Verb Semantics Affects the Interpretation of Spatial Prepositions

Abstract

Spatial prepositions, more specifically projective prepositions, such as in front of or behind can be interpreted in different ways. Their interpretation depends on the spatial perspective taken as the basis for determining the reference frame's orientation. In 3 series of placement experiments with German speakers, we examined whether the interpretation of projective prepositions in a motion context is affected by the verb used in a spatial instruction. Results suggest that verb semantics is a factor accounting for previously observed seemingly social-situational differences in the interpretation of projective prepositions. Specifically, the findings indicate that, relative to a car as reference object, the semantic aspect of motion interruption associated with some verbs leads to a higher proportion of deictic interpretations determined by the direction from which one is approaching the car. This verb effect on the interpretation of spatial prepositions can be explained by an activation of the temporal dimension through stop-implying verbs, which is integrated into the spatial situation model of the perceived dynamic scene making the deictic frame of reference more compatible. The experimental evidence also shows that verb semantics can account for previously unexplained cross-linguistic differences, and is related to patterns concerning the prepositional inventory of languages.     

Why do speakers mix perspectives?

Although considerations of discourse coherence and cognitive processing suggest that communicators should adopt consistent perspectives when describing spatial scenes, in many cases they switch perspectives. Ongoing research examining cognitive costs indicates that these are small and exacted in establishing a mental model of a scene but not in retrieving information from a well-known scene. A perspective entails a point of view, a referent object, and terms of reference. These may change within a perspective, exacting cognitive costs, so that the costs of switching perspective may not be greater than the costs of maintaining the same perspective. Another project investigating perspective choice for self and other demonstrates effects of salience of referent object and ease of terms of reference. Perspective is mixed not just in verbal communications but also in pictorial ones, suggesting that at times, switching perspective is more effective than maintaining a consistent one.