[Lingtyp] Testing a generalization about spatial reference frames

Fri Mar 5 23:00:13 UTC 2021

Dear all,

Jocelyn's /port/starboard/ examples are very nice, as they essentially 
mean 'left' and 'right' from the perspective of the vehicle.

Whereas modern ships and airplanes are built asymmetrically to allow 
boarding on the left/port side, I have not noticed any similar 
asymmetries in the design of traditional boats such as the Austronesian 
outrigger, which, in my recollection at least, seem to exhibit 
left/right symmetry.  Which leads to the following questions: What is 
the source of the port/starboard distinction? How recent is it?  What is 
its geographical distribution?

If indeed the port/starboard distinction is relatively recent, then this 
would tie in nicely with Juergen's speculation earlier to the effect 
that "the distribution of framing preferences over cultures is not 
stable, but is moving away from a prevalence of geocentric systems 
toward one of egocentrism" (where vehicle-centrism is an extension of 
egocentrism).

David

On 05/03/2021 23:56, Jocelyn Aznar wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I wonder in which category navigational terms like the French 
> "tribord" or "babord" are (I'm not sure at all about their 
> translations in English, my dictionary offers "port" and "starboard"). 
> These terms take the boat as the reference center, they are still 
> relative/deictic but they definitely can't be categorized as 
> egocentric as their purpose is to avoid the ambiguities associated 
> with the egocentric frame.
> I imagine the spatial reference frame used in a given situation can be 
> depended on the task involved, so there could be other objectcentric 
> spatial reference frames.
>
> All the best,
> Jocelyn
>
> Le 05/03/2021 à 21:59, Bohnemeyer, Juergen a écrit :
>> Ah, forgot to add references:
>>
>> Hill,C. (1982). Up/down,front/back, left/right: A contrastive study 
>> of Hausa and English. In J. Weissenborn and W. Klein (eds.), Here and 
>> there: Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and demonstration. 
>> Amsterdam: Benjamins. 11-42.
>> Nikitina, T. (2018). Frames of reference in discourse: Spatial 
>> descriptions in Bashkir (Turkic). Cognitive Linguistics 29(3): 495-544.
>> Polian, G. & J. Bohnemeyer. (2011). Uniformity and variation in 
>> Tseltal reference frame use. Languages Sciences 33(6): 868-891.
>> 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.
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 2021, at 3:54 PM, Bohnemeyer, Juergen <jb77 at buffalo.edu> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all — Wow, many thanks to everyone who has weighed in! I should 
>>> of course have remembered to single out contexts involving any form 
>>> of motion as another class of systematic exceptions, whether it’s in 
>>> route descriptions (including descriptions of static layouts from a 
>>> ‘virtual tour’ perspective) or with respect to rivers.
>>>
>>> One interesting feature that seems to separate geocentric systems 
>>> from egocentric ones is the emergence of local and regional 
>>> conventions. For instance, the usage David Gil reports from Sumatra 
>>> seems to involve a clash between regional conventions and the actual 
>>> local course of a river. This reminds me of similar reports in 
>>> Wassmann & Dasen (1998) for Bali and Polian & Bohnemeyer (2011) for 
>>> Tseltal Mayan communities. It’s not immediately obvious that 
>>> egocentric usage is subject to local and regional conventions to the 
>>> same extent, probably for fairly obvious reasons. The celebrated 
>>> case of the so-called Hausa relative system (Hill 1982), where the 
>>> observer’s axes are transposed onto the reference entity rather than 
>>> to be reflected by it, is sometimes cited as an exception to this. 
>>> But Hill in fact describes the transposed and reflexive relatives as 
>>> alternative assignment strategies both of which are available in the 
>>> speech community, which in my experience is the case in many 
>>> populations.
>>>
>>> Returning to my generalization, the case of Russian is indeed 
>>> intriguing. It reminds me of Nikitina’s (2018) controlled 
>>> elicitation study with Bashkir speakers, which indeed did not yield 
>>> any geocentric uses of any kind, not even uses based on ad-hoc 
>>> landmarks. I had never seen anything like it. I now wonder whether 
>>> all of Europe is moving in that direction.
>>>
>>> This dovetails with another important complex of questions about the 
>>> worldwide distribution of referential practices. Today, to my 
>>> knowledge, all communities in which dominant relative frame use has 
>>> been documented either have post-industrial societies or societies 
>>> that have shifted to, or are in the process of shifting to, majority 
>>> languages of post-industrial societies. Put differently, there is 
>>> not a single attested example I’m aware of in which an indigenous 
>>> minority group uses predominantly relative frames without evidence 
>>> of sustained bilingualism in or shift to a language of a surrounding 
>>> relative-dominant culture. (Perhaps the most promising place to look 
>>> for counterexamples are minority languages of China.)
>>>
>>> This strongly suggests that the distribution of framing preferences 
>>> over cultures is not stable, but is moving away from a prevalence of 
>>> geocentric systems toward one of egocentrism.
>>>
>>> Which in turn raises intriguing questions about the cultural history 
>>> and prehistory of referential practices.
>>>
>>> Lastly, Christian Lehmann made me aware of this page of his:
>>>
>>> https://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/lg_system/sem/index.html?https://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/lg_system/sem/raumorientierung_2.html 
>>>
>>>
>>> It contains the following useful generalizations, which largely 
>>> preempt mine:
>>>
>>>
>>>> • Wenn ein Volk den absoluten Bezugsrahmen zur mikrotopischen 
>>>> Orientierung benutzt, benutzt es ihn auch zur makrotopischen 
>>>> Orientierung.
>>>> • Wenn ein Volk den deiktischen Bezugsrahmen zur makrotopischen 
>>>> Orientierung benutzt, benutzt es ihn auch zur mikrotopischen 
>>>> Orientierung.
>>>
>>>
>>> One might translate this as follows:
>>>
>>>     • If a group uses geocentric (‘absolute’) frames for small-scale 
>>> orientation, it also uses them for large-scale orientation.
>>>     • If a group uses relative (‘deictic’) frames for large-scale 
>>> orientation, it also uses them for small-scale orientation.
>>>
>>> Thanks again, everybody! — Juergen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 5, 2021, at 8:55 AM, Peter Arkadiev 
>>>> <peterarkadiev at yandex.ru> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is Rouen-Rive-Droite :-)
>>>>   Peter
>>>>   05.03.2021, 13:42, "Maia Ponsonnet" <maia.ponsonnet at uwa.edu.au>:
>>>> of course there is Paris-Rive-Gauche.
>>>> but on the other hand I'd say it's partly lexicalized.
>>>> people much more rarely talk about "rive droite", and I don't think 
>>>> the terminology applies in, says, Lyon with the Rhône for instance?
>>>> Maïa
>>>>         Dr Maïa Ponsonnet
>>>> Senior Lecturer, Discipline of Linguistics
>>>> Graduate Research Coordinator, School of Social Sciences
>>>> Building M257, Room 2.36
>>>> Faculty of Arts, Business, Law and Education
>>>> The University of Western Australia
>>>> 35 Stirling Hwy, Perth, WA (6009), Australia
>>>> P.  +61 (0) 8 6488 2870 - M.  +61 (0) 468 571 030
>>>>       From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on 
>>>> behalf of Tilman Berger <tberger at uni-tuebingen.de>
>>>> Sent: Friday, 5 March 2021 6:20 PM
>>>> To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org 
>>>> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] Testing a generalization about spatial 
>>>> reference frames
>>>>   Dear all,
>>>> I would like to support this point, that "left" and "right" can be 
>>>> lexicalized toponyms. There is the distinction of "Left-bank 
>>>> Ukraine" (Лівобережна Україна) and "Right-bank Ukraine" 
>>>> (Правобережна Україна), where "left" means the western bank and 
>>>> "right" the eastern. These terms have been in use since the 17th 
>>>> century.
>>>> Best wishes
>>>> Tilman
>>>>   Am 05.03.21 um 11:05 schrieb David Gil:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> Relative terms making reference to "left" or "right" may also be 
>>>> lexicalized to form toponyms.  For example, the country name Yemen 
>>>> is actually a lexicalization of the Arabic word for "right", 
>>>> drawing upon an canonical orientation facing the rising sun to the 
>>>> east.
>>>> David
>>>>   On 05/03/2021 10:36, Dmitry Nikolaev wrote:
>>>> Dear Juergen,
>>>>   I don't know what level of conventionalisation you are looking 
>>>> for, but speakers of Russian, at least those who grew up in large 
>>>> cities, tend in general to avoid using geocentric terms and feel 
>>>> uncomfortable using them, and if it is at all possible to say "The 
>>>> lake is to the right of the hill", I would personally do so. A 
>>>> quick googling showed that this phraseology is quite frequent in 
>>>> route descriptions, and this YouTube video literally advertises a 
>>>> plot of land "to the left of lake Veselovka".
>>>>   My best,
>>>> Dmitry
>>>>   On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 07:26, Bohnemeyer, Juergen 
>>>> <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>> Dear all — I’d like to solicit your help with a generalization. I’m 
>>>> wondering whether anybody is aware of a counterexample:
>>>>
>>>> It is well known that there are communities whose members regularly 
>>>> use geocentric terms in reference to the speaker’s own body, as in
>>>>
>>>> (1) ‘My western/downhill arm hurts’.
>>>>
>>>> E.g., Laughren (1978) mentions this phenomenon in reference to 
>>>> Warlpiri. Levinson (2003: 4) notes that the practice exists among 
>>>> speakers of Guugu Yimithirr (Pama-Nyungan, Queensland). Haun & 
>>>> Rapold (2011) present an experimental study of the practice with 
>>>> speakers of ≠Akhoe Hai||om (Khoekhoe, Namibia).
>>>>
>>>> Now, I’m interested in what you might consider something of an 
>>>> inverse of this kind of use: the use of relative frames at the 
>>>> geographic scale, as in
>>>>
>>>> (2) ‘The lake is to the right of the hill’
>>>>
>>>> My generalization is that there doesn’t seem to be any community in 
>>>> which the type of use exemplified by (2) is conventional.
>>>>
>>>> That is to say, of course we can easily imagine situations in which 
>>>> English speakers might exchange something like (2):
>>>>
>>>> * A speaker looking at the lake and hill might use (2) to describe 
>>>> what she sees to an interlocutor who doesn’t have visual access to 
>>>> the scene. The speaker might use relative language in this case in 
>>>> order to produce a vivid image of the scene as it presents itself 
>>>> to her.
>>>>
>>>> * A speaker looking at representations of the hill and lake on a 
>>>> map might use (2) metonymically.
>>>>
>>>> However, I’m unaware of a community in which something like (2) 
>>>> would be a conventional way of locating landscape entities with 
>>>> respect to one another in the absence of visual access to 
>>>> (representations of) them.
>>>>
>>>> (One could argue that (2) is pragmatically semi-infelicitous in 
>>>> such a context since the truth of (2) depends on the location of 
>>>> the observer, which is usually more variable than that of the hill 
>>>> and lake. However, even though the truth of (1) similarly changes 
>>>> with the speaker’s orientation, it is presumed to be an entrenched 
>>>> strategy for this context in several cultures. My interest is 
>>>> partly in this asymmetry.)
>>>>
>>>> I’m curious whether people are aware of counterexamples.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! — Juergen
>>>>
>>>> Haun, D. M. B. & C. J. Rapold. (2011). Variation in memory for body 
>>>> movements across cultures. Current Biology 19(23): R1068-1069.
>>>>
>>>> Laughren,M. (1978). Directional terminology in Warlpiri. in Th. Le 
>>>> and M. McCausland (eds.), Working papers in language and 
>>>> linguistics, 8: 1–16. Launceston: Tasmanian College of Advanced 
>>>> Education.
>>>>
>>>> Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: 
>>>> CUP.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>>> University at Buffalo
>>>>
>>>> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
>>>> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>>>> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>>>> Fax: (716) 645 3825
>>>> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
>>>> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>>>
>>>> Office hours will be held by Zoom. Email me to schedule a call at 
>>>> any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open specifically for 
>>>> remote office hours.
>>>>
>>>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
>>>> (Leonard Cohen)
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>> -- 
>>>> David Gil
>>>>   Senior Scientist (Associate)
>>>> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>>>> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>>>> Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>>>>   Email:
>>>> gil at shh.mpg.de
>>>>
>>>> Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
>>>> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091
>>>>
>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>>
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>> -- 
>>>> Tilman Berger
>>>> Slavisches Seminar
>>>> Universitaet Tuebingen
>>>> Wilhelmstr. 50
>>>> D-72074 Tuebingen
>>>>
>>>> E-Mail:
>>>> tberger at uni-tuebingen.de
>>>>
>>>> Homepage:
>>>> https://uni-tuebingen.de/de/135724
>>>> ,
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>>
>>>>     --
>>>> Peter Arkadiev, PhD Habil.
>>>> Institute of Slavic Studies
>>>> Russian Academy of Sciences
>>>> Leninsky prospekt 32-A 119334 Moscow
>>>> peterarkadiev at yandex.ru
>>>> http://inslav.ru/people/arkadev-petr-mihaylovich-peter-arkadiev
>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics
>>> University at Buffalo
>>>
>>> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
>>> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
>>> Phone: (716) 645 0127
>>> Fax: (716) 645 3825
>>> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
>>> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>>>
>>> Office hours will be held by Zoom. Email me to schedule a call at 
>>> any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open specifically for 
>>> remote office hours.
>>>
>>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
>>> (Leonard Cohen)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lingtyp mailing list
>>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lingtyp mailing list
> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-- 
David Gil

Senior Scientist (Associate)
Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany

Email: gil at shh.mpg.de
Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-526117713
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20210306/ca29a156/attachment.htm>