INTERFERENCE - Semantic spatial overlap

Consider 2 chunks of words, following each other, in a sentence.

E.g. - 1) (Break the tree) + (with an axe)

2) (Drive the car) + (on the road)

3) (Watch the match) and (cheer for the team)

The bracketed sets of words are the chunks.

In some cases, reversing the order of the chunks (or changing the order of multiple chunks in a sentence) preserves the meaning of the sentence. In some cases, it doesnt. In examples (1) and (2), the meaning is preserved. 'Break the tree with an axe' and 'With an axe, break the tree' mean the same. Similarly, in the 2nd example. In example (3) it isnt. 'Watch the match and cheer for the team' doesnt quite mean the same as 'Cheer for the team and watch the match' since the order of events changes the semantics in the 2 cases. Whats the difference? When there is "INTERFERENCE" (semantic spatial overlap) of the chunks with each other, the meaning of the sentence isnt preserved; it is affected by the order. When there is none the meaning is preserved. 

What is this "interference" of? It is of the "semantic VIDEOS" of the chunks. 

Explanation : Lets see it all in the context of the examples above.

1) What is the semantic video of 'break the tree'? A tree breaking. While constructing the video of a chunk, do not factor in or involve the other chunk. What is the semantic video of 'with an axe'? Hands holding an axe with a slight one-second movement of the axe and the hands in the air, away and besides from the tree. (The word 'with' is responsible for the one-second movement). These 2 videos are at DIFFERENT places in space. So there is no spatial overlap. Hence there is no interference. Hence the meaning is preserved upon changing the order - 'Break the tree with an axe' or 'With an axe, break the tree'.

2) What is the semantic video of 'drive the car'? It is the sheer literal video of a car being driven (even the road is missing). Only a moving car, being driven by someone. What is the semantic video of 'on the road'? A hypothetical finger being pointed (with a slight jerk!) to the top surface of a road signifying "on the road". These 2 videos are "disjoint" in space (though touching each other; but not OVERLAPPING). Hence no interference and no change in meaning upon change of order.

3) Now see the 3rd example. The video of 'Watch the match' is 'eyes staring at the TV screen'. The semantic video of 'cheer for the team' is 'jumping up and down while looking at the TV. These 2 clearly spatially overlap. Hence there is a sort of an interference in the 2 videos playing. Hence the meaning changes in the cases of the 2 different orders of the chunks.

This theory sheds light on how there being a spatial overlap between the 'visuals' of the chunks, which relates to the way the brain processes the event as a whole upon being exposed to the 2 chunks in combination, relates to the Linguistics (Semantics here) of the sentence!