Anthony
>Indo-European languages were more or less
>3-dimensional and vectoral, whilst non-Indo European languages such as
>Finnish and Japanese were 2-dimensional with the added dimension of time, or
>what he terms "bordered gestalts".
I do not quite understand what is cover by this difference. do you have
references?
A phd student in japan set up to study the notion of Ma space in japanese
early cinema (started with the same relativism hypothesis), after few
screenings and research on director writtings, he realised that they were
very aware of american and european cinema and techniques and that it would
be quite impossible to desantangle what is what. Moreover the import of de
facto foreign techniques and examples altered radically both concept and
their spatial "mise en scene".
Questions raised are not only a matter of representation or concept and
their "origin" whether imagery or not, it seems to me that the relationship
between concept and behaviour is to be addressed if we want to keep bodies
involved in this discussion of the city ( it might be pedestrian and it is
about pedestrian environment)
In "Eye and the brain" Richard L. Gregory (p150) mention cultural
differences as enabling different spatial conceptualising. Mentionning
experiment with visual illusion and asking "do visual 'distorsions' [we
could speculate with replacing it by 'cultural difference'] correspond
with behavioural 'errors' ? [difference]
is answered by recent experiment showing that they can be separate.
Here we touch again the point raised by correspondance theory this time
between representation or concept and behaviour. On correspondance theory
see J. Hanson & B. Hillier The architecture of community. Arch. Behav.
Vol. 3, No. 3 p 251-257 (1987) .
Gregory in a very short paragraph about perception and behaviour
relationship, states that there is very little known about it, then quoting
"The visual brain in action", David Milner & Melvyn Goodale, 1995 "the
primary purpose of perception is to identify objects and places, to
classify them, and to attach meaning and significance to them. This
enabling later responses to them to be selected approprietely. As a
consequences perception is concerned with the enduring characteristics of
object so that they can be recognised when they are encountered again in
different contexts"
Gregory concludes "So vision of the object world is not necessarily tied to
the observers body. But to be useful the neural processes for behaviour
must be geared very clodely to the body and to the there and now [we could
add the how and then]. So perception and behaviour do not occupy quite the
same world."
Further in the book Gregory quotes a letter send by William Molyneux to
John Locke about a thought experiment: a born blind that learn, know how to
distinguish a cube from a sphere (same material) from touch experiences.
What would happen if the blind was then to see, Would he know which is what
without touching them? Molyneux say no, and Locke agreed. The conceptual
has to be reconnected to the new perceptual situation. I guess there is
something similar at work between the perceptual-conceptual, and the
operational-behavioural. How, where, when do they connect?.
Research on memory show that memory work better when a transformation is
involved (an action) i.e. if a list of word is given to remember the same
list will be remembered better if the subject is involved in a
transformation of it, a process, in the case described finding sentence
that could be made with the word from the list. I wonder how much this
japan/finland/indoeuropean difference is made of world view attitude
difference toward possible/potential of the world transformation? And how
this is changing as techniques desenfranchise tight relationship between
environment and its possible transformation and gain while langage change
slowly.
alain
At 7:26 11/11/99, Anthony Reagan wrote:
>Dear Alan and Alain,
>
>At first glance the research being done in the school of architecture in
>Finland (which I first heard about last summer while in Norway) does indeed
>sound like yet another attempt to test linguistic-relativism, that is, the
>Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, according to which the structure of any language
>will influence in a profound way how the speakers of that language structure
>their environment and world conceptions. From the initial outright disproval
>of the theory (often by those who initially set out with a desire in their
>hearts to find more proof for the theory, eg. Berlin and Kay, Rosche, etc.
>stemming from some belief in cultural and ethical relativism), there has
>been a gradual acceptance of a rather weak form of linguistic relativism (as
>studied with much vigour by the linguistics department of the Max Planc
>Institute in Holland headed by Stephen Levinson), according to which things
>such as the existence of masculine/feminine/neuter forms aid word memory.
>
>However, the research on conceptual relativism I mentioned happening in
>Finland, if I understand correctly, distances itself from linguistic
>relativism, because it goes for something more basic, claiming as you say
>Alan that language is a filter, and thus derivative of something more
>deeper. But instead of taking on Chomskian universal grammar, the research
>begins by arguing that the basis for communication and language is
>"imagery". The main protagonists in the research are Stephen Kosslyn (from
>Harvard), a Norwegian professor emeritus of psychology called Frode Stromnes
>and a Finnish Professsor of architecture called Jorma Manty (who has a
>British assistant, whose name escapes me). But this is no attempt to defend
>the Cartesian Theatre - images literally in the head! Stromnes has been
>involved in research with this for some 15 years, and has shown that
>speakers from different language groups conceptualise space in different
>ways, or rather the ways they conceptualise the world can be described in
>terms of different geometries. Indo-European languages were more or less
>3-dimensional and vectoral, whilst non-Indo European languages such as
>Finnish and Japanese were 2-dimensional with the added dimension of time, or
>what he terms "bordered gestalts". Manty has been getting his younger
>students, as well as un-suspecting visiting foreign students to make videos
>of the same building (the control) and has attempted to show how the
>geometries operate.
>
>Tony Reagan
>
>
>
>
>>From: [log in to unmask] (Alain Chiaradia)
>>To: alan penn <[log in to unmask]>, Anthony Reagan <[log in to unmask]>
>>CC: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: cognitive studies...
>>Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:21:32 +0000
>>
>>You probably know all this not so old contreversy: from linguistic
>>relativity, linguistic determinism state as consequence that speaker from
>>different language must see the world differently. It spring from the work
>>of Sapir-Whorf (comparing Hopi en English), and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
>>claimed that structural differences encoded radically different world
>>views. Chomsky was taking a different view with the linguistic universals
>>sampling unrelated language and seek common properties. This is not to
>>forget the difference/similarity between action and representation and
>>their observation.
>>
>>At 12:21 08/11/99, alan penn wrote:
>> >Tony,
>> >
>> >Ive passed this email on to Young Kim - you are right that UK
>>universities
>> >only print a couple of copies for the library, but the meat of the thesis
>> >will be being published as journal articles in the near (hopefully)
>>future.
>> >
>> >With regard Ruth's work I think it is probably a bit distant from the
>> >relativist stance. Perhaps she would care to comment. However the
>>research
>> >you speak of intrigues me - is the suggestion that people from different
>> >linguistic groups process spatial information differently? I must say
>>this
>> >sounds highly dubious to me - I would suspect that people from the
>> >different groups might process/respond to the researcher's questions
>> >differently even if they processed spatial information in exactly the
>>same
>> >way. Can you give me a reference to the work as I would really like to
>>see
>> >what methods and data they used and how they got around the language
>>filter
>> >problem in their work.
>> >
>> >Alan
>> >
>> >>A couple of questions and points regarding Alan Penn's comments.
>> >>
>> >>First, I would be most interested to read Yoiung Kim's thesis - as well
>>as
>> >>to pass a copy on to a friend in Finland who is interested in such
>>things. I
>> >>beleive that British universities do not follow the European practiuce
>>of
>> >>making 100 copies of PhD theses, available for distribution, etc. Is
>> >>inter-library loan (or a trip to London), UMI dissertations (if
>>available),
>> >>or an appeal to the candidate himself the only way to get hold of the
>> >>thesis?
>> >>
>> >>Ruth Conway's research is interesting for a friend of mine in Finland,
>>who
>> >>has taken up similar sounding notions within that most un--fashionable
>>of
>> >>empirical domains, namely cognitive relativism; the twist in the
>>theoretical
>> >>story, however, is not to beg the question of linguistic relativism
>>(John
>> >>Lucy, eg.) but to posit imagery as the domain of thought: his
>>cross-cultural
>> >>studies show, in my very general description of his conclusions, that
>> >>Indo-European speakers prioritize vectoral movements and 3-dimensional
>>while
>> >>non-Indo-Es gestalt boundariness. But I may have misseed th epoint of
>>both
>> >>these theses. Any other cross-cultural research within the field?
>> >>
>> >>Tony Reagan
>> >>Dublin/Boston
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>From: alan penn <[log in to unmask]>
>> >>>Reply-To: alan penn <[log in to unmask]>
>> >>>To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>Subject: Re: cognitive studies...
>> >>>Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 12:44:02 +0100
>> >>>
>> >>>Mohamed Salheen wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >I am Mohamed Salheen PhD candidate in architecture at Edinburgh
>>College
>> >>>of
>> >>> >Art. I am using Space Syntax in the analysis of my case study, which
>>is
>> >>> >Cairo-Egypt- and its city centre. I am using it together with other
>> >>>research
>> >>> >techniques in order an integrated understanding of the pedestrian
>> >>> >environment in the case study.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >I would like first to ask if any one is interested in discussing the
>> >>>details
>> >>> >of that topic. Second I was looking for any information on previous
>>and
>> >>> >current studies linking both techniques space syntax and cognitive
>> >>>mapping.
>> >>> >I will appreciate very much any information you could give me.
>> >>>
>> >>>Some pointers. There are two recent PhD's at UCL that touch on this:
>> >>>
>> >>>Dongkuk Chang - 'Integrated multi level circulation systems in dense
>>urban
>> >>>areas: the effect of complex spatial designs on multi-level pedestrian
>> >>>movement.' PhD Thesis, University of London, 1998
>> >>>
>> >>>This looks in particular at highly unintelligible (using the syntax
>> >>>definition of the term) developments and uses these to try and
>>disentangle
>> >>>which factors other than simple configuration can be held to affect
>> >>>pedestrian movement patterns. This does not make use of cognitive
>>mapping,
>> >>>but does shed light on spatial cognition. Parts of the study are
>>published
>> >>>in Chang & Penn, 'Integrated multi level circulation systems in dense
>>urban
>> >>>areas:the effect of mutiple interacting constraints on the use of
>>complex
>> >>>urban areas', Env & Planning B, 25, 507-538, Pion 1998.
>> >>>
>> >>>Young Kim - 'Spatial configuration, spatial cognition and spatial
>> >>>behaviour: the role of architectual intelligibilty in shaping spatial
>> >>>experience.' PhD Thesis, University of London, 1999
>> >>>
>> >>>This has put together analysis of spatial configuration, observations
>>of
>> >>>the way people vote with their feet throgh movement observations, and a
>> >>>cognitive mapping exercise using free recall mapping and boundary
>> >>>delimitation. By doing all three on an urban area with intelligible and
>> >>>unintelligible halves (again using the syntax definition), Kim was able
>>to
>> >>>unpack the relationship between intelligibility as a property of the
>> >>>environment, effects of configuration on movement patterns and so
>>learning
>> >>>opportunity, and people's cognition - so far as that can be estimated
>>by
>> >>>sketch mapping exercises. One innovation was to use axial mapping of
>>the
>> >>>sketch maps themselves as a means of analysing these as configurations
>>with
>> >>>a topology rather than just as lists of features. This thesis is
>>probably
>> >>>the most relevant to your concerns.
>> >>>
>> >>>The third current PhD in the syntax/cognition field is Ruth Conroy who
>>is
>> >>>using experiments on people using an immersive VR headset to track and
>> >>>follow gaze direction as they move through virtual environments. The
>> >>>environments include models of real and experimental environments, with
>>the
>> >>>experimental ones designed to test various configurational properties.
>>The
>> >>>benefit of immersion is that the record of precise bahaviour, pause
>>points,
>> >>>gaze direction etc. can be automatically captured, and it is possible
>>to
>> >>>control the environments to maintain equal levels of surface detail
>>etc.
>> >>>This work is in the final stages of write-up.
>> >>>
>> >>>There is also some work going on in this area at Atlanta, in
>>particular:
>> >>>
>> >>>Abdulgader Amir - The spatial logic of pedestrian movement and
>>exploration
>> >>>in the central area of Jeddah: the effect of spatial configuration on
>> >>>shopping behaviour, PhD, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1998.
>> >>>
>> >>>This looked at individual wayfinding, but did not really look at
>>cognition
>> >>>- it should still be relevant to your case.
>> >>>
>> >>>There is a second current doctoral student at GIT who I met in Brasil -
>>but
>> >>>whose name escapes me - sorry (help pelase John!) who is working in
>>this
>> >>>area and may be worth contacting.
>> >>>
>> >>>Apologies to anyone Ive forgotton but shouldn't have, and I'd be
>>interested
>> >>>in knowing of anyone else doing work in this area
>> >>>(syntax/cognition/cognitive mapping).
>> >>>
>> >>>Alan
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >________________________________________________________
>> >Alan Penn, Reader in Architectural and Urban Computing
>> >Director, VR Centre for the Built Environment
>> >The Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning
>> >1-19 Torrington Place (Room 335)
>> >University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
>> >tel. (+44) 020 7504 5919 fax. (+44) 020 7916 1887
>> >mobile. (+44) 0411 696875
>> >email. [log in to unmask]
>> >www. http://www.vr.ucl.ac.uk/
>> >________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
