Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistic Typology

Founded by Plank, Frans

Editor-in-Chief: Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.500
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.675

CiteScore 2018: 0.57

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.336
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.517

Online
ISSN
1613-415X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 21, Issue 3

Issues

How does the environment shape spatial language? Evidence for sociotopography

Bill Palmer
  • Corresponding author
  • School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan NSW 2308, Australia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jonathon Lum
  • School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics, Monash University, Menzies Building, 20 Chancellors Walk, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jonathan Schlossberg / Alice Gaby
  • School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics, Monash University, Menzies Building, 20 Chancellors Walk, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-12-07 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2017-0011

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.

Keywords: Dhivehi; Marshallese; spatial language; topography

References

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

  • 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.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.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Wolbers, Thomas & Mary Hegarty. 2010. What determines our navigational abilities? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14. 138–146.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-08-29

Revised: 2017-10-20

Published Online: 2017-12-07

Published in Print: 2017-12-20


Citation Information: Linguistic Typology, Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 457–491, ISSN (Online) 1613-415X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2017-0011.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in