Accessible Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton December 7, 2017

How does the environment shape spatial language? Evidence for sociotopography

Bill Palmer, Jonathon Lum, Jonathan Schlossberg and Alice Gaby
From the journal Linguistic Typology

Abstract

This article investigates the extent to which the way individuals describe spatial relationships correlates with features of the local landscape. Drawing on empirical data from two unrelated languages, Dhivehi (Indo-Aryan) and Marshallese (Austronesian), across a range of topographic environments, we examine the linguistic resources available to speakers, and spatial referential strategy preferences across languages and environments. We find that spatial language shows sensitivity to features of the topography, but this is mediated by the way speakers interact with the landscape. This leads us to propose a Sociotopographic Model, modelling the complex interplay of language structure, local environment, cultural practices, and language use, at odds with competing claims about the primacy of language or of environment in shaping spatial cognition.

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this article was funded by Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant DP120102701. We gratefully acknowledge this support. We are deeply indebted to our many consultants in the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, and in Springdale, Arkansas for their participation. We are also grateful to Peter Johnson for creating the maps of Jaluit and Laamu. The article benefited from the comments of two anonymous reviewers, and we are grateful for those comments. All errors remain our own.

Abbreviations

1/2/3 = 1st/2nd/3rd person; art = article; com = comitative; cvb = converb; dat = dative; dem1 = this (near speaker); dem2 = that (near addressee); dem3 = that (away from speaker and addressee); dir1 = towards speaker; dir2 = towards addressee; dir3 = away from speaker and addressee; direct = direct case; foc = focus; gen = genitive; loc = locative; p = possessor; prog = progressive; prs = present; pst = past; ptcp = participle; rel = relative; s = subject; seq = sequential; sg = singular; tag = question tag.

References

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Yucatec: Referential promiscuity and task-specificity. Language Sciences 33. 892–914. Search in Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Katharine T. Donelson, Randi E. Tucker, Elena Benedicto, Alejandra Capistrán Capistrán Garza, Alyson Eggleston, Néstor Hernández Green, María de Jesús Selene Hernández Gómez, Samuel Herrera Castro, Carolyn K. O’Meara, Enrique Palancar, Gabriela Pérez Báez, Gilles Polian, Rodrigo Romero Méndez. 2014. The cultural transmission of spatial cognition: Evidence from a large-scale study. In Paul Bello, Marcello Guarini, Marjorie McShane & Brian Scassellati (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 212–217. Austin, Texas: Cognitive Science Society. https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2014/papers/047/paper047.pdf Search in Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen & Christel Stolz. 2006. Spatial reference in Yukatek Maya: A survey. In Stephen C. Levinson (ed.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity, 273–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, Jürgen & Randi Tucker. 2013. Space in semantic typology: Object-centered geometries. In Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.), Space in language and linguistics: Geographical, interactional, and cognitive perspectives, 637–666. Berlin: De Gruyter. Search in Google Scholar

Cain, Bruce D. & James W. Gair. 2000. Dhivehi (Maldivian). München: Lincom Europa. Search in Google Scholar

Danziger, Eve. 1999. Language space and sociolect: Cognitive correlates of gendered speech in Mopan Maya. In Catherine Fuchs & Stéphane Robert (eds.), Language diversity and cognitive representations, 85–106. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Dasen, Pierre R. & Ramesh Chandra Mishra. 2010. Development of geocentric spatial language and cognition: An eco-cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Edmonds-Wathen, Cris. 2013. Influences of indigenous language on spatial frames of reference in Aboriginal English. Mathematics Education Research Journal 26. 169–192. Search in Google Scholar

Enfield, Nick J. 2002. Ethnosyntax: Introduction. In Nick J. Enfield (ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in culture and grammar, 1–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. 2017. Dhivehi: The language of the Maldives. Edited by Anne Boyle David. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Search in Google Scholar

Halpern, Diane F. 2012. Sex differences in cognitive abilities. 4th edn. New York: Psychology Press. Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Hill, Clifford. 1982. Up/down, front/back, left/right: A contrastive study of Hausa and English. In Jürgen Weissenborn & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Here and there: Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and demonstratives, 18–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Hoëm, Ingerd. 1993. Space and morality in Tokelau. Pragmatics 3. 137–153. Search in Google Scholar

Le Guen, Olivier. 2011. Speech and gesture in spatial language and cognition among the Yucatec Mayas. Cognitive Science 35. 905–938. Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Primer for the field investigation of spatial description and conception. International Pragmatics Association 2(1). 5–47. Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1996. Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In Paul Bloom, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel & Merrill F. Garrett (eds.), Language and space, 109–169. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C., Sotaro Kita, Daniel Haun & Björn H. Rasch. 2002. Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition 84. 155–188. Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. & David Wilkins (eds.). 2006. Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Li, Peggy & Lila Gleitman. 2002. Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83. 265–294. Search in Google Scholar

Lucy, John A. 2011. Language and cognition: The view from anthropology. In Vivian Cook & Benedetta Bassetti (eds.), Language and bilingual cognition, 43–68. New York: Psychology Press. Search in Google Scholar

Lum, Jonathon. 2017. Frames of spatial reference in Dhivehi language and cognition. Melbourne: Monash University doctoral dissertation. Search in Google Scholar

Lum, Jonathon & Jonathan Schlossberg. 2014. The Virtual Atoll Task: A spatial language elicitation tool. In Mark Harvey & Alexis Antonia (eds.), The 45th Australian Linguistic Society Conference Proceedings – 2014, 82–103. Newcastle, NSW: NOVA Open Access Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1307976 Search in Google Scholar

Lum, Jonathon, Jonathan Schlossberg, Alice Gaby, Bill Palmer & Mehmet Özmen. In preparation. The interplay of sociolinguistic and environmental factors in spatial reference. Search in Google Scholar

Majid, Asifa, Melissa Bowerman, Sotaro Kita, Daniel B. M. Haun & Stephen C. Levinson. 2004. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8. 108–114. Search in Google Scholar

Meakins, Felicity. 2011. Spaced out: Intergenerational changes in the expression of spatial relations by Gurindji people. Australian Journal of Linguistics 31. 43–77. Search in Google Scholar

Meakins, Felicity & Cassandra Algy. 2016. Deadly reckoning: Changes in Gurindji children’s knowledge of cardinals. Australian Journal of Linguistics 36. 479–501. Search in Google Scholar

O’Meara, Carolyn & Gabriela Pérez Báez. 2011. Spatial frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages. Language Sciences 33. 837–852. Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill. 2002. Absolute spatial reference and the grammaticalisation of perceptually salient phenomena. In Giovanni Bennardo (ed.), Representing space in Oceania: Culture in language and mind (Pacific Linguistics 523), 107–133. Canberra: Australian National University. Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill. 2007. Pointing at the lagoon: Directional terms in Oceanic atoll-based languages. In Jeff Siegel, John Lynch & Diana Eades (eds.), Language description, history and development: Linguistic indulgence in memory of Terry Crowley, 101–117. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill. 2015. Topography in language: Absolute frame of reference and the Topographic Correspondence Hypothesis. In Rik De Busser & Randy J LaPolla (eds.), Language structure and environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors, 179–226. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Bill, Alice Gaby, Jonathon Lum & Jonathan Schlossberg. 2016. Topography and frame of reference in the threatened ecological niche of the atoll. Paper presented at the conference “Geographic grounding: Place, direction and landscape in the grammars of the world”, Københavns Universitet. Search in Google Scholar

Pederson, Eric. 1993. Geographic and manipulable space in two Tamil linguistic systems. In Andrew U. Frank & Irene Campari (eds.), Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis for GIS, 294–311. Berlin: Springer. Search in Google Scholar

Pederson, Eric. 2006. Spatial language in Tamil. In Stephen C. Levinson & David Wilkins (eds.), Grammars of space: Explorations in cognitive diversity, 400–436. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Pederson, Eric, Eve Danziger, David Wilkins, Stephen C. Levinson, Sotaro Kita & Gunter Senft. 1998. Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74. 557–589. Search in Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 2007. The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York: Viking. Search in Google Scholar

Ross, Malcolm D. 2004. Demonstratives, local nouns and directionals in Oceanic languages. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Deixis and demonstratives in Oceanic languages (Pacific Linguistics 562), 175–204. Canberra: Australian National University. Search in Google Scholar

Schlossberg, Jonathan, Jonathon Lum & Thomas Poulton. 2016. Interpreting “front”, “back”, “left”, “right”: Evidence from Marshallese, Dhivehi and English. Talk at Universitetet i Bergen. www.academia.edu/25871685/InterpretingfrontbackleftrightEvidencefromMarshalleseDhivehiandEnglish Search in Google Scholar

Shapero, Joshua A. 2017. Does environmental experience shape spatial cognition? Frames of reference among Ancash Quechua speakers (Peru). Cognitive Science 41. 1274–1298. Search in Google Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How language structures space. In Herbert L. Pick, Jr. & Linda P. Acredolo (eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, 225–282. New York: Plenum. Search in Google Scholar

Terrill, Angela & Niclas Burenhult. 2008. Orientation as a strategy in spatial reference. Studies in Language 32. 93–136. Search in Google Scholar

Wilkins, David. 1993. Route description elicitation. In Stephen C. Levinson (ed.), Cognition and space kit (version 1.0): July 1993, 15–28. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Search in Google Scholar

Wolbers, Thomas & Mary Hegarty. 2010. What determines our navigational abilities? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14. 138–146. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-8-29
Revised: 2017-10-20
Published Online: 2017-12-7
Published in Print: 2017-12-20

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston