Space - Cross-Cultural Descriptions and 'Default' FoR

Question 1

Haun et al (2006) behavioural paradigm

Answer 1

Follow-up to Majid et al (2004), conducting spatial relational learning task using rotation paradigm, but this time training people to use different frames of reference

Dutch and Hai//om 8-year-old children, and adults tested outdoors to establish comparable conditions

Pps shown object under one of five cups, rotated, then asked to find ‘correct’ cup, being trained either that relative or absolute FoR is right solution with both groups

Both children and adults more accurate and faster to learn relation that matched dominant FoR in own language (supporting linguistic relativity)

Dutch children able to learn relative much easier than absolute, and opposite for Hai//om, but asymmetry found, with particular difficulty for relative FoR learning

Criticised by only 12 pps per condition, so question statistical power, but older study > future studies should replicate

Question 2

Haun et al (2006) cognitive privilege

Answer 2

Given asymmetry, intrigued as to whether a specific FoR strategy more cognitively privileged and perhaps has evolutionary basis of use

Tested whether nonhuman primates have preference for egocentric or geocentric spatial coding, and tested German 4-year-olds on simplified spatial relations task

If same phenotype found in two species, then shared ancestor had that phenotype > with species that speciated longer ago, presence of phenotype more evolutionarily privileged

Important to assess both groups due to acclimation to natural language (Majid, 2018) > if absolute preferred, holds non-linguistic and likely innate privileged nature; ‘default’

Children not yet learned left-right at 4-years (not acquired egocentric language), and all groups showed preference for a geocentric strategy, but by 8, children showed preference for relative FoR

Suggested humans and related species share conceptual representation of space that supports geocentric FoR, and that learning absolute language capitalises on these representations, while learning relative increases salience of egocentric FoR, creating cross-cultural variations in thought (language as spotlight)

Question 3

Nardini et al (2006)

Answer 3

Supports Haun et al (2006) by finding that allocentric FoRs available early in development

Question 4

Shusterman and Li (2016)

Answer 4

Discuss how animal studies suggest that neural representations, most importantly HPC place cells, contain allocentric codes of environments

Tested 20 4-year-old English-speaking children on mapping of novel spatial words, showing preference to attribute environment-based meanings rather than body-based meanings to novel spatial words, and in explicit learning of environment-based vs body-based meanings, difficulty in the latter

Same children able to apply novel terms to new facing directions, new figure objects, and new coordinate origins, even in removing concrete features from testing room (possible confounds), showed abstract ability to reason about environment-based FoR

Question 5

Reasons for ‘default’ FoR being geocentric/allocentric/absolute

Answer 5

May be more stable as perspective is the same for speaker and listener > language important for communication, and directionality may be evolutionarily privileged (e.g., towards food/threat)

Many subtypes of geocentric frames, all of which are culture-specific and learned (Majid et al., 2004; e.g., Tzeltal, Guugu Yimithirr, Hai//om), so likely that it isn’t any fully formed geocentric frame type that could be innately available, but instead a preference for allocentric over egocentric anchoring

Question 6

Criticisms of ‘default’ FoR

Answer 6

Much cross-linguistic variation in preferred FoR in language and in non-linguistic spatial cognition in navigation, gesture, and spatial memory e.g., Majid et al (2004)

Those that propose reasons for this is cultural transmission (Bohnemeyer et al., 2022), and Palmer (2017) Sociotopography Model

Question 7

Haun et al (2011) - New Distinction of Cognitive Systems

Answer 7

Cross-cut different distinctions of cognitive systems, moving away from Levinson (2003) to incorporate properties more prevalent in different systems, resulting in egocentric/object-centred/geocentric distinction

Argues 180 degrees rotation paradigm unsuitable to test this as cannot conclude whether geocentric or object-centred > suggests need for 90 degrees instead, and a displacement around a salient object (e.g., a building a participant is in)

Used new paradigm to replicate Majid et al (2004) in Dutch and Hai//om subjects and found same correlation between dominant FoR in language and FoR use in non-linguistic spatial cognition tasks

New paradigm should be used to replicate Haun et al (2006), transformed for appropriateness with infants and nonhuman primates > ‘default’ cognitive system may have been object-centred rather than geocentric