Spatial Cognition Paper

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

[email protected]

Seminar:

Linguistic Relativity

Prof. Dr. Holden Härtl

WS 2010/2011



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.



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



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)



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



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



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



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

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"



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



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



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


23S.C. Levinson et al. ³Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning´ (2002) p.156



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?´



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


Culture´



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



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



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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.




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


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



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.

Documents

Spatial Cognition Paper