Article View: sci.lang
Article #3035Are 'spatial relations' Universals?
From: David Mark
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 1995 00:00
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 1995 00:00
34 lines
3119 bytes
3119 bytes
After years of working with spatial relations, through analysis of natural language, through human subjects experiments, and through formal mathematical methods, I have begun to suspect that there may be a rather small set of 'basic' or 'focal' spatial relations that are human universals. These might be innate, but most likely arise out of the experience that an individual has with the world through their body and senses. (Lakoff's "Experiential Realism".) My guess is that the situation is rather like that for color perception, reasoning, and naming. There, the salient or focal colors seem to be based on retinal sensitivity. Then, a language may name some of these, or most, with basic names, group several under a single term, etc. (Berlin and Kay.) But whatever the grouping, the same physiologically-based focal colors are given as 'best examples' (prototypes) for any named categories. Also, for color names, it appears that theses colors, which neither exist in the external world in a meaningful sense, nor which are arbitrary labels and boundaries in some continuum, are named in about the same hierarchical sequence. The possibly-universal basic spatial relations seem to be closely related to Lakoff and Johnson's Image-schemata, singly or in combination. The CONTAINER schema gives rise to "in". perhaps the most basic spatial relation. "Outside" is derived from "in" by negation. And so on. Does anyone out there in net-land know of any specific work on the possible universality of basic spatial relations, on their formal recognition or cognitive confirmation, or their experiential basis, on their relation to Image-schemata, etc.? Or have any nice counter-examples to my explicit and implicit claims regarding spatial relations, above? _____________________________________________________________________________ | ________________ | | David M. Mark | | | | Center for Cognitive Science and | (See why I'm | | | National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis | interested?) | | | dmark@geog.buffalo.edu |________________| | !_____________________________________________________________________________!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3tebps$hfj@azure.acsu.buffalo.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f66d0,6f46e3252c134b0a,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf66d0,public X-Google-Thread: 10870e,6f46e3252c134b0a,start X-Google-Attributes: gid10870e,public X-Google-Thread: 10a20a,6f46e3252c134b0a,start X-Google-Attributes: gid10a20a,public X-Google-Thread: 10681a,6f46e3252c134b0a,start X-Google-Attributes: gid10681a,public From: dmark@acsu.buffalo.edu (David Mark) Subject: Are 'spatial relations' Universals? Date: 1995/07/05 Message-ID: <3tebps$hfj@azure.acsu.buffalo.edu> X-Deja-AN: 105656203 organization: UB keywords: spatial relations, basic categories, human universals nntp-posting-user: dmark newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.cognitive,bit.listserv.geograph,sci.anthropology