Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

"Near" and "far" in language and perception.

D Kemmerer1

  • 1Division of Behavioral Neurology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, USA. david-kemmerer@uiowa.edu

Cognition
|October 28, 1999
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A double dissociation between linguistic and perceptual representations of spatial relationships.

Cognitive neuropsychology·2010
Same author

Verb retrieval in brain-damaged subjects: 1. Analysis of stimulus, lexical, and conceptual factors.

Brain and language·2000
Same author

Verb retrieval in brain-damaged subjects: 2. Analysis of errors.

Brain and language·2000
Same author

Impaired comprehension of raising-to-subject constructions in Parkinson's disease.

Brain and language·1999
Same author

Auxiliary selection in Italian: a comment on Miozzo and Caramazza's "On knowing the auxiliary of a verb that cannot be named: evidence for the independence of grammatical and phonological aspects of lexical knowledge".

Journal of cognitive neuroscience·1998
Same author

Phonotactics and syllable stress: implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words.

Language and speech·1997
Same journal

Blurred lines or clear boundaries? Synchrony and social dominance shape domain-specific self-other processing.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Knowability predicts curiosity and learning.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Throwing good effort after bad: Evidence for a sunk-cost effect in cognitive effort-based decision-making.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Cross-linguistic differences in incremental planning under uncertainty.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Sensory attenuation scales with the strength of action-outcome coupling: A psychophysical study.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Children's narrow learning bottleneck accelerates the emergence of statistical properties of language.

Cognition·2026
See all related articles

The distinction between linguistic demonstratives (like this vs. that) and perceptual space (near vs. far) is not directly linked. Language-internal factors, not visual system boundaries, shape demonstrative use for spatial contrasts.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Science
  • Linguistics
  • Neuropsychology

Background:

  • Cognitive science investigates the link between language and perception of space.
  • Research explores how linguistic spatial encoding aligns with or diverges from visual processing.
  • This study focuses on the differences between linguistic and visual spatial representations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To argue that the linguistic distinction between proximal and distal demonstratives is not based on perceptual near/far space.
  • To examine the independence of linguistic demonstrative systems and visual spatial representations.
  • To provide evidence for language-internal factors shaping demonstrative usage.

Main Methods:

  • Cross-linguistic analysis of demonstrative systems.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Review of neuropsychological and neurophysiological studies on spatial representation in the brain.
  • Empirical investigation of demonstrative usage in discourse.

    • Main Results:

    • Neuroscience suggests distinct brain mechanisms for near (peripersonal) and far (extrapersonal) space.
    • Many languages use demonstrative systems with more than two spatial regions, contradicting a simple near/far visual split.
    • Demonstratives encode abstract semantic notions, not precise quantitative spatial information like arm's reach.

    Conclusions:

    • The linguistic distinction between proximal and distal demonstratives is independent of the perceptual distinction between near and far space.
    • Language-internal factors and pragmatic context allow for nuanced spatial contrasts beyond simple perceptual boundaries.
    • Demonstratives exemplify a divergence between linguistic and perceptual representations of space.