Patterns in the conceptualisation of space

We begin by investigating patterns in the human conceptualisation of space. As we have emphasised, the conceptions we present here are not thought of by cognitive linguists as predetermined semantic universals, but instead represent a set of common patterns in human conceptualisation of space, from which languages appear to elaborate different aspects thereby achieving considerable variation. The discussion presented here on the domain of space is largely based on the work of Leonard Talmy (2000), who proposes that spatial representation in language encodes spatial scenes. Spatial scenes are configured according to three parameters:

1. figure-ground segregation;

2. the relative proximity of the figure with respect to the ground; and

3. the location of the figure with respect to the ground. This is achieved by the employment of a particular reference frame.

Figure-ground segregation

As we have seen, linguistic representations of spatial scenes reflect a figure ground asymmetry. While one entity is typically privileged and represents the figure, the second entity is given less prominence and is referred to as the ground or reference object. It is a striking fact that language reflects perceptual organisation in the way that spatial scenes are segregated. In English, this is mirrored by the syntax. For instance, in simple sentences like those in (13), the figure (underlined) normally precedes the preposition (near), while the reference object (bracketed) follows the preposition. Sentences in which the reference object precedes the preposition, although grammatically well-formed, are semantically odd (indicated by the question mark preceding the sentence):

The semantic ‘oddness’ of this example can be explained by the fact that the reference object is typically the immovable entity that only serves to locate the figure. Recall that the Gestalt principle of smallness predicts that the smaller entity (the bike) will be perceived as the figure. The criteria for determining figure and reference object, based on linguistic encoding, are listed in Table 3.1.

Primary and secondary reference object

 In addition to figure-ground segregation, languages often allow more complex partitioning of spatial scenes. This involves segregating the ground into two reference objects in order to better locate the figure. These are termed primary reference object and secondary reference object. While the primary reference object is usually explicitly encoded by a lexical item, the secondary reference object need not be, but can instead merely be implied. Consider example (14):

While the River Thames is the primary reference object, the secondary reference object, the Earth, is implied by the spatial expression north of. In other words, it is only with respect to the concept THE EARTH that we can process the information that one entity can be ‘north of’ another. Talmy (2000) identifies two kinds of secondary reference object: encompassing and external. These are outlined below.

The encompassing secondary reference object is typically asymmetric in orientation and encompasses the primary reference object. This type of reference object provides a frame for locating the primary reference object, which in turn serves to locate the figure. The example in (14) provides an example of this type, where the Earth provides an encompassing secondary reference object containing the primary reference object, the River Thames. In addition, it is because the Earth has an asymmetric orientation (the north–south opposition), that it is possible to identify the location of the figure relative to the primary reference object. A similar example is the concept QUEUE, which has asymmetric, front–back orientation:

In example (15), the queue provides an orientational frame that encompasses the primary reference object Mary, which in turn locates the figure Jane. Observe that it is because of the front–back orientation imposed by the secondary reference object that Jane’s location with respect to the primary reference object, Mary, is established. After all, Mary could be facing away from the front of the queue to talk to somebody behind her. Even in this situation, it would still be possible to describe Jane as ahead of Mary (in the queue). We return to the external type of secondary reference object in the next section.

Relative proximity of figure and reference object The second way in which linguistic variation is constrained with respect to spatial scenes is that languages must encode the relative proximity of the figure with respect to the (typically immoveable) ground. At the most schematic level, there are three possibilities relating to proximity: ‘contact’, ‘adjacency’ or ‘at some distance’. Examples from English that illustrate the linguistic encoding of these distinctions are given below.

Reference frames

 The third parameter for delineating a spatial scene, as evident in the languages of the world, is the reference frame. Reference frames represent the means language has at its disposal for using reference objects in order to locate figures. According to Talmy (2000), there is a limited set of reference frames employed by the world’s languages. Talmy identifies four kinds, which are illustrated in Figure 3.8. These can be divided into (1) reference frames that involve the primary reference object alone: a ground-based reference frame; and (2) reference frames that also involve a secondary reference object. There are three reference frames of this kind: field-based, guidepost-based and projector-based. In Figure 3.8, primary reference object is abbreviated to PRO, and secondary reference object to SRO.

In order to illustrate each of these reference frames, consider the simple cityscape scene, illustrated in Figure 3.9. Now imagine a situation in which a speaker is directing a hearer to the grocery store. There are a number of ways in which the exact location of the grocery store can be found, in keeping with the four reference frames identified.

This is the simplest kind of reference frame. It involves just a primary reference object, the office building, and employs the intrinsic geometry of this reference object in order to locate the figure: the office building has an intrinsic front, back and sides, to which the speaker appeals in describing the location of the grocery store. Therefore, this type of reference frame is ground-based. The example of ground-based reference given in (19) is illustrated in Figure 3.10. The large cross in Figure 3.10, which overlays the office building, indicates that it is the office building that is providing the frame of reference for locating the figure.

Like the remaining reference frames, the field-based type involves a secondary reference object. Field-based reference is characterised by an encompassing secondary reference object, like the Earth example we discussed earlier. A similar example of field-based reference is given in (20) and illustrated in Figure 3.11.

The crossed-lines indicate the cardinal points (north, south, east and west) that take their reference from the Earth. It is relative to the cardinal points that the primary reference object (the office building) locates the figure (the grocery store).

Like the field-based type, guidepost-based reference framing involves a secondary reference object. However, this type involves an external rather than encompassing secondary reference object. In the guidepost-based reference frame, the external secondary reference object is a non-animate entity the tower in example (21) – which is external to the primary reference object. The example in (21) is represented in Figure 3.12, where it is the tower that identifies that portion of the primary reference object (the office building) with respect to which the grocery store is localised. This explains why this type of reference frame is described as ‘guidepost-based’.

The final kind of reference frame also involves an external secondary reference object. In this type of reference frame, the secondary reference object is an animate entity (here, the speaker), whose location serves as a frame of reference in locating the relevant part of the primary reference object that enables the f igure to be located. In example (19), ‘left’ refers to that side of the office building from the perspective of the speaker. This type of reference frame is called ‘projector-based’ because the speaker is projecting his or her own location as a frame of reference. Example (22) is illustrated in Figure 3.13.

As the discussion in this section demonstrates, a number of core patterns are evident in the conceptualisation of space as encoded in language. These are (1) figure-ground segregation; (2) the interaction of figure with primary and secondary reference object; and (3) distinct types of reference frame. Moreover, these patterns are independently motivated by psychological principles of perception, which illustrates how the cognitive commitment underlies the statement of linguistic patterns based on evidence from other areas of cognitive science.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تكرم المشاركين في مشروع مقرأة العميد الرقمية

تقديم محاضرة عن عالم الأرقام في القرآن الكريم ضمن حفل إطلاق مشروع مقرأة العميد

ضمن فعاليات إطلاق مقرأة العميد الرقمية.. عرض فيديو توثيقي عن فكرة المشروع

جامعة تكنولوجيا المعلومات: مشروع مقرأة العميد منصة رقمية متكاملة لتعليم القرآن الكريم وتلاوته وحفظه

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

عرض شائع على الأصابع.. قد يكشف سرطان الرئة مبكرا

7 مشروبات طبيعية لتقليل التوتر والقلق

دراسة: "خطر مبكر" يهدد صحة الأطفال

الجوز أو الفول السوداني.. أيهما يتفوّق في حماية القلب؟

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

مفاجأة علمية عن الإنجاب.. كم طفلا يطيل عمر المرأة؟

استطلاع يكشف "الأكثر قلقا" من تأثر الوظائف بالذكاء الاصطناعي

هل يمنحك تناول الجزر يوميا سمرة طبيعية؟

إنجاز طبي تاريخي.. جراحة قلب بلا شق في الصدر

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

An illustration of mental space construction

Roles and values

The Access Principle

Counterparts and connectors

Mental space lattices

Properties and relations

Elements

Space builders

The architecture of mental space construction

Towards a cognitive theory of meaning construction

Meaning construction in cognitive semantics

Sentence meaning in formal semantics