Spatial communication systems across languages reflect universal action constraints

Abstract

The extent to which languages share properties reflecting the non-linguistic constraints of the speakers who speak them is key to the debate regarding the relationship between language and cognition. A critical case is spatial communication, where it has been argued that semantic universals should exist, if anywhere. Here, using an experimental paradigm able to separate variation within a language from variation between languages, we tested the use of spatial demonstratives-the most fundamental and frequent spatial terms across languages. In n = 874 speakers across 29 languages, we show that speakers of all tested languages use spatial demonstratives as a function of being able to reach or act on an object being referred to. In some languages, the position of the addressee is also relevant in selecting between demonstrative forms. Commonalities and differences across languages in spatial communication can be understood in terms of universal constraints on action shaping spatial language and cognition.

Fig. 1. Conceptual models of demonstrative choice as a function of object distance and addressee position (manipulated in the experiments).

The speaker (S) and addressee (A) sit side by side (left) or opposite, facing each other (right). The three conceptual regions (1, 2 and 3) represent the peripersonal (PPS) of the speaker (1), a medium distance (2) out of reach of both speaker and addressee (irrespective of the position of the addressee), and a region (3) far from the speaker and addressee when they are aligned (left) or within reach of the addressee but not the speaker when they face each other (right). Demonstrative Systems 1–3 represent hypothetical models of demonstrative use in a three-term language structured in terms of egocentric distance alone (Demonstrative System 1), territories of the speaker and addressee (Demonstrative System 2) or egocentric distance and shared space (Demonstrative System 3). D1, D2 and D3 represent distinct demonstrative forms.

Fig. 2. Languages tested.

Language sample, classified by geography, language family and the number of demonstrative contrasts (see also Table 1). Credit for background map: rawpixel.com on Freepik.

Fig. 3. Normalized frequency distributions of proximal and distal demonstrative forms in the overall analyses and for individual languages.

a, Normalized frequency distributions of proximal and distal demonstrative forms in the overall analyses. The shaded areas represent scaled confidence intervals. b, Key to the regions. c, Normalized frequency distributions of proximal and distal demonstrative forms for individual languages.

Fig. 4. Overview of statistical results across individual languages with effect sizes.

The effect sizes can be interpreted as follows: 0.01 is a small effect size, 0.06 is a medium effect size and >0.14 is a large effect size. Asterisks (*) indicate follow-up models. Note that the final model did not include Region 1 in Korean; hence, the distance effect was absent in the final model though a distance effect is clearly present. Also note that no model would run for Telugu due to a dominant effect of distance (Supplementary Table 2).

Fig. 5. Normalized frequency distributions of demonstrative forms for individual languages with addressee position effects and/or interactions between addressee position and region.

a, Normalized frequency distributions. b, Key to the regions.