Spatial Position in Language and Visual Memory: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison

Spatial Position in Language and Visual Memory: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison Solveig Bosse (solveig@udel.edu) Department of Linguistics & Cognitive Science, 46 E. Delaware Ave Newark, DE 19716 USA Anna Papafragou (annap@udel.edu) Department of Psychology, 109 Wolf Hall Newark, DE 19716 USA Abstract German and English speakers employ different strategies to encode static spatial scenes involving the axial position (standing vs. lying) of an inanimate figure object with respect to a ground object. In a series of three experiments, we show that this linguistic difference is not reflected in native speakers’ ability to detect changes in axial position in non- linguistic memory tasks. Furthermore, even when participants are required to use language to encode a spatial scene, they do not rely on language during a recognition memory task. These results have implications for the relationship between language and visual memory. Keywords: Positional verbs, visual memory, space, language and thought Introduction It has often been observed that languages make available different strategies to encode spatial relations (Ameka & Levinson, 2007). A question of central interest within the cognitive sciences is how these cross-linguistic differences interact with underlying spatial representations recruited in spatial memory and other cognitive processes. According to an influential position, language exerts a strong influence on cognitive processes (Levinson, Kita, Haun & Rasch, 2002). Based on several cross-linguistic experiments involving spatial tasks, Levinson et al. proposed that spatial frames of reference provided by people’s native language affect how people remember spatial arrays. Crucially, such linguistic effects are argued to emerge even when no overt linguistic labels accompany encoding of the spatial scene. The idea is that obligatory spatial distinctions made within one’s native language direct attention to those aspects of spatial representation - thereby affecting spatial memory. According to a different position, effects of native language on mental representation and memory are more limited. For instance, studies have shown that, despite differences in encoding motion events between English and Greek, memory for aspects of motion does not differ across speakers of these languages (Papafragou, Massey & Gleitman, 2002; cf. Gennari, Sloman, Malt & Fitch, 2002 for related results on English vs. Spanish). Other work has also suggested an independence of memory from cross- linguistic differences in spatial encoding (see Munich, Landau & Dosher, 2001; cf. reviews in Gentner & Goldin- Meadow, 2003). The question of whether (and how) cross-linguistic differences might affect memory for spatial scenes is related to the question of whether (and how) the explicit presence of linguistic labels during spatial encoding might affect memory. Effects of overt labeling, even though not as deep and pervasive as the effects proposed by Levinson et al. (2002), are still important for understanding how language interfaces with other cognitive faculties. Several studies have shown that explicit spatial language can affect spatial memory – even though the scope and mechanisms responsible for such effects are still not well understood. For instance, there is evidence that memory for motion events can be biased depending on whether path (exit) or manner (skip) verbs accompany the events, regardless of whether the verbs are provided by the experimenter (Billman & Krych, 1998) or generated by participants (Billman, Swilley & Krych, 2000). Relatedly, Feist and Gentner (2007) showed that providing participants with spatial language can influence their behavior in a recognition task. Specifically, viewing ambiguous spatial representations paired with spatial prepositions (e.g., on) resulted in a false memory bias towards typical portrayals of the relation encoded by the prepositions. In another demonstration, Archambault, O’Donnell and Schyns (1999) showed that the level at which an object is categorized (general, e.g. “a mug”, or specific, e.g. “Steve’s mug”) influences the time it takes people to detect a change in a picture containing the object. If objects are known at a specific (individual) level, then the changes are detected faster than if the objects are known on a general level. Crucially, in this study, the level of categorization was provided through linguistic labels prior to the main testing phase. In this paper, we explored the extent of the influence that language can have on spatial memory (including contexts with and without overt linguistic encoding). We focused on an area of spatial encoding that has only recently begun to receive attention in the literature – namely, positional systems (see Ameka & Levinson, 2007) – and compared two languages, English and German, that differ in a specific aspect of spatial-positional encoding. Specifically, German naturally uses positional verbs that specify the axial orientation of the figure object: an object that is perceived to