Typology of spatial representation...1 2017 LSA Linguistics Institute University of Kentucky, July...

1

2017 LSA Linguistics Institute

University of Kentucky, July 5-August 1st, 2017

Jürgen Bohnemeyer

Typology of spatial representation Lecture 8: The conquest of small-scale space

[email protected] http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/

▸ Situating today’s lecture

▸ MesoSpace Ib

▸ The conquest of small-scale space

▸ Challenges and new frontiers

▸ Loose ends: excitations from the labyrinth

▸ Summary

2

SYNOPSIS

‣ the course: overview

SITUATING TODAY’S LECTURE

3

Figure 1.1. A classification of spatial concepts

Lectures 5-8


▸ MesoSpace Ib




▸ Summary

4

SYNOPSIS

MESOSPACE IB‣ MesoSpace Ib: Spatial Language and Cognition

beyond Mesoamerica (NSF #BCS-1053123) (2011 –)

‣ sample (only datasets in bold have been analyzed;only those underlined contributed to group models)

‣ new languages ‣ Bashkir (Turkic; T. Nikitina) ‣ English (Germanic; K. Donelson, R. Moore, J. A. Jódar Sánchez, J. Seong) ‣ Jahai (Mon-Khmer; N. Burenhult) ‣ Japanese (isolate; J. Olstad; 4 populations) ‣ Kujirerai (Jola; R. Watson) ‣ Mandarin (Sino-Tibetan; H. Hsiao) ‣ Taiwanese Southern Min (Sino-Tibetan; H. Hsiao, Y.-T. Lin; 2 populations) ‣ Vietnamese (Mon-Khmer; J. Lovegren) ‣ Yurakaré (isolate, Bolivia; R. van Gijn and V. Hirtzel)

‣ continuing languages ‣ additional data has been collected from speakers of

Isthmus Zapotec (R. Moore) and Yucatec Maya (J. Bohnemeyer)

5

‣ frame use in discourse: the Talking Animals study

‣ another referential communication task: Talking Animals (TA) ‣ TA allows us to discover selection preferences for any of the

frame types ‣ at the small (personally manipulable) scale

‣ advantages over previous tools employing photographs ‣ 2D stimuli seem to slightly depress the use of geocentric

frames

6MESOSPACE IB (CONT.)Figure 2.2. O

ne of the four stimulus

configurations

Figure 2.1. Setup of the Talking Animals task

7MESOSPACE IB (CONT.)

Figure 2.3. Study populations: L1, L2, researchers

English (Germanic); L2: various Indo-European. K. Donelson; E. Hori; X. Jiang; J. A. Jodar Sanchez; X. Luo; R. Moore; J. Seong. 22 x 2 participants.

Yucatec Maya; L2: Spanish.J. Bohnemeyer.40 x 2 participants.

Isthmus Zapotec (Oto-Manguean); L2: Spanish. R. Moore. 43 x 2 participants.

Vietnamese (Mon-Khmer); mostly monolingual. J. Lovegren. 40 x 2 participants.

Mandarin (Sino-Tibetan); L2: TSM H.-C. Hsiao, Y.-T. Lin 22 x 2 participants.

Taiwanese Southern Min (Sino-Tibetan); L2: Mandarin. Y.-T. Lin. 40 x 2 participants.

Japanese (isolate); L2: English. J. Olstad. 40 x 2 participants

‣ independent variables: language (L1; L2 use) ‣ we modeled L2 use on a 3-point frequency scale

‣ none > occasional > frequent ‣ based on participants’ responses to a questionnaire

‣ independent variables: language - areality

‣ the Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA) area

‣ cf. Enfield (2005)

‣ including from theMesoSpace sample

‣ Mandarin ‣ Taiwanese

SouthernMin

‣ Vietnamese


Figure 2.4. The Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area(Public Domain File:Mainland Southeast Asia.png)

‣ independent variables: literacy and education ‣ education: 3-point scale ‣ elementary school only > some secondary > any post-secondary

‣ writing (frequency): 4-point scale ‣ none > rarely > occasional > frequent/regular ‣ no writing data was collected from the Vietnamese participants

‣ reading (frequency): 4-point scale ‣ none > rarely > occasional > frequent/regular

‣ assessed again based on questionnaire responses


Population Averages

0

0.75

1.5

2.25

3

MC JPN ENG VTN YUC ZAP TSM

Edu Read Write

Figure 2.5. Mean education and literacy scores by population

‣ variables: topography II - ArcGIS


Figure 2.6. World Landforms – Improved Hammond Method (ESRI 2011) (http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=cd817a746aa7437cbd72a6d39cdb4559)

High mountains Low mountains Tablelands Hills Flat plains

‣ independent variables: geography of the fieldsites ‣ topography: geomorphic ‘provinces’ ‣ 5-level categorical variable based on ESRI 2011 ‣ flat plains, hills, table lands, low mountains, high mountains

‣ population density: log of inhabitants/km2

11MESOSPACE IB (CONT.)Table 2.7. Field sites by population density and geom

orphology

Language Locality Country Density Density Log Scale

Topographic Classification

Japanese Setagaya Japan (Mainland) 15551 4.19 flatTaiwanese Southern Min Taipei Taiwan 9949 4.00 flatMandarin Chinese Taipei Taiwan 9949 4.00 flatJapanese Naha Japan (Okinawa) 8244 3.92 hillsEnglish Buffalo United States 2569 3.41 flatJapanese Yomitan Japan (Okinawa) 1200 3.08 hillsTaiwanese Southern Min Tainan Taiwan 855 2.93 flatVietnamese Long Mỹ Vietnam 406 2.61 flatJapanese Fujinomiya Japan (Mainland) 339 2.53 low mountains

Aizuwakamatsu Japan (Mainland) 321 2.51 low mountainsNago Japan (Okinawa) 293 2.47 low mountainsMiyakojima Japan (Okinawa) 268 2.43 hillsYonaguni Japan (Okinawa) 58 1.76 hillsShisho Japan (Mainland) 49 1.69 low mountains

Isthmus Zapotec La Ventosa Mexico 5 0.70 flatJuchitán de Zaragoza Mexico 5 0.70 flat

Yucatec Yaxley Mexico 2 0.30 flatFelipe Carillo Puerto Mexico 2 0.30 flat

‣ results: response strategies across populations 12MESOSPACE IB (CONT.)

Figure 2.8. Percentage of spatial representationsfeaturing an unambiguous response type by population/language and response type

REL > GEO GEO > REL

• results I: sans Taiwanese Southern Min speakers – we fitted binomial mixed-effects logistic regression models

of the probability of use of two response types • relative (egocentric extrinsic) and geocentric frames

– using the lme4 package in R

– we eliminated the education factor from the models • since one model containing it failed to converge

– and none of the others showed a significant education effect • due to the number of models we ran, we believe only effects at

the p < .01 level should be fully trusted (Baayen 2008: 62)

13

Table 4. Regression models of the Talking Animals data: summary of effects(Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1)

MESOSPACE IB (CONT.)

• these models exclude Taiwanese Southern Min (TSM) speakers – TSM speakers show a bimodal distribution of frame

use by L2 (Mandarin) and Education levels • which distort the (polarity of the) coefficients

in the multi-population models

14


• modeling just the Taiwanese populations – produces significant effects of language use,

education level, literacy (reading frequency), and topography • these models include random intercepts for L1

– allowing us to infer that the usage effects include L2 contributions

15

Table 5. Regression models of the Talking Animals data for the Taiwanese populations : summary of effects (Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1)


• New Animals – same protocol as before • participants

– we tested at least 16 speakers of each variety – data from participants with errors in more than two of

the six trials was excluded from the analysis – Table 7 reflects only those participants

whose responses were included in the analysis

16

Table 7. Participants whose responses were included in the analysis by language, age, and sex


• results – the populations preferred egocentric or geocentric

responses as predicted by their L1

– logistic regression of the probability of egocentric reconstructions • showed L1, population density, and topography

as the sole significant factors (p < .01; p < .05, respectively) • we excluded L2 from this model, as we hypothesize different

populations to be pulled by their L2 in different directions 17

Figure 18. Response type frequency by L1

linguistically egocentric

linguistically geocentric

New Animals Responses - Facing Direction

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Japanese Spanish Taiwanese Southern Min Yucatec Mixe

Geocentric Relative



▸ MesoSpace Ib




▸ Summary

18

SYNOPSIS

THE CONQUEST OF SMALL-SCALE SPACE

‣ in general, a community’s dominant strategy in discourse

‣ has been found to predict that community’s domininant strategy in nonverbal cognition

‣ however, there are a few exceptions

‣ exception I: populations that show a preference for object-centered intrinsic frames in discourse

‣ Pederson et al (1998) report this for Kilivila (Austronesian; PNG) and Mopan (Mayan; Belize)

19

‣ in both cases, there is evidence of a geocentric biasin the nonverbal tasks (Danziger 2001; Senft 2001)

‣ although at least in the Mopan case,the pattern appears to be task-specific

‣ exception II: Yucatec - “anything goes/all of the above” in discourse, but strong geocentric bias in recall memory

‣ Bohnemeyer (2011); Bohnemeyer & Stolz (2006); Le Guen (2011)

‣ Le Guen (2011) proposes that geocentrism is transmitted in this population thru gesture not speech

‣ but Le Guen’s gesture data was not collected at the same scale as his linguistic data

20THE CONQUEST OF SMALL-SCALE SPACE (CONT.)

‣ the Yucatec Talking Animals data


Figure 3.1. Percentage of spatial representationsfeaturing an unambiguous response type in the YucatecTA responses

NewAnimalsResponses

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Japanese TaiwaneseSouthernMin Yucatec

Geocentric Egocentric Neither

Figure 3.2. New Animals response type frequency by L1

Yucatec

0.1574

0.2188

0.1676

0.2384

0.1536

0.0642

Intrinsic Direct Absolute LandmarkTopological RelaHve

‣ exception III: Spanish-speaking communities in San Miguel Balderas (Mexico) and Rosita (Nicaragua)

‣ linguistically: intrinsic preference in the formerno clear preferance in the latter

‣ cognitively: geocentric bias (Bohnemeyer et al 2014)

‣ however, the 2017version of that tableis even more confusing ;-)


Table 3.3: Responses to the two tasks from members of five Spanish-speaking communities. A Fisher’s exact test shows the distribution of egocentric and geocentric reconstructions across speakers from Barcelona, Santa Ines, Rosita, and San Miguel, to be highly significant (one-tailed p < .0001).

‣ descriptive generalization: in array reconstruction tasks, the geocentric strategy emerges as a default across populations

‣ the only populations that show a clear egocentric bias in this task

‣ are populations that show a clear preference for relative frames in the discourse task

‣ a hypothetical explanation: an innate pan-simian geocentrism bias

‣ that can be overridden by a culturally transmitted egocentrism bias

‣ in which case speech and gesture may play a role in the transmission


‣ Haun et al (2006): Experiment 1

‣ frame use in modern humans

‣ participants: four populations (at 12 p’ants each)

‣ Dutch vs. ≠Akhoe Hai||om; children vs. adults

‣ method: combined recall memory and inference task


Figure 3.4. Designof the first experiment(Haun et al 2006: 17569)

‣ Haun et al (2006): Experiment 1 (cont.)

‣ three within-subject conditions: egocentric, geocentric, object-centered

‣ 10 trials per condition, administered in counter-balanced lists

‣ transitions between blocks were unmarked

‣ the question was how many trials would the participants need to adjust to a new condition following a transition



‣ results

‣ Dutch adults and kidswere significantly moresuccessful in the egocentric condition

‣ Hai||om adults and kids were significantly more successful in the geocentric condition

‣ in the egocentric condition, adults performed barely above and children below chance


Figure 3.5. Findingsof the first experiment(Haun et al 2006: 17570)


‣ discussion

‣ a prelude to Haun et al (2011)

‣ the thrust: picking up on the strategy that is not habituated and learning to apply it are hard

‣ Li & Abarbanell (under review) offer new data in response


‣ Haun et al (2006): Experiment 2

‣ frame use in human and non-human primates

‣ method: simplified version of that of Experiment 1 with 3 cups per table instead of 5

‣ accordingly, the geocentric and object-centeredconditions are collapsed

‣ into a single allocentric conditions


Figure 3.6. Designof the second experiment(Haun et al 2006: 17570)


‣ participants

‣ human: 12 German preschool kids (6m, 6f, mean age = 4;10, range = 4;10 to 4;11)

‣ nonhuman: 3 orangutans, 2 gorillas, 3 bonobos, 5 chimpanzees

‣ 4m, 9f; 8-28 yoa. (M = 14;2 SD = 6;9)

‣ all nonhuman great apes were housed at the Wolfgang Köhler Primate Research Center

‣ at Zoo Leipzig



‣ findings

‣ all groups performed significantly better in the geocentric condition

‣ in the egocentric condition, only the Orangutans performed above chance level


Figure 3.7. Findingsof the second experiment(Haun et al 2006: 17571)

‣ Haun et al carried out a further simplified version of the second experiment with non-human participants only

‣ and found the results confirmed

‣ in response to these findings, Haun et al formulate the pan-simian geocentrism bias hypothesis


“The standard methods of comparative cognition suggest a common phylogenetic inheritance of a preference for allocentric over egocentric spatial strategies from the ancestor shared by all four genera. This conclusion upsets the Kantian assumption of the priority of egocentric spatial reasoning, but it does so on firm empirical grounds. This inherited bias toward the allocentric coding of spatial relations can be overridden by cultural preferences, as in our own preference for egocentric or relative spatial coding.” (Haun et al 2006: 17572)

‣ however, cultural transmission is merely a mechanism

‣ it doesn’t explain why egocentrism seems to have risen to prominence in some human populations

‣ over the course of cultural evolution

‣ a possible evolutionary explanation: egocentric frames are more efficient at encoding small-scale space

‣ and the cognitive importance of small-scale spacehas continuously risen during cultural evolution


‣ the rise of the small scale: an evolutionary scenario

‣ Stage I: prior to the onset of intense cultural evolution, control of small-scale space is of low priority

‣ compared to control of larger-scale space


‣ the rise of the small scale: an evolutionary scenario (cont.)

‣ tool use is opportunistic and presumably doesn’t require longterm storage

‣ then again, what do I know!


Fossil remedies (http://www.fossilremedies.com/primates-and-their-tools/)

🤔


‣ Stage 2: hunter-gatherers

‣ people begin to acquire more gear and to build walled-off spaces (if temporary ones)


An Agta hunter-gatherer camp group in the Philippines in 1981. (USA Today)


‣ Step 3: horticulture and agriculture

‣ significant parts of human life are taking place in permanently enclosed spaces, including even economic production

‣ for the first time, the geographic scale becomes clearly separated from the area in which most of everyday life takes place


https://sites.google.com/a/svvsd.org/westviewcwingblue/social-studies/rise-of-civilization


‣ Step 4: the evolution of visual art and writing

‣ manufactured visual representations have a canonical orientation in the viewer’s visual field

‣ they are the first egocentrically designed tools/artifacts


https://hubpages.com/education/hunter_gatherers_wealth http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/wrtg/hd_wrtg.htm


‣ Step 5: the advent of urban roadway systems

‣ the most efficient way to memorize and communicate information about routes in a roadway system

‣ is in terms of left vs. right turns with respect to the driving direction, i.e., egocentrically


‣ the adaptive mechanism

‣ each successive stage provides new opportunities for the emergence of egocentrism

‣ and simultaneously reduces the domain of geocentrism

‣ e.g., even in geocentric cultures, visual representations have a canonical egocentric orientation

‣ and roadway routes are probably at least to some extent represented egocentrically

‣ results of various route description studiespoint in this direction



▸ MesoSpace Ib




▸ Summary

40

SYNOPSIS

Challengesandnewfrontiers• spin-offstudies– KateDonelson:frameuseandaudiencedesign• speakers’adaptationstohearersinframeuse– inspeakersofEnglishandTseltal– NSFAward#BCS-1430883

– RandiMoore:frameuseatthecommunitylevel• applyingtheMesoSpacedesigntothreeIsthmusZapoteccommunities– NSFAward#BCS-1264064

– Yen-TingLin:frameuseandbilingualism• evidencefrombilingualTaiwaneseSouthernMinspeakerssupportstheLinguisticTransmissionHypothesis– NSFAward#BCS-1551925

41

Challengesandnewfrontiers(cont.)

• desiderata– atopographicclassificationthatissufficientlyfine-grainedtopickupeffectsatthecommunitylevel

42

Highmountains Lowmountains Tablelands Hills Flatplains

Figure28. Worldlandforms–ImprovedHammond Method(ESRI2011)(http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=cd817a746aa7437cbd72a6d39cdb4559)

Challengesandnewfrontiers(cont.)

• desiderata(cont.)– anonlinguisticmeasureofthecognitivesalienceoflandmarks• RandiMooreisplanningtoworkonthisaspartofherpostdocproject

– networkvariablesratherthangroupvariablesaspredictors

– explorationoftheeffectsofageandsex– analyticalalgorithmsthatarebetterequippedtodealwithmassivelyinhomogeneousdistributions

– aculturalhistoryofegocentrism

43


▸ MesoSpace Ib




▸ Summary

44

SYNOPSIS

LOOSE ENDS: EXCITATIONS FROM THE LABYRINTH‣ more on the history of the term ‘frame of reference’

‣ it turns out that gestalt psychologists used this concept a lot

‣ including supposedly Wertheimer (1912) in a seminal paper on the apparent motion phenomenon

‣ however, Wertheimer didn’t use Bezugssystem

‣ the German term for ‘referenceframe’ in physics

‣ rather, he used a literal frame in his experiments

‣ his metaphor for the abstract sense was ‘field’

45

Figure 6.1. Max Wertheimer(1880-1943; Wikipedia)

🤣

‣ in the late 1940s, Wertheimer’s former advisee Solomon Asch used the term ‘reference frame’

‣ in a classical series of papers on the role orientation of the viewer in perception

‣ here, Asch & Witkin extends the ‘frame’ metaphor from perception to gravity

46LOOSE ENDS: EXCITATIONS FROM THE LABYRINTH (CONT.)

“More specifically, since orientation involves the employment of a frame of reference in a literal sense, its investigation furnishes an excellent opportunity to establish the role of varied and changing frames of reference. In view of the increasingly significant role of the 'frame of reference' as a systematic concept in the most diverse regions of psychology, a further investigation of it in an area where it is perhaps most simply represented should prove fruitful.” (Asch & Witkin 1948: 326)

“Orientation depends on two major sources of experience, the visual and postural. Through vision we perceive a space which is clearly articulated and which is organized into a framework-like structure, the main axes of which are the horizontal and vertical directions. In addition to this visual basis, there is a fund of information proceeding from the experience of our own bodies. The latter data, which arise in the course of bodily adjustment to the downward pull of gravity, includfe kinesthetic sensations from muscles, tendons, joints, and viscera, as well as excitations from the labyrinth.” (Asch & Witkin 1948: 327)

Figure 6.2. Solomon Asch(1907-1996; Wikipedia)


▸ MesoSpace Ib




▸ Summary

47

SYNOPSIS

Summary• confirmed: L1 makes an irreducible contribution

to spatial cognition – so does L2 use potentially

• Mesoamericans are the more likely to use relate frames in their L1 the more frequently they use Spanish as L2 (in the 2015 sample!)

• similarly, in Taiwan, Mandarin appears to act as a conduit for the diffusion of egocentrism

– the effect of language on reference frame use does not appear to be epiphenomenal

• non-linguistic factors driving reference frame use – education, literacy, population density, topography

• first quantitative demonstration of environment affecting cognition 48

Challenges and new frontiers (Cont.)

• a new take: the Linguist Transmission Hypothesis (LTH)

– more concretely:

Linguistic Transmission Hypothesis (LTH) – abstract formulation: “Using a language or linguistic variety may facilitate the acquisition of cultural practices of nonlinguistic cognition shared among the speakers of the language.”

Linguistic Transmission Hypothesis (LTH) – concrete formulation: “The comprehension of utterances may provide clues to the cognitive practices involved in their production, and both the comprehension and the production of utterances may afford habituation to these cognitive practices. The cognitive practices so acquired may or may not subsequently be extended beyond the domain of speech production.”


• the basic idea – cognitive practices must “hitch a ride” on observable

behaviors to be transmitted or diffused – language is one such behavior among others

– e.g., co-speech gesture (Haviland 1979; Le Guen 2011); agricultural and religious practices (Bohnemeyer 2011)

– not a new idea – cf. Levinson (2003: 315-325)


• the “sociophonetics” of cognition • the MesoSpace studies have pioneered

• a methodology for fine-grained studies of the role of culture in cognition

• challenges • operationalizing topography is a headache • linear regression models have their limits


• some populations show no clear preference for a particular frame type in discourse • or a preference for intrinsic frames • in all cases, these populations show a

nonverbal preference for geocentrism • this finding is in line with the pan-Simian

geocentrism bias proposed by Haun et al 2006 • on the basis of primate experiments


• a possible evolutionary explanation for the apparent rise of egocentrism

• in cultural evolution • the growing importance of small-scale space

• whose representation is cognitively more efficient in egocentric frames

54

THE END �We have written this book for the same reasons we chose this field for a living: we want to be rich and famous.� (Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet 1991: xiii)

�Readers of the original preface have probably already guessed the other reason we agreed to prepare a second edition. We still cling to the hope that semantics will some day make us rich and famous.� (Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet 2000: xv)

ReferencesAsch, S. E. & H. A. Wiktkin. (1948). Studies in space and orientation: I. Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. Journal of Experimental

Psychology 38(3): 325-337. Bohnemeyer, J. (2011). Spatial frames of reference in Yucatec Maya: Referential promiscuity and task-specificity. Language Sciences 33(6): 892-914. Bohnemeyer, J., K. T. Donelson, R. E. Tucker, E. Benedicto, A. Eggleston, A. Capistrán Garza, N. Hernández Green, M. S. Hernández Gómez, S. Herrera

Castro, C. K. O’Meara, E. Palancar, G. Pérez Báez, G. Polian, & R. Romero Méndez. The cultural transmission of spatial cognition: Evidence from a large-scale study. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2014/papers/047/paper047.pdf

Bohnemeyer, J., K. T. Donelson, R. E. Moore, E. Benedicto, A. Capistrán Garza, A. Eggleston, N. Hernández Green, M. S. Hernández Gómez, S. Herrera Castro, C. K. O’Meara, G. Pérez Báez, E. Palancar, G. Polian, & R. Romero Méndez. The contact diffusion of linguistic practices: Reference frames in Mesoamerica. Language Dynamics and Change 5(2): 169-201.

Bohnemeyer, J. & C. O’Meara. (2012). Vectors and frames of reference: Evidence from Seri and Yucatec. In L. Filipović & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and Time across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 217-249.

Campbell, L. (1979). Middle American languages. In L. Campbell & M. Mithun (Eds.), The languages of Native America: Historical and comparative assessment. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 902-1000.

Campbell, L., T. Kaufman & T. C. Smith-Stark. (1986). Meso-America as a linguistic area. Language 62(3): 530-570. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A. & D. A. Irwin. (1993). Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above? Cognition 46: 223-244. Danziger, E. (2001). Cross-cultural studies in language and thought: Is there a metalanguage? In C. C. Moore & H. F. Mathews (eds.), The Psychology of

Cultural Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 199-222. Danziger, E. (2010). Deixis, gesture, and cognition and spatial Frame of Reference typology. Studies in Language 34(1): 167-185. ESRI (2011). ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute. Gelman, A. & J. Hill. (2007). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press. Gelman, A., Y. Su, M. Yajima, J. Hill, M. Grazia Pittau, J. Kerman & T. Zheng. (2012). arm: Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models.

R package version 1.5-03. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=arm Haun, D. B. M., C. Rapold, J. Call, G. Janzen, & S. C. Levinson. (2006). Cognitive cladistics and cultural override in hominid spatial cognition. PNAS 103:

17568–17573. Haun, D. B. M., C. Rapold, G. Janzen, & S. C. Levinson. (2011). Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition covary across cultures.

Cognition 119: 70-80. Hernández Santana, J. R., J. Lugo-Hubp, & M. O. Ortíz Pérez. (2007). Nuevo Atlas Nacional de México. Mexico City: Instituto de Geografía, Universidad

Nacional Autónoma de México. Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. (1996). The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1-30. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and

Language 59(4): 434–446.55

References (cont.)

Le Guen, O. (2011). Speech and gesture in spatial language and cognition among the Yucatec Mayas. Cognitive Science, 35, 905-938.

Levinson, S.C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s Question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (eds.), Language and space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 109-169.

Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, S. C. & S. Meira. (2003). 'Natural concepts' in the spatial topological domain - adpositional meanings in

crosslinguistic perspective: An exercise in semantic typology. Language 79(3): 485–516. Levinson, S. C. & D. P. Wilkins. (2006). Grammars of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, P., L. Abarbanell, L. Gleitman & A. Papafragou. (2011). Spatial reasoning in Tenejapan Mayans. Cognition 120: 33–53. Li, P. & L. Gleitman. (2002). Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83(3), 265–294. Li, P. & L. Abarbanell. (Under review). Alternative spin on phylogenetically inherited spatial reference frames. Manuscript,

Harvard University. Majid, A., J. S. Boster & M. Bowerman. (2008). The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and

breaking. Cognition 109(2): 235–250. Mishra, R. C., P. R. Dasen & S. Niraula. (2003). Ecology, language, and performance on spatial cognitive tasks. International

Journal of Psychology 38: 366-383. O’Meara, C. & G. Pérez Báez. (2011). Spatial frames of reference in Mesoamerican languages. Language Sciences 33: 837–852. Pederson, E., E. Danziger, D. Wilkins, S. C. Levinson, S. Kita & G. Senft. (1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization.

Language 74(3): 557–589. Piaget, J. & B. Inhelder. (1956). The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge. Senft, G. (2001). Frames of spatial reference in Kilivila. Studies in Language 25(3): 521-555. Terrill, A. & N. Burenhult. (2008). Orientation as a strategy of spatial reference. Studies in Language 32(1): 93–116. Wassmann, J. & P. R. Dasen. (1998). Balinese spatial orientation: Some empirical evidence for moderate linguistic relativity. The

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(1): 689–711. Wertheimer, M. (1912). Experimentelle Studien über das Sehen von Bewegung [Experimental studies on the viewing of

motion]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane 61(1): 160-265.

56

Thanks!

Typology of spatial representation...1 2017 LSA Linguistics Institute University of Kentucky, July...

Documents

Transcript of Typology of spatial representation...1 2017 LSA Linguistics Institute University of Kentucky, July...