Spatial language and cognition beyond Mesoamerica

语言中表达了多少空间信息？语言在几何和功能对象结构的表达上有多大的不同？作为物体结构的概念模型，人类和动物的身体在不同语言中所扮演的角色是否有所不同？所有语言的使用者在将身体的结构映射到物体的结构时是否都采用相同的概念过程？物体的几何和功能结构在不同语言中被概念化的方式是否会影响这些语言中空间关系的识别方式？讲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？该项目试图通过对五大洲25种语言的空间表征的调查，找到这些问题和类似问题的答案。首要问题是语言和内部认知中参考框架使用的语言与非语言决定因素。先前的研究已经证实，在中美洲地区的语言中，对相对（观察者投射）框架的偏见和对主要基于物体几何的“同名”术语的高效使用同时出现。为了验证这一假设，即作为空间描述资源的基于形状的重名实际上是框架使用的因果影响，将对南美洲、非洲和亚洲的四种非中美洲语言进行研究。初步报告表明，在这些语言中存在中美洲风格的几何双名法。另一种假说认为，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，该假说将在八个亚洲人群中进行测试。在中美洲语言中，研究小组将进一步研究以物体为中心的几何优势的一个意想不到的明显副作用：“规范定向原则”，这可能是特定于语言的，它可以防止说英语的人在把球放在颠倒的椅子上时说“球在椅子下面”。

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.