title: Spatial language facilitates spatial cognition: evidence from children who lack language input.
abstract: Does spatial language influence how people think about space? To address this question, we observed children who did not know a conventional language, and tested their performance on nonlinguistic spatial tasks. We studied deaf children living in Istanbul whose hearing losses prevented them from acquiring speech and whose hearing parents had not exposed them to sign. Lacking a conventional language, the children used gestures, called homesigns, to communicate. In Study 1, we asked whether homesigners used gesture to convey spatial relations, and found that they did not. In Study 2, we tested a new group of homesigners on a Spatial Mapping Task, and found that they performed significantly worse than hearing Turkish children who were matched to the deaf children on another cognitive task. The absence of spatial language thus went hand-in-hand with poor performance on the nonlinguistic spatial task, pointing to the importance of spatial language in thinking about space.
authors.affiliation: Northwestern University, Department of Psychology, 2029 Sheridan Rd., Chicago, IL 60208, United States. gentner@northwestern.edu
authors.forename: Dedre
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Gentner
authors.forename: Asli
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Ozyürek
authors.forename: Ozge
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Gürcanli
authors.forename: Susan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Goldin-Meadow
mesh_terms: D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology*; D003638:Deafness / Q000523:psychology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D007805:Language Development Disorders / Q000523:psychology*; D008297:Male; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology; D012813:Sign Language; D013028:Space Perception / Q000502:physiology*
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2005 Jun;50(4):315-53
references.pmid: 15893523
references.citation: Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1984;49(3-4):1-151
references.pmid: 6537463
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Jul 6;107(27):12116-20
references.pmid: 20616088
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2008 Feb;19(2):189-95
references.pmid: 18271868
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jul 8;105(27):9163-8
references.pmid: 18599445
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2001 Jul;12(4):323-8
references.pmid: 11476100
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Mar;8(3):108-14
references.pmid: 15301750
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2011 Apr;49(5):924-936
references.pmid: 21168425
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):819-24
references.pmid: 18547557
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1999 Aug;39(1):3-36
references.pmid: 10433786
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 1999 Jul;35(4):940-9
references.pmid: 10442863
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Nov 14;103(46):17568-73
references.pmid: 17079489
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2011 Nov;14(6):1417-30
references.pmid: 22010900
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2010 Jul;34(5):752-75
references.pmid: 21564235
references.citation: Lang Learn Dev. 2013 Apr;9(2):130-150
references.pmid: 23671406
references.citation: Cognition. 2001 May;79(3):263-99
references.pmid: 11165214
references.citation: Science. 2004 Sep 17;305(5691):1779-82
references.pmid: 15375269
references.citation: Cognition. 2002 Apr;83(3):265-94
references.pmid: 11934404