scholarly journals Frames of reference in spatial language acquisition

2016 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. 115-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Shusterman ◽  
Peggy Li
Author(s):  
Myrto Grigoroglou ◽  
Anna Papafragou

Across the world’s languages, spatial terms are organized around a set of basic, non-linguistic spatial notions. Nevertheless, there is also considerable cross-linguistic variation in terms of both the kinds of linguistic devices used to express spatial relations and the way these devices carve up the semantic domain of space. This chapter reviews literature on spatial terms cross-linguistically, focusing on three main sub-divisions of the spatial domain: location (i.e. the static position of an object in space); motion (i.e. the dynamic displacement of an object in space); and Frames of Reference (FoR; i.e. abstract spatial-coordinate axes imposed on spatial configurations). The intricate relation between spatial language and non-linguistic spatial cognition is discussed throughout the chapter.


2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Penelope Brown

AbstractThis paper addresses the vexed questions of how language relates to culture, and what kind of notion of culture is important for linguistic explanation. I first sketch five perspectives - five different construals - of culture apparent in linguistics and in cognitive science more generally. These are: (i) culture as ethno-linguistic group, (ii) culture as a mental module, (iii) culture as knowledge, (iv) culture as context, and (v) culture as a process emergent in interaction. I then present my own work on spatial language and cognition in a Mayan languge and culture, to explain why I believe a concept of culture is important for linguistics. I argue for a core role for cultural explanation in two domains: in analysing the semantics of words embedded in cultural practices which color their meanings (in this case, spatial frames of reference), and in characterizing thematic and functional links across different domains in the social and semiotic life of a particular group of people.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Pitt ◽  
Alexandra Carstensen ◽  
Edward Gibson ◽  
Steven T. Piantadosi

Spatial language and cognition vary across contexts. In some groups, people tend to use egocentric space (e.g. left, right) to encode the locations of objects, while in other groups, people use allocentric space (e.g. upriver, downriver) to describe the same spatial scene. These different spatial Frames of Reference (FoRs) characterize both the way people talk about spatial relations and the way they think about them, even when they are not using language. These patterns of spatial language and spatial thinking tend to covary, but the root causes of this variation are unclear. Here we propose that this variation in FoR use reflects variation in the spatial discriminability of the relevant spatial continua. In an initial test of this proposal, we compared FoR use across spatial axes that are known to differ in discriminability. In two non-verbal tests, a group of indigenous Bolivians used different FoRs on different spatial axes; on the lateral axis, where egocentric (left-right) discrimination is difficult, their behavior was predominantly allocentric; on the sagittal axis, where egocentric (front-back) discrimination is relatively easy, their behavior was predominantly egocentric. These findings support the spatial discriminability hypothesis, which may explain variation in spatial concepts not only across axes, but also across groups, between individuals, and over development.


2021 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. 101616
Author(s):  
Laura Lakusta ◽  
Yasmin Hussein ◽  
Alaina Wodzinski ◽  
Barbara Landau

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 219-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenny Coventry ◽  
Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes ◽  
Berenice Valdés

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 905-909 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fred Genesee

Baum and Titone's Keynote Article is a welcome addition to the ongoing and flourishing study of the neurocognitive effects of bilingualism. By focusing their review on executive control in bilinguals from the perspectives of both aging and neuroplasticity in general they have broadened our thinking in useful ways. Because my own research has focused on the early stages of aging and bilingualism in preschool and school-age children, I have chosen to comment on their review with reference to these kinds of learners. I will also focus on the language acquisition part of this discussion because at the heart of the issue is how and to what extent acquisition of more than one language affects cognitive development. My comments reinforce what I believe are important observations in their review and simultaneously seek to extend their call to expand our frames of reference in research on bilinguals even further.


Author(s):  
Dorothea Hoffmann

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt:This paper presents an analysis of spatial language, in particular, ‘Frames of Reference’ (FoR) utilizing elicitation, stimuli and natural discourse in fieldwork settings. The language in question is MalakMalak, a non-Pama-Nyungan Northern Daly language with eleven identified remaining speakers mainly based in the Daly River Region in Australia.


2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eve Danziger

The three Frames of Reference recognized in the current inventory of spatial-language types are differentiated by their placement of the Anchor from which the vector of search space from Ground to Figure is calculated (Levinson 1996). In certain well-recognized examples, Anchor merges with Ground. The existing analysis treats this merged component as analytically Ground rather than Anchor; its location in or out of the speech situation is therefore taken to be independent of the Frame of Reference typology. Instead, I treat this component as analytically Anchor, making its speech-situation status criterial to the typology. Four, not three, Frames of Reference now appear. The fourth, “Direct” frame, distinguishes binary locutions with a speech participant as Ground/Anchor (e.g. ‘in front of you’) from “Object-Centered” binary locutions in which Ground/Anchor is not a speech participant ( e.g. ‘in front of the kettle’). This four-frame analysis corresponds better than does the three-frame one to the logic of rotation sensitivity which has been used to show Whorfian parallels between language and conceptualization across cultures. I close by discussing the application of Frame of Reference typology to pointing gestures, and show how recognition of the fourth frame of reference allows us to bring discussion of these, and of the linguistic demonstratives and locatives with which they so frequently co-occur, fully within the Frame of Reference typology.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathon Lum

Abstract While geocentric and relative frames of reference have figured prominently in the literature on spatial language and cognition, the intrinsic frame of reference has received less attention, though various subtypes of the intrinsic frame have been proposed. This paper presents a revised classification of the intrinsic frame, distinguishing between three subtypes: a ‘direct’ subtype, an ‘object-centered’ subtype and a ‘figure-anchored’ subtype, with a cross-cutting distinction between ‘function-based’ and ‘shape-based’ systems. In addition, the ‘FIBO’ (front = inner, back = outer) system in Dhivehi is analyzed as an example of a borderline case, with some important features of the intrinsic frame but also some differences, presenting a challenge for existing frame of reference classifications. The rotational properties of these various systems are also considered. The analysis underscores the considerable diversity within intrinsic systems but also points to a closer relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic frames than has previously been appreciated. This may have implications for broader theoretical issues including how frames of reference are acquired, how speech communities come to use different frames and whether patterns of frame use in discourse shape patterns of non-verbal frame use.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document