Space and time are highly interconnected domains in language and cognition. Here, we ask to what extent the conceptual and perceptual processes of space and time influence how word meanings are learned and extended. To answer this question, we taught 4-5-year-olds and adults a novel word with spatial (i.e., length) or temporal meaning (i.e., duration) and investigated how they learn and extend the word meaning to the other domain. We manipulated two aspects of learning spatial metaphors: (i) direction of extension and (ii) time modality. Children learned the spatial meaning better than the temporal one. Learning the spatial meaning did not overcome the difficulty of learning the temporal meaning. Adults learned both meanings equally successfully. However, they learned the temporal meaning better when they perceived time through visual modality. Once they learned the temporal meaning, they could extend it to the space domain as easily, regardless of time modality.

We examine the relation between event segmentation in language and cognition in the domain of motion events, focusing on Turkish, a verb-framed language that segments motion paths in separate linguistic units (verb clauses). We compare motion events that have a path change to those that did not have a path change. In the linguistic task, participants were more likely to use multiple verb phrases when describing events that had a path change compared to those that did not have a path change. In the non-linguistic Dwell Time task, participants viewed self-paced slideshows of still images sampled from the motion event videos in the linguistic task. Dwell times for slides corresponding to path changes were not significantly longer than those for temporally similar slides in the events without a path change. These findings suggest that event units in language may not have strong and stable influences on event segmentation in cognition.

How people learn about events often varies with some events perceived in their entirety and others are inferred based on the available evidence. Here, we investigate how children and adults linguistically encode the sources of their event knowledge. We focus on Turkish – a language that obligatorily encodes source of information for past events using two evidentiality markers. Children (4- to 5-year-olds and 6- to 7- year-olds) and adults watched and described events that they directly saw or inferred based on visual cues with manipulated degrees of indirectness. Overall, participants modified the evidential marking in their descriptions depending on (a) whether they saw or inferred the event and (b) the indirectness of the visual cues giving rise to an inference. There were no differences across age groups. These findings suggest that Turkish-speaking adults’ and children’s use of evidential markers are sensitive to the indirectness of the inferential evidence for events.

Children frequently use under-informative expressions (e.g., Side) while describing Left-Right relations between objects but use gestures to disambiguate the relative locations of objects (Karadöller et al., 2022). Here we ask how children collect visual information about the spatial relations they express when planning such descriptions. Twenty Turkish-speaking 8-year-olds saw displays with four pictures of the same two objects in various spatial configurations. Target pictures described to a confederate depicted left-right relations (e.g., lemon left to box). Descriptions were coded whether they were informative in speech, informative with gesture, or under-informative. Children had more target fixations when planning (1) informative than under-informative descriptions (β=0.515, SE=0.131, p<0.001); (2) descriptions that are informative with gesture than informative in speech (β=-0.827, SE=0.171, p<0.001). Results extend previous literature showing that visual attention changes as a function of informativeness and the modality (Ünal et al., 2022) of the description for 8-year-old children.

In everyday life, people see, describe and remember motion events. We tested whether the type of motion event information (path or manner) encoded in speech and gesture predicts which information is remembered and if this varies across speakers of typologically different languages. We focus on intransitive motion events (e.g., a woman running to a tree) that are described differently in speech and co-speech gesture across languages, based on how these languages typologically encode manner and path information (Kita & Özyürek, 2003; Talmy, 1985). Speakers of Dutch (n = 19) and Turkish (n = 22) watched and described motion events. With a surprise (i.e. unexpected) recognition memory task, memory for manner and path components of these events was measured. Neither Dutch nor Turkish speakers’ memory for manner went above chance levels. However, we found a positive relation between path speech and path change detection: participants who described the path during encoding were more accurate at detecting changes to the path of an event during the memory task. In addition, the relation between path speech and path memory changed with native language: for Dutch speakers encoding path in speech was related to improved path memory, but for Turkish speakers no such relation existed. For both languages, co-speech gesture did not predict memory speakers. We discuss the implications of these findings for our understanding of the relations between speech, gesture, type of encoding in language and memory.

Viewers are sensitive to the distinction between visual events with an internal structure leading to a well-defined endpoint (bounded events) and events lacking this structure and a well-defined endpoint (unbounded events). Here, we asked whether boundedness could be represented in the auditory modality in a way similar to the visual modality. To investigate this question, we trained participants with visual and auditory events on bounded or unbounded event categories in a category identification task. Later, we tested whether they could abstract the internal temporal structure of events and extend the (un)boundedness category to new examples in the same modality. These findings suggest that the principles and constraints that apply to the basic units of human experience in the visual modality have their counterparts in the auditory modality.

Humans are surrounded by dynamic, continuous streams of stimuli, yet the human mind segments these stimuli and organizes them into discrete event units. Theories of language production assume that segmenting and construing an event provides a starting point for speaking about the event (Levelt, 1989; Konopka & Brown-Schmidt, 2018). However, the precise units of event representation and their mapping to language remain elusive. In this work, we examine event unit formation in linguistic and conceptual event representations. Given cross-linguistic differences in motion event encoding (satellite vs. verb-framed languages), we investigate the extent to which such differences in forming linguistic motion event units affect how speakers of different languages form cognitive event units in non-linguistic tasks. We test English (satellite-framed) and Turkish (verb-framed) speakers on verbal and non-verbal motion event tasks. Our results show that speakers do not rely on the same event unit representations when verbalizing motion vs. identifying motion event units in non-verbal tasks. Therefore, we suggest that conceptual and linguistic event representations are related but distinct levels of event structure.

There is a strong relation between children’s exposure to spatial terms and their later memory accuracy. In the current study, we tested whether the production of spatial terms by children themselves predicts memory accuracy and whether and how language modality of these encodings modulates memory accuracy differently. Hearing child speakers of Turkish and deaf child signers of Turkish Sign Language described pictures of objects in various spatial relations to each other and later tested for their memory accuracy of these pictures in a surprise memory task. We found that having described the spatial relation between the objects predicted better memory accuracy. However, the modality of these descriptions in sign, speech, or speech-plus-gesture did not reveal differences in memory accuracy. We discuss the implications of these findings for the relation between spatial language, memory, and the modality of encoding.

In this work, we examine event unit formation in conceptual and linguistic event representations. Given typological differences in motion event encoding (satellite vs. verb-framed languages), we investigate to what extent cross-linguistic differences in the linguistic encoding and unit formation of motion events affect how speakers form cognitive event units in a non-linguistic task. We test English (satellite-framed language) and Turkish (verb-framed language) speakers on verbal and non-verbal event segmentation tasks. Our results show that when verbalizing information in the context of event unit formation based on visually presented input, and identifying event boundaries in a non-verbal task by means of a button press task, speakers do not rely on the same event representations. Therefore, we suggest a lack of a homology between conceptual and linguistic event representations in situations where speech planning is not required.

As humans, we organize our daily experiences in terms of structured events. Events involve multiple participants (i.e., thematic roles), with different levels of linguistic and conceptual prominence. Here, we explore how thematic roles map onto language by investigating how speakers of two typologically different languages (English, Turkish) describe events that involve linguistically peripheral roles (Recipients, Instruments). To test how semantic prominence affects peripheral role mention, we included events that either ‘require’ or ‘allow’ Recipients and Instruments. To elicit naturalistic descriptions, speakers described the events to a familiar, naïve interlocutor. Results from our free description task showed that the require-allow distinction did not affect mention of Recipients and Instruments in either language. However, mention of highly optional event roles (i.e., allowed instruments) was affected by language-specific syntactic encoding options. We conclude that mention of participant roles in language is affected by factors beyond the cognitive salience of the roles.