Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W162667731> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W162667731 endingPage "2320" @default.
- W162667731 startingPage "2315" @default.
- W162667731 abstract "Spatial distance modulates reading times for sentences about social relations: evidence from eye tracking Ernesto Guerra 1,2 (ernesto.guerra@mpi.nl) Pia Knoeferle 1 (knoeferl@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de) Cognitive Interaction Technology Excellence Cluster and Department of Linguistics, Bielefeld University, Inspiration I, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Wundtlaan 1, Nijmegen, 6525 XD, The Netherlands Keywords: spatial distance, social distance, semantic interpretation, eye tracking. Guerra and Knoeferle (2012) was motivated by a linking hypothesis from Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT, Lakoff & Johnson 1999). To accommodate the rapid and incremental effects of spatial distance on semantic interpretation, the authors relied on a mechanism that relates corresponding elements in the sentence and in the visual context by co-indexing them (see the Coordinated Interplay Account, CIA, Knoeferle & Crocker, 2006, 2007). Yet, it is unclear whether spatial distance can rapidly influence processing of other semantic relations besides similarity (see Lakoff & Johnson, 1999). In addition, it remains to be seen how precisely abstract language is co-indexed with spatial distance depicted in the visual context during comprehension. The present study examined spatial distance effects on another abstract domain (social relations), and additionally, assesses the co-indexing between visual cues and abstract language comprehension. Introduction Spatial distance and social relations Recent eye-tracking evidence showed that spatial distance between depicted objects can distinctively modulate reading times for sentences expressing semantic similarity (Guerra & Knoeferle, 2012). Participants inspected objects (playing cards) and then read a sentence about abstract ideas (e.g., „Peace and war are certainly different…‟). Reading times were shorter for sentences expressing similarity between two abstract „and‟-coordinated nouns when the cards were presented close together, compared to farther apart. For sentences expressing dissimilarity the opposite pattern was observed, namely reading times were shorter when cards were presented far apart (vs. close together). These results represent important advances in the understanding of the relation between visual context effects and sentence interpretation. For instance, they suggest visual information can influence abstract-language interpretation – an effect previously shown for concrete language (see, e.g., Tanenhaus et al., 1995). Moreover, they suggest that linguistic and non-linguistic information can interact in the absence of an overt referential link, or lexical association (cf. Altmann & Kamide, 2007; Knoeferle & Crocker, 2007). However, several open questions remain concerning the extent to which spatial distance affects abstract language processing and the mechanisms underlying such effects. The investigation of non-referential visual context effects in In everyday language, people commonly use spatial concepts to communicate aspect of social relations in expressions such as “he‟s a close friend”. The CMT suggests that such expressions arise because abstract representations such as social intimacy are grounded in physical experience such as spatial distance through metaphorical mapping (Lakoff & Johnson 1999). Recent behavioral studies have investigated the link between social and spatial distance. For instance, in a study, Williams and Bargh (2008) found that participants reported weaker bonds to their families and hometowns after they had been primed with far (vs. close) distance (by marking off two points on a Cartesian plane, either far apart or close together). More recently, Matthews and Matlock (2011) found that in a path-drawing task participants drew paths closer to figures described to them as friends (vs. strangers). Another study reported how perceived distance (in a picture with depth perspective, e.g., scenery of alleys with trees) interacted with the content of written words (i.e., friend vs. enemy), modulating response latencies in a distance- estimation and a word-classification task (Bar-Anan et al., 2007). In both of these tasks longer response times emerged when the word friend was presented far away in the picture (compared to close), and the opposite pattern for the word enemy. Abstract Recent evidence from eye tracking during reading showed that non-referential spatial distance presented in a visual context can modulate semantic interpretation of similarity relations rapidly and incrementally. In two eye-tracking reading experiments we extended these findings in two important ways; first, we examined whether other semantic domains (social relations) could also be rapidly influenced by spatial distance during sentence comprehension. Second, we aimed to further specify how abstract language is co-indexed with spatial information by varying the syntactic structure of sentences between experiments. Spatial distance rapidly modulated reading times as a function of the social relation expressed by a sentence. Moreover, our findings suggest that abstract language can be co-indexed as soon as critical information becomes available for the reader." @default.
- W162667731 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W162667731 creator A5022177590 @default.
- W162667731 creator A5039053776 @default.
- W162667731 date "2014-01-01" @default.
- W162667731 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
- W162667731 title "Spatial distance modulates reading times for sentences about social relations: evidence from eye tracking" @default.
- W162667731 cites W1968060331 @default.
- W162667731 cites W1977109735 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2003232287 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2008011521 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2011826874 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2020755048 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2023290309 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2028665277 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2104817141 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2118489306 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2141845152 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2144920283 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2148096012 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2152755077 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2165464685 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2168408957 @default.
- W162667731 cites W2170014302 @default.
- W162667731 cites W32442267 @default.
- W162667731 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
- W162667731 type Work @default.
- W162667731 sameAs 162667731 @default.
- W162667731 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W162667731 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W162667731 hasAuthorship W162667731A5022177590 @default.
- W162667731 hasAuthorship W162667731A5039053776 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C103278499 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C115961682 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C130318100 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C184337299 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C204321447 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C2777530160 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C511192102 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C56461940 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C64754055 @default.
- W162667731 hasConcept C89267518 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C103278499 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C115961682 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C130318100 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C138885662 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C154945302 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C15744967 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C166957645 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C169760540 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C169900460 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C180747234 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C184337299 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C199360897 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C204321447 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C205649164 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C2777530160 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C2779343474 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C41008148 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C41895202 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C511192102 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C554936623 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C56461940 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C64754055 @default.
- W162667731 hasConceptScore W162667731C89267518 @default.
- W162667731 hasIssue "36" @default.
- W162667731 hasOpenAccess W162667731 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2034751108 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2104503067 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2106362816 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2183984453 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2337307553 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2727349600 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2809928142 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2896852269 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2899332334 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2899686780 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2920997177 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2950582775 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W3124132502 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W3176675189 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W3186880662 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W3211073792 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W619597047 @default.
- W162667731 hasRelatedWork W2186332794 @default.