Spatial reference frame use in Isthmus Zapotec:
a qualitative analysis of strategy variation
Randi Moore
University at Buffalo, Linguistics
18th Annual Workshop on American Indigenous Language
Santa Barbara, CA
May 8, 2015
http://www.buffalo.edu/~randituc/rem_WAIL_2015_handout.pdf
Outline
• Background
• Spatial reference frame preferences: theory, methods, relevance
• Language and Community
• Task: Talking Animals
• Data: summary and examples
• Conclusions
Strategies for spatial description:
Spatial Reference Frames
• Projective place function
(Jackendoff 1983)
• Vs. topological (perspective-free)
• Conceptual coordinate systems
used to locate and orient entities
• Relative, Intrinsic, Absolute frame
types
N
W
E
S
observer
Figure 1. Ball & Chair photo with frames
Methods for exploring reference frames
• In language
• Men & Tree (MPI; Pederson et al 1998, inter alia)
• Ball & Chair (MesoSpace; Bohnemeyer et al 2012;
O’Meara & Pérez Báez 2011)
• In nonlinguistic cognition
• Animals in a Row/New Animals (Levinson 2003;
Bohnemeyer et al in press)
step I: memorize
row of animals
step II:
step III: reconstruct
the array
turn 180
to the recall table
egocentric
solution
Figure 2. Animals-in-a-Row
geocentric
solution
Figure 3. Men & Tree (above)
Ball & Chair (below)
The picture so far
Figure 4. Reference frame use in small-scale horizontal space across languages (Bohnemeyer & Levinson ms.)
Reference frames as evidence of
Linguistic Relativity
• What accounts for variation?
•
•
•
•
L1, L2
Education
Literacy
Local topography & Population geography
• Neo-Whorfian debate
• Linguistic and cultural factors (Pederson et al 1998; Levinson 1996; inter alia)
• Non-linguistic factors (Li & Gleitman 2002; Li et al 2011; inter alia)
• Quantitative analyses (Bohnemeyer et al 2012, in press, inter alia)
• Allows for testing of factors across populations
Isthmus Zapotec (Diidxa za)
• Otomanguean language; Zapotecan branch
• Tonal; VSO
• 100,000 speakers (INEGI 2010 census)
• Endangered in most communities
• Shift to Spanish in younger speakers
Communities of study
• Isthmus of Tehuantepec
• La Ventosa
• Juchitán de Zaragoza
• Santa María Xadani
Figure 6. Mexico (left; Oaxaca highlighted); Isthmus of Tehuantepec (right; Google Maps)
Reference frame use in Isthmus Zapotec
• Strong preference for geocentric reference frames in La Ventosa
(Pérez Báez 2011)
• Anchored by rising/setting sun and prevailing North/South winds
Figure 5. Reference frame preferences in locative descriptions (Ball & Chair data, Pérez Báez 2011 p. 953)
Reference frame analysis
• Narrow classification
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Relative
Direct
Intrinsic
Landmark(-based)
Absolute
*Topological (perspective-free)
*Intrinsic/Relative aligned
Figure 8. Reference frame types and their classification (A - 'away
from', B - 'back', D - 'downriver', F - 'front', L - 'left', R - 'right', T 'toward', U - 'upriver‘; Bohnemeyer & Levinson ms.)
Talking Animals
• Referential communication task
(Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs 1990)
• 4 trials, 4 animals each
• Analyze Director’s speech
• Spatial reference frames
• Location
• Orientation
• 40 pairs of speakers
• Vs. B&C’s 6 pairs
Figure 7. Talking animals stimuli (above); task setup (below)
Trial layouts
H>
Co = cow; G = chicken; H = horse; P = pig; S = sheep
<Co
Co^
P^
Gv
<G
P^
<Co
<Co
Gv
<G
H>
Trial 2
S^
Trial 3
Trial 1
H>
H>
Trial 4
Pv
Summary of findings: Location
• Strong preference for Absolute (Geocentric) frames
10%
5%
15%
26%
7%
28%
55%
27%
20%
8%
Intrinsic
Landmark
Relative
Direct
Topological
Absolute
INT/REL
Intrinsic
Egocentric
Geocentric
Figure 9. Distribution of frame types in locative descriptions: narrow (left) and broad (right) classifications
Summary of findings: Orientation
• Strong preference for Absolute (Geocentric) frames
17%
9%
0% 7%
76%
Direct
Absolute
Landmark
Relative
91%
Egocentric
Geocentric
Figure 10. Distribution of frame types in orientation descriptions: narrow (left) and broad (right) classifications
Transcription Notation
! = high tone (hi!)
* = rising tone (rising sun/star)
7 = glottal stop
Dominant strategy: Topological
• Perspective free locative descriptions
H>
<Co
P^
bi:wi ka la nu7u gala:wi7
‘The pig is in the middle.’ (Spkrs 40&41, Trial 1)
<G
Trial 1
tonse: este:, be:re wi7ini ka la, kasi ora: … kasi ora: gala:wi7 la, peru … peru:
ti urya:* wi7ini dzuwa* be:re ka nudxi7i lu: me la:du rya7adze ubi:dxa
‘So this, the little chicken, like it were … like it were in the middle, but … but
a little to the side is standing the chicken, looking to the west.’ (Spkrs 32&33,
Trial 4)
<Co
Gv
H>
Trial 4
Pv
Dominant strategy: Topological
• Perspective free locative descriptions
tonse ba:ka ga la nudxi7i* lu: me guia*7…li:nya:, li:nya bu:rru
wi7ini ka la, peru la7a me guia*7
‘So, the cow is looking north…in the line, the line of the little
cow, but she’s to the north.’
(Spkrs 32&33, Trial 4)
be:re ga la: bisa:! la7a la:du nu7u lu7 ka peru: gala7a entre:
iro:pa ga me: la:wu nu7u lu7
‘The chicken, take it where you are, but in the middle, between
the two, where you are.’ (Spkrs 28&29, Trial 3)
<Co
Gv
H>
Trial 4
Pv
Co^
H>
Gv
Trial 3
S^
Dominant strategy: Geocentric
• Absolute locative
ba:ka ga dzuwa* nudxi7i* lu: la:du: rinda:!ni ubi:dxa … aja7 biki*di ni:
la:wu guia:* bidzuwa* ni: de: guia7*
‘The cow stands looking to the side where the sun is born… aha, stick
it toward the north, stand it toward the north.’ (Spkrs 28&29, Trial 3)
• Absolute orientation
be: re di la nudxi7i* lu: me guia*7 … yu:dze di la nudxi7i* lu:
guia*7…kaba:yu ka la nudxi7i* lu: la:du guete7…bi:wi di la: nudxi7i*
lu:… ne:dza ra:… rinda:!ni ubi:dxa
‘The chicken looks north… the cow looks north…the horse looks to
the south side…the pig looks…towards where…the sun is born.’
(Spkrs 44&45, Trial 1)
Co^
Gv
H>
S^
Trial 3
H> <Co
P^
<G
Trial 1
Dominant strategy: Geocentric
<Co
• Landmark locative
Gv
bisuwa* kaba:yu ka kwe7 ta:bla ga, guyadxi:* me ne:dza ra nu7u,
H>
Pv
ne:dza ra: nwa*7 di7… bisuwa* ba!ka ka – ya: ne:dza ra nu7
gueta, la:du dzu:ba di7 dzuwa* kaba:yu ka guyadxi:* me
Trial 4
‘Stand the horse at the side of the table, towards, towards where I
am… Stand it (toward) the cow – yes, towards the tortilleria, where
I am sitting, the horse stands, looking…’ (Spkrs 42&43, Trial 4)
• Landmark orientation
H> <Co
tonse7 bi:wi ka la:… kayuyadxi:* me la:du nu7u kaba:yu ga:,
P^
ma:!ni7 ka*
<G
‘So, the pig… is looking to where the horse is, the horse.’ (Spkrs
48&49, Trial 1)
Trial 1
Secondary strategy: Intrinsic
H>
<G
P^ <Co
Co^
H>
S^
kaba:yu ga la guia:* bidzuwa* la…la:du guia*7, dzaka: la peru: la:du
guia*7…li:nya ka na…ko7, li:nya, li:nya dze: bi:wi ka…kwe7 bi:wi ka marta,
dzaka:
‘The horse to the north stands… to the north, like that but to the north…in this Trial 2
line…no, in the line, in the line where the pig goes…to the side of the pig,
Marta, like that’ (Spkrs 24&25, Trial 2)
yu:dze! wi7ini ka la:, bisu:wa* ni atra: de kaba:yu ka la…dzi:tu wi7ini7
‘The little cow, stand it behind the horse…a little far.’ (Spkrs 54&55, Trial 3)
Gv
Trial 3
bi:wi ka la gala:wi7…gala:wi7, osya ra:ri*7, ra:ri*7 kasi kwe7 be:re
H> <Co
ga…nudxi7i* lu: me la:du nda:!ni ubi:dxa--kwe7 me…peru: rari:ka7 de de: kwe7
me ga:
P^
‘The pig in the middle…in the middle, it would be there, there, like at the side
<G
of the chicken…looking at the side where the sun is born—at its side…but
there towards its side.’ (Spkrs 60-61, Trial 1)
Trial 1
Secondary strategy: Egocentric
• Direct locative
be:re ka la—nudxi7* lu: me guia*7…peru: en li:nya kasi dzu:bu pwes,
en li:nya, ka:di kasi bi7nu dyo7 ni ka, li:nya kasi dze7edu7
‘The chicken—looks north…but in the line like you are sitting, well, in
the line, not like you made it, in the line like you come.’ (Spkrs 40&41,
Trial 1)
H> <Co
P^
<G
Trial 1
Secondary strategy: Egocentric
<Co
Gv
• Direct orientation
H>
Pv
bi:wi di la, ruyadxi:* me: la:du rya*dze7 ubi:dxa, ruyadxi;* me na7a […]
Trial 4
‘This pig, is looking where the sun is hidden, is looking at me […]
ya ruyadxi:* me la:du este, la:du rya*dze ubi:dxa ga—nu7u me: — ruyadxi:* me na7a, la:du
rinda:!ni, la:du: rya*dze7 ubi:dxa ka:… nu7u me:, nu7u me: ti: direksyon... ti: la:du este... kasi
o:ra nyu* me: gala:wi7 de:, de:, de: ma:!ni7 ka la ne: bi:wi ga la—chi:ndew7 la7a me la:du:
—la:du rinda:!ni ubi:dxa ga…ti: nda7a wi7ini si: pwe…la:du rinda:!ni ubi:dxa ga:… raka:
direksyon de ma:!ni ga la—la:du rya*dze7 ubi:dxa ga nudxi7i* lu: be:re ga, la:du rya*dze7
ubi:dxa ga nudxi7i* lu: me
[he’s looking to the west?] ‘Yes, he’s looking to where this, where the sun is hidden—it’s—
it’s looking at me, where is born, where the sun is hidden…it’s, it’s in the direction of…like it
were in the middle of, of, of the horse and the pig—you’re going to take it towards—where
the sun is born…a little bit, no more, well… where the sun is born…there in the direction of
the horse—where the sun is hidden the chicken is looking, where the sun is hidden he’s
looking.’
be:re di ruyadxi:* na7a, peru aka: ma gala7a, gala7a de na7a, gala7a de iro:pa me ga la
‘This chicken is looking at me, but from there in the middle, in the middle of me, in the
middle of the two’ (Spkrs 48&49, Trial 4)
<Co
Secondary strategy: Egocentric
Gv
H>
Trial 4
Pv
• Relative locative
bi:dzuwa* yu:dze! ka de:!che kaba:yu ga ya:na, de:!che kaba:yu ga…ka:di jne:dza di
nudzuwow* la7a me—bika* dya:ga, bidzuwa* kaba:yu ga ra: bisuwa be:re ka:—udxi7i* lu:
me guia*7, peru: ule7e be:re ka raga—gala:wi7 ka bidzuwa* be:re
‘Stand the cow behind the horse now, behind the horse…it’s not right how you stood it.—
Listen, stand the horse where you had stood the chicken—looks north, but take that
chicken from there—in the middle stands the chicken.’ (Spkr 64&65, Trial 4)
entonses... yu:dze! ka la…u:su!wow* la7a me:, dela:nte wi7ini de be:re ka peru: udxi7i* lu:
me: ra: rire7e* ubi:dxa, la:du: guia:*, ba:ya…suwa* la7a me: la:du guia:* la uyadxi:* me
ubi:dxa, ra: rire7e* ubi:dxa
‘So… the cow…stand it, a little ahead of the chicken but it looks to where the sun leaves,
to the north, I say…stand it to the north, it looks the sun, it looks where the sun leaves.’
(Spkrs 60&61, Trial 3)
Co^
Trial 3
H>
Gv S^
H> <Co
P^
<G
Secondary strategy: Egocentric
Trial 1
• Relative orientation – only 2 uses!
(reviewing orientation of animals, partner asks “and the pig?”)
la:du rya*dze ubi:dxa ga, fre:nte, fre:nte— fre:nte
‘where the sun is hidden, in front, in front (of the chicken that’s just
been described) — in front’ (Spkrs 56&57, Trial 1)
bi:wi ka dela:nte de la7a me — — —fre:nte de li7i
‘The pig in front of him (the chicken) — —[where is the pig going to
look?] — in front of you’ (Spkrs 46&47, Trial 1)
Conclusions
• Dominant patterns of spatial reference preferences across many
speakers
• Use of absolute frame using sun and wind as anchor
• Use of topological place functions
• Secondary strategies exist within the task as speakers attempt to
convey their meaning to listener
• Intrinsic, Relative, and Direct
• Variation therefore exists within task as well as between speakers and
communities
Thank you!
Special thanks to…
My assistants in the field
Reyna López, Rosalaura, Rosa, Veronica, and their families
My advisors and committee
Juergen Bohnemeyer, Gabriela Pérez Báez, David Mark, Cala Zubair
The UB Semantic Typology Lab
Funding: NSF Linguistics (BCS#1053123: Spatial language and
cognition beyond Mesoamerica)
References
• Bohnemeyer, J., E. Benedicto, A. Capistrán Garza, K. T. Donelson, A. Eggleston, N. Hernández
Green, M. Hernández Gómez, J. S. Lovegren, C. K. O'Meara, E. Palancar, G. Pérez Báez, G.
Polian, R. Romero Méndez, and R. Tucker. (2012). Marcos de referencia en lenguas
mesoamericanas: un analisis multivariante tipologico [Frames of reference in Mesoamerican
languages: a typological multivariate analysis]. In N. England (Ed.), Proceedings of the
Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America-V. Austin, TX: The Archive of the
Indigenous Languages of Latin America.
• Bohnemeyer, J., K. T. Donelson, R. Tucker, E. Benedicto, A. Eggleston, G. Pérez Báez, A.
Capistrán Garza, N. Hernández Green, M. Hernández Gómez, S. Herrera, C. K. O'Meara, E.
Palancar, G. Polian, H. Rodríguez, and R. Romero Méndez. (In press). In search of areal effects
in semantic typology: Reference frames in Mesoamerica. Manuscript. Language Dynamics
and Change.
• Bohnemeyer, J. & S. C. Levinson. Manuscript. Framing Whorf: A response to Li et al. 2011.
• Bohnemeyer, J. & C. K. 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.
• Carlson-Radvansky, L. A. & D. E. Irwin. (1993). Frames of reference in vision and language:
Where is above? Cognition 46: 223-244.
References
• Clark, H. H. & D. Wilkes-Gibbs. (1990). Referring as a collaborative process. In P.
Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 463-493.
• Danziger, E. (2010). Deixis, gesture, and cognition and spatial Frame of
Reference typology. Studies in Language 34(1): 167-185.
• Eggleston, A. (2012). Spatial Reference in Sumu-Mayangna, Nicaraguan
Spanish, and Barcelona Spanish. Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University.
• Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI). 2010. Censo
de Población y Vivienda 2010.
• Jackendoff, R. S. (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.
References
• Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
• 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. & D. P. Wilkins (Eds.). (2006). Grammars of Space: Explorations
in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 1–23.
• 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.
References
• Majid, A., M. Bowerman, S. Kita, D. B. M. Haun, & S. C. Levinson. (2004). Can language
restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3): 108–114.
• 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 (Eds.). (2011). Spatial frames of reference in Mesoamerican
languages. Language Sciences 33: 837–852.
• Pederson, E., E. Danziger, D. P. Wilkins, S. C. Levinson, S. Kita, & G. Senft. (1998). Semantic
typology and spatial conceptualization. Language 74(3): 557-589.
• Pérez Báez, G. (2011). Spatial frames of reference preferences in Juchitán Zapotec. Language
Sciences 33: 943–960.
• 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.