<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W01-1302">
  <Title>Specification in terms of interactional properties as a way to optimize the representation of spatial expressions</Title>
  <Section position="5" start_page="2" end_page="5" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Perceptual Properties
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The section describes the revealed perceptual semantic properties of the four prepositions, which do not depend on specific objects and namely those properties which pertain to motion of the Figure, distance between the Figure and the Ground and choice of reference frame  . The usage of over and pieried, one the one hand, and above and vpieriedi, on the other, was found to be sensitive to largely the same perceptual properties of referent scenes.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="3" end_page="3" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.1 Choice of Reference Frame
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The prepositions vpieriedi and above were found to be used when the position of the Figure is described in the egocentric reference frame:  (1) Vpieriedi stola stoit stul. There is a stool ahead of the table.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> (2) The roof of my school could be seen above (*over) those trees.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2">  Example 1 implies that the stool and the table are located on the frontal axis of the observer, the table being closer to the observer than the stool (Figure1) (compare: Pieried stolom stoit stul. There is a stool in front of the table. which does not imply the presence of the observer). In 2 the position of the Figure roof relative to the Ground trees is described simultaneously in the absolute reference frame (relative to the gravity axis) and the egocentric reference frame: the roof is not directly over the trees; the roof and the trees are vertically co-related only from the point of view of the  Strictly speaking, reference frame is not a perceptual property of a scene, but a strategy of organizing the perceptual input. For our purposes, it is important that descriptions in different reference frames invoke different percepts. For example, John is to the left of Mary in the egocentric reference frame denotes different spatial relations than the same sentence in the intrinsic reference frame.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> observer, whose position is implied it is on one horizontal line with positions of the trees and the school (Figure2).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4">  usage of above in (2).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> The prepositions pieried and over are used  when the position of the Figure is described in the intrinsic reference frame: (3) Pochtal'on pieried pochtovym iashchikom. The postman is in front of the mailbox.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> (4) He held the hammer over the nail.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7">  In 3 the position of the postman is defined relative to the frontal axis of the mailbox; the position of the observer is not implied he or she can in principle be viewing the scene from any point (Figure 3). In 4 the position of the hammer is defined relative to the gravity axis and the vertical axis of the nail, also irrespective of the observers position (Figure 4).</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="3" end_page="3" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.2 Motion of the Figure
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The preposition over is found to be used to denote Goal (i.e. the end-point of a trajectory) of a downward motion of the Figure toward the Ground (5). It can also denote Source (i.e. the starting point of a trajectory) of an upward motion of the Figure away from the Ground (6):  (5) He pulled his cap down over (*above) his eyes. (6) The executioner removed his sword from over (*above) Peters head.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1">  The preposition above, on the contrary, is used to denote Goal of an upward motion of the Figure away from the Ground (7) and Source of a downward motion of the Figure toward the  Ground (8): (7) He raised his cap above (*over) his eyes. (8) A meteorite falling from above (*over) us.  In Russian to denote Goals and Sources of the Figures motion on a horizontal plane the prepositions k (Goal of motion toward the Ground), ot (Source of motion away from the Ground), vpieried (Goal of motion away from the Ground) and spieriedi (Source of motion toward the Ground) are used. However, the prepositions pieried and vpieriedi have different degrees of acceptability when different Paths (i.e. trajectories) of the Figures motion along the Grounds frontal axis are in question. The preposition pieried is preferred, when motion is  toward the Ground (9) and vpieriedi when motion is away from the Ground (10): (9) Iz-za ughla priamo na niegho vylietiela mashina i ostanovilas' tol'ko pieried nim (*zatormozila tol'ko vpieriedi niegho). A car raced from around the corner and stopped just in front of him.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> (10) Vpieriedi mienia lyzhniki stali bystro  udaliat'sia (*udaliat'sia pieriedo mnoi). The skiers ahead of me started to quickly enlarge the gap. Thus, pieried, like over, emphasizes Goal of the Figures approaching the Ground, while vpieriedi, like above, emphasizes Goal of the Figures departing from the Ground.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="3" start_page="3" end_page="5" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.3 Distance between the Figure and the
Ground
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The prepositions vpieriedi and above are used  when distance between the Figure and the Ground is conceptualized as great. (11) Dierievo, stoiashchieie dalieko vpieriedi nas (*dalieko pieried nami). A tree standing far ahead of us. (12) Keep the grill high enough above (*over) the fire! The prepositions can be used when between the Figure and the Ground there are some other objects of a size, comparable to that of the spatially co-related objects.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> (13) He lives three floors above me (*three floors over me).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> (14) On vstal v ochieried' i zamietil, chto chieriez tri chielovieka vpieriedi niegho stoial Vladimir (*chieriez  tri chielovieka pieried nim). He took a place in the line and saw Vladimir standing three people ahead of him.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> Presumably the presence of such objects between the Figure and the Ground motivates conceptualization of distance / remoteness between them. Of conceptualization of distance between the Figure and the Ground in occurrences of above and vpieriedi also speaks the fact that these prepositions, unlike their synonyms, are used when degree of remoteness of one object from the other is specified. These are those cases when the prepositions are combined with words and phrases like one inch, several feet, five hundred meters, slightly, a little  , etc.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> (15) She stuck the rose in her hair a little above the left ear (*a little over the left ear).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> (16) Chut' vpieriedi Alieksieia biezhal Vladimir (*chut' pieried). Vladimir was running a little ahead of Aleksey.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6">  The prepositions pieried and over are used when the distance between the Figure and the Ground is not conceptualized at all:  It is of interest to note that above and vpieriedi can combine with words like slightly or a little, but not with very, too, considerably, quite: *quite above, *dovol'no vpieriedi.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> (17) Pieried nim litsom k litsu stoial Vladimir (*Vpieriedi niegho litsom k litsu). In front of him face to face stood Vladimir.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> (18) His cap was low over (*above) his eyes. That the prepositions are used when distance is negligible is also seen from the fact that they are inappropriate in cases when there are some other sizeable objects between the Figure and the Ground (13-14) or when degree of remoteness is emphasized (15-16).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> The prepositions over and pieried are also used to denote the point where the Figure is traversing a projective axis of the Ground, typically at such a distance from it, that conceptualized as negligibly small and also not excluding a contact between the objects  .</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> (19) Riebienok pieriebiezhal doroghu priamo pieried ghruzovikom (* pieriebiezhal doroghu priamo vpieriedi ghruzovika.) The child dashed across the street right in front of a truck.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> (20) The ball flew over the fence. (*The ball flew above the fence.) Their synonyms cannot denote this point on a projective axis of the Ground: vpieriedi is unacceptable in 19 and above in 20 conveys information of the Figures moving along a projective axis of the Ground away from it.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="5" end_page="5" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Functional Properties
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The study revealed that both the Russian and the English prepositions possess functional semantic properties, and namely their meaning is characterized by information about certain interaction, currently taking place or anticipated, between the spatially co-related objects. The prepositions pieried and over convey information about functional interdependence between the objects, whereas the prepositions vpieriedi and above of functional separation or independence of the objects.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The first type of functional information is physical interaction between the Figure and the Ground, which is taking place at the moment in question. The result of this interaction is usually change of some physical (integrity, temperature, etc) or interactional (visibility, possibility to manipulate, etc) characteristic of one of the objects. One of the objects which may be both  Such uses of over can be considered boundary cases between the above and across senses of the preposition. the Figure and the Ground is seen as a source of influence or an agent of an action directed at its counterpart. Animate objects can act in the role of the influencing object, as well as those inanimate objects that are able to disperse light, heat, etc or used as instruments:  (21) She bent over (*above) the puppies to see them better.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> (22) My ghrielis', stoia pieried (*vpieriedi) plitoi. We were keeping warm standing in front of the stove. (23) Footsteps thumping heavily above (*over) the boys.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> (24) Vpieriedi niegho iezhieminutno razryvalis'  bomby (*Pieried nim iezhieminutno razryvalis' bomby). Bombs were constantly exploding ahead of him.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> In 21 and 22 there are functional relations between the objects. In 21 the Figure she is directing the action of inspecting at the Ground puppies. Note that here not a simple act of perceptually spotting an object is implied, but an active examination of it. In 22 the Figure my we experiences influence exerted by the Ground plita stove. In 23 and 24 the objects are functionally disjunct. In 23 the action of the Figure footsteps does not effect the Ground the boys, if above is used; and does so, if over is replaced for above. In 24 the process razryvalis' bomby exploding is understood as not effecting the Figure niegho him, cf. On byl ubit razorvavshieisia pieried nim bomboi. He was killed by a bomb that exploded in front of him.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Second, the prepositions can describe such functional relations, whereby one object is conceptualized as protecting the other one from influence from without the functional unity:  (25) He carefully held his hat over (*above) the candle to protect it from the rain.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> (26) The fog over (*above) the river prevented detection from airplanes.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> (27) Skryvaia litso ot fotokamier, on dierzhal  papku pieried soboi (*vpieriedi siebia). Trying to conceal himself from the cameras he held his file in front of his face.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> (28) Pieried oratorom dierzhali pulienieprobivaiemoie stieklo (*vpieriedi oratora). A bulletproof shield was held in front of the speaker. Third, the relations between objects can be conceptualized in such a manner that one object is seen as having a potential to establish an influence over the other one; at the moment in question, however, no influence is exerted. To describe this type of relations the term functional potential will be used, which was introduced by Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976) to designate a similar interactional property of artifacts.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9">  (29) Trying to threaten Peter, the executioner held his sword over (*above) his head.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> (30) A black stormy cloud over (*above) the farm. (31) Pieried nim postavili tarielku, podozhdav niemnogho, on vzial lozhku i nachal iest' (*Vpieriedi niegho postavili tarielku). A plate was placed in front of him, he waited a little, then took the spoon and started to eat.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> (32) Na moiem rabochiem stolie pieriedo mnoi liezhit  pis'mo (*vpieriedi mienia). There is a letter on my desk, right in front of me.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> To sum up, the prepositions over and pieried are found to convey information of three identical types of functional relations between the Figure and the Ground: actual physical interaction, protection, functional potential; the prepositions above and vpieriedi convey information of absence / impossibility to establish such functional relations. As is clear, the functional properties presuppose perceptual properties that are specific for particular objects.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="7" start_page="5" end_page="5" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Correlation between Functional and
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="5" end_page="5" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
Perceptual Properties
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The study revealed that each of the three types of the object-independent perceptual properties of each of the prepositions can be present in one referent scene simultaneously together with the functional property of this preposition, but not with the one contradicting it. This regularity is established from subjects acceptability judgements of sentences where information about either presence or absence of functional relations is added to information about a particular object-independent perceptual property.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> The study replicated results of Carlson-Radvansky and Irwin (1993), who demonstrated correlation between presence of functional relations and choice of the intrinsic reference frame, on the one hand, and between absence of functional relations and choice of the egocentric reference frame, on the other. For example, in 3, where, as it was shown, choice of the intrinsic reference frame necessitates the use of pieried, the postmans position is such that allows functional interaction between him and the mailbox (the postman may be taking mail out of the mailbox). If it is manifestly shown that the postman cannot interact with the mailbox, vpieriedi (or some other preposition like okolo near) is preferred to pieried: (37) Pochtal'on stoial vpieriedi / okolo pochtovogho iashchika, razghovarivaia s dvornikom. (*Pochtal'on stoial pieried pochtovym iashchikom, razghovarivaia s dvornikom.) The postman was standing ahead of / near the mailbox, talking to a roadsweeper.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> In 4, where the intrinsic reference frame is also chosen, the position of the hammer is such that allows its functional interaction with the nail. Both in 3 and 4 the Figures (the postman and the hammer) and the Grounds (the mailbox and the nail) are conceptualized as facing each other by their functionally relevant sides.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> In uses of vpieriedi and above, absence of functional relations between the Figure and the Ground can combine with choice of the egocentric reference frame. In 1 the stool and the table do not necessarily face each other by their functional sides, the two objects do not have to constitute a functional unity. For example, the stool may be at such a distance away from the table that a person seated on it cannot interact with the table. The co-position of the trees and the roof described in 2 does not allow any sort of interaction between them.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> The Figures approaching the Ground (38a) and an insignificantly small distance between the two objects (39a) are found to correlate with the emergence and the presence of functional relations between them, correspondingly.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> (38a) He pulled his lamp down over his sheets to see the scheme better.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> (38b) *He pulled his lamp down over his sheets so that it does not obstruct the view.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> (39a) The helicopter was hovering low over the boat to save the crew.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> (39b) *The helicopter was hovering low over the boat in order not to be detected.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> The Figures departing from (40a) and a big distance between the two objects (41a) correlate with discontinuation and absence of functional relations between them.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> (40a) To let the sun rays play on his face he pulled his cap up above his eyes.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> (40b) *To conceal his face from the sunrays, he pulled his cap up above his eyes.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> (41a) She sat on a branch high above the lions so that they could not get at her.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="13"> (41b) *She sat on a branch high above the lions and fed them.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="14"> Examples 38b, 39b, 40b and 41b show that the opposite is not possible. In a given scene, perceptual properties, corresponding to those of a given preposition, cannot combine with the functional properties that contradict those of this preposition. As is easily seen, this regularity is not just a peculiarity of the prepositions, but rather a matter of common sense. Removing the prepositions and expressing the idea in any other words cannot make the sentences semantically well-formed: *The helicopter was hovering low in order not to be detected from the boat. *She sat high on a tree branch and fed the lions. It can be expected that other prepositions, which possess the same functional properties, also possess corresponding perceptual properties.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="15"> From the correspondences between the object-independent perceptual properties of a preposition and its functional property, one can conclude that the two types of semantic properties presuppose each other. The perceptual properties can be said to be functionally relevant, that is, perceiving these properties, the observer forms an idea about the functional aspect of the scene. For example, one objects approaching some other one automatically triggers conceptualization of a possibility that the former influences the latter.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>