How Does English Encode ‘Tight’ Vs. ‘Loose-fit’ Motion Events? It’s Complicated

Language Learning and Development · 2023 · 7 citations

• Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Linguistics

Linguistic encoding of spatial events has long provided a forum for examining how languages encode space, how children learn their native encodings, and whether cross-linguistic differences affect non-linguistic representations of space. One prominent case concerns motion events in which objects are moved into tight or loose-fit relationships of containment or support. Seminal findings from Bowerman showed that young children learning Korean regularly use specific verbs to encode tight/loose fit across containment and support relationships, whereas children learning English use prepositions to encode containment or support (e.g. in/on) across the tight/loose fit distinction. Others have asked how these early-acquired differences affect non-linguistic encoding of similar events. Many of these studies have focused on the lexical differences between the two languages – verbs (in Korean) and/or prepositions (in English). Here, we ask whether this focus might underestimate how English encodes these events by closely examining the range of options used by English speakers to encode loose and tight-fit motion events. In Experiment 1, 3-year-old and adult English speakers described joining and separating events which culminated in loose or tight-fit end-states. Participants’ use of lexical verbs together with their syntactic frames differentiated among the event types, especially between “loose-fit” events with asymmetric motion between objects (e.g. a block being put into a bowl) vs. “tight-fit” events with symmetric motion (e.g. two Legos being brought together at the same time). In Experiment 2, we replicated the basic findings using events portrayed with more complex of objects. Our findings show that English affords both children and adults rich resources to encode motion events culminating in tight and loose fit end-states; these devices include both lexical items and syntactic frames. The findings raise important questions about how to examine effects of language on non-linguistic spatial cognition in children and adults.