Linguistic Frame of Reference Reconsidered

There is a large body of research indicating that speakers of (familiar) European languages tend to encode and conceptualize space from an egocentric perspective, but linguistic fieldworkers have shown that speakers of certain other languages (e.g. Tzeltal) often describe the same spatial scenes based on fixed coordinates of the environment. This has led some researcher to challenge long-standing assumptions about semantic universals of space and the uniformity of spatial cognition. Specifically, Levinson and colleagues have questioned the hypothesis that there is a universal preference for egocentric, body-oriented representations of space in language and cognition. It is the purpose of the present paper to reconsider this hypothesis in light of an important class of spatial terms that has been disregarded in this research: demonstratives such as English this and that and here and there. The paper shows that the semantic interpretation of demonstratives presupposes a coordinate system with the same conceptual constituents as body-based expressions such as left and right or up and down. Combining evidence from linguistic typology with psychological research on joint attention, it is argued that demonstratives constitute a universal class of spatial terms that invoke an egocentric, body-anchored frame of reference grounded in basic principles of spatial and social cognition.

Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2004

This paper analyzes frames of reference involved in linguistic expression of spatial relations of objects, using an experimental method. Objects with and without intrinsic orientation are used as the figure object, and it is demonstrated that there exists in Japanese a phenomenon we call ‘figure-aligned mapping’, where the coordinate system on the figure object is projected onto the ground object. This is what previous studies have not reported or argued. We claim that this figure-aligned mapping belongs to the intrinsic frame of reference among the three (intrinsic, relative, and absolute) frames of reference proposed by Levinson, and some revision of his definition of the intrinsic frame is proposed so that figure-aligned mapping can be accommodated in it. The result of this study confirms the importance of the notion of coordinate system in the discussion of frames of reference.

Different aspects of Frames of Reference (FoR) have been analyzed in detail since the early 1990s. Researchers have studied cross-linguistic variety (Levinson, 1996; Levinson and Wilkins, 2006b; Pederson et al., 1998), given detailed accounts of individual languages (François, 2003; Haviland, 1993; Hoffmann, 2011; Schultze-Berndt, 2006), considered the impact of landscape and cognition on FoRs (Bohnemeyer and O’Meara, 2012; Danziger, 2010; Levinson, 2003, 2008; Palmer, 2015), and provided regional overviews (Bohnemeyer, 2013; François, 2004, 2015). Three ‘classic’ FoRs have been described, namely intrinsic, relative, and absolute (Levinson, 2003; Pederson et al., 1998). Little attention, however, has been paid to the usage patterns of these FoR. This paper describes and analyzes a curious restriction on the use of different types of absolute directionals within FoR and orientation settings in three Australian languages MalakMalak, Jaminjung, and Kriol. All three employ landmark-based `un-fixed' absolute terms based on river-flow or prevailing winds restricted to orientation settings and those where the the speaker is also the deictic center (ground) from which angles are projected. If a language also utilizes cardinal directions based on the direction of the rising and setting sun or a prominent riverbank, no such restrictions are observed. The aims of this paper are twofold. Firstly, I will describe the use of Frames of Reference and Orientation in Jaminjung, MalakMalak and Kriol in detail with particular emphasis on absolute directionals. Secondly, I provide a usage-based analysis of the types of absolute FoR used in orientation and deictic as well as non-deictic FoR settings considering cognitive, morphosyntactic, semantic, and culturally specific approaches. This highlights how language-external features are reflected in language-use and vice versa.

Honours Thesis

Spatial reference is an area of language and cognition that has received particular attention in recent decades. In responding to spatial tasks, speakers can draw of different ways to conceptualise spatial relations, which have been termed frames of reference. Previous research has shown that speakers of different languages may have different preferences in their frames-of-reference selection. It has also been shown that contextual factors may influence speakers in their frame selection when faced with a certain task. This study investigates contextual preferences of English speakers in their frame selection. The results show that, contrary to previous findings reported in the literature, English speakers generally adopted the intrinsic frame, i.e. a system that is based on the internal facets of the objects being referenced, rather than the relative frame, i.e. a system based on the viewer’s body axes. The study also explored speakers’ preferences for different subtypes of the relative frame as well as their responses to cardinal prompts, which were designed to elicit responses in line with the absolute frame of reference. Most participants were unable to identify their orientation in terms of cardinal directions and compensated in this task by using a strategy that construed cardinal terms in a relative rather than absolute way. The results from this study give insight not only into the preferences of English speakers in their frame selection, but also some of the contextual factors that can prime English speakers to adopt a particular strategy.

2004

Spatial prepositions work as pointers to localize objects in space. For instance "The book is over the table" indicates that the located object (LO) is somewhere "over" the reference object (RO). To understand where the LO is people need to assign direction to space (selecting a reference frame). Three experiments are reported which investigated the reference frame conflict between LO and RO. We found that when the LO was not vertically aligned, the appropriateness for a given spatial preposition (above, below, over and under) changes. In general scenes with the LO pointing at the RO were judged less acceptable than scenes with the LO vertically oriented. These results suggest that reference frames for both LO and RO are accessed before direction can be assigned for spatial prepositions. Modifications to Multiple Frame Activation theory (Carlson-Radvansky & Irwin, 1994) are discussed.

2004

Spatial prepositions work as pointers to localize objects in space. For instance "The book is over the table" indicates that the located object (LO) is somewhere "over" the reference object (RO). To understand where the LO is people need to assign direction to space (selecting a reference frame). Three experiments are reported which investigated the reference frame conflict between LO and RO. We found that when the LO was not vertically aligned, the appropriateness for a given spatial preposition (above, below, over and under) changes. In general scenes with the LO pointing at the RO were judged less acceptable than scenes with the LO vertically oriented. These results suggest that reference frames for both LO and RO are accessed before direction can be assigned for spatial prepositions. Modifications to Multiple Frame Activation theory (Carlson-Radvansky & Irwin, 1994) are discussed.

Artificial intelligence II: Methodology …, 1987

Proceedings of the …, 2005

People tend to think about time in terms of space, in some languages even with identical vocabulary. It is therefore plausible to assume that the frame of reference (FOR) preferred for spatial descriptions also helps to organize temporal descriptions. Further still: If languages differ with regard to the FORs that they prefer in the one domain-as is indeed the case-then they might also differ in the other domain. This paper presents a conceptual analysis of spatial and temporal FORs and describes how the former could be mapped onto the latter. Instances from English, German, and Tongan are provided in order to scrutinize the relationship of relevant prepositions and underlying concepts. The analysis reveals that the rare type of spatial FOR used in Tongan is indeed reflected in the temporal domain. A homology between the two domains is thus very likely.

Australian Journal of Linguistics, 2018

Spatial Frames of Reference (FoR) have been discussed from different angles including cross-linguistic variety, detailed individual language descriptions, considering the impact of landscape and cognition, and regional overviews. Little attention, however, has been paid to their usage patterns. Consequently, this paper analyses a curious restriction on the use of different types of absolute terms. The analysis is based on a previous observation for Jaminjung that the use of absolute FoR is conditioned by whether or not the ground is overtly specified. The paper expands on this finding for two languages spoken in the same region, MalakMalak and the Roper variety of Kriol. It particularly focuses on the influence of morphosyntactic features and takes cognitive approaches as well as cultural salience into consideration.