their point of view Levinson and colleagues
decided to test the results achieved by their opponents once again. They replicated the
experiment Animals in a row in the outdoor condition using also students in the center
of a campus. They tried the Motion-Maze task which minimizes second-guessing by
participants. Finally they replicated the Li and Gleitman¶s Animals in a row task using
identical µlandmarks¶ in the form of µduck ponds¶34. Levinson et al. in their paper
³Returning the tables: language affects spatial cognition´ employed a new modified
kind of rotation task under 90degree rather than a 180 degree as in the previous tasks.
(Daniel B.M. Haun et al. 2011) This was a very significant change that provided more
trustworthy and specific results than the 180 degree rotation, where it was in fact
difficult to conclude whether a response was object-centered as opposed to geocentric.
A task employing 90 degree rotation enables to distinguish between all three cognitive
frames of reference and not only between the relative and absolute. In the 90 degree
rotation the heading and order of toy animals on the table can be memorized relying on
anyone of the three frames of reference . After the rotation the type of coding is more
transparent to the observers35
. D.B.M. Haun and colleagues in their experiments on the
Dutch and Namibian schoolchildren mostly rerun the tasks used by Levinson and Li and
Gleitman, of course with some modifications, as already mentioned above. They also
tried to change the task-complexity, because they assumed that facing a simple task
32S.C. Levinson "Frames of Reference and Molyneux's Question: Cross-Linguistic Evidence" in Paul Bloom
"Language and Space" p. 113-12433
P. Li, L. Gleitman ³Turnin g the tables: language and spatial cognition´, 200234
S.C. Levinson et al. ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning´ (2002)35
Daniel B.M Haun at al. in press ³Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition co -vary
across cultures´ (2011) p. 4
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 17/27
16
participants are free to solve it whichever way they like according to local cultural
norms or behavioral preferences. What they were aiming at was to find out whether in a
harder task the speaker¶s ability to follow cultural norms will weaken. They predicted
that as a result, participants might fall back onto a cross-culturally shared natural
tendency of either switching spatial coding completely or introducing systemic errors in
their culturally-preferred strategy36
. In the following chapter I will present some of the
experiments in detail. I will concentrate on these experiments run by Levinson et al. and
Li and Gleitman, which seem to support their theories and will allow to draw some
conclusions whether the paper from Li and Gleitman may be perceived as relative and
whether culture/ ecology have an impact on spatial perception among different cultures.
4.2 Experiment 1- recall memory by Levinson et al.
4.2.1 Background information
In this experiment took part about 25 Tenejapan subjects of mixed age and sex and
appropriately about 39 Dutch subjects of similar sex/age composition. The experiment
with Tenejapan people was run on a familiar hill near a building and with Dutch people
in laboratory conditions. The aim is to prove whether the Whorfian hypothesis that
coding of spatial arrays in a range of nonverbal tasks would employ the same frame of
reference which is predominantly used in similar language tasks. As the Tzeltal
language offers only the absolute frame the Tenejapan subjects are expected to use the
absolute frame in solving this task. While the Dutch being predominantly relative
coders are expected to employ the relative frame of reference.
4.2.2 Method
There are two tables in this experiment arranged parallelly, one is the stimulus table the
other the recall table. On the stimulus table three toy animals familiar to both cultures
are presented in an array heading in a randomly assigned lateral direction. The
participants are asked to memorize the array which was afterwards removed. After three
quarters of a minute they were rotated 180degree to face the second table and asked to
rebuild the array of animals ³exactly as it was´. The results were coded as µrelative¶ if
36Daniel B.M Haun at al. in press ³Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition co -vary
across cultures´ (2011) p.
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 18/27
17
the arrays was rebuilt preserving the egocentric left/right directions and it was coded as
absolute when it preserved the fixed bearings of the stimulus array37
.
4.2.3 Results
In this task 95% of Dutch subjects occurred to be consistent relative coders (in at least 4
out of 5 trials) whereas 75% of Tenejapans were consistent absolute coders (also in at
least 4 out of five trials). Only two Tenejapans occurred to be consistent relative coders.
The Tenejapans turned out to be less consistent coders but this may be caused by
different factors like: unfamiliarity of the situation and task, rather unschooled
community, or interference of the egocentric frame, which is available but not
dominant. However these results seem to confirm the theory that the frame of reference
dominant in language is also dominant in non-linguistic tasks38. But the question which
frame of reference ± linguistic or non-linguistic- influences which, remains.
3 Animals in a row task, visualisation of the 180degree rotation experiment in Li and Gleitman "Turning the
tables: language and spatial reasoning", p. 270
37S.C. Levinson "Frames of Reference and Molyneux's Question: Cross -Linguistic Evidence" in Paul Bloom
"Language and Space" p. 113-115
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 19/27
18
4.3 Experiment 2- landmarks in the reference world beyond the tabletop (Blinds-
down/Blinds-up, Outdoors) by Li and Gleitman
4 Visualisation of the outdoor indoor blinds-up conditions in the 180 degree rotation experiment in Li and
Gleitman "Turning the tables[...]", p. 277 -278
4.3.1 Background information & method
This is a modification of the previous rotation experiment by Levinson et al. Here 40
English speaking students take part. They are divided so that 20 of them are tested in
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 20/27
19
outdoor condition and ten in each variation of the indoor conditions: blinds-down and
blinds-up. Indoor conditions are a featureless laboratory room with a floor-to-ceiling
window on one side. In the Blinds-up condition the participants would view the familiar
sight of the campus (as presented in the picture), however the subjects remained
unaware of the importance of the blinds and the landmarks outside. Whereas the 20
remaining participants were tested on a grassy area (about an acre in size) on the
university campus, surrounded with familiar buildings( as presented in the picture). The
subjects carried out the above explained and described Animals in a row task.
4.3.2 Results
The English subjects in the Blinds-down condition coded relative just like the Dutch in
Levinson¶s experiment but the subjects from the blinds-up and outdoor condition
behaved differently ± about half of the participants coded µrelatively¶ and half, as Li
and Gleitman assumed, µabsolutely¶ when facing landmark cues. However Levinson
critiqued their results, saying that in this case it is not actually absolute coding but rather
intrinsic. I will come back and explain this misunderstanding later. It occurred that, in
contrast to the Blinds-down condition, in both landmark-rich variations about 70% of
the participants asked for clarification39
. Here appears the question whether ecology and
the availability of landmarks influences the use/choice of frame of reference in non-
linguistic task?
4.4 Experiment 3 ± landmark cues on tabletop under 90degree rotation by
Levinson et al.
4.4.1 Background information
This is a modification of the Li and Gleitman¶s experiment with µduck pond¶ on table
top under the 180 degree rotation. This one is conducted under the 90 degree rotation
which enables to distinguish between all three frames of reference and not only the
relative and absolute. With this experiment Levinson et al. that Li and Gleitman¶s
µabsolute¶ coding is actually µintrinsic¶ coding, because under the 180 degree rotation
both intrinsic and absolute coding can look the same. Ex. Participants may be thinking
³animals facing duck pond´ which indicates intrinsic frame, or ³animals facing north´
39 P. Li, L. Gleitman ³Turning the tables: language and spatial cognition´, 2002 p. 276 -279
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 21/27
20
what means absolute coding. In this experiments ten participants from the from the Max
Planck Institute take part. The stimulus table and the recall table are arranged at a 90
degree angle. The landmark cues exactly as in Li and Gleitman¶s experiment make up
two identical, symmetrical µduck ponds¶ placed on one side of both stimulus and recall
table in advance. The location of the landmark cue on the recall table excluded the
possibility of relative coding.
4.4.2 Method
In this experiment participants had to recall and rebuild the array of three animals from
the stimulus table on the recall table. They just had to swivel their chair 90 degrees to
do that. The sequence of animals was also noted and the trials with wrongly rebuilt
arrays were discarded.
4.4.3 Results
More than half of the participants coded using the intrinsic frame in all five trials. The
majority of participants had three or more intrinsic responses40.
5 Visualisation of the 90 degree rotation experiment using landmark cues on tabletop in Levinson et al.
"Returning the tables[...]", p. 178
40 S.C. Levinson et al. ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning´ (2002) p. 176 -179
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 22/27
21
5. Discussion
In the previous chapter I presented three different experiments from a very wide range
of experiments on spatial cognition. The first experiment by Levinson and colleagues
showed that both groups of people tested use in conceptual coding the linguistic frameof reference which is dominant in their language- Dutch code relatively and the
Tenejapans code absolutely. This proves that our language is in fact connected with our
thinking. Levinson et al. think even that our language influences/determines our
thinking. But Li and Gleitman disagree with this thesis and in the second experiment
they try to debunk Levinson¶s theory. They introduce modifications in the form of
landmarks, which cause confusion for participants start asking for clarification and also
lead to a change in the use of frame of reference, from the dominant relative frame to, as
Li and Gleitman think, the absolute one. And both sides are in a way right. At first I
will explain the intrinsic vs. absolute misunderstanding. In fact what Li and Gleitman
thought was the absolute coding in their experiment turns out to be the intrinsic coding.
Because, as Levinson explains, absolute codings of arrays are made in terms of fixed
bearings that have nothing to do with the array itself, while intrinsic codings are based
on array-internal relationships and hence invariant to the rotation of the whole array41
.
Actually the proper absolute systems make no use of landmarks but rely only on fixed
bearings. Levinson argues this point by saying that if a member from an absolute system
community is transported out of his own familiar territory, the notions of either
µdownhill¶ or µnorth¶ remain anchored to the same fixed bearings (in our compass
degrees) that they always had42
. And this differentiation has been shown more clearly in
the third experiment I presented for the 90 degree rotation allows to distinguish between
all three frames of reference. But Li and Gleitman are not so entirely wrong. For as we
know in the Western communities, like the American or Dutch, all three frames of
reference exist in language. Although the relative is predominant we still use the
intrinsic one quite often. And through their experiments Li and Gleitman showed that
the appearance of landmarks in the surrounding make us change the use of frame of
reference from the relative to intrinsic. And despite of being aware of the absolute way
41 S.C. Levinson et al. ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning´ (2002) p. 18042
S.C. Levinson et al. ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning´ (2002) p. 182
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 23/27
22
of coding, Europeans and other Westerners do not use it in everyday life, apart from
big-scale locations. Most of us would be unable to move around using the cardinal
directions without a compass or a map. The following conclusion suggests itself that if
a language employs more frames of reference than one, like in English or Dutch,
different frames of reference may be preferred for different situations. But the question
is whether the so called ecology (the familiar surrounding, landmarks) or culture in
general also influences the use of a particular frame of reference? Answering the
question I will recall Levinson¶s findings that groups of people from related cultures
and ecology like the Mayan, Mopan, Tzeltal or Yukatek use different linguistic frames
of reference. But if for Dutch and English people it is possible to use different frames of
reference (available in language) according to the situation and landmarks available,
this should also take place in other cultures. So this is unquestionable that the use of
frame of reference is situation-dependent and the availability of landmarks induces the
use of a particular frame (landmarks induce especially the use of intrinsic coding).
A very good example of the influence of ecology is the Tamil community investigated
by E. Pederson, mentioned already at the beginning. In this community people who live
in rural areas- more spacious, less landmarks, life style more like the Tenejapans¶- use
expressions based on absolute (and intrinsic) coding, whereas the people who live in
urbanized areas- abundance of landmarks, modern, technology-driven life style- use
expressions based on relative (and also intrinsic) frame of reference43
. A very
interesting case is the example of the Manhattan Island where its inhabitants developed
their own system- described as a kind of an absolute one with notions like: downtown,
uptown and cross-town. These directions are known only to the inhabitants and people
who are new to this island are unable to use them. Levinson, however, tries to show that
in fact these notions have little in common with the absolute system. Rather with the
intrinsic one, as being applied only to a limited area, and not outside the island. Another
point that seems noteworthy are the results of the first above presented experiment. The
Tzeltal participants were much less consistent that the Dutch participants. Levinson
explains that this might be due to the unfamiliar materials and procedures in this
illiterate, peasant community44
. But a different factor needs to be considered as well-
43 S.C. Levinson et al. ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning´ (2002) p. 16144
S.C. Levinson "Frames of Reference and Molyneux's Question: Cross -Linguistic Evidence" in Paul Bloom
"Language and Space" p. 123
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 24/27
23
one that Levinson writes in his book ³Space in language and cognition´ about,mainly
that the traditional living conditions of Tenejapans underwent a transformation in recent
decades, through improved communication and growing dependence on economy and
money45
. On the basis of these investigations one would conclude that both, Levinson
and Li and Gleitman are somehow right. Levinson¶s theory about the correlation
between the non-linguistic and linguistic frames of reference has very solid grounds as
shown in the numerous experiments. However, the theory that language influences or
even determines our thoughts, and here spatial cognition, seems too strong to me. For
still one should not forget the cultural and environmental factors, which seem to play a
part in the choice of the available frame of reference. And to draw more conclusions
one should understand what is actually CULTURE. And if we assume, like some do,
that language is a part of culture, we could reason that culture through the means of
language and many other means influences our thinking. In this line of reasoning the
paper of Li and Gleitman might be perceived as relativistic, because it shows that spatial
description and spatial thinking co-vary across cultures, depend on different factors like
ecology, landmarks, however not on language itself. But if language is perceived as
independent of culture the crucial and still unanswerable question is what was first
culture or language? This remains very hard to answer, but still language is perceived as
an outcome and ingredient of culture. I propose the view that culture and language both
cooperate and in that way influence our perception of the world.
6. Conclusion
The main aim of my paper was to investigate the domain of spatial cognition on the
basis of various researches and try to present different points of view, mainly the
universalistic, relativistic and culture-dependent. I focused on the papers of Levinson
about frames of reference and his book ³Space in Language and Cognition´ and
Levinson and his colleagues¶ ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial thinking´
and , who have led very in-depth studies in this domain as well as on the oppositional
paper of Li and Gleitman ³Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning´. I started
with the explanation of the theories related to this special domain and underlying this
argument between Levinson et al. and Li and Gleitman. By introducing different
45 S.C. Levinson, ³Space in Language and Cognition´, 2003 p. 146
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 25/27
24
findings and arguments for and against I aimed at showing different possibilities of
approach. Although I am convinced that language and thought correlate, the statement
that language influences thought is very tricky. I tried to cast light on other factors
which I find crucial in the dispute about the source of influence of our spatial cognition.
As we can see many researchers studied the relationship between language and thought
using examples of many different languages, and they have come up with various
hypotheses. What I tried to show in my paper was that language is not the only factor
forming µlinguistically´ different thought patterns but culture in general and also its
specific aspects influence specific domains. Thus, though linguistically different
cultures have specific language/ expressions for certain ideas and concepts, the culture
they are raised in most likely produce their differentiated ways of thinking. Culture usesthe knowledge of words from education to teach a specific way of analyzing the world.
It is the culture, not purely language, which facilitates a different way of thinking46. By
reviewing the frames of reference, which are the main categorization available to
distinguish different types of spatial coding I tried to show, on the basis of the
experiments, how people use different frames of reference and what is the underlying
cause. I tried to show that although Levinson¶s thesis about linguistic and non-linguistic
correlation is valid, Li and Gleitman turn our attention to cultural and ecological factors
that seem valuable in this case, and do not seem completely groundless.
46 Claudia Faccone, Robert Kearns, Ashley Kopp, Elizabeth Watson, ³The Effects of Language on Thought´
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 26/27
25
7. References
CARLA Center for advanced research on language acquisition, University of Minnesota ³What is Culture?´ . URL:
http://www.carla.umn.edu/culture/definitions.html
Claudia Faccone, Robert Kearns, Ashley Kopp, Elizabeth Watson,(2000) ³The Effects of Language on Thought´ .
URL: http://www.unc.edu/~jdumas/projects/languagethought.htm
Driven & Verspoor, (2004) ÄLanguage, culture and cognition´. Colgate University website. URL:
https://sites.google.com/a/students.colgate.edu/language -culture-and-cognition/linguistic-universalism
Gallistel, C.R (2002), ³Language and spatial frames of reference in Mind and Brain´ Commentary on Li and
Gleitman . Rutgers Univeristy, TICS, 2002, 6, 321-322. URL:
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/GnG/Lang_&_Spatial_Frames.pdf
Haun, Daniel B.M. et al. (2011). ³Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition co -vary
across cultures´. C ognition , article in press. www.science-direct.com
Kelly, John (2008). ³Cultural Relativism´. International Encyclopedia of the Social Science . URL:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Cultural_relativism.aspx
Levinson, S.C. "Frames of Reference and Molyneux's Question: Cross-Linguistic Evidence". Paul Bloom
"Language and Space"
Levinson, Stephen.C. et al. (2002) . ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning´ . C ognition
84(2002) 155-188
Levinson, S.C. (2003). ³Space in Language and Cognition´, Cambridge University Press.
Li, Peggy; Gleitman, Lila (2002). ³Turning the tables: language and spatial cognition´ . C ognition 83 (2002) 265-
294
Pederson, Eric (2010) . ³Linguistic Relativity´, The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis p. 670-671, OxfordUniversity Press
Roshan Cultural Heritage Institute- Cultural understanding through education and communication ³Definition of
Culture´ . URL: http://www.roshan-institute.org/474552
Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio (1973). ³Ideologies of linguistic relativity´ . Mouton, Hague-Paris
Subb
iondo, J.L. (2005). ³Benjamin Lee Whorf¶s theory of language, culture, and consciousness: A critique of western science´. Language&C ommunication 25(2005) 149-159
Swoyer, Chris (2003). ³Relativism´, ´The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis´ . Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/supplement2.html ;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/index.html#1.2
8/4/2019 Spatial Cognition Paper
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spatial-cognition-paper 27/27
Kassel, den 22.03.2011
"Ehrenwörtliche Erklärung"
Hiermit bestätige ich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit mit dem Titel :
³Spatial Cognition ± dependant on language or culture?
eigenständig angefertigt und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und
Hilfsmittel benutzt habe. Des Weiteren erkläre ich, dass ich alle wörtlichen und
indirekten Zitate sowie Grafiken, Tabellen und Abbildungen aus den angegeben
Quellen und Hilfsmitteln korrekt gekennzeichnet habe. Mir ist bekannt, dass ein
Verstoß gegen diese Regelung als ein Plagiat betrachtet wird. In diesem Fall wird die
Arbeit mit "nicht ausreichend" (0 Punkte) bewertet. Im Wiederholungsfall hat dies den
Ausschluss von weiteren Prüfungen - und damit vom Studium - zur Folge.