Journal of the Korean Geographical Society (대한지리학회지)

The Korean Geographical Society (대한지리학회)
권호 표지

Which Direction Is the Opposite Side? The Ambiguity of Spatial Language and Communication Problems

'맞은편'은 어디인가? 공간언어의 모호성과 의사소통 문제

  • Lee, Jong-Won (Department of Social Studies Education, Ewha Womans University)
  • 이종원 (이화여자대학교 사회생활학과)
  • Published : 2008.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The ambiguity of spatial language can be a source of communication problems. For instance, the 'the opposite side' in a sentence such as 'where is the opposite side of building X' can mean more than one direction. Research interests are focused on the directions of a spatial language 'the opposite side'. This study also explored the effect of geometric properties such as reference object's shape and distance from the reference object and spatial reference frame in the comprehension of 'the opposite side'. The assessment tasks used consisted of rating how appropriate the sentence 'where is the opposite side of building X' was to describe a series of pictures. The results of experiment suggest that 'the opposite side' means in most cases more than one direction simultaneously. Changing spatial reference frame has significant effects on individuals' rating of the tasks. However, while reference object's shape (prolonged building) has a consistent effect of the ratings given, the distance from the reference object (shortened road width) has limited influence in comprehending the tasks.

공간정보를 전달하고 이해하는 과정에서 여러 가지 원인으로 의사소통의 불일치가 발생한다. 이 연구의 목적은 '맞은편' 이라는 공간언어를 통해 공간언어가 갖고 있는 의미의 모호성이 사람들 간 의사소통 문제를 일으키는 하나의 원인이 된다는 점을 실험을 통해서 증명하는 것이다. 단순화된 '사거리'를 활용하는 평가도구를 통해 실험 참가자들이 생각하는 '맞은편'은 어디이며, 그 방향이 맞은편을 얼마나 정확하게 의미하는지를 조사하였다. 본 실험은 대부분의 실험 참가자들이 한 방향 이상을 '맞은편'으로 적절하다고 판단하고 있음을 밝혔다. 이러한 결과는 '맞은편' 이라는 용어가 갖고 있는 의미의 모호성을 증명하는 것이다. 대부분의 실험 참가자들은 준거로 주어진 정사각형 건물의 수직과 수평 방향을 고르게 '맞은편'으로 고려하는 경향을 보였다. 준거가 되는 건물의 형태 변화, 준거가 되는 건물에 내재적 방향성 부여 등도 '맞은편' 의 방향을 결정하는데 의미 있는 영향을 주는 것으로 드러났다.

Keywords

References

  1. 국립국어연구원, 1999, 표준국어대사전, 두산 동아
  2. 김경미, (미간행논문), 보행거리 주변 환경에 따른 거리감과 인지지도의 차이
  3. 이성하.구현정(역), 2004, 문법의 인지적 기초, 박이정 (Heine, B., 1997, Cognitive Foundations of Grammar, Oxford University Press, New York)
  4. Anderson, J. R., 1990, The adaptive Character of Thought, Hillsdale, New Jersey
  5. Anderson, J. R., 1991, Is human cognition adaptive-, Behavioral and Brain Science, 14, 471-517 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00070801
  6. Antes, J. R., McBride, R. B., and Collins, J. D., 1988, The effect of a new city traffic route on the cognitive maps of its residents, Environment and Behavior, 20(1), 75-91 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916588201004
  7. Appleyard, D., 1970, Styles and methods of structuring a city, Environment and Behavior, 2, 100-118 https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657000200106
  8. Canter, D. and Tagg, S. K., 1975, Distance estimation in cities, Environment and Behavior, 7(1), 59-80 https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657500700102
  9. Carlson, L. A. and Logan, G. D., 2001, Using spatial terms to select an object, Memory and Cognition, 29(6), 883-892 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196417
  10. Carlson-Radvansky, L. a. and Irwin, D. E., 1993, Frame of reference in vision and language: Where is above-, Cognition, 46, 223-244 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90011-J
  11. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A. and Irwin, D. E., 1994, Reference frame activation during spaital term assignment, Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 646-671 https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1031
  12. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A. and Logan, G. D., 1997, The influence of reference frame selection on spatial template construction, Journal of Memory and Cognition, 37, 411-437
  13. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A. and Radvansky, G. A., 1996, The influence of functional relations on spatial term selection, Psychological Science, 7(1), 56-60 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00667.x
  14. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., Covey, E. S., and Lattanzi, K. M., 1999, 'What' effects on 'where' functional influences on spatial relations, Psychological Science, 10(6), 516-521 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00198
  15. Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R., and Garrod, S. C., 1994, Spatial prepositions, object-specific function and task requirements, Journal of Semantics, 11, 289-309 https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/11.4.289
  16. Coventry, K. R., Prat-Sala, M., and Richards, L., 2001, The interplay between ceometry and function in the comprehension of over, under, above, and below, Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 376-398 https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2742
  17. Downs, R. M., 1981, Maps and mappings as metaphors for spatial representations. in Liben, L., Newcombe, N. and Pattison, A.(eds.), Spatial Representation and Behavior across the Life Span, academic Press, New York, 143-165
  18. Downs, R. M. and Stea, D., 1973, Cognitive maps and spatial behavior: Process and products, in Downs, R. M., and Stea, D.(eds.), Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping & Spatial Behavior, Aldine Publishing, Chicago, 8-26
  19. Emmorey, K., Tversky, B., and Taylor, H. A., 2000, Using space to describe space: Perspective in speech, sign, and gesture, Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2, 157-180 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013118114571
  20. Franklin, N., Tversky, B., and Coon, V., 1992, Switching points of view in spatial mental models acquired from text, Memory and Cognition, 20, 507-518 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199583
  21. Garrod, S., Ferrier, G., and Campbell, S., 1999, In and on: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions, Cognition, 72, 167-189 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00038-4
  22. Golledge, R. G. and Stimson, R. J., 1997, Spatial Behavior: a Geographic Perspective, Guilford Press, New York
  23. Golledge, R. G., Marston, J. R., Loomis, J. M., and Klatzky, R. L., 2004, Stated preferences for components of a personal guidance system for nonvisual navigation, Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98(3), 135-147
  24. Gunzelmann, G. and anderson, J. R., 2003, Problem solving: Increased planning with practice, Cognitive Systems Research, 4, 57-76 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00073-6
  25. Hayward, W. G. and Tarr, M. J., 1995, Spatial language and spatial representation, Cognition, 55, 39-84 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00643-Y
  26. Herskovits, A., 1986, Language and Spatial Cognition: an Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
  27. Hirtle, S. C. and Jonides, J., 1985, Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps, Memory & Cognition, 13(3), 208-217 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197683
  28. Kirsh, D. and Maglio, P., 1994, On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action, Cognitive Science, 18, 513-549 https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(94)90007-8
  29. Kosslyn, S. M., Pick, H. L., and Fariello, G. R., 1974, Cognitive maps in children and men, Child Development, 45, 707-716 https://doi.org/10.2307/1127837
  30. Landau, B., 1996, Multiple geometric representations of objects in languages and language learners, in Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L., and Garrett, M. F.(eds.), Language and Space, MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma, 317-363
  31. Landau, B. and Hoffman, J. E., 2005, Parallels between spatial cognition and spatial language: Evidence from Williams syndrome, Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 163-185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.007
  32. Landau, B. and Jackendoff, R., 1993, 'What' and 'where' in spatial language and spatial cognition, Behavioral and Brain Science, 16, 217-265 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00029733
  33. Lautenschutz, A., Davies, C., Raubal, M., Schwering, A., and Pederson, E., 2006, The influence of scale, context and spatial preposition in linguistic topology, in Barkowsky, T., Knauff, M., Ligozat, G., and Montello, D. R.(eds.), Spatial Cognition V: Reasoning, action, Interaction (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Springer, Berlin, 439-452
  34. Lee, T., 1970, Perceived distance as a function of direction in a city, Environment and Behavior, 2(1), 40-51 https://doi.org/10.1177/001391657000200103
  35. Levelt, W. J. M., 1996, Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions, in Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L., and Garrett, M. F.(eds.), Language and Space, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 77-107
  36. Levinson, S. C., 1996, Frames of reference and Molyneux's question, in Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L., and Garrett, M. F.(eds.), Language and Space, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 109-169
  37. Levinson, S. C., 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, University Press, Cambridge, UK
  38. Logan, G. D., 1995. Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 103-174 https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1995.1004
  39. Logan, G. D. and Sadler, D. D., 1996, A computational analysis of apprehension of spatial relations, in Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L., and Garrett, M. F.(eds.), Language and Space, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 493-529
  40. Loomis, J. M., Klatzky, R. L., and Golledge, R. G., 2001, Navigating without vision: Basic and applied research, Optometry and Vision Science, 78(5), 282-289 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200105000-00011
  41. O'Hara, K. P. and Payne, S. J., 1998, The effects of operator implementation cost on planfulness of problem solving and learning, Cognitive Psychology, 35, 34-70 https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1997.0676
  42. Regier, T. and Carlson, L. A., 2001, Grounding spatial language in perception: an empirical and computational investigation, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 273-298 https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.273
  43. Sadalla, E. K. and Magel, S. G., 1980, The perception of traversed distance, Environment and Behavior, 12, 65-79 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916580121005
  44. Sadalla, E. K. and Staplin, L. J., 1980, an information storage model for distance cognition, Environment and Behavior, 12, 183-193 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916580122004
  45. Schober, M. F., 1993, Spatial perspective-taking in conversion, Cognition, 47, 1-24 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(93)90060-9
  46. Shemyakin, F. N., 1962, General problems of orientation in space and space representations, in anayev, B. G.(ed.), Psychological Science in the USSR (Vol. 1), Washington, DC: U.S. Joint Publications Research Service, 184-225
  47. Talmy, L., 1983, How language structures space, in Pick, H., and acredolo, L.(eds.), Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and application, Plenum Press, New York, 225-282
  48. Taylor, H. A. and Tversky, B., 1992, Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions, Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 261-292 https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90014-O
  49. Taylor, H. A. and Tversky, B., 1996, Perspective in spatial descriptions, Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 371-391 https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0021
  50. Tversky, B., 1981, Distortions in memory for maps, Cognitive Psychology, 13, 407-433 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90016-5
  51. Tversky, B., Lee, P., and Mainwaring, S., 1999, Why do speakers mix perspectives-, Spatial Cognition and Computation, 1(4), 399-412 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010091730257
  52. Ullmer-Ehrich, V., 1982, The structure of living space description, in Jarvella, R. J., and Klein, W.(eds.), Speech, Place and action, Wiley, New York, 219-249