this article. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Lera Boroditsky, Department of Psychology, Bldg. 420, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2130. E-mail to lera@psych. stanford.edu

Human-subjects testing based on a sound formal model is outlined as an effective way to evaluate and refine computational models of spatial relations. The cognitive response of a subject (person) to a realworld situation depends on the characteristic of the situation and the characteristics of the subject. Spatial entities can be characterized by topological relations, metric, scale (scope), kinds of phenomena (semantics), motion (time), and (for maps and displays) graphic presentation. Subjects' responses may vary according to their natural languages, their cultures, and individual characteristics such as gender, age, and handedness. Given this conceptual background, seven human-subjects testing protocols are introduced. Each test is described, and results of applications of these tests are summarized where possible. The tests are compared with their requirements, and the different aspects of human spatial cognition that they might test. Lastly, a program for applying these tests and refining the formal models based on test results is presented.

This study investigated whether different lexicalization patterns of motion events in English and Spanish predict how speakers of these languages perform in non-linguistic tasks. Using 36 motion events, we compared English and Spanish speakers' linguistic descriptions to their performance on two non-linguistic tasks: recognition memory and similarity judgments. We investigated the effect of language processing on non-linguistic performance by varying the nature of the encoding before testing for recognition and similarity. Participants encoded the events while describing them verbally or not. No effect of language was obtained in the recognition memory task after either linguistic or non-linguistic encoding and in the similarity task after non-linguistic encoding. We did find a linguistic effect in the similarity task after verbal encoding, an effect that conformed to languagespecific patterns. Linguistic descriptions directed attention to certain aspects of the events later used to make a non-linguistic judgment. This suggests that linguistic and non-linguistic performance are dissociable, but language-specific regularities made available in the experimental context may mediate the speaker's performance in specific tasks.

Many languages have a grammatical gender system whereby all nouns are assigned a gender (most commonly feminine, masculine, or neuter). Two studies examined whether (1) the assignment of genders to nouns is truly arbitrary (as has been claimed), and (2) whether the grammatical genders assigned to nouns have semantic consequences. In the first study, English speakers intuitions about the genders of animals (but not artifacts) were found to correlate with the grammatical genders assigned to the names of these objects in Spanish and German. These findings suggest that the assignment of genders to nouns is not entirely arbitrary but may to some extent reflect the perceived masculine or feminine properties of the nouns referents. Results of the second study suggested that peoples ideas about the genders of objects are strongly influenced by the grammatical genders assigned to these objects in their native language. Spanish and German speakers memory for object--name pairs (e.g., apple--Patricia) was better for pairs where the gender of the proper name was congruent with the grammatical gender of the object name (in their native language), than when the two genders were incongruent.

Introduction: Two dogmas of reificatory semantics What is meaning, what is it for a sign to be meaningful, how can meaning best be analyzed, and in what sense is linguistic meaning proper or unique to language? Cognitive linguistics offers answers to these questions that challenge two traditional dogmas of linguistic theory, philosophy of language and cognitive science. However, although they have notionally abandoned both these dogmas, many cognitive linguists retain an ambiguous loyalty to some of their underlying presuppositions. I hope to convince them of the necessity to review their deep theoretical commitments, in order to rebut, once and for all, the charge that cognitive semantics entails a Subjectivist theory of meaning. The two dogmas are: (1) the Dogma of the Autonomy of linguistic meaning; and (2) the Dogma of the Compositionality of linguistic meaning. Both these dogmas are variants of a more general, fatal misconception of the nature of linguistic meaning, namely that

Our aim in this article is to argue that an adequate account of semantic development in early first language acquisition requires a theory and methodology that synthesize the insights of cognitive and cultural linguistics with a Vygotskian socio-cultural approach to human development. This involves recasting and extending the notion of Embodiment, which is a central philosophical underpinning of cognitive linguistics. We discuss evidence from the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural study of spatial semantic development, and argue that current controversies regarding language-specific acquisition strategies and universal cognitive bases of semantic development may best be resolved by viewing the issue of "linguistic relativity" in a socio-cultural, as well as a grammatical, perspective.

Languages vary strikingly in how they encode motion events. In some languages (e.g. English), manner of motion is typically encoded within the verb, while direction of motion information appears in modifiers. In other languages (e.g. Greek), the verb usually encodes the direction of motion, while the manner information is often omitted, or encoded in modifiers. We designed two studies to investigate whether these language-specific patterns affect speakers' reasoning about motion. We compared the performance of English and Greek children and adults (a) in nonlinguistic (memory and categorization) tasks involving motion events, and (b) in their linguistic descriptions of these same motion events. Even though the two linguistic groups differed significantly in terms of their linguistic preferences, their performance in the nonlinguistic tasks was identical. More surprisingly, the linguistic descriptions given by subjects within language also failed to correlate consistently with their memory and categorization performance in the relevant regards. For the domain studied, these results are consistent with the view that conceptual development and organization are largely independent of language-specific labeling practices. The discussion emphasizes that the necessarily sketchy nature of language use assures that it will be at best a crude index of thought.

In this paper we provide a full overview of GikiCLEF, an evaluation contest (track) that was specifically designed to expose and investigate cultural and linguistic issues involved in multimedia collections and searching. In GikiCLEF, 50 topics were developed by a multilingual team with non-English users in mind. Answers should be found in Wikipedia, but not trivially, in the sense that the task should be difficult for human users as well. Crosslinguality was fostered and encouraged by the evaluation measures employed. We present the motivation and the organization process, the management system developed, dubbed SIGA, an overview of participation and results, concluding with what we have learned from the whole initiative.

Rather than having universal linguistic categories for some sets of common objects, languages develop their own, idiosyncratic naming patterns for them. Accounting for these patterns requires reference not only to the understanding of stimulus properties by individual speakers of a language, but also to the linguistic and cultural histories of the language they speak. To better understand how these two sources of influence work together to produce linguistic categories, we examined the relations among linguistic categories for 60 common containers for speakers of English, Spanish, and Chinese. We discriminated among several possibilities that imply different relative contributions of the two sources of influence. No single type of relation dominated; the contributions of the two influences varied across different parts of this single domain. We suggest an interaction that is constrained by structure in the stimulus space.

concepts; categorization; space; number Possessing a language is one of the central features that distinguishes humans from other species. Many people share the intuition that they think “in ” language, hence that the absence of language would, ipso facto, be the absence of thought. One compelling version of this self-reflection is Helen Keller’s (1955) report that her recognition of the signed symbol for ‘water’ triggered thought processes which had theretofore-- and consequently-- been utterly absent. Statements to the same or related effect come from the most diverse intellectual sources: “The limits of my language are the limits of my world ” (Wittgenstein, 1922]; and “The fact of the matter is that the 'real world ' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group” (Sapir, 1941, as cited in Whorf, 1956, p. 75). * We thank Jerry Fodor for a discussion of the semantics of raining, Ray Jackendoff for a discussion of phonology, as well as Dan Slobin and Dedre Gentner for their comments on this chapter. Much of our perspective derives from our collaborative work with