Common aspects of cognitive

computations in language and in

spatial cognition
Boban Arsenijevi,
University of Ni

Similar conditions
Most investigations of cognitive differences
between humans and other animals look for
the counterparts of human capacities
(language, arithmetic, music) in animals.

Goal of the talk

In this talk, I present an (interrupted) research
which:
1. considers the cognitive apparatus as an
automaton (i.e. a mathematical model, a formal
grammar) and
2. looks for evidence of the degree of
computational complexity of these automata in
humans and other animals,
3. by looking at the spatial cognition, on the
background of some well known properties of
language.
3

Spatial cognition
Probably the earliest cognitive capacity
developed.
Universally available in all animal species.
Very sophisticated already in relatively
primitive animals / brains (e.g. insects).
Immediacy of exposure: organisms take up
space, all sensory inputs relate to space.
Includes information from multiple sensory
sources and cognitive domains.
4

Language
A very recent evolutionary development.
Capacity of the cognitive apparatus of only
one species.
Exposure conditioned by socio-cultural
conditions.
Includes information from multiple sensory
sources and cognitive domains.

Language and space

In all languages, at least 10, often more than
20 words with spatial semantics among the 50
most frequent words in the language (mostly
prepositions and adverbs, and some nouns).
Only a limited subset of the possible spatial
relations finds expression in language.
Still, the semantic differences between spatial
expressions are often subtle and very complex
(beneath : below : under; S-C pred : ispred).
6

Context representation
Both language and spatial cognition heavily
rely on a dynamic representation of the
relevant context.
In spatial cognition, the context
representation is referred to as the cognitive
map.
In language, the corresponding notion is the
discourse representation.
7

Modeling spatial cognition

Core elements: cognitive maps and the
mechanisms of their update and retrieval.
Cognitive maps are based on an ontology of
four basic members:
1. landmarks,
2. geometrical structures,
3. locations and
4. properties of locations.
8

Example
Location: palm
Properties: shade,
fruit, snakes.

Landmark:
mountain peak

Geometrical
structure:
straight line
9

Similarities functional
perspective
Both representations are verified against a
sensory input: relied upon in acts of motion /
communication, and updated at mismatches.
Both representations are plausibly modeled as
webs of entities, characterized by their properties
and connected by their mutual relations.
The discourse usually contains spatial
information, and cognitive maps are often
updated by linguistically transmitted information.
10

Processing similarities
General architecture: information flow
between the sensory input, the context
representation and the motorics.

Sensory
input
Motoric
system

Processing

Context
representation

11

Similarities neurocognitive
perspective
A central role of hippocampus storing,
updating and retrieving the information in the
context representation.
Both prefrontal zones episodic memory,
semantic contents.
Right (superior and) inferior parietal gyrus
more prominently involved in spatial
cognition, left superior and) inferior parietal
gyrus in language.
12

Interactions: language and

navigation types
Languages (and cultures) with prominent
alocentric, i.e. egocentric, relations in
expressing spatial relations (between the
left/right type of relations and the
north/south, central/peripheral,
uphill/downhill type of relations).
Controversial data about the influence of
these parameters on the navigation
preferences and capacities (Gleitman and Li).
13

Deeper, computational similarities?

Grammar involves recursive computations
producing hierarchical structures.

my

friends
little

brothers
favorite

toy

Are there such structures in spatial cognition?

14

Recursive self-embedding in
grammar
Some of the explanations for recursive
structures in language: the output of one cycle
of computations may become the input of the
next cycle.
x

Processng

[[x]]
Context
representat.
f([[x]])
15

Examples
[[[[my friends] friends] friends] friend]

[the rabbit chasing [the rabbit chasing [the

rabbit chasing [the rabbit...]]]]
[you said [that you said [that you said ]]]

[a box in [a box in [a box in [a box ]]]]

16

Recursive computations and

cognition
H1: the capacity for recursive computations is the
main differential characteristic of human
cognition in general (Hauser et al. 2002).
Prediction: recursive spatial computations in
humans, but not in other animals.
H2: recursive computations differentiate the
language capacity and its derivates (arithmetic?
node-tying?) from all other cognitive capacities.
Prediction: no recursive structures in spatial
cognition in any species, including humans.
17

Recursion in spatial cognition

Similarities outlined between language and
spatial cognition, especially in the processingmemory architecture, imply such a possibility.
Can we identify clear instances of recursive
computations in humans?
Many animal species have a spatial cognition
more sophisticated than that in humans
does it offer evidence for recursive modeling?
18

Recursive route-planning
experiment

(Arsenijevi et al. unfinished)

19

Recursive computations
Features of the Location1: {path_from_here,
distance_from_here, water}
Features of the Location2: {path_from_here,
distance_from_here, path_to_L1, food}
[L2 path_from_here, distance_from_here,
path_to_L1, food [path_from_here,
distance_from_here, water]]. (path_to_L1
selects for L1 as a complement)
Recursive rule: pathY X route-embed Y in X
20

Recursive licensing of paths

L1
[path_from_here,
distance_from_here,
water]

L2
[path_from_here,
distance_from_here,
path_to_L1,
food]

(Arsenijevi et al. unfinished)

21

Graphical tree representation

The same type of recursive computations as in
grammar, whether top-down or bottom-up.

{here, pathL1, pathL2}

{pathhere, distancehere, pathL1, food}
pathhere, distancehere, water
22

Parallels in language
The same type of recursive computations as in
grammar, e.g. relative clauses.

I bought the booki

whichi you bough in the shopj
thatj we visited yesterday
23

Recursive computations in blocking

The blocking / sub-prioritizing of the other path
also requires recursive computations:
[Here here, pathL1, pathL2 [L1 pathhere, distancehere,
water *[L2 pathhere, distancehere, pathL1, food]]].
(absence of path_to_L2 in L1 blocks L2 as a
complement)
The negative evaluation of the route is
determined by the crashed maximal derivation,
i.e. by the fact that the maximal converging
derivation is smaller
24

Recursive computing for blocking

L1
[path_from_here,
distance_from_here,
water]

L2

(Arsenijevi et al. unfinished)

25

Graphical tree representation

The same type of recursive computations as in
grammar, whether top-down or bottom-up.

{here, pathL1, pathL2}

{pathhere, distancehere, water}
pathhere, distancehere, pathL1, food
26

Parallels in language
A linguistic parallel would be e.g. a nonrelative clause, which opposes embedding.

I bought the booki

whichi you bough in the shop
I visited you yesterday
27

Conclusion
If, upon the completion of the experiment, the
trend observed in the initial phase is
confirmed, then at least some animals have
the recursive computational capacity in the
spatial cognitive domain.
This will falsify both H1 and H2 as formulated
above: recursive computations are neither
exclusively human nor exclusively linguistic.
28

Thank you!
29