Motion encoding in language Reference frame use during the employment of spatial locatives in a moti - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 19
About This Presentation
Title:

Motion encoding in language Reference frame use during the employment of spatial locatives in a moti

Description:

Levinson's reference frame representations for language ... Rel vs Int Mot Rel vs Rel Int. Int vs Mot. Int vs Int Mot. No Motion vs Motion ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:105
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: vande93
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Motion encoding in language Reference frame use during the employment of spatial locatives in a moti


1
Motion encoding in languageReference frame use
during the employment of spatial locatives in a
motion context
  • Crystal Walker
  • Emile van der Zee
  • NOS grant 10088

2
Overview
  • Levinsons reference frame representations for
    language
  • What happens when motion is added to the scene?
  • Experiments 1 2 - Forced choice without motion
  • Experiments 3 4 - Forced choice with motion
  • Conclusion

3
Levinsons reference frame representations for
language
INTRINSIC (ground centred) Hes in front of the
house
RELATIVE (person centred) Hes to the left of
the house
ABSOLUTE (environment centred) Hes north of
the house
(Levinson, 1996, p139)
4
Levinsons frames continued
  • Some properties of different reference frames
  • INTRINSIC ABSOLUTE
    RELATIVE
  • Constancy under
  • rotation of
  • Whole array yes no no
  • Viewer yes yes no
  • Ground no yes yes

(Levinson, 2003, p53)
5
What happens when motion is added to the context?
Levelt (1984) describes a thought experiment in
which a Figure and Ground are in motion, but the
speaker is static
Where is the green ball in relation to the red
ball?
Hill (1982) and Ullmer- Ehrich (1982) Speakers
use the Relative Frame.
6
Which reference frame do speakers use?
Speakers cannot be using a Relative
Frame (Levelt, 1984, p. 340)
  • direction of motion gives in front of and
    behind.
  • position of the speaker irrelevant
  • speakers are quite probably operating in the
    Intrinsic Frame

7
Which reference frame ?
Walker van der Zee (in prep) Unlikely that
speakers are using an Intrinsic Frame
The green ball is to the left of the red
helicopter ? RELATIVE The green ball is in front
of the red helicopter ? INTRINSIC The green
ball is behind the red helicopter ?
???????? Do speakers use an Absolute Frame, or
even a Motion Frame?
8
Which reference frame ?
Some properties of different reference frames
INTRINSIC ABSOLUTE RELATIVE
MOTION Constancy under rotation of Whole array
yes no no no?? Viewer
yes yes no yes Ground no
yes yes yes
(Levinson, 2003, p53)
9
Experiments 1 2 No MotionVertical
Horizontal screens
Condition 1 RelAtive vs Intrinsic Condition
2 RelAtive Condition 3 RelAtive
Intrinsic NOTE Whenever RelAtive is mentioned,
it may refer to Relative Absolute (gravity) for
vertically aligned stimuli in Experiment 2 and
to Relative Screen (environment) in Experiment 3
10
Experiments 1 2 No MotionVertical
Horizontal screens
  • Participants describe the location of a red/green
    ball in relation to a green/red helicopter with
    all possible orientation combinations of the
    helicopter and ball except back viewpoint
  • 52 trials
  • On screen for a possible 10 seconds
  • Forced choice of 6 possible answers
  • above / below / in front of / behind / left of /
    right of
  • Experiment 1 stimuli presented on an upright
    (vertical) screen (N24)
  • Experiment 2 stimuli presented on a horizontal
    screen (N22)

11
Results 1 2 No Motion Vertical vs Horizontal
screens
  • No significant difference for RelAtive or
    Intrinsic frames
  • The difference between RelAtive Intrinsic
    frames is marginally significant
    F (1,44) 3.990, Plt.052

12
Results 1 2 No Motion Vertical and Horizontal
screens
Vertical (blue) Horizontal (red) Diff Diff
Rel
vs Rel Int All Int vs Rel
Int Not
Rel vs Int
13
Experiments 3 4MotionVertical Horizontal
screens
Condition 1 RelAtive vs Intrinsic vs
Motion Condition 2 RelAtive vs
Motion Condition 3 RelAtive vs Intrinsic
Motion Condition 4 RelAtive Intrinsic vs
Motion Experiment
14
Results 3 4 MotionVertical vs Horizontal
screens
  • No significant difference for Intrinsic, Motion
    and RelAtive Intrinsic frames of reference
  • Difference between the RelAtive frames marginally
    significant
  • F (1,42) 4.012, Plt.052
  • Difference between Intrinsic Motion frames is
    also marginally significant
  • F (1,42) 3.728, Plt.060

15
Results 3 4 Motion Vertical and Horizontal
screens
Vertical (blue) Horizontal (red) Not Not Rel
vs Int Rel vs Int Rel vs Int Mot Rel vs Rel
Int Int vs Mot Int vs Int Mot
16
No Motion vs Motion
Marginally significant difference between
RelAtive frames F(1,43) 3.922, plt .054
Significant difference between the RelAtive
Intrinsic frames F(1,43) 11.315, plt .002
  • No significant differences

17
No Motion and Motion
No Motion (blue) Diff
All
No Motion (blue) Diff Rel vs
Rel Int Int vs Rel Int Not
Rel vs Int
Motion ( red) Diff
Rel vs Rel Int Int vs Rel Int Not
Rel vs Int
Motion (red) Diff
Int vs Rel Int Not Rel vs Int
Rel vs Rel Int

18
Conclusions
  • 4.5 motion frame on average when motion is added
    to a situation
  • Motion vs no motion no difference for the
    vertical screen, but a difference for the
    horizontal screen
  • Analysis ongoing effect of location of object to
    ground orientation of ground direction of
    motion. This will determine which factors impact
    upon reference frame choice.

19
References
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., Irwin, D. E. (1994).
Reference frame activation during spatial term
assignment. Journal of Memory and Language, 33,
646-671. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A. Jiang, Y.
(1998). Inhibition accompanies reference
frame selection. Psychological Science, 9,
386-391. Carlson, L. A., West, R., Taylor, H.
A., Herndon, R. (2002). Neural correlates
of spatial term use. Journal of Experimental
Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 28,
1391-1408. Hill, C. (1982). Up/down, front/back,
left/right. A contrastive study of Hausa and
English. In J. Weissenborn and W. Klein (Eds.),
Here and there. Cross-linguistic Studies on
Deixis and Demonstration (pp13-42). Amsterdam
John Benjamins Publishing Company 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. C. (1996). Frames of
reference and Molyneuxs question
crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. A.
Peterson, L. Nadel and M. F. Garrett (eds),
Language and Space (pp 109-171). Cambridge, MA
MIT Press. Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in
language and cognition Explorations in cognitive
diversity. Cambridge Cambridge University
Press. Ullmer - Erich, V. (1982). The structure
of living space descriptions. In R. J. Jarvella
and W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, Place and Action (pp
219-249), Chichester John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com