1. Psy1306: Language and Thought Lecture 7: Spatial Frames of Reference

2. Spatial Frames of Reference (FoR)

4. ► “Where is the girl?”  The girl is to the south of the umbrella.  The girl is to the tilted side of the umbrella.  The girl is to the left of the umbrella. Talking about locations & directions Figure (Thing to be located) Ground (Reference Object)

5. Terminologies 101 ► Egocentric vs. Allocentric  Ego (self) vs. Non-Ego FoR ► Object-centered vs. Geocentric  Moving entities vs. Earth-anchored Entities ► Relative, Intrinsic, Absolute Where is the girl?

6. Relative, Intrinsic, Absolute ► Figure, Ground, Coordinate System  Relative = 3 place relations  Intrinsic = 2 place relations ► Ground = Coordinate System  Absolute = 3 place relations Where is the girl?

7. Crosslinguistic Variations for small scale arrays ► Intrinsic ► Relative: always have intrinsic ► Absolute

8. Majid et al.

9. (Bird’s Eye View) Step 1: Ss memorize items Step 2: Ss rotated Step 3: Ss recreate “same” as Table 1. At least 2 possible solutions. Step 3 egocentric tendencyStep 3 geocentric tendency Rotation Experiment Subject Table 1 Table 2 (right side, north side) (north side) Table 1 Table 2 Table 1 Table 2 (right side) Table 1 Table 2 (right side) Experimental Paradigm – ANIMALS-IN-A-ROW Task

10. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100012345 Number of Geocentric Trials % of Subjects Dutch N = 38 Tenejapans N = 27 Brown & Levinson (1993) * Also reported in Pederson, Danziger, Wilkes, Levinson, Kita, Senft (1998).

11. % of Subjects 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 012345 Number of Geocentric Trials Japanese N=16 Longgu N=13 (-3) Arandic N=11 (-5) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 012345 Number of Geocentric Trials % of Subjects Ego Ss N=20 -- urban Geo Ss N=41 -- rural Locality of Tamil Ss: Other Languages reported in Pederson, Danziger, Wilkes, Levinson, Kita, Senft (1998).

12. Chips Task

13. Maze Task

14. Inference Task

15. Pederson, Danziger, Wilkes, Levinson, Kita, Senft (1998). Far more than developing simple habituation, use of the linguistic system, we suggest, actually forces the speaker to make computations he or she might otherwise not make...The linguistic system is far more than an available pattern for creating internal representations; to learn to speak a language successfully requires speakers to develop an appropriate mental representation which is then available for nonlinguistic purposes. (p. 586). Pederson et al. (1998)’s Summary of their Data

16. Levinson et al. 2004 ► Proposed mechanisms of Whorfian Effects  Perceptual ‘tuning’ and attention  Re-representation  Structure-mapping  Costs of Computation

17. Perceptual Tuning

18. Re-representation

19. Structure-Mapping

20. Cost of Computation

21. Taking Stock Data show: ► Experimental finding show ADULT speakers’ “nonlinguistic” behavior correlates with their linguistic behavior. Alternative explanations?

22. Alternative Explanations? ► Other third factor (e.g. culture experience) might be able to explain the language- thought effect? ► Translation problems: is Make it the “same” same across languages?

23. Eskimos and Snow Words ► ► Eskimos have many snow words. ► ► Eskimos make fine snow discriminations ► ► Many snow words  fine snow discriminations ► ► Experience  Fine snow discriminations  Many snow words

24. Possible Confounding Factors Abs/Geo: preliteraterural stable Rel/Ego:literate urban transient Tenejapan, Arrente, Longgu, Tamil (rural) Dutch, Japanese, Tamil (urban)

25. Possible Confounding Factors Abs/Geo: preliteraterural stable Rel/Ego:literate urban transient Sending up the patient for his north eye surgery…

26. Confounding Factors Abs/Geo: preliteraterural stable Rel/Ego:literate urban transient One Potential Problem: Literacy possibly linked to response preference e.g. Totonac (Intrinsic language): 8 relative responders (men, literate) vs. 8 absolute responders (women, illiterate). In other studies: Danziger & Pederson (1998). Acceptance of mirror-images as being the “same” is correlated with literacy. d different than b DeLoache et al. (2000). Reading reinforces orienting pictures and words with respect to self. d different than p

27. Environmental Circumstances Influencing Spatial Reasoning Abs/Geo: preliteraterural stable Tzeltal “tree standing downhill of man” Hai||om “man stands in ‘land of soft sand” Longgu “tree standing on side towards sea” Landmarks and Derivation of Geocentric Directional Terms Circumstances help support and maintain these spatial frames of reference. Rel/Ego:literate urban transient

28. Maze Learning in Rats “Place-vs.-Response” -- which one is dominant? Rat Setup Place (geocentric) Response (egocentric) Teach groups PLACE or RESPONSE. Which is easier to learn? or Experimental Variation 1. Training.2. Test turn preference when maze rotated 180° Response (egocentric) Place (geocentric) or Experimental Setup

29. Restle (1957). Discrimination of cues in mazes: A resolution of the place vs. response question., Psychological Review, 64, p. 226. There is nothing in the nature of a rat which makes it a “place” learner or a “response” learner. A rat in a maze will use all relevant cues, and the importance of any class of cues depends on the amount of relevant stimulation provided as well as the sensory capacities of the animal. In place-response experiments, the importance of place cues depends on the amount of differential extra-maze stimulation. Restle Quote Summary of Rat Literature

30. Acredolo & Evans (1980) Egocentric vs. Allocentric Debate Varied testing context (to be explained on next slide) using the basic paradigm below: Step 1: Train infant to turn to look at one window. Step 2: Rotate infant 180°. Which way does infant turn to look? Infant & Mother (allocentric) (egocentric)

31. Results from 6-11 months-olds Found: 6 months, prefer egocentric in any environment 9 months, use direct landmark when available 11 months, additionally to 9 months, use indirect landmark when available Test Conditions: 1. 1.Both Windows Plain 2. 2.Fancy Trained Window, Plain Untrained (Direct Landmark) 3. 3.Plain Trained Window, Fancy Untrained Window (Indirect Landmark) Bottom-line: Cues in the environment affect spatial behavior

32. One-shot, No Training Infant & Mother Acredolo (1979) Acredelo Setup Vary Setting Unfamiliar vs. Familiar bare laboratory laboratory with clutter home Step 1: Hide object in one of two locations. Step 2: Move infant 180° to other side of the table Step 3: Where does infant search? Egocentric vs. Allocentric Debate

33. Result on Familiarity of Environment LaboratoryUNFAMILIARHomeFAMILIAR BareEgocentric ClutteredEgocentricAllocentric Bottom-line: Environment affects spatial behavior.

34. Summary ► ► Experiments with prelinguistic infants and animals (like the previous studies with Penn undergrads) show that environmental contexts affect how the subjects choose to represent the spatial arrays. ► ► Environment affects how one chooses to think about spatial relationships. As a result, environment could come to influence the kind of language that develops.

35. Tenejapans tested outdoors on their hill and Dutchmen tested indoors in laboratory. Shouldn’t spatial performance be influenced by spatial environment? Question: Perhaps the Tenejapans’ response NOT result of LANGUAGE, BUT result of surrounding environment and available landmarks? Testing Location 12 House N (Downhill) S (Uphill) (Tenejapan table setup Outdoor, porch next to house) Confounding Factors

36. * Dutch, Japanese, Arrente, Totonac ** Tzeltal, Kgalagadi, Hai||om Indoor vs. Outdoor Asking experimenters of Pederson, Danziger, Wilkes, Levinson, Kita, Senft (1998)… Where were subjects tested?

37. Eskimo Problem ► Language is tied to the circumstance ► Disassociate language from circumstance  Move Americans to Vail or Aspen ► Start to think more about snow... ► Start to get words like “sugar”, “granule”, “powder” for snow  Move Eskimos to Bermuda ► Fewer uses of snow words, perhaps?  LIKEWISE – We Move Americans to “Tenejapa” (i.e., outdoors to a gridded city where streets run from east to west in increasing cardinality) (i.e., outdoors to a gridded city where streets run from east to west in increasing cardinality) ► Start to get more geocentric responses… ► Start to get more words like “north”, “south”...

38. Turning Americans into Tenejapans Li & Gleitman (2002)

39. 12 Window Walnut St Library N S (room) Condition 2: IRCS Room BLINDS UP Placing Americans in a setting like the Tenejapans. Condition 1: IRCS Room BLINDS DOWN Placing Americans in a setting like the Dutch. Small Animal Setup 12 House N (Downhill) S (Uphill) Tenejapans (testing location: IRCS -- indoor)

40. English Speakers Blinds-Down and Blinds-Up 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 012345 Number of Absolute Trials % of Subjects IRCS Blind Down N =10 IRCS Blind Up N =10 Small Animal Data Brown & Levinson (1993) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 012345 Number of Absolute Trials % of Subjects Dutch N = 38 Tenejapans N = 27

41. N S HRN 12 Field Locust Walk 2 1 Outdoor Location 1 N S Big Animal Setup Library Outdoor Location 2 12 House N (Downhill) S (Uphill) Tenejapans

42. Big Animal Data Outdoor Conditions 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 012345 Number of Absolute Trials % of Subjects By HRN N=20 By Library N = 10 Brown & Levinson (1993) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 012345 Number of Absolute Trials % of Subjects Dutch N = 38 Tenejapans N = 27

43. Increasing Saliency of Landmarks Unmentioned Duck Ponds on the sides of tables as landmark. Condition 2: Relative Biasing 12 Window Walnut St Library N S (room) Condition 1: Absolute Biasing 12 Window Walnut St Library N S (room) Ducks Setup (testing location: IRCS -- indoor)

44. Brown & Levinson (1993) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 012345 Number of Absolute Trials % of Subjects Dutch N = 38 Tenejapans N = 27 Ducks on the Tables Landmark Manipulation 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 012345 Number of Absolute Trials % of Subjects Relative Bias N=20 Absolute Bias N=20 Ducks Data

45. Summary ► Pre-linguistic infants & rats make use of both frames of reference ► Cultural difference or other third factor might be able to explain some of the effect.  Eskimo Analogy  Circumstance  language & behavior

46. Task Ambiguity ► Does the “same” mean the same across languages? ► Interpretation of “same” within a language requires guessing intent of experimenter.

47. Interpretations of “the same” N 180º

48. Task Ambiguity ► Does the “same” mean the same across languages? ► Interpretation of “same” within a language requires guessing intent of experimenter. ► Ambiguous tasks are subjected to contextual influence:  Environment change (indoor-outdoor)  Triggers s.a. holding animals  One table manipulation

49. Step 3: Ss recreate “same” as Table 1. At least 2 possible solutions. Step 3 relative tendencyStep 3 absolute tendency One Table 180° Rotation – Same Table, Same Frame of Ref. Step 1: Ss memorize items Step 2: Ss rotated Reducing Ambiguity – 1 Table vs. 2 Tables (testing location: IRCS -- indoor, blinds-down) One-Table Setup Table (north side) (left side, north side) Subject Table (left side) Table

50. Step 1: Ss memorize items Step 2: Ss rotated Two Tables With Outer 180° Turn – Control Condition (testing location: IRCS -- indoor, blinds-down) Two-Tables Outer Setup Table 1Table2 (left side, north side) Subject Table 1 Table 2 (north side) Table 2 Table 1 (left side) Table 1Table2 (left side) Reducing Ambiguity – 1 Table vs. 2 Tables Step 3: Ss recreate “same” as Table 1. At least 2 possible solutions. Step 3 relative tendencyStep 3 absolute tendency

51. English Speakers English Speakers One Table vs. Two Tables 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 012345 Number of Absolute Trials % of Subjects One Table N=10 Two Tables N=10 One vs. Two Table Data Brown & Levinson (1993) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 012345 Number of Absolute Trials % of Subjects Dutch N = 38 Tenejapans N = 27

52. Task Ambiguity ► Does the “same” mean the same across languages? ► How one’s linguistic community customarily speaks about or responds to inquiries about locations and directions might come to influence what appropriately counts as the “same” spatial array.

53. Task Ambiguity ► Experimental Q to be answered next time.  Li et al. (under review)

55. What about Haun et al (2006) PNAS? ► Common phylogenetic inheritance of a preference of allocentric strategy ► Such preference can be overwritten by cultural preference for egocentric strategy

59. P Levinson (2003) Cited evidence of linguistic relativity ► Gesture Data ► Pointing to unseen location Pigeons Tseltal Speakers Dutch Speakers ‘HOME’

60. Slide from Peggy