EDITORS: Schubert, Thomas W. and Maass, Anne TITLE: Spatial Dimensions of Social Thought SERIES TITLE: Applications of Cognitive Linguistics [ACL] 18 PUBLISHER: De Gruyter Mouton YEAR: 2011
Stephen Lucek, Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College Dublin
SUMMARY Written by the attendees of a small Expert Meeting, co-hosted by the European Social Cognition Network and the European Science Foundation, and held in Venice in 2008, these 13 essays (plus Introduction) span the breadth of modern spatial cognition research. The very notion of spatial cognition, like most topics in cognitive science, appears to be intuitively clear on the surface. However, the depth of research and theory contained in this volume demonstrates how intricate and applicable spatial cognition really is.
To this end, the authors represent a wide distribution across academia from Epidemiology to Neurology to Psychology. This distribution informs the ensuing discussion and allows for a considered approach to spatial cognition. While linguists are thin on the ground here, there is plenty of cross-disciplinary application to be found in these essays.
The Introduction goes some way to explaining the book’s central themes. A brief overview of the embodied cognition approach and biases on the horizontal plane are offered as baselines for many of the essays that follow, which are broadly divided into two sections: Section A concerns spatial embodiment, while Section B deal with the horizontal plane and biases.
In the first essay, Tversky deals with the imperfect nature of spatial knowledge, how it can be skewed and how it can be experienced. Grouping objects together by type and by size is just one way in which we can manipulate space in order to make tangible the abstract notion of space. Another way is by metaphor and the proclivity to humanise spatial experiences through bodily metaphors (e.g. head of committee, foot of a mountain). Finally, locating objects in the world and the use of frames of reference present Tversky with a final method of realising space through language.
Santiago, Román and Ouellet follow with their comprehensive review of the flexible foundations theory of abstract thought. This review begins with Solid Foundations View (SFV) which itself is an amalgamation of various theories from Conceptual Metaphor theory (CMT): image schema derived from repeated exposure to stimuli (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, 1999; Gibbs & O’Brien, 1990; Johnson, 1987). These image schema allow for the development of metaphors. As such, metaphors provide the real-world groundings of SFV. Weaknesses of CMT (namely, the lack of universality of primary metaphors (see Rakova, 2002 and Kövecses, 2005)) are exploited in such a way as to necessitate the Flexible Foundations Theory (FFT). Numerous examples of cognitive flexibility emerge from evidence of, inter alia, antithetical metaphors (e.g. time-moving) that exist inter- and cross-culturally. At the centre of FFT is the existence of multiple parallel metaphors and models residing in the long-term memory without conflict. These metaphors and models inform the working memory, allowing divergent experiences of similar stimuli. Two experiments are described and the results show that the flexibility of working memory to adapt metaphors and models along with its ability to learn novel solutions provides for the possibility of a flexible foundation for abstract concepts.
Estimates are the focus of the third essay. Liberman and Förster discuss the four dimensions of judging psychological distance in the absence of direct experience: temporal distance (when), spatial distance (where), social distance (who), and hypotheticality (likelihood). Their thesis is based on two assumptions about psychological space: that the four dimensions listed above are interrelated and that mental construal is needed to make up for not experiencing the distance directly. A review of literature that has tested these dimensions leads the authors to the conclusion that spatial distance is a primary experience that can be understood via the dimensions listed above.
In the fourth essay, Schnall explores factors that influence the perception of personal space. We see here a bigger emphasis being placed on embodiment: from embodied cognition, a line is drawn to embodied perception and judgment tasks. Variables from national borders to the mood of the informant to carrying a weighted knapsack are described and linked to a commonality of perception.
Power metaphors are the focus of the fifth essay. Here, Schubert, Waldzus and Seibt discuss the ubiquity of power and how it is perceived in the physical world. From there, metaphors are linked to real world experiences and as such are reciprocals of one another. Height, facial features and posture are described as variables that lead to the perception of power non-verbally which can be interrelated and can also be applied to abstract shapes. Semantic network, Simulation and Conceptual metaphor theories are all considered as explanations of how the space/power interface works for non-verbal cues. The authors then propose a model of schematisation and reification of perceptual symbols combining the individual experience with the cultural experience.
Part B begins with Chatterjee’s treatment of directional asymmetries. Event structure is proposed as primarily existing in on a left-to-right trajectory in left-to-right reading cultures with the agents to the left and recipients/patients to the right. Thus, an examination of the orientation of the subjects of portraits shows four potential explanations for the preference of right cheek depiction (signifying agency) over left cheek depiction (signifying passivity): gender bias, historical shift, social distance, and character attributes. Inferences by viewers of these portraits lead to assumptions of power and implied motion. Reading and writing direction mitigates the effects of left-to-right biases in perception of power and implied motion.
Brady’s essay on face perception makes the case that there is a left-right bias in perceptions that reflect an asymmetry in the brain. Again, there is a preference in left-to-right reading and writing cultures for left-left composite images, whereas that preference is inverted for right-to-left reading and writing cultures. This holds for familiar faces and unfamiliar faces (see Brady, Campbell & Flaherty, 2004, 2005). This leads to the question of hemispheric asymmetry and its effect on perception biases and word recognition. The conclusions point the reader towards a hemispheric asymmetry bias rather than a reading and writing direction bias as the impetus for face perception preference.
Representational drawing is the medium of choice for the eighth essay. Vaid examines the directional asymmetry. The possible sources for this asymmetry are: hemispheric asymmetry, reading and writing direction, neuromuscular limitations, and motoric influence. Each of these sources is fully explained and explored in detail and recommendations are made for future research.
The effect of reading direction in nonverbal tasks is the focus of Chockron, Kazandjian and De Agostini. It is the acquisition of reading and writing skills that prove to be the impetus for directional biases in nonverbal tasks, but that is not to say that these biases are not present before the acquisition of reading and writing. However, a consensus cannot be drawn from the limited amount of right-to-left reading and writing data. The future of research in this area lies here.
The analysis of artwork leads Suitner and McManus to conclusions on Spatial Agency Bias (e.g. Chatterjee, Maher & Heilman, 1995; Maher, Chatterjee & Rothi, 1995). The scientific study of art becomes a fertile meeting point where new ideas in both disciplines can flourish. Explanations for biases in art history range from agency to sex of the artist and stereotypes of roles within cultures. An important point that the authors make here is that the inferences drawn from extant research can be applicable not just to high art, but also to contemporary visual media.
Suitner and Maass return the focus to embodiment in their essay on writing direction as it applies to agency and gender stereotyping. Different types of orthography and writing direction are considered in detail as a foundation for spatial biases. Here, we are not dealing with reflections on visual media, but rather how spatial biases influence spatial expression. A brief treatment of the origins of writing systems lends credence to their arguments and provides an avenue for further research.
The final essay stays with gender issues and concerns biases in graphs contained within scientific journal articles. Hegarty and Lemieux contend that there is a general bias in graphical representations of data that goes beyond random chance. Placing male results before female results is a byproduct of gender biases based on power and agency and varies between disciplines within academia.
EVALUATION On the whole, this collection of essays gives a broad picture of the spatial elements of social psychology. It goes beyond a mere pulse-taking of this area of study. Several of the essays (Santiago, Román and Ouellet; Schubert, Waldzus and Seibt; Brady; Vaid; Chockron, Kazandjian and De Agostini; Suitner and McManus; and Hegarty and Lemieux) emphasise the need for future research and position their own papers as starting points of open-ended questions.
Another strength is the repetition of and expansions on themes. The embodiment view is a common methodological jumping-off point that runs through both sections of this collection. Viewed purely as a subset of essays on writing direction, this volume provides a wealth of knowledge and provides an excellent guide to what has been done in the area. An equal emphasis on right-to-left reading and writing systems would have added gravity to the discussion. That being said, the overwhelming argument from the authors here is that not enough research has been carried out on right-to-left systems.
There are a fair number of typographical and proofing errors in the book, but none that detract from the essays. The length of the second essay is disproportionate to the rest of the volume and may have benefitted from a heavy edit, particularly in the literature review (sections 2 & 3). While this essay does introduce a novel concept in metaphoric projections -- and read on its own, it most likely would stand up as a very strong essay -- its inclusion in this collection nearly eclipses all around it. Perhaps a discrete volume is to follow, as the Flexible Foundations Theory is certainly worthy of consideration and application.
While much of this volume will not be of interest to linguists, it is certainly a multidisciplinary effort. The heavy emphasis on social psychology (as the title suggests) is evident. That being said, there is a great deal of cross-disciplinary appeal and applicability. For those who work with writing systems, this will be a particularly interesting read.
REFERENCES Brady, Nuala, Mark Campbell & Mary Flaherty (2004). My left brain and me: a dissociation in the perception of self and others. Neuropsychologia 42, 1156-1161.
Brady, Nuala, Mark Campbell & Mary Flaherty (2005). Perceptual asymmetries are preserved in memory for highly familiar faces of self and friend. Brain & Cognition 58, 334-342.
Chatterjee, Anjan, Lynn M. Maher & Kenneth M. Heilman (1995). Spatial characteristics of thematic role representation. Neuropsychologia 33, 643-648.
Gibbs, Raymond & Jennifer O’Brien (1990). Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation of idiomatic meaning. Cognition 36, 35-68.
Johnson, Mark (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rakova, Marina (2002). The philosophy of embodied realism: A high price to pay? Cognitive Linguistics 13, 215-244.
Kövecses, Zoltan (2005). Metaphor in culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Maher, Lynn M., Anjan Chatterjee & Leslie J. Rothi (1995). Agrammatic sentence production: The use of a temporal-spatial strategy. Brain and Language 48, 105-124.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
Stephen Lucek is currently a PhD candidate in the Centre for Language and
Communication Studies at Trinity College Dublin, where he is carrying out a
sociolinguistic and semantic study of the language of space in Irish
English. His research interests include language change, dialect contact,
global Englishes, communities of practice, discourse analysis, corpus
linguistics and cognitive semantics. He has previously worked as an editor.