Spatial meanings for function words? The link between conjunctions and spatial representations

Spatial meanings for function words? The link between conjunctions and spatial representations Ernesto Guerra (ernesto.guerra@uni-bielefeld.de) Cognitive Interaction Technology Excellence Cluster and Department of Linguistics, Bielefeld University, Morgenbreede 39, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany Tyler Marghetis (tmarghet@ucsd.edu) Department of Cognitive Science, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla CA 92093-0515, USA Pia Knoeferle (knoeferl@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de) Cognitive Interaction Technology Excellence Cluster and Department of Linguistics, Bielefeld University, Morgenbreede 39, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany Abstract While formal theories of language consider function words to have little semantic content, more recent theoretical work has argued that even function words have meaning. Yet, there is little experimental work on the representations underlying the meaning of function words such as conjunctions. In two offline experiments, we examined whether conjunctions (and, or, but, either…or) are associated in systematic but distinctive ways with spatial information. In Experiment 1, participants drew schematic representations to depict how two abstract conjuncts might be connected by each of the four conjunctions. These drawing were evaluated on three spatial dimensions (distance, containment and size). In Experiment 2, participants evaluated how well schematic sketches (that differed in distance, containment, and size) represented different conjunctions. In both experiments, spatial information was systematically and distinctively associated with conjunctions. Either… or and or conjunctions were reliably associated with the use of large distance and separation via containment of the conjuncts. And, by contrast, was associated with shorter distance between, and no containment of, the conjuncts. Finally, but was associated with differences in size. We discuss implications of these results for the spatial foundation of linguistic meaning, and the link between lexical semantics and logic. Keywords: Conjunctions, spatial representation, drawing, rating, simulation, embodiment. Introduction Natural language conjunctions such as and and or are used in ways that differ markedly from their logical or ―truth- tabular‖ senses. For instance, and often expresses the temporal order of two conjoined events (Bloom et al, 1980). Thus, (1) and (2) mean quite different things: (1) He ran through the door and slipped on a banana peel. (2) He slipped on a banana peel and ran through the door. While (1) and (2) differ only in the order of the conjuncts, this results in a different temporal ordering of the events. Conjunctions can also express causality, counterfactuals, or subordination (see Culicover & Jackendoff, 1997). This departure from formal logic has long been recognized by linguists of all stripes (e.g., Hoeksema, 1987; Klinedinst & Rothschild, 2012). But what about those cases where and and or are used in a sparse discursive context and actually appear to express a simple logical relation? What are the lexical semantics of and and or in their most austere uses? On a classic formal account, the semantics of these function words is impoverished, contributing to the meaning of an utterance only in virtue of the meaning of the conjoined content words (e.g., Keenan & Faltz, 1985; cf. Boole, 1854). More recent work, however, has prompted a reconsideration of the semantics of function words, and of the semantic content of grammar more generally. Langacker (2008) has argued that grammar is inseparable from meaning, since it shapes conceptualization in subtle but reliable ways. According to Langacker (1987), conjunctions like and and or prompt the ―juxtaposition‖ of two or more objects or events in a dynamic conceptualization. Moreover, he and others (e.g. Landau & Jackendoff, 2003; Talmy, 2000) have argued that schematic spatial information may lie at the core of linguistic meaning. Could the ―juxtaposition‖ prompted by conjunctions rely on implicit spatial representations? This possibility aligns with recent evidence that language comprehension involves the dynamic construction of an embodied mental simulation. In contrast with approaches that posit abstract, symbolic representations (e.g. Landauer & Dumais, 1997; Markman & Dietrich, 2000), embodied approaches argue that linguistic meaning is fundamentally tied to perceptual, motor and affective representations (Barsalou, 1999). Understanding ―He threw the apple into the air,‖ might involve activating cortical circuits implicated in perceiving the color red (Connell, 2007), perceiving motion (Saygin et al, 2012), or performing the action of throwing (Masson, Bub, & Warren 2008). To account for how less concrete language is grounded in perception and action, proponents of some embodied approaches to language comprehension have appealed to ―metaphorical‖ representations that map concrete experience to abstract linguistic content (Gibbs, 2006; Gallese & Lakoff, 2005). For instance, respect can be conceptualized in terms of vertical height—―I look up to my superiors‖—while similarity can be conceptualized in terms of closeness— ―Our ideas are quite close‖ (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). And, in fact, comprehending language about respect, similarity,