Languages look very different from one another with respect to relations [BowermanBowerman1996,Choi BowermanChoi Bowerman1992,GentnerGentner1982]. Even a cursory examination of the spatial relation expressions in a subset of languages reveals the variety of relational concepts possible. Consider some of the possibilities for encoding relations of CONTACT, SUPPORT, and CONTAINMENT between two objects [LandauLandau1996]. The roles (or slots) for these spatial concepts are the trajector -- the thing being related, and the landmark -- the thing to which the trajector is being related. Thus, the ball is the trajector and the cup is the landmark in the ball is in the cup.
Figure 6 presents four possible arrangements of a trajector (indicated by black) and a landmark (indicated by gray). Spanish uses a single word en for all of them. English uses one word, on, for the two situations in which containment is not involved and another, in, for situations in which the trajector is (at least partially) contained in the landmark. German distinguishes two kinds of situations for which English uses on: auf when the landmark is under the trajector and an when the trajector is fixed to a vertical surface of the landmark. Korean distinguishes two kinds of CONTAINMENT (and CONTACT) situations, those in which the trajector fits tightly with the landmark, for which sok is used, and those in which there is a loose fit, for which ahn is used. Clearly, languages ``slice up'' the relational space in different ways. This means at the least that the human capacity to represent and learn relations is a flexible one.
 |
Of course, to be more accurate, languages do not ``slice up'' anything. Languages do not actually do anything at all; it is people that do. Each individual human being develops relational representations as a product of that individual's own activity -- perceiving, acting, learning language. In learning the spatial categories that matter in their language, children could either be starting out with a universal set of fundamental categories [JackendoffJackendoff1996,PinkerPinker1994] from which they select depending on their linguistic environment or learning the linguistic categories without the benefit of pre-existing knowledge. In either case, it is clear that the language being learned has much to do with the course of learning. Work by Bowerman and colleagues [BowermanBowerman1996,Choi BowermanChoi Bowerman1992] on the acquisition of spatial terms by children learning different languages makes this clear. For children learning English (and many other languages as well), the ideas of CONTAINMENT and SUPPORT, the ideas conveyed by the words in and on, seem fundamental and early [Johnston SlobinJohnston Slobin1979]. But Korean children seem to make no use of these ideas in any obvious way in learning spatial terms [Choi BowermanChoi Bowerman1992]. The global semantic categories of CONTAINMENT and SURFACE CONTACT/SUPPORT are not expressed in Korean in a transparent way and they are not used by Korean children. Instead, Korean children learn early and readily a distinction between TIGHT and LOOSE FIT, a distinction pertinent to their language. Any account of the development of relational representation must account for this diversity among developmental progressions.
But Korean children seem to make no use of these ideas in any obvious way in learning spatial terms [Choi BowermanChoi Bowerman1992]. The global semantic categories of CONTAINMENT and SURFACE CONTACT/SUPPORT are not expressed in Korean in a transparent way and they are not used by Korean children. Instead, Korean children learn early and readily a distinction between TIGHT and LOOSE FIT, a distinction pertinent to their language. Any account of the development of relational representation must account for this diversity among developmental progressions.