Skip to main content
Log in

Why do speakers mix perspectives?

  • Published:
Spatial Cognition and Computation

Abstract

Although considerations of discourse coherence and cognitive processing suggest that communicators should adopt consistent perspectives when describing spatial scenes, in many cases they switch perspectives. Ongoing research examining cognitive costs indicates that these are small and exacted in establishing a mental model of a scene but not in retrieving information from a well-known scene. A perspective entails a point of view, a referent object, and terms of reference. These may change within a perspective, exacting cognitive costs, so that the costs of switching perspective may not be greater than the costs of maintaining the same perspective. Another project investigating perspective choice for self and other demonstrates effects of salience of referent object and ease of terms of reference. Perspective is mixed not just in verbal communications but also in pictorial ones, suggesting that at times, switching perspective is more effective than maintaining a consistent one.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bierwisch, M. (1967). Some Semantic Universals of German Adjectivals, Foundations of Language 3: 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgeman, B. (1999). Motor Response to Cognitively Mislocalized Targets. Manuscript submitted for publications.

  • Black, J.B., Turner, T.J. and Bower, G.H. (1979). Point of View in Narrative Comprehension, Memory and Production, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 187–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D.J. and Tversky, B. (1992). Assessing Spatial Frameworks with Object and Direction Probes, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 30: 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D.J. and Tversky, B. (1999). Mental Representations of Spatial Relations from Diagrams and Models, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 25: 137–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D.J., Tversky, B. and Franklin, N. (1992). Internal and External Spatial Frameworks for Representing Described Scenes, Journal of Memory and Language 31: 74–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D.J., Lanca, M. and Tversky, B. (1995). Spatial Concepts and Perception of Physical and Diagrammed Scenes, Perceptual and Motor Skills 81: 531–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, L. (1999). Selecting a Reference Frame, Spatial Cognition and Computation 1(4): 365–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson-Radvansky, L. and Irwin, D.E. (1993). Frames of Reference in Vision and Language: Where is Above? Cognition 46: 223–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H.H. (1973). Space, Time, Semantics, and the Child. In T.E. Moores (ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language. Academic Press, New York, pp. 27–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couclelis, H., Golledge, R.G., Gale, N. and Tobler, W. (1987). Exploring the Anchor-point Hypothesis of Spatial Cognition, Journal of Environmental Psychology 7: 99–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, W.S. (1979). Coding Left and Right, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 5: 42–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, N. and Tversky, B. (1990). Searching Imagined Environments, Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: General 119: 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, N., Tversky, B. and Coon, V. (1992). Switching Points of View in Spatial Mental Models Acquired from Text, Memory and Cognition 20: 507–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graziano, M.S.A. and Gross, C.G. (1994). Mapping Space with Neurons, Current Directions in Psychological Science 3: 164–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrich, V. and Koster, C. (1983). Discourse Organization and Sentence Form: The Structure of Room Descriptions in Dutch, Discourse Processes 6: 169–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, E.A. and Clark, H.H. (1987). References in Conversation between Experts and Novices, Journal of General Psychology 116: 26–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, P.U. and Tversky, B. (In preparation). Switching Perspectives Has a Cognitive Cost.

  • Levelt, W.J.M. (1984). Some Perceptual Limitations on Talking about Space. In A.J. van Doorn, W.A. van der Grind and J.J. Koenderink (eds.), Limits on Perception. VNU Science Press, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 323–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. (1996). Frames of Reference and Molyneux's Question: Cross-linguistic Evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel and M.F. Garrett (eds.), Space and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 109–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mainwaring, S.D., Tversky, B., Ohgishi, M. and Schiano, D.J. (2000). Descriptions of Simple Spatial Scenes in English and Japanese. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Maki, R.H. and Braine, L.G. (1985). The Role of Verbal Labels in the Judgment of Orientation and Location, Perception 14: 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maki, R.H., Grandy, C.A. and Hauge, G. (1979). Why is Telling Right from Left more Difficult than Telling above from below? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 5: 52–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, D.G. and Clark, H.H. (1988). Interpreting Words in Spatial Descriptions, Language and Cognitive Processes 3: 275–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrig, W. and Kintsch, W. (1985). Propositional and Situational Representations of Text, Journal of Memory and Language 24: 503–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, L.C. and Rafal, R. (in press). Disorders of Visual Attention. In M. Gazzaniga (ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences, second edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Schober, M.F. (1993). Spatial Perspective-Taking in Conversation, Cognition 47: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanon, B. (1983). Answers to Where-Questions, Discourse Processes 6: 319–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanon, B. (1984). Room Descriptions, Discourse Processes 7: 225–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sholl, M.J. (1999). Egocentric Frames of Reference Used for the Retrieval of Survey Knowledge Learned by Map and Navigation, Spatial Cognition and Computation 1(4): 475–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sholl, M.J. and Egeth, H.E. (1981). Right-Left Confusion in the Adult: A Verbal Labeling Effect, Memory and Cognition 9: 339–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, H.A. and Tversky, B. (1992a). Descriptions and Depictions of Environments, Memory and Cognition 20: 483–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, H.A. and Tversky, B. (1992b). Spatial Mental Models Derived from Survey and Route Descriptions, Journal of Memory and Language 31: 261–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, H.A. and Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in Spatial Descriptions, Journal of Memory & Language 35: 371–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tipper, S.P. and Behrmann, M. (1996). Object-Centered not Scene-Based Visual Neglect, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22: 1261–1278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, S. and Schmidt, K. (1999). Environmental Reference Systems for Large-scale Spaces, Spatial Cognition and Computation 1(4): 447–473.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tversky, B., Lee, P. & Mainwaring, S. Why do speakers mix perspectives?. Spatial Cognition and Computation 1, 399–412 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010091730257

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010091730257