Linguistic relativity and the

perception of space, motion, and

time in different languages
 Members
❏ Lê Thị Kim Anh - 21045211
❏ Phạm Ngọc Anh - 21045213
❏ Trịnh Thị Chinh - 21045224
❏ Lê Thanh Hậu - 21045241
❏ Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Mai - 21045270
❏ Nguyễn Xuân Ngọc - 21045278
❏ Trần Thị Hải Yến - 21045322
 01 02
Words, Concepts, and The interaction between
Thinking language and space

03 04
The interaction between The interaction between
language and motion language and time

05
Implication for teaching
01
Words, concepts
and thinking
 Words, concepts and thinking

1.1. 1.2.
The language
Linguistic relativity
hypothesis

1.3. 1.4.
Thought and reality Several key terms
Linguistic relativity
Linguistic relativity is that lexicalized concepts
impose restrictions on possible ways of thinking.
It provides an explanation for a common
experience when dealing with different languages.

Example:
❏ In English verbs for putting on clothes (put on,
don, etc.) make no distinction about the part
of the body the clothing goes on.
❏ Other languages like Japanese (as discussed
by E. V. Clark 1983) and Korean (Choi and
Bowerman 1992) have separate verbs for
putting clothes on various parts of the body.
❏ Direction: Vietnam vs America
Linguistic relativity
❏ Linguistic relativity principle” which suggests
that the grammars of different languages
refer their speakers to different kinds of
linguistics observations, which will in turn
lead to different views of the world
(Whorf, 1956).

❏ Language may influence thought during

“thinking for speaking” (Slobin, 1991).
The language hypothesis
The language of thought hypothesis maintains that
thinking and speaking, while obviously related,
involve distinct levels of representation.

❏ There is evidence of thinking without

language
❏ Linguistic analysis has shown us that
language underspecifies meaning
Thought and reality
❏ Look at the reality → make sense of it then create thought
❏ Different thinking → The world is different in our mind
❏ Reality or the world changes → the mirror of our mind changes →
Word meaning changes.

Conclusion
Thought and reality together contribute to concept shaping
the meaning of language.
Language - thought of interaction
❏ Possibly, language-specific grammatical,
syntactic and semantic requirements
determine the online distribution of attention
(Papafragou et al., 2008)
❏ Language regulates non-linguistic
representations during a specific task, but
does not operate permanent changes in
cognitive representations (Landau et al.,
2009).
 Several key terms
Path languages
❏ are languages in which “the preferred
means of expressing Path (the core
component of a motion event is a
nonverbal element associated with a
verb.) (Ameka & Essegbey, 2013)
❏ The typical construction type is
MANNER VERB + PATH SATELLITE
❏ Eg: Germanic, English
Manner languages
❏ are languages in which “the preferred
means of expressing Path is a verb,
with Manner expressed in a
subordinate constituent. (Ameka &
Essegbey, 2013)
❏ The typical construction type is
PATH VERB + SUBORDINATE
MANNER VERB
❏ Eg. Japanese, Korean
02
The interaction
between language
and space
 The interaction between language and space

2.1. 2.2.
How space is encoded The central role of space in
differently in different language
languages

2.3. 2.4.
Debates on the relationship Linguistics' viewpoint on
between language and system of spatial categories
concept in spatial language
Language - space
Although space has the same physical
properties all around the world, the location
of the human body and of objects within
geographical confinements is encoded in
different ways cross-linguistically.
Example:
French Vietnamese

La lampe est en dessous du Đèn treo trên trần nhà (the

plafond. (the lamp is under lamp is on the ceiling).
the ceiling)

Dans le désert (trong sa Trên sa mạc (on the desert)

mạc)
 English Tseltal Mayan

In locating and giving directions In locating and giving directions

egocentric coordinate system Geocentric coordination system

Example: Example:
● on the left hand-side / on the ● Uphill
right hand-side ● north from me
● turn left, turn right, (Papafragou, 2007)
Language - space
The notion of contact/support with respect to
a reference object is also expressed
differently across languages (Munnich,
Landau, and Dosher, 2001).

For example:
❏ English distinguishes between on and
above - Japanese just use ue for both.
❏ German distinguishes between the idea of
support involving attachment and that of
support without attachment while English
doesn’t.
Language - space
The relationship between an object and its
container is encoded differently in
languages.

For example:
❏ English distinguishes between support
(put on) and containment (put in), while
Korean expresses only the notion of
tightness of fit.
The central role of space in language

❏ In a cognitive view, the spatial

dimension is absolutely central

● As humans, we always interact in space

(space inside and outside us)

● Space is a universal category. It may be

natural or social, physical or mental,
open or closed, wide or tight.
The central role of space in language

❏ Relationship between cognitive representations and external

reality:
● Relationship between cognitive representations and external reality constitute
a background against which spatial linguistic categories are construed

Mental representations reflect reality as it Mental representations seem to be

is experienced by human beings mediated by sensory-motor abilities of
our bodies and the mental processes
governing perceptive stimuli.
The central role of space in language

❏ Relationship between cognitive representations and external

reality:
● Ground entities in spatial descriptions should be conceived of as geometrical
abstractions of real entities, which speakers conceptualize as points, lines,
surfaces or volumes.

● These geometrical abstractions are associated with prototypical functions,

which reflect how objects act in the world out there and how we interact with
them.
The central role of space in language

❏ The centrality of space in language is testified also by the

number of spatial metaphors of everyday speech:

Example:
- “in a hurry”
- “have a lot of problems in front of us”

“I’m in a
hurry”
- “are up or down”
- “go through a bad situation”
- “in a dialogue”
- “pass to a new topic”
The central role of space in language

❏ The centrality of space in language is testified also by the number

of spatial metaphors of everyday speech:

● The path of metaphor: From

concrete location of an object or
entity in space, abstract notion of
location, in mental or physical
terms, is derived
Example: “We now move on to an
analysis of the economic situation.”
(Movement of an object or body refer to
the banana is abstract movement of thoughts.)
in the bowl love is in my mind
Debates between language and concepts in spatial language

In cognitive science, there have been several long-standing debates regarding

the relationship between language and concepts. Three of them are:

❏ The debate regarding the structure of language and our

pre-linguistic categorisation of space

❏ The debate regarding the nature of conceptual structures and

semantic representations with reference to sensory experience

❏ The debate regarding the role of cognition and language in the

expression of spatial categories
Debates between language and concepts in spatial language (1)

The debate regarding the structure of language and our pre-linguistic

categorisation of space

Structures of spatial language the structure and the lexicon of

appear to be determined by spatial language constrain the
our pre-linguistic shape and the categories of
categorization of space “spatial thought”

Lakoff (1987) Levinson (2003)

Jackendoff (1983; 2002) Levinson and Wilkins (2006)
Debates between language and concepts in spatial language (2)
The debate regarding the nature of conceptual structures and semantic
representations with reference to sensory experience

Embodied Cognition Hypothesis Abstract Concept Hypothesis

- conceptual content is reducible to - Concepts are abstract, symbolic

sensory-motor information
- concepts are viewed as concrete,
and anchored to the perceptive
experience of our body
- abstract concepts are in some way
secondary in our cognitive
representation, and derive from
metaphors grounded in the
sensory-motor system
entities, which cannot be reduced to
sensory-motor information
- Mental representations may be
abstract in origin, collect and
integrate different kinds of
information: linguistic, perceptive,
sensory-motor, emotional.
Debates between language and concepts in spatial language (3)
The debate regarding the role of cognition and language in the expression of
spatial categories

there is a restricted list of spatial language is conditioned in

primitive, universal and innate
topological notions, shared by
all human beings, and coded
more or less directly by
adpositions or verbs.
Jackendoff (1983), Talmy (2000a,
2000b); Li and Gleitman 2002)
several ways and to several
degrees by cultural conventions,
and reflects representations
created by exposure to spatial
words relating to one’s native
language.
Brugman (1983); Brugman and
Lakoff (1988); Herskovits (1986);
Linguistics' viewpoint on system of spatial categorization

❏ The linguistic system is intrinsically complex and rich, since it

comprises several features, working on different levels:
- At the componential level: a relatively closed inventory of
fundamental spatial elements
- At the other levels (compositional and augmentative, respectively):
elements of the basic inventory combine in particular arrangements
to form the spatial schemas
Linguistics' viewpoint on system of spatial
categories

- Linguistic input is rich enough to provide a semantic grounding for

words is consistent with the semantic ability shown by blind
subjects
- For example, blind people are able to navigate, although they lack
any visual information about the environment, indicates that space
can be represented via different kinds of information, and linguistic
information seems to be the most useful.
03
The interaction
between language
and motion
 The interaction between language and motion

3.1. 3.2.
How motions are Two experiments by
encoded differently in researchers from
different languages University of
Pennsylvania
Language - motion
The encoding of movement through space is
also different in languages.

❏ The motion of an object from one place to

another is expressed in terms of the
Source-Path-Goal schema: it involves a
source, or starting point; a sequence of
contiguous locations that connect the
starting and ending points, or a path; and a
direction, or ending point (Lakoff, 1987).
Language - motion
The encoding of movement through space is
also different in languages.

❏ Talmy, 1985 proposed a binary categorization

of languages: Path languages and Manner
languages
 Manner languages
(English, German, Russian, Swedish,
Chinese, etc)
● Manners: Encoded in
verbs
● Path: Encoded in
nonverbal elements
(prepositional phrases)
Path languages
(Modern Greek, Spanish, Japanese,
Turkish, Hindi, etc)
● Manners: encoded in
gerunds or prepositional
phrase, or omitted.
● Path: encoded in verbs
(direction of motion)
 Manner languages Path languages
(English) (Modern Greek)

The ball rolled across the field. I bala diesxise to gipedo.

(the ball crossed the field.)

● Figure: I bala -the ball

● Figure: the ball ● Manner: NO
● Manner: rolled (verb) ● Path: diesxise - crossed
● Path: across (preposition) (verb)
● Ground: the field ● Ground: to gieodo - the
field
Language - motion

Expressing path is necessary in order to render

the trajectory of a moving object, manner
remains optional, however with manner
languages tending to lexicalize it less than
path languages (Slobin, 2004).
 English Turkish

English express manner in Turkish encodes path in the main

the main verb verb, and articulates manner in
satellite constituents.

Example: Example:
She ran out of the room. She exited the room running.

(Munnich et al., 2001).

 English Vietnamese

Encode a complex motion event

One-verb construction into multiple verbal components
forming serial verb constructions

Eg. Malfoy fell off the broom.

Figure Move+Path Path Ground Eg. Malfoy ngã lăn khỏi cây chổi.
Figure Move+Path+Manner Path Ground
Language - motion
In satellite languages, manner verbs can be
used with various path modifiers, while in
many path languages, manner verbs, with
some exceptions, can not be used in bounded
(culminated) events. (Papafragou, Hulbert, &
Trueswell, 2008).

Examples:
● the bird flew (unbounded)
● the bird flew to its nest
(bounded).
Language - motion
It can be concluded that motion is encoded differently across different languages.
Similar to spatial language, this domain also maintains scientific interest. A number of
researchers have carried experiments to test that whether the effects of language on
nonlinguistic cognition actually exist in the motion domain.

Two experiments carried by Anna Papafragou, Christine Massey and Lila Gleitman
(University of Pennsylvania) will be presented later in this session
Language - motion: Experiments
Anna Papafragou, Christine Massey and Lila Gleitman
University of Pennsylvania decided to carry two
experiments to investigate these two questions:

1. Do strongly differing preferences between

English and Greek in expressing paths and manners
affect the way speakers remember and classify
motion events?

2. Is nonlinguistic performance affected by degree

of exposure to the target language?
 Language - motion: Experiments
The hypotheses of the two experiments set out to test are organized in two sets:
Linguistic
Greek and English speakers express path
and manner differently in tasks that require
them to describe motion events. Specifically,
English speakers encode manner
information more consistently, while Greek
speakers encode path information.
Manner/path expressions will diverge
more strongly with age, with children
looking more alike than adults across the
two languages.
Non-linguistic
Memory and/or categorization performance
for motion depictions will vary for speakers
of the two languages. For instance, English
speakers will pay more attention to manner
information, while Greek speakers will pay
more attention to path information.
Memory and/or categorization
performance will diverge progressively
over age.
Language - motion: Experiments

Experiments

1. Memory 2. Categorization
Experiment 1: Memory - Participants
Monolingual native speakers of either English or Modern Greek
grouped into three age groups

English speakers Greek speakers

Group 1: 4 - 6 38 Group 1: 4 - 7 38

Group 2: 10 - 12 39 Group 2: 9 - 12 39

Group 3: adults 20 Group 3: adults 21

Experiment 1: Memory - Materials

● The stimuli consist of a set of 6 drawings

adapted from Mayer’s (1969)

● The researchers also created variations of each

scene by systematically altering either the
path or the manner of the original motion
Experiment 1: Memory - Procedures
Session 1:

❏ Subjects were presented with the set of target

pictures (one at a time)
❏ They were then asked to describe them.

Session 2:

❏ Subjects were presented with a second set of

pictures (the pictures could be identical to the
original, or a path/manner variation)
❏ Participants were then asked to judge for each
picture whether it was the same or different.
Experiment 1: Memory - Results and discussions

❏ English speakers were much more likely to use a manner verb as the main verb
than Greek speakers (even though both groups predominantly preferred
manner verbs) while Greek speakers were much more likely to use a path verb
as the main verb.
❏ Path and manner details of motion scenes are not treated differently by
speakers of Path and Manner languages, and no difference was detected
between adult and child populations that could support the language-specific
pressures on memory.
Experiment 2: Categorization - Participants
Monolingual native speakers of either English or Modern Greek
grouped into two age groups

English speakers Greek speakers

Group 1: 7 - 10 14 Group 1: 7 - 10 22

Group 2: adults 20 Group 2: adults 21

The adults had participated in Experiment 1; they completed the

categorization experiment immediately after Session 2 of the memory
experiment.
Experiment 2: Categorization - Materials

● a picture-book containing 8 sets of motion

scenes; each set consisting of 3 motion scenes
- 1 sample and 2 choices.
● One choice preserved the path given in the
sample while changing the manner of motion
(the ’same-path variant’); the other preserved
the manner of the sample while changing the
path (the ’same-manner variant’).
Experiment 2: Categorization - Procedures

❏ Subjects were presented with the materials and

asked to select the choice in which the participant
was ‘doing the same thing’ as in the sample.
❏ After all trials were completed, participants were
asked to describe each scene verbally.
Experiment 2: Categorization - Results & discussions

❏ Linguistically, English speakers used manner verbs on many more items than
Greek speakers, and adults used more manner verbs in describing the
sample photographs than children did.
❏ Regarding the nonlinguistic results, both Greek and English speakers chose
the manner variant on approximately half of the trials, and there was no
difference in categorization preferences between children and adults.
General discussions and conclusions
Hypothesis 1:

Speakers of English and Greek will make use of different linguistic resources in
packaging motion information.
=> Confirmed.

Hypothesis 2:

According to the corollary relativistic hypothesis, memory and categorization of

motion scenes are affected by differences in the linguistic encoding.
=> Not supported.
General discussions and conclusions

Furthermore,
Performance in these tasks across ages was not legislated by linguistic
patterns (for a fuller analysis, see Papafragou, Massey and Gleitman 2001).
Predictions of linguistic determinism were not supported as far as the
path/manner distinction was concerned. However, supporters of the relativistic
hypothesis may still be skeptical.
It is expected that discussion of the language-thought topic will continue to
provide fascination and controversy in the study of human psychology.
04
The interaction
between language
and time
 The interaction between language and time

4.1. 4.2.
How time is encoded Three experiments to investigate
differently in different how spatio-temporal metaphors
languages affect the way people perceive
time
Language - time
❏ There are different ways of spatializing time
depends on spatio-temporal metaphors, on
cultural artefacts, on individual position, age
& experience (Borodisky, Fuhrman &
McCormick, 2010).
❏ Time can be perceived as static or flowing, as
fixed or continuous, as horizontal or vertical,
as moving from left to right, from right to left,
or from front to back.
Language - time
Examples 1: horizontal/front-back spatial metaphors
are used to talk about time in English & Mandarin.

❏ English: look forward, behind or back are used.

❏ Mandarin: qián, for front, hòu for back

Example 2: to refer a large amount of time:

❏ English uses “for a long time”
❏ Spanish uses mucho tiempo (much time).

Example 3: Greek expresses long time: poli &

megalos (much and large in English)
 Language - time: Experiments
Research have also been conducted to explore the relationship between language
and concept in the time domain. One research paper carried in English and Mandarin
speakers will be presented in this session.

Basic information about the research paper

● Purpose of research: analyze spatio-temporal metaphors and how they

affect the way people think of/perceive time.
● The study comprises three experiments that involved Mandarin L1/English
L2 speakers and native English speakers.
Language - time: 1st experiment
1. Participants: both English and Mandarin speakers

2. Procedures: Participants were presented with a vertical or horizontal spatial prime,

and they were then asked a true/false target question about time

3. Results and discussion:

❏ Both the English and the Mandarin speakers needed less time to answer the
target questions after horizontal primes than after vertical ones, which means
that spatial metaphors are used in both languages to understand and
represent temporal aspects.
❏ With the purely temporal questions though, the English speakers answered
questions faster after the horizontal primes, while the Mandarin speakers
answered faster after the vertical primes. (Mandarin often uses vertical
metaphors to encode time.)
Language - time: 2nd experiment
1. Participants: adult bilingual Mandarin/English speakers

2. Procedures: The same procedure as in the 1st experiment. The primes were pictures
with descriptions that were either horizontal or vertical.

3. Discussion / Conclusion:
❏ the vertical bias was greater for the participants who started studying English
later in life, but it was not influenced by the length of their exposure to
English.
Language - time: 3rd experiment
1. Participants: English and Indonesian speakers representing for satellite-framed language
speakers, and the Greek and the Spanish speakers representing verbs-framed language
speakers

2. Procedures: The participants performed a similar task, but containers were used instead of
lines; they estimated either the amount of water in the containers, or the amount of time that
container took to fill.

3. Discussion / Conclusion:
❏ all the participants estimated time equally well, but the English and Indonesian speakers
(satellite-framed languages speakers) were greatly influenced by distance when performing
time estimation, while this effect was insignificant with the Greek and Spanish speakers.
❏ When analyzing the result for the time as quantity task, English and Indonesian speakers
were not affected by volume on time estimation, while the Greek and the Spanish
speakers were.
Conclusion 1:
Languages share the same basic views on motion,
space, and time, but they also show diversity between
languages that work at a metaphorical level.

This diversity can be the result of different conceptual

expressions between speakers of different languages
or the cause of these differences.
Conclusion 2:
Opinions on the interaction of language and
thought are divided, but there seems to be a
general agreement that language influences
thinking. However it is not clear whether this
influence is temporary or permanent.
05
Implication for
teaching
Implication for English teaching
- As notion of space, motion, time are encoded differently in English and
Vietnamese, it is advisable for teachers to briefly describe how English
native speakers perceive time, motion and space before introducing
‘preposition of time / place / motion' and translating these into
Vietnamese.

Example:
When teachers explain the difference between ‘in' and ‘on', instead of
immediately translating ‘in' and ‘on' into ‘Trong' and ‘trên', teachers should
explain :
● when we say ‘A is in B', we mean B contains A / B is the container with
the boundary
● when we say ‘A is on B', we refer B as the surface.
Implication for English teaching
- It is also recommended that teachers use visual aids (pictures) to explain
the concept of space and motion in language.

Example:
When teachers explain when to use ‘across' (indicate the motion of moving
along the width of the object), the picture below can be used to illustrate the
motion.
Implication for English teaching
- It is also obvious that several prepositions in English which originally
describe the spatio-physical situation can also be used to indicate
non-spatial meaning. A basic understanding into how English native
speakers perceive space, motions and time may allow students to
deduce the meaning in collocations/idioms/metaphors that contain the
prepositions of place / motion or choose the correct preposition to fill in
the collocation.

Example:
❏ ‘In' is originally used to refer to the concept of containment. Since
people normally experience a state in a given location (or in other
words, state and location co-occur), we can use the preposition ‘in'
when referring to state as in the sentence: ‘Will is in love.’
Implication for English teaching
- The translation of motion verbs usually poses some difficulties to the
Vietnamese translators especially students of translation subject on
account of cross-linguistic differences. In Vietnamese-English translation,
a lot of students may produce such versions as:

He entered into the caves.

The balloon went ascend on the sky.

=> Teachers should emphasize that the preposition meaning is encoded in

directional complement verbs while in English, the preposition is encoded
in full verbs. Therefore, translation of directional complement verbs “vào”,
“ra”, “lên”, “xuống” can be eliminated sometimes.