When spatial agency bias and the advantage of the first mention are in contradiction: Evidence from Czech, German, and Spanish
Anna Marklová
Humboldt University, Berlin , Germanyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3392-1028
Renate Delucchi Danhier
Technical University Dortmund , Germanyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-8247-815X
Abstract
Evidence from Art (History), perceptual psychology, and (psycho-)linguistics support the claim that in Western culture (or rather within left-to-right writing languages), people depict or visualize more important or salient figures to the left. However, linguistics studies investigating this topic almost exclusively use active sentences with standard Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) syntax as stimuli, where the subject takes the role of an agent. However natural language exhibits much more syntactical variation. To determine if this pattern is also present when the less common syntax is used, we asked native German, Spanish, and Czech speakers (N=300) to draw situations representing ten sentences varying in syntactic structure. These drawings, simplified versions of the mental representation of the situation, provide a glimpse into the conceptualization of the scenes. The spatial placement of the agent figures in the sentences was coded. Results show that although the asymmetrical effect is strong in prototypical SVO sentences, where the subject has the function of an agent and the object a function of a patient, the effect is weaker or disappears in passive sentences, where the subject at the first position is a patient and object on the second position is an agent, as well as in topicalized (OVS) sentences. Furthermore, we found cross-linguistic differences, which suggests that the character of the bias is language-specific. We postulate that placing the agent to the left is only one of the factors influencing spatial placement. The other factor playing an important role is the naming order.
Keywords:
mental representation, reading-writing direction, spatial agency bias, advantage of first mention, crosslinguistic comparisonReferences
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01. (Crossref)
Beaumont, J. G. 1985. Lateral Organization and Aesthetic Preference: The Importance of Peripheral Visual Asymmetries. Neuropsychologia 23(1): 103–13. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(85)90048-X. (Crossref)
Bisiach, E., G. Geminiani, A. Berti, and M. L. Rusconi. 1990. Perceptual and Premotor Factors of Unilateral Neglect. Neurology 40(8): 1278–1278. doi: 10.1212/WNL.40.8.1278. (Crossref)
Braine, M. D. S., and R. S. Wells. 1978. Case-like Categories in Children: The Actor and Some Related Categories. Cognitive Psychology 10(1): 100–122. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(78)90020-8. (Crossref)
Carreiras, M., M. A. Gernsbacher, and V. Villa. 1995. The Advantage of First Mention in Spanish. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2(1): 124–29. doi: 10.3758/BF03214418. (Crossref)
Chan, A., E. Lieven, and M. Tomasello. 2009. Children’s Understanding of the Agent-Patient Relations in the Transitive Construction: Cross-Linguistic Comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cognitive Linguistics 20(2): 267–300. doi: 10.1515/COGL.2009.015. (Crossref)
Chokron, S., and M. De Agostini. 2000. Reading Habits Influence Aesthetic Preference. Cognitive Brain Research 10(1–2): 45–49. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00021-5. (Crossref)
Contreras, H. 1976. A Theory of Word Order with Special Reference to Spanish. Amsterdam ; New York : New York: North-Holland Pub. Co. ; sale distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, America Elsevier Pub. Co.
Corrigan, R., and C. Odya-Weis. 1985. The Comprehension of Semantic Relations by Two-Year-Olds: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Child Language 12(1): 47–59. doi: 10.1017/S030500090000622X. (Crossref)
Daneš, F., Z. Hlavsa, and M. Grepl, eds. 1987. Mluvnice Češtiny (3): Skladba. Praha: Academia.
Dreman, S. 1974. Directionality Trends as a Function of Handedness and of Reading and Writing Habits. The American Journal of Psychology 87(1/2): 247–253. (Crossref)
Dryer, M. S. 2013. Order of Subject, Object and Verb. In M. S. Dryer and M. Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Duranti, A. 2005. “Agency in Language.” In A. Duranti (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, 449–73. Wiley-Blackwell. (Crossref)
Eisenberg, P. 1999. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. 2013th ed. edited by R. Thieroff. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. (Crossref)
Fandrych, C. 2005. Schauplatz: Wortstellung. Fremdsprache Deutsch (32): 4. doi: 10.37307/j.2194-1823.2005.32.04. (Crossref)
Ferreira, F., K. G. D. Bailey, and V. Ferraro. 2002. Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11(1): 11–15. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00158. (Crossref)
Ferreira, F., and N. D. Patson. 2007. The ‘Good Enough’ Approach to Language Comprehension: The ‘Good Enough’ Approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(1–2): 71–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x. (Crossref)
Frazier, L., J. M. Pacht, and K. Rayner. 1999. Taking on Semantic Commitments, II: Collective versus Distributive Readings. Cognition 70(1): 87–104. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00002-5. (Crossref)
Gaffron, M. 1950. Left and Right in Pictures. Art Quarterly 13: 312–21.
Galazka, M. and P. Nyström. 2016. Infants’ preference for individual agents within chasing interactions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 147:53–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.02.010 (Crossref)
Gernsbacher, M. A., and D. J. Hargreaves. 1988. Accessing Sentence Participants: The Advantage of First Mention. Journal of Memory and Language 27(6): 699–717. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90016-2. (Crossref)
Gernsbacher, M. A., D. J. Hargreaves, and M. Beeman. 1989. Building and Accessing Clausal Representations: The Advantage of First Mention versus the Advantage of Clause Recency. Journal of Memory and Language 28(6):735–55. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(89)90006-5. (Crossref)
Gerwien, J. and M. Flecken. 2016. First things first? Top-down influences on event apprehension. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman, and J. C. Trueswell (eds), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2633–2638, Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Gigerenzer, G., and P. M. Todd. 1999. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Golinkoff, R. M. 1975. Semantic Development in Infants: The Concepts of Agent and Recipient. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development 21(3): 181–93.
Golinkoff, R. M. 1981. The Case for Semantic Relations: Evidence from the Verbal and Nonverbal Domains. Journal of Child Language 8(2): 413–37. doi: 10.1017/S0305000900003275. (Crossref)
Golinkoff, R. M., and J. L. Kerr. 1978. Infants’ Perception of Semantically Defined Action Role Changes in Filmed Events. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development 24(1): 53–61.
González, C. P. 2012. Lateral Organisation in Nineteenth-Century Studio Photographs Is Influenced by the Direction of Writing: A Comparison of Iranian and Spanish Photographs. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition 17(5): 515–32. doi: 10.1080/1357650X.2011.586701. (Crossref)
Gordon, I. E. 1981. Left and Right in Art. In D. O´Hare (ed.), Psychology and the Arts, 211–241. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester.
Hafri, A., Papafragou, A., and J. C. Trueswell. 2013. Getting the gist of events: recognition of two-participant actions from brief displays. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 142(3): 880–905. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030045. (Crossref)
Hafri, A., Trueswell, J. C., and B. Strickland. 2018. Encoding of event roles from visual scenes is rapid, spontaneous, and interacts with higher-level visual processing. Cognition, 175:36–52. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.011 (Crossref)
Heath, R., O. Mahmasanni, A. Rouhana, and N. Nassif. 2005. Comparison of Aesthetic Preferences among Roman and Arabic Script Readers. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition 10(5): 399–411. doi: 10.1080/13576500442000166. (Crossref)
Ishii, Y., M. Okubo, M. E. R. Nicholls, and H. Imai. 2011. Lateral Biases and Reading Direction: A Dissociation between Aesthetic Preference and Line Bisection. Brain and Cognition 75(3): 242–47. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2010.12.005. (Crossref)
Jahn, G., M. Knauff, and P. N. Johnson-Laird. 2007. Preferred Mental Models in Reasoning about Spatial Relations. Memory & Cognition 35(8): 2075–87. doi: 10.3758/BF03192939. (Crossref)
Jewell, G., and M. E. McCourt. 2000. Pseudoneglect: A Review and Meta-Analysis of Performance Factors in Line Bisection Tasks. Neuropsychologia 38(1): 93–110. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00045-7. (Crossref)
Kail, M. 1989. Cue Validity, Cue Cost, and Processing Types in Sentence Comprehension in French and Spanish. In B. MacWhinney and E. Bates. (eds.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing, 77–117. Cambridge University Press.
Křen, M., V. Cvrček, J. Henyš, M. Hnátková, T. Jelínek, J. Kocek, D. Kováříková, J. Křivan, J. Milička, V. Petkovič, P. Procházka, H. Skoumalová, J. Šindlerová, and M. Škrabal. 2020. SYN2020: Reprezentativní Korpus Psané Češtiny. Praha: Ústav českého národního korpusu. Retrieved January 6, 2023 (http://www.korpus.cz).
Langacker, R. W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Levy, J 1976. Lateral Dominance and Aesthetic Preference. Neuropsychologia 14(4): 431–45. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(76)90072-5. (Crossref)
Maass, A., C. Suitner, X. Favaretto, and M. Cignacchi. 2009. Groups in Space: Stereotypes and the Spatial Agency Bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45(3): 496–504. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.01.004. (Crossref)
MacDonald, M. C., N. J. Pearlmutter, and M. S. Seidenberg. 1994. The Lexical Nature of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution [Corrected]. Psychological Review 101(4): 676–703. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.676. (Crossref)
Mathesius, V. 1947. Čeština a Obecný Jazykozpyt. Praha.
Nachson, I., E. Argaman, and A. Luria. 1999. Effects of Directional Habits and Handedness on Aesthetic Preference for Left and Right Profiles. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30(1): 106–14. doi: 10.1177/0022022199030001006. (Crossref)
Palmer, F. R. 1994. Grammatical Roles and Relations. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Crossref)
Panevová, J. 2014. Mluvnice současné češtiny 2. Syntax češtiny na základě anotovaného korpusu. Praha: Karolinum.
Pickering, M. J., and S. Frisson. 2001. Processing Ambiguous Verbs: Evidence from Eye Movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(2): 556–73. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.2.556. (Crossref)
Robertson, S. S., and G. J. Suci. 1980. Event Perception by Children in the Early Stages of Language Production. Child Development 51(1): 89–96. doi: 10.2307/1129594. (Crossref)
Sauppe, S. and Flecken, M. (2021). Speaking for seeing: Sentence structure guides visual event apprehension. Cognition, 206:104516. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104516. (Crossref)
Sgall, P., E. Hajičová, and E. Buráňová. 1980. Aktuální Členění Věty v Češtině. Praha: Academia.
Shanon, B. 1979. Graphological Patterns as a Function of Handedness and Culture. Neuropsychologia 17(5): 457–65. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(79)90052-6. (Crossref)
Stevenson, S. 1994. Competition and Recency in a Hybrid Network Model of Syntactic Disambiguation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23(4): 295–322. doi: 10.1007/BF02145044. (Crossref)
Tomlin, R. S. 1986. Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. London ; Wolfeboro, N.H: Croom Helm.
Von Eckardt, B., and M. C. Potter. 1985. Clauses and the Semantic Representation of Words. Memory & Cognition 13(4):371–76. doi: 10.3758/BF03202505. (Crossref)
Humboldt University, Berlin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3392-1028
