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

Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning.

Peggy Li1, Lila Gleitman

  • 1Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania, 3401 Walnut Street, Suite 400A, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. pegs@psych.upenn.edu

Cognition
|April 6, 2002
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

Counting parts and wholes and the mastery of partitive language.

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same author

Structural cues for symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry in Central Taurus Sign Language.

Sign language and linguistics·2024
Same author

Representing Polymers as Periodic Graphs with Learned Descriptors for Accurate Polymer Property Predictions.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2022
Same author

Unraveling the contribution of left-right language on spatial perspective taking.

Spatial cognition and computation·2021
Same author

Nanomaterial Synthesis Insights from Machine Learning of Scientific Articles by Extracting, Structuring, and Visualizing Knowledge.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2020
Same author

Alternative spin on phylogenetically inherited spatial reference frames.

Cognition·2019
Same journal

When criterion control in face matching induces correlation: Commentary on Baker et al. (2026).

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Corrigendum to "Productivity matters for the neural processing of novel words, but not existing ones" Cognition Volume 274 (2026) 106593.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Investigating the origins of partisanship: What motivates children to preferentially endorse their ingroups' claims?

Cognition·2026
Same journal

People make graded judgments about the inconceivable.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

The self as an image: Appearance and belief in visual representations of one's own face.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Corrigendum to 'Consonant, vowel, and tone cues in early wordform recognition: Evidence from Cantonese-learning infants' [Cognition 275 (2026) 106624].

Cognition·2026
See all related articles

Language influences spatial reasoning, but landmark cues, not just language, may shape how we solve spatial problems. This challenges the strong Whorf-Sapir linguistic relativity hypothesis.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Linguistics
  • Anthropology

Background:

  • The Whorf-Sapir linguistic relativity hypothesis posits language influences thought.
  • Cross-linguistic studies suggest spatial lexicons impact spatial reasoning and organization.
  • Differences in spatial systems (e.g., absolute vs. egocentric) are linked to language use.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the influence of lexical resources on spatial organization and reasoning.
  • To re-examine the role of language versus environmental cues in spatial perspective.
  • To test whether language alone dictates spatial reasoning strategies.

Main Methods:

  • Reproduced cross-linguistic findings in English speakers by manipulating landmark cues.
  • Analyzed spatial problem-solving strategies in relation to environmental cues.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Reviewed prior evidence from infants and animals on spatial problem-solving.

    • Main Results:

    • Spatial reasoning strategies can be replicated in a single language (English) by altering landmark cues.
    • This suggests environmental factors, specifically landmark availability, play a significant role in spatial perspective.
    • Language may not be the sole determinant of spatial reasoning strategies.

    Conclusions:

    • Spatial problem-solving approaches may be more influenced by environmental cues than by language alone.
    • A unified interpretation suggests that the availability and suitability of local landmarks are key to spatial problem-solving.
    • Cultural differences in spatial language may reflect preferences for different perspectives based on environmental factors.