Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles
Cognitive mechanisms in Chinese and English diagonal direction compounds encoding order
The competition between cognitive style and stability-identifiability interplay
Published online: 26 January 2026
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00245.zho
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00245.zho
Abstract
The absolute frame of reference determines a fixed encoding order for cardinal direction compounds formed by
pairing east, west, north, and south. However, the encoding order for diagonal direction compounds — based on an internal frame of
reference — varies due to the competitive dynamics between structural pattern differentiation in horizontal and vertical
directions. The dominant contender assumes the preceding position if its differentiation or stability is significantly greater
than that of its competitor. This tug-of-war is influenced by language- specific cognitive styles: the figure-preference cognitive
style in English, rooted in egocentric philosophy, and the ground-preference cognitive style in Chinese, based on object-centered
philosophy. This distinction typically results in a reversed encoding order between Chinese diagonal directions and their English
counterparts, with a minor proportion showing similar encoding orders.
Article outline
- 1.The asymmetry in sole and binary encoding orders of directional compounds
- 2.Literature review
- 3.Figure-ground relationship and their word arrangement
- 3.1Figure-ground functional allocation
- 3.2Language-specific encoding of figure-ground relationships in diagonal directions
- 4.The competitive dynamics between stability and differentiation in Tug-of-War
- 4.1Contrast of differentiation between patterns in horizontal and vertical directions
- 4.2Competition between stability and differentiation
- 5.Test and discussion
- 5.1Test design
- Test 1
- Test 2
- Test 3
- Test 4
- Test 5
- 5.2Test results and analysis
- 5.1Test design
- 6.Egocentric vs. object-centric philosophy and spatial conceptualization
- Data availability statement
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (14)
Bryant, D. J., Tversky, B., & Franklin, N. (1992). Internal
and external spatial frameworks for representing described scenes. Journal of Language and
Memory, 2–3.
Chen, R. (2003). English
Inversion: A ground-before-figure construction. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chen, Z. (2016). Case
analysis of cognitive switch between Chinese and English languages: Encouraging learners to explore on their own the reasons
behind. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris.
(2021a). Cognitive
styles underlying the contradiction of temporal direction between Chinese qián/hòu and Their English
Counterparts forward/back. In M. Liu; C. Kit & Q. Su (Eds). Chinese
lexical
semantics (pp. 837–849). Hong Kong: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
(2021b). Variables
underlying Chinese-English contradictory conceptualization of temporal direction: From cognitive style to culture-specific
philosophic notion, Contemporary
Linguistics, 21, 259–276.
(2021c). A
comparative study on cognition of temporal and spatial direction between Chinese and
English. Beijing: Peking University Press.
(1996b). Frames
of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic
evidence. In P. Bloom & M. Peterson (Eds.), Language
and
space (pp. 109–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2003). Space
in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive
diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lu, B. (2005). Word
order dominance and its cognitive explanation. Contemporary
Linguistics, 11, 1–15.
Talmy, L. (1978). Figure
and ground in complex sentence. In J. Greenberg & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Universals
of human
language (pp. 625–649). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
(2000). Toward
a cognitive semantics, Vol I: Concept structuring
systems (pp. 311–344). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.