4.8 Article

Different reference frames on different axes: Space and language in indigenous Amazonians

期刊

SCIENCE ADVANCES
卷 8, 期 47, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abp9814

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF, Division of Research on Learning [1760874]
  2. NSF, Division of Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences [2105434]
  3. James S. McDonnell Foundation
  4. Berkeley Research Impact Initiative (BRII) - UC Berkeley Library

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that adults from an indigenous Bolivian group use different spatial reference frames on different axes. They prefer allocentric space on the left-right axis, where spatial discriminations are difficult, but they prefer egocentric space on the front-back axis, where spatial discrimination is relatively easy. This suggests a relationship between spatial cognition, language, and memory, which may be influenced by cultural and contextual factors.
Spatial cognition is central to human behavior, but theway people conceptualize space varies within and across groups for unknown reasons. Here, we found that adults from an indigenous Bolivian group used systematically different spatial reference frames on different axes, according to known differences in their discriminability: In both verbal and nonverbal tests, participants preferred allocentric (i.e., environment-based) space on the left-right axis, where spatial discriminations (like b versus d) are notoriously difficult, but the same participants preferred egocentric (i.e., body-based) space on the front-back axis, where spatial discrimination is relatively easy. The results (i) establish a relationship between spontaneous spatial language and memory across axes within a single culture, (ii) challenge the claim that each language group has a predominant spatial reference frame at a given scale, and (iii) suggest that spatial thinking and language may both be shaped by spatial discrimination abilities, as they vary across cultures and contexts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据