Spatial frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages

O’Meara, Carolyn; Báez, Gabriela Pérez

doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.013

Cited by 50 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A growing body of research indicates that, across languages, people differ in the frame of reference they preferentially adopt (overview in Majid et al, 2004). Variation has been documented especially with regard to which of the three basic types of FoRs is used: the absolute FoR derived from a superordinate field like the cardinal directions, the intrinsic FoR derived from an oriented object like a cat or a car, or the relative FoR derived from an observer (Senft, 1997; Pederson et al, 1998; Bennardo, 2002; Levinson, 2003; Dasen and Mishra, 2011; for alternative terminologies, see also Levinson, 2003, p. 26; Grabowski, 1999a,b; Talmy, 2000; O'Meara and Báez, 2011; Bohnemeyer and O'Meara, 2012). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When referring to an object in relation to another, speakers of many languages can adopt a relative frame of reference (FoR). Following Levinson (2003), this kind of FoR can be established by projecting an observer's perspective onto the ground object either by translation, reflection, or rotation. So far, research on spatial FoRs has largely ignored the extent of variation in which of these projections are preferred generally, and specifically what kind of FoR is established for spatial arrays in one's back. This may seem justified by assumptions on “natural” preferences: for reflection in frontal settings (Canonical Encounter Hypothesis), and for converting dorsal into frontal situations by a turn of the observer before a reference is made (Turn Hypothesis). We scrutinize these assumptions by comparing the FoRs adopted for small-scale, static spatial arrays by speakers of four languages (German, US-English, Mandarin Chinese, and Tongan). Addressing the problem of inherent ambiguities on the item level when assessing FoRs from spatial prepositions, we use a multinomial processing tree (MPT) model for estimating probabilities of referencing strategies across sets of items. Substantial differences in frontal settings, both between and within languages, disprove the Canonical Encounter Hypothesis—translation occurs as frequently as reflection across samples. In dorsal settings, in contrast, the same type of response dominates in all samples. We suggest that this response is produced by a backward projection of the observer's coordinate system in correspondence with the two main FoR preferences for frontal settings. However, none of these strategies involves a turn of the observer, thus also disproving the Turn Hypothesis. In conclusion, we discuss possible causes of the observed variability, explore links between the domains of space and time, and reflect the relation between language, communication, and culture.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Palmer (), however, shows that there is no operational difference among local, ad hoc coordinates and those that are abstract and generalized. Another possible classification drawing on typological observations of Mesoamerican languages makes finer distinctions between Geomorphic, Landmark‐based, and Absolute FoRs (O'Meara & Pérez Báez, ). For the purposes of this study, I follow Palmer () in using an inclusive definition of the Absolute FoR.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Environmental Experience Shape Spatial Cognition? Frames of Reference Among Ancash Quechua Speakers (Peru)

Shapero

2016

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown that language contributes to humans' ability to orient using landmarks and shapes their use of frames of reference (FoRs) for memory. However, the role of environmental experience in shaping spatial cognition has not been investigated. This study addresses such a possibility by examining the use of FoRs in a nonverbal spatial memory task among residents of an Andean community in Peru. Participants consisted of 97 individuals from Ancash Quechua-speaking households (8-77 years of age) who spoke Quechua and/or Spanish and varied considerably with respect to the extent of their experience in the surrounding landscape. The results demonstrated that environmental experience was the only factor significantly related to the preference for allocentric FoRs. The study thus shows that environmental experience can play a role alongside language in shaping habits of spatial representation, and it suggests a new direction of inquiry into the relationships among language, thought, and experience.

show abstract

“…In Diidxazá, however, the intrinsic FoRs were indeed used with frequency and were second after the reliance on cardinal points within absolute FoRs which were clearly the preferred strategy (Pérez Báez, ). Overall, what the crosslinguistic data revealed is a dispreference for the relative FoR (O'Meara & Pérez Báez, ).…”

Section: Stimuli Elicitation and Experimental Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Types in the Semantic Extension of Diidxazá Body Part Terms

Báez

2019

Cognitive Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Body part terms (BPTs) are used extensively in Mesoamerican languages to name object parts. The process through which BPTs might be extended to refer to a part of an object and further serve as a relator in describing the relation between objects in space has often been attributed to metaphorical processes. This study proposes an alternative analysis following a Structure–Mapping Theory approach (Gentner, 1983, inter alia), based on data from Diidxazá (Isthmus Zapotec, Otomanguean) obtained through elicitation and experimental tasks. The data show that structure mapping does not depend on a 1:1 match of attributes; frequency of use shed light on principles that constrain the semantic extension of most BPTs; a core set of six BPTs are extended by abstraction of the set of intersecting axes of the body. The detailed nature of this study enables an analysis of the mental representations underlying the semantic extension of BPTs. This in turn elucidates on aspects of the relation between spatial language and spatial cognition. In addition, this study allows us to address questions about the categorial status of BPTs in Diidxazá and their lexicographic representation.

show abstract

Spatial frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages

Cited by 50 publications

References 40 publications

Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison

Turn around to have a look? Spatial referencing in dorsal vs. frontal settings in cross-linguistic comparison

Does Environmental Experience Shape Spatial Cognition? Frames of Reference Among Ancash Quechua Speakers (Peru)

Comparison Types in the Semantic Extension of Diidxazá Body Part Terms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About