Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBeller, Sieghard
dc.contributor.authorSingmann, Henrik
dc.contributor.authorHüther, Lisa
dc.contributor.authorBender, Andrea
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-29T08:43:04Z
dc.date.available2016-01-29T08:43:04Z
dc.date.issued2015-09-02
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Psychology 2015, 6:1283eng
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1956/11023
dc.description.abstractWhen referring to an object in relation to another, speakers of many languages can adopt a relative frame of reference (FoR). Following Levinson (2003), this kind of FoR can be established by projecting an observer’s perspective onto the ground object either by translation, reflection, or rotation. So far, research on spatial FoRs has largely ignored the extent of variation in which of these projections are preferred generally, and specifically what kind of FoR is established for spatial arrays in one’s back. This may seem justified by assumptions on ‘natural’ preferences: for reflection in frontal settings (Canonical Encounter Hypothesis), and for converting dorsal into frontal situations by a turn of the observer before a reference is made (Turn Hypothesis). We scrutinize these assumptions by comparing the FoRs adopted for small-scale, static spatial arrays by speakers of four languages (German, US-English, Mandarin Chinese, and Tongan). Addressing the problem of inherent ambiguities on the item level when assessing FoRs from spatial prepositions, we use a multinomial processing tree (MPT) model for estimating probabilities of referencing strategies across sets of items. Substantial differences in frontal settings, both between and within languages, disprove the Canonical Encounter Hypothesis—translation occurs as frequently as reflection across samples. In dorsal settings, in contrast, the same type of response dominates in all samples. We suggest that this response is produced by a backward projection of the observer’s coordinate system in correspondence with the two main FoR preferences for frontal settings. However, none of these strategies involves a turn of the observer, thus also disproving the Turn Hypothesis. In conclusion, we discuss possible causes of the observed variability, explore links between the domains of space and time, and reflect the relation between language, communication, and culture.eng
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherFrontierseng
dc.relation.urihttp://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01283/full
dc.rightsAttribution CC BYeng
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0eng
dc.subjectspatial cognitioneng
dc.subjectframes of reference (FoR)eng
dc.subjectrelative FoR variantseng
dc.subjectfrontal vs. dorsal referencingeng
dc.subjectcross-linguistic comparison (German, US-English, Mandarin Chinese, Tongan)eng
dc.subjectMPT modelingeng
dc.titleTurn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal versus frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparisoneng
dc.typeJournal articleeng
dc.date.updated2015-12-22T10:33:15Z
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2015 The Authorseng
dc.type.versionpublishedVersioneng
bora.peerreviewedPeer reviewedeng
dc.type.documentJournal article
dc.identifier.cristinID1261509
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01283eng
dc.source.issn1664-1078eng
bora.bpoaIDbpoa496


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution CC BY
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution CC BY