Perspective taking in language: When bodily involvement impacts motion events’ descriptions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52497/signifiances.v1i2.99Keywords:
Motion, Perspective, Sensorimotor processes, Embodiment, Enaction // Mouvement, Processus sensorimoteurs, Corporéité, EnactionAbstract
Relying on the Talmian typology, this investigation explores perspective taking in language through English and French spoken corpora delivered by speakers submitted to different bodily constraints before delineating motion events. The effects of speakers’ bodily involvement on their linguistic identification of perspectives are spotlighted, relying on the hypothesis according to which speakers’ sensorimotor processes can be corollary mirrored in their speech acts. Descriptions are analysed through the concept of embodiment, which highlights the significant role played by the body through speakers’ reports. Language users are apprehended as enacting the world through linguistic productions resulting from bodily, linguistic and non-linguistic variables.
Identification langagière de la perspective: L’incidence de contraintes corporelles sur la description du mouvement
Fondée sur la typologie talmienne, cette étude examine l’identification langagière de la perspective au travers de corpus oraux français et anglais, issus de locuteurs soumis à différentes contraintes corporelles initiant leur description du phénomène de mouvement. On souligne l’effet de l’implication sensorielle des locuteurs sur les perspectives adoptées dans leur discours, à partir de l’hypothèse selon laquelle les processus sensorimoteurs des sujets parlants sont reflétés dans leurs productions langagières. Les corpus sont analysés au travers du concept d’embodiment (ou corporéité), considérant ici l’inscription significative du corps dans les propos recueillis. On appréhende les locuteurs comme des sujets qui énactent le monde au travers de productions langagières – réceptacles de paramètres corporels et de variables verbales et non verbales.
References
Auteur, A. 2015. « Les prépositions évaluées par le prisme du paradigme cognitif : vers une lecture enactive ». Corela, 13-2. URL: http://corela.revues.org/4111
Barsalou L. W. 2009. “Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1281–1289 10.1098/rstb.2008.0319
Berthoz, A. 2013. La Vicariance. Paris : Odile Jacob.
Berthoz, A. 1997. Le Sens du mouvement. Paris : Odile Jacob.
Beveridge M.E, and Pickering M.J. 2013 “Perspective taking in language: integrating the spatial and action domains”. Front Hum Neurosci. 17;7:577. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00577
Borghi A. M., Scorolli C. 2009. “Language comprehension and dominant hand motion simulation”. Hum. Mov. Sci. 28, 12–27 10.1016
Clark H. H., Wilkes-Gibbs D. 1986. “Referring as a collaborative process”. Cognition 22, 1–39 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7
Decety J. 2002. “Neurophysiological evidence for simulation of action,” in Simulation and Knowledge of Action, eds Dokic J., Proust J., editors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 53-72.
Duran N. D., et al. 2011. “Listeners invest in an assumed other’s perspective despite cognitive cost.” Cognition 121, 22–40 10.1016/j.
Frith C. D., Frith U. 2007. “Social cognition in humans”. Curr. Biol. 17, R724–R73210.1016/j.cub.2007.05.068
Gallese V. Goldman A. 1998. “Mirror neurons and the mind-reading”. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2, 493–501 10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01262-5
Grèzes J., et al. 2003. “Activations related to “mirror” and “canonical” neurones in the human brain: an fMRI study”. Neuroimage 18, 928–937 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00042-9
Kessler, K, and H. Rutherford, 2010. “The two forms of visuoo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied by subserve different spatial prepositions”. Front Psychol. 1: 213. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00213
Kilner J. et al. 2003. “An interference effect of observed biological movement on action”. Curr. Biol. 13, 522–525 10.1016/s0960-9822(03)00165-9
Levinson S. C. 2003. Space and Language in Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marino B. F. M., et al. 2012. “Language sensorimotor specificity modulates the motor system.” Cortex 48, 849–856 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.12.003
Matsumoto, Y. 1996. “How Abstract is Subjective Motion? A Comparison of Coverage Path Expressions and Acces Path Expressions”. In A. Goldberg. Conceptual Structures, Discourse and language. CSLI Publications, 359-373.
Meteyard L., et al. 2012. “Coming of age: a review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics”. Cortex 48, 788–804 10.1016/j.
Pecher D., et al. 2009. “Language comprehenders retain implied shape and orientation of objects.” Q. J. Exp. Psychol. (Hove) 62, 1108–1114 10.1080/17470210802633255
Prinz W., Hommel B. (Eds.). 2002. Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action: Attention and Performance XIV. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pulvermüller F. 2005. “Brain mechanisms linking language and action”. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 576–582 10.1038/nrn1706.
Slobin, Dan I. 1996a. “From ‘thought to language’ to ‘thinking for speaking.”. In J.J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson (eds). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 70-96.
Slobin, Dan I. 2004. “The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events”. In S. Strömqvist and L. Verhoeven (eds.) Relating Events in Narrative: Vol.2. Typological and Contextual Perspectives. Mahwah, N. J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 219-257.
Talmy, L. 2000a. Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept Structuring Systems. Volume.1. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Tomasello M., et al.1998. “Five primate species follow the visual gaze of conspecifics”. Anim. Behav. 55, 1063–106910.1006/anbe.1997.0636
Tversky B. 1991. “Spatial mental models”. The Psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 27.
Tversky B., Hard B. M. 2009. “Embodied and disembodied cognition: spatial perspective-taking.” Cognition 110, 124–12910.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.008
Watson M. E., et al. 2004. “Alignment of reference frames in dialogue,” in Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Wu L., Barsalou L. W. 2009. “Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: evidence from property generation.” Acta Psychol. (Amst) 132, 173–189 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.002
Zwaan R. A. 2008. “Time in language, situation models, and mental simulations”. Lang. Learn. 58, 13–26 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00458.x
Zwaan R. A., Taylor L. J. 2006. “Seeing, acting, understanding: motor resonance in language comprehension.” J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 135, 1–11 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1
