Contextual Adaptability of Navigational Spatial Descriptions: A Pragmatic Comparison

  • Farid KarimipourEmail author
  • Negar Alinaghi
  • Paul Weiser
  • Andrew Frank
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


Different forms of spatial descriptions are used to communicate information in the context of navigation in urban environments. When generated by computers, such descriptions are combinations of map features in a predefined way. Unlike computers, however, people are capable of flexibly generating navigational spatial descriptions by taking into account a wide array of different contextual factors, e.g. a user’s prior knowledge and the structure of the environment. This paper deploys the notion of pragmatics to compare formal addresses, route descriptions (generated either by computers or humans), and destination descriptions in terms of their adaptability to contextual factors in order to identify the means to creating more cognitively sound information systems.


Spatial descriptions Addresses Route descriptions Destination descriptions Navigation Pragmatics 


  1. Bach K (1994) Semantic slack: what is said and more. In: Tsohatzidis S (ed) Foundations of speech act theory: philosophical and linguistic perspectives, pp 267–291Google Scholar
  2. Burnett G (2000) ‘Turn right at the traffic lights’: the requirement for landmarks in vehicle navigation systems. J Navig 53(03):499–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns PC (1998) Wayfinding errors while driving. J Environ Psychol 18:209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cherry C (1974) Pragmatic aspects of human communication, vol 4. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  5. Chon J, Cha H (2011) Lifemap: a smartphone-based context provider for location-based services. IEEE Pervasive Comput 2:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dale R (1992) Generating referring expressions: constructing descriptions in a domain of objects and processes. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Dale R, Geldof S, Prost J-P (2005) Using natural language generation in automatic route description. J Res Pract Inf Technol 37(1):89–105Google Scholar
  8. Davis C, Fonseca F (2007) Assessing the certainty of locations produced by an address geocoding system. GeoInformatica 11(1):103–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis C, Fonseca F, Borges KAV (2003) A flexible addressing system for approximate geocoding. Paper presented at the 5th Brazilian symposium on geoinformatics (GeoInfo 2003), Campos do Jordão (SP), BrazilGoogle Scholar
  10. Denis M (1997) The description of routes: a cognitive approach to the production of spatial discourse. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 16(4):409–458Google Scholar
  11. Denis M, Pazzaglia F, Cornoldi C, Bertolo L (1999) Spatial discourse and navigation: an analysis of route directions in the city of Venice. Appl Cogn Psychol 13(2):145–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frank AU (2003) Pragmatic information content—how to measure the information in a route description. In: Goodchild M, Duckham M, Worboys M (eds) Foundations of geographic information science, pp 47–68Google Scholar
  13. Ganitseva J, Coors V (2010) Automatic landmark detection for 3D Urban models. Paper presented at the proceedings of the international conference on 3D geoinformation (3D Geoinfo), Berlin, Germany, 3–4 Nov 2010Google Scholar
  14. Giannopoulos I, Kiefer P, Raubal M, Richter K-F, Thrash T (2014) Wayfinding decision situations: a conceptual model and evaluation. In: Duckham M, Stewart K, Pebesma E (eds) 8th international conference on geographic information science (GIScience 2014). Austria, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  15. Hahn J, Weiser P (2014) A quantum formalization for communication coordination problems. In: 8th International conference on quantum interaction, Filzbach, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  16. Hirtle S, Richter K-F, Srinivas S (2010) This is the tricky part: when directions become difficult. J Spat Inf Sci 1:53–73Google Scholar
  17. Hirtle SC, Timpf S, Tenbrink T (2011) The effect of activity on relevance and granularity for navigation. Paper presented at the conference on spatial information theory (COSIT 2011)Google Scholar
  18. Javidaneh A, Karimipour F (2014) Exploring the addressing contexts. In: Context-awareness in geographic information services (CAGIS 2014), in conjuction with GISience 2014, pp 29–38. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  19. Karimipour F, Javidaneh A, Frank AU (2014) Towards machine-based matching of addresses expressed in natural languages. Paper presented at the 11th international symposium on location-based services (LBS 2014), Vienna, Austria, 26–28 Nov 2014Google Scholar
  20. Kim UN (2001) A historical study on the parcel number and numbering system in Korea. Paper presented at the international conference of the international federation of surveyors, Seoul, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  21. Klippel A, Tappe H, Habel C (2003) Pictorial representations of routes: chunking route segments during comprehension. In: Freksa C, Brauer W, Habel C, Wender KF (eds) Routes and navigation, human memory and learning, spatial representation and spatial learning, LNCS, vol 2685. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 11–33Google Scholar
  22. Klippel A, Winter S (2005) Structural salience of landmarks for route directions. Paper presented at the conference on spatial information theory (COSIT 2005)Google Scholar
  23. Liu K, Clarke RJ, Andersen PB, Stamper RK (2012) Coordination and communication using signs: studies in organisational semiotics. Springer Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  24. Longley PA, Goodchild M, Maguire DJ, Rhind DW (2011) Geographic information systems and science. WileyGoogle Scholar
  25. Lovelace KL, Hegarty M, Montello DR (1999) Elements of good route directions in familiar and unfamiliar environments. In: Spatial information theory. Cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science, pp 65–82. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  26. MacEachren AM (1995) How maps work: representation, visualization, and design. Guilford Press, New York, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Mokbel MF, Levandoski JJ (2009) Toward context and preference-aware location-based services. In: Proceedings of the eighth ACM international workshop on data engineering for wireless and mobile access, 2009, pp 25–32. ACMGoogle Scholar
  28. Nothegger C, Winter S, Raubal M (2004) Selection of salient features for route directions. Spat cogn comput 4(2):113–136Google Scholar
  29. Paraboni I, Van Deemter K, Masthoff J (2007) Generating referring expressions: making referents easy to identify. Comput Linguist 33(2):229–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Raubal M, Winter S (2002) Enriching wayfinding instructions with local landmarks. In: Egenhofer MJ, Mark DM (eds) Geographic information science. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richter KF (2007) Context-specific route directions: generation of cognitively motivated wayfinding instructions. University of BremenGoogle Scholar
  32. Sanders T (1997) Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: on the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes 24(1):119–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmidt M, Weiser P (2012) Web mapping services: development and trends. In: Peterson MP (ed) Online maps with APIs and WebServices. Springer-Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  34. Searle JR (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge university pressGoogle Scholar
  35. Stalnaker R (2002) Common ground. Linguist philos 25(5):701–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Streeter LA, Vitello D, Wonsiewicz SA (1985) How to tell people where to go: comparing navigational aids. Int J Man Mach Stud 22(5):549–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tomko M (2007) Destination descriptions in urban environments. The University of MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  38. Tomko M, Winter S (2009) Pragmatic construction of destination descriptions for urban environments. Spat Cogn Comput 9(1):1–29Google Scholar
  39. Tversky B (1993) Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In: Spatial information theory: a theoretical basis for GIS, pp 14–24. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  40. Verschueren J (1999) Understanding pragmatics, vol 31. Arnold LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiser P (2014) A pragmatic communication model for way-finding instructions. Vienna University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  42. Weiser P, Frank AU (2013) Cognitive transactions—a communication model. Paper presented at the conference on spatial information theory (COSIT 2013). North Yorkshire, UK, 3–5 Sept 2013Google Scholar
  43. Zarycki T (2000) On the pragmatic approach to map analysis. Remarks on the basis of MacEachren’s approach to map semiotics. In: The selected problems of theoretical cartography, pp 64–70Google Scholar
  44. Zhu T, Wang C, Jia G, Huang J Toward context-aware location based services. In: 2010 International conference on electronics and information engineering (ICEIE), pp V1-409–V401-413. IEEEGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farid Karimipour
    • 1
    Email author
  • Negar Alinaghi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paul Weiser
    • 3
  • Andrew Frank
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Surveying and Geospatial Engineering, College of EngineeringUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  2. 2.Research Group Geoinformation, Department of Geodesy and GeoinformationVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  3. 3.Institute for Cartography and GeoinformationETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations