Spatial language and cognition beyond Mesoamerica

有多少空间信息是用语言表示的？在几何和功能对象结构的表达上，语言的差异有多大？人类和动物的身体作为物体结构的概念模型在不同语言中扮演的角色是否存在差异？所有语言的说话者在将身体结构映射为物体结构时都使用相同的概念过程吗？物体的几何和功能结构在不同的语言中被概念化的方式是否影响了这些语言中空间关系的识别方式？说不同语言的人谈论空间关系的方式会影响他们记忆空间关系的方式吗？这个项目试图通过对五大洲25种语言中空间表征的调查，找到这些和类似问题的答案。最主要的问题是语言和非语言决定因素在语言和内部认知中的参照系使用。先前的研究证实，对相对(观察者投射的)框架的偏见和主要基于中美洲地区语言的物体几何的“同音异义”术语的高生产率使用是共同出现的。为了验证这样一种假设，即在空间描述中用作资源的基于形状的近亲关系在框架使用中实际上是一个因果影响，我们将考察南美、非洲和亚洲四种非中美洲语言。初步报告表明，在这些语言中存在中美洲式的几何同音异义关系。根据另一种假设，框架选择不是由语言直接驱动的，而是完全由非语言因素驱动的，将在8个亚洲人群中进行测试。在中美洲语言中，该团队将进一步调查以物体为中心的几何学的主导地位带来的一个意想不到的明显副作用：当英语使用者将球放在倒置的椅子上时，防止说英语的人说“球在椅子下面”的“规范定向原理”可能是特定于语言的。

How much spatial information is represented in language? To what extent do languages differ in the expression of geometrical and functional object structure? Is there variation in the role the human and animal body plays as a conceptual model of the structure of objects across languages? Do speakers of all languages employ the same conceptual processes in mapping the structure of the body into that of objects? Does the way the geometrical and functional structure of objects is conceptualized in different languages influence the way spatial relations are identified in these languages? And does the way speakers of different languages talk about spatial relations influence the way they memorize them? This project attempts to find answers to these and similar questions, based on an investigation of the representation of space in 25 languages spoken on five continents.The overarching question is that of linguistic vs. nonlinguistic determinants of reference frame use in language and internal cognition. Previous research has confirmed the co-occurrence of a bias against relative (observer-projected) frames and the highly productive use of "meronymic" terminologies that are based primarily on object geometry across the languages of the Mesoamerican area. To test the hypothesis that shape-based meronymy, used as a resource in spatial descriptions, is in fact a causal influence in frame use, four non-Mesoamerican languages of South America, Africa, and Asia will be examined. Preliminary reports suggest the presence of Mesoamerican-style geometric meronymy in these languages. The alternative hypothesis, according to which frame selection is not directly driven by language, but exclusively by non-linguistic factors, will be tested in eight Asian populations. Among Mesoamerican languages, the team will further investigate an unexpected apparent side effect of the predominance of object-centered geometry: the "principle of canonical orientation", which prevents English speakers from saying "The ball is under the chair" when it is placed on top of an inverted chair, may be language-specific.